Toy depicting WTC attack recalled in Miami! Joy. "Small toys showing an airplane flying into the World Trade Center were packed inside more than 14,000 bags of candy." http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-biz-toy270804,0,6211920.story?coll=ny-business-big-pix "It makes me angry," [Anna Rodriquez] told television station WFTV. "I was offended because I couldn't believe that someone would give something like that to a kid." Now, who - exactly - is consuming these toys? I won't hold my breath that our "brave" PC media will bother reporting this aspect of the story. They are so lame, they are our enemy's friends. --Orson
Is that a conspiracy I sense you sensing, Orson? No one is seeking out and "consuming these toys" on purpose or by choice. It's a screw-up, as you would have realized if you'd just dug a little deeper. The story was all over the San Francisco TV news broadcasts this (Sunday 8/29/2004) morning. So at least someone was more "brave" and less "PC" than you thought, weren't they? The stories included on-camera interviews with the hispanic owner of the candy company... standing there, with his hat in his hand, apologizing to the world. He explained that the toy manufacturer obviously had some sort of agenda; that the offensive toys showed-up mixed-in with all the other toys that that candy distributor had been buying from said toy manufacturer for years with no problems. He explained that his employees (who package the toys into the candy bags) didn't even pay attention to what the toys were; that they never do. The toys arrive in huge boxes all mixed-up, and his employees just grab one, put it in the bag, and send the bag on down the line without paying the slightest bit of attention to what the toy actually is. They're there to get an unpleasant job done, collect their pay, and go home. Period. They couldn't care less. The culprit, here, is the toy manufacturer. Of course the candy distributor should have paid better attention, but as the owner explained it, he's been buying toys from that toy maker for many years with no problems. Now, all of a sudden, this. The candy distributor recalled the bags on the spot. And he said he's taking the matter up with the toy maker... with whom he said he's not very happy at the moment. Officials from the toy maker (L&M Imports, Inc.), on the other hand, who were contacted by (the "brave" and "PC") reporters preparing Sunday morning's news stories, said they didn't see anything wrong with the toys and wondered what all the fuss was about. Three guesses what culture and/or religion the toy maker probably is. It never ceases to amaze me when conservatives call our media "liberal." Though the word "liberal" was not actually used in this thread, the not-so-subtle meaning of your "brave PC media" characterization; and your not-so-thinly-veiled inference that the media is soft on those who wish to hurt us, above, is abundantly clear. But nothing could be further from the truth. Our media is largely and demonstrably to the right of center -- much of it very far to the right... with the FOX NEWS CHANNEL being the most egregious of the bunch! FOX is so far to the right that I agree completely with moveon.org's assertion that FOX's "Fair and Balanced" trademark is misleading and deceptive; and I support movon.org's complaint filed with the FTC asking that the network no longer be allowed to use it... either that, or start actually living up to it; and I support Alternet's lawsuit seeking a judge's order that FOX stop misleading America by calling itself "Fair and Balanced." And before those of you so shamelessly to the right around here (and, sadly, you are many and varied) take me to task for these comments, could you at least bother to get the facts, and to invest a lousy ten bucks and 77 minutes of your precious time to watch a film on the subject that even the Christian Science Monitor calls "a must-see movie, no matter what your politics are" -- a movie that not one single word of which even Rupert Murdock's (FOX's owner's) nefarious army of lawyers has been able to disprove or discredit since its release? Or would you prefer to dismiss it, and what it tells us about how far to the right our media really is, without having even seen it... like, for example, FOX NEWS reporter Eric Shawn did when he wrote, "It's unfair, it's slanted, and it's a hit job. And I haven't even seen it yet"? All FOX has ever been able to do is call it names, but not one single fact presented in the movie has been successfully refuted by FOX or by Murdock -- including FOX's feeble claim immediately after the film's release that one of the former FOX employees interviewed (and which interview appeared therein) hadn't actually worked for FOX... a claim that was summarily disproven less than 24 hours later. FOX claims it's just a non-factural smear attack, mind you, but when pressed for specifics they just fade away... or, in classic O'Reilly style, simply tell us to "shut up." Doonesbury by Garry B. Trudeau. (From the "Interview with Rupert Murdock" series, published July 19, 2004) Copyright © 2004 by G.B. Trudeau. Use by the permission of Jim Gilliam, who has the permission of Garry Trudeau. Doonesbury by Garry B. Trudeau. (From the "Interview with Rupert Murdock" series, published July 20, 2004) Copyright © 2004 by G.B. Trudeau. Use by the permission of Jim Gilliam, who has the permission of Garry Trudeau. Doonesbury by Garry B. Trudeau. (From the "Interview with Rupert Murdock" series, published July 21, 2004) Copyright © 2004 by G.B. Trudeau. Use by the permission of Jim Gilliam, who has the permission of Garry Trudeau. Doonesbury by Garry B. Trudeau. (From the "Interview with Rupert Murdock" series, published July 22, 2004) Copyright © 2004 by G.B. Trudeau. Use by the permission of Jim Gilliam, who has the permission of Garry Trudeau. Doonesbury by Garry B. Trudeau. (From the "Interview with Rupert Murdock" series, published July 23, 2004) Copyright © 2004 by G.B. Trudeau. Use by the permission of Jim Gilliam, who has the permission of Garry Trudeau. Doonesbury by Garry B. Trudeau. (From the "Interview with Rupert Murdock" series, published July 24, 2004) Copyright © 2004 by G.B. Trudeau. Use by the permission of Jim Gilliam, who has the permission of Garry Trudeau. A parenthetical thought aside: Oh, to be in New York this morning. Thank you, C-SPAN, for covering the protests live.
Gregg: "Oh, to be in New York this morning. Thank you, C-SPAN, for covering the protests live. " John: It was 40 years ago this month, at the time of the Republican convention in San Francisco, when Barry Goldwater refused to disavow his very public support by the Ku Klux Klan. A dozen of us (we were young; we were foolishly brave) marched up Market Street in the Republican Victory Parade wearing sheets and carrying signs saying "KKK for Barry" and the like. The amazing thing was that no one, not a single person, either complained or threatened or cheered or indeed did anything but stand and watch.
CNN covered the 9/11 "toy" extensively and reasonably. The item is depicted on their site, at http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/08/27/911.toy.ap/
So is this OK? It really tests my liberalism and Judaism and a few other isms. But if we banned this sort of thing, and 9/11 "toys," where do we draw the line? And who draws it?
Everyone appears to be missing the point; media bias only a secondary issue, and even the "mixup" of distrisbution is besides the point. The question is who is consuming and ordering such toys to be made? How does this market fit into the US problems, image, and conflicts around the world? http://www.personalinjurytreatment.com/ "Toys for Terrorists, 2?" See Osama between towers....
