A Man's Love For His Toys

There's a lot of sadness in today's tale. After all, what would you do if you found out that your mother had gotten rid of that which you had considered to be your life partner and you realized that you would have to go the rest of your life without that partner? Would you burn down your family's home in an attempt to kill yourself? Would you answer these questions differently if your life partner was a toy? Wait. A...toy?

Correct. A toy. What we have here is the story of a Japanese gentleman, a one 30-year old Yoshifumi Takabe. According to the Australian Broadcasting Company, Mr. Takabe and his possessions had been living with his mother. His possessions apparently included enough of his toy robot figures to fill 300 boxes to the ceiling. Now, I'm sure you're thinking that might be a little strange, but they weren't just any toy robots. No, they were "...robot toys were figures from the Gundam animated TV series, which started in the 1970s, about space wars involving giant robots." I'm sure that has you thinking just a little bit differently about him, doesn't it? (Hey, I didn't say it was for the better. I just said it was different!)

I'm all for a collection of vintage toys. (Are the 1970s considered vintage? For the sake of this argument, let's say that they are. I think it might kind of help our impression of Mr. Takabe just a shred. Or not.) But 300 boxes stacked to the ceiling? That's an awful lot of robot toys. What was the show again? Gundam? It's gotta be a Japanese thing, right? Well, even if it's not, it's definitely a Mr. Takabe thing.

This story continues with Mr. Takabe's mother throwing out some of the toys. While I understand her not being overly thrilled (or able to move) in a home with 300 boxes of robot toys, throwing out only some of them seems rather passive-aggressive if you're asking me. It's not like throwing out a box or two is going to make a dent in the enormous collection that has been amassed. She must not have known that Mr. Takabe would become "...suicidal after losing the figures" because he said they "...were partners he wanted to spend his life with." Hmm.

You know, as odd as that sounds, perhaps Mr. Takabe was simply a realist. I'm guessing that with the 300 boxes of robot toys, he was thoroughly immersed in the ways and culture of the un-layable. The toys might have been the perfect mates for him. Polygamy toy heaven. Or something like that.

Not able to deal with the prospect of living without some of his toys, Mr. Takabe set the family home on fire because "...he wanted to die with his robots in the fire." OK, then. If someone wants to die in a fire, there's really only one requirement. That would be to stay in where the fire is at. Apparently, Mr. Takabe wasn't real clear on that concept, as he managed to escape the fire unscathed.

He appeared in court and pled guilty to burning down his house and, presumably, the rest of his toys. Isn't he going to be a little devastated at this point? I mean, talk about overreacting? At least before, he had some toys and a place to live. Now he has no toys and, well, I guess he kind of has a place to live. Jail is definitely a place to live. Man, and he thought he wanted to die before. I'm guessing he won't think that he had it so bad after a little time in a Japanese jail. Then again, perhaps he could meet himself a different sort of life partner, now that his toys are gone.

Another Not-So-Happy Meal

As if it wasn't bad enough that a bunch of halfwits (also known as the Board of Stupidvisors Supervisors) in Santa Clara County (that's in the failing experimental utopia of Northern California) "...voted to ban toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county". Yeah, they felt like because there was a toy in the Happy Meal it was contributing to childhood obesity. I know. I know. Wuck? (I know! This is not news to me. I have live in this clown county.) But now, a group is taking stupidicy to a whole new level along these same lines. That's right. Some asshat "watchdog group" is now threatening to sue McDonald's if they do not remove all of the toys from their Happy Meals altogether. Good Lord, what is wrong with some people?

According to the still very respectable when other daily newspapers are going to crap LA Times, the "...Center for Science in the Public Interest said that the plastic promotions lure children into McDonald's restaurants where they are then likely to order food that is too high in calories, fat and salt." What the dimwits over at the Center for Science in the Public Interest fail to explain is how those children are actually lured there. I was at a McDonald's just today and I didn't see any Happy Meals on sticks that were luring in unsuspecting children. Nor did I see any children who had (allegedly) been lured driving themselves to the McDonald's in order to get their unhealthy meal/toy combo pack of death. Oh, that's right. Because children have parents! And it's parents that should be making these choices. I knew there was something vital that was missing from the whole "luring" argument.

According to a one Stephen Gardner, Head Asshat the litigation director for this group (who looks just about how you'd picture him to look), "McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children. McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity." Yeah, there's some immaturity going on here, but I don't think that it's the young children. What does he mean that McDonald's is the stranger? McDonald's isn't a stranger to anyone! It's that friendly clown! With burgers! And fries!

I'm failing to understand why taking care of a kid is no longer the responsibility of the parent. If the kid whines and cries that he wants McDonald's, the parent can say no, right? Right. If you can't handle saying "no" to your kid every time they want McDonald's, then you should probably just put your kid up for adoption right now. It's only going to get worse.

I also find it interesting that the commercials that McDonald's puts out these days are far less kid friendly than the commercials that they used to put out. The commercials used to have all of the characters and their wacky 30-second antics. There was Mayor McCheese (who must have been forced into retirement, as I almost never see or hear from him anymore) and his big burger head. There was that chicken-like bird thing with the goggles that flew around. There was that crafty Hamburglar who was always burgling the ham. The extremely rotund and purple Grimace (who is likely banned from all advertising due to his plumpness and rotund nature). They even had puppets of all of the food with eyes and mouths on them! (The burger even had a little bow tie!) Those were pretty awesome. Those guys were extremely kid friendly. What are the commercials now? A bunch of homies playing loud music and showing off their bling because they're lovin' it. Not kid friendly. Homey friendly, perhaps. But not kid friendly. So how come we weren't hearing these arguments back then? Oh, right. Because parents had the guts to say "no" to their kid. That's right. I knew it was something.

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit turns out. Oh, I know that they've only threatened to sue if McDonald's doesn't comply and remove all of the Happy Meal toys. (It's a move that is oddly reminiscent of blackmail.) But you know McDonald's isn't going to do that. Why would they? Actually, the more important question here is why should they? What happened to capitalism and the free market? What happened to the land of the free? I don't think that our free land needs to have its children's meals regulated by some self-serving, feel good group which seems to operate on pollyanna principles. Grow a spine! Parent your kids! And gimme my Happy Meal with a Shrek toy, please. (That's right. I've been lured!)