OK, I'm hereby calling for a boycott of Ty, Inc., the company that makes "Beanie Babies".
Not because they just started selling "Sasha" and "Malia" dolls without Barack and Michelle's permission. That's pretty slimy, but that isn't why they should be boycotted.
The reason they should be boycotted is because they're insulting the intelligence of anyone with an IQ above 50 (I guess Republicans will fall for it):
...the toy outfit refuses to cop to the fact that they plan to profit from the names and likenesses of the Obama girls.
...
The Oak Brook-based company chose the names because "they are beautiful names," not because of any resemblance to Malia and Sasha Obama, said spokeswoman Tania Lundeen.
"There's nothing on the dolls that refers to the Obama girls," Lundeen said. "It would not be fair to say they are exact replications of these girls. They are not."
Yes, that's right. That's actually their official line of defense on the whole thing.
Not "they're public figures" or "the dolls will help minority children improve their self-esteem" or anything like that; the first is pathetic (they're 7 and 10, you jackals!) and the second is actually somewhat arguable.
No, they're actually trying to claim, with a straight face, that it's sheer coincidence that they just happened to decide to start selling two dolls resembling young black girls that just happen to be named Sasha and Malia the same week that Barack Obama just happened to become President of the United States.
Um, yeah.
If they had at least owned up to it and tried to claim the First Daughters' dolls as being something they both have the right to do and as positive role models for young African-American girls or whatever, I might have some respect for them. It'd be bullshit, of course, but at least it wouldn't be pissing on my head and calling it rain.
So, no more Beanie Babies in this household! (no idea if we actually have any now, actually).
As for the President, he's none too thrilled with this:
President Obama's camp has said that it is "inappropriate to use young private citizens for marketing purposes."
update: For those of you who don't understand the 'outrage' here:
- I'm not seriously calling for a boycott. It's called snark. I just think it's a boneheaded response on Ty's part.
- I suspect that parents, especially of young children, will understand far more than those without kids. Imagine your own child. Now imagine some toy company from halfway across the country selling little versions of your child, without your permission, including their name. Creepy.