outside the (toy) box

I don’t know about you, but when I was in middle school we called it two-faced.  Can Mattel really claim to its customers here in the US that they were unaware that lead paint was being used because the production was outsourced (which also conveniently keeps them “unaware” that their toys are being assembled by 11 year olds. Mmmmm, nothing like an order of toxic fumes with a side of berating for breakfast, dee-licious!) in one breath and then in the next apologize to China for making Chinese manufacturers look bad when the “real” problem was their “design flaw”? Come on.  Design flaw?!  Did the design say — “use lead paints #376, and #211″?  We want corporate responsibility, but isn’t this the wrong point on which to plead guilty?  Doesn’t public relations work better when it isn’t so overtly smarmy? I’m forgetting the fifty cent word for kiss ass — what is it again?

Mattel could have taken the opportunity to use this public attention to help create better oversight procedures for the toy industry, or to press to discontinue the use of lead-based paints altogether, or to address the challenges faced by transnational corporations who are actually quite far removed (after the initial ceremonious tour of a sample plant and extravagant state-sponsored dinner) from the circumstances of production… but nope. 

Corporate responsibility? Why bother.  Hint, hint, Mattel (in case you’re reading - Thanks TwoKnives!) if the right reasons aren’t enough, maybe they should consider that corporate responsibility IS good PR, much better than this nonsense.

And — where the hell has the CPSC been (until now)?

Bitchiness aside - this nonsense really does suck. I watch Thing 2 playing, and at 10 months, everything goes in his mouth, of course.  My wheels turn.  I can’t even enjoy watching my own child explore. 

Sycophant! That’s the word - what a bunch of sycophants.