At the risk of being one of those people who uses a tragedy to push a political agenda, I'm blogging my thoughts on the subject. One subject, because the two topics are connected. Hear me out.
Let me get this out of the way first - if you don't want Universal Health Care because your tax dollars shouldn't support the lazy: They already are. The tiny percentage of Welfare people who are truly lazy and the do-nothings in office are already using your tax dollars for their Viagra. UHC, on the other hand, would help that couple who are working two jobs each to pay the bills (including student loans), the widow of a soldier who is working her way through college, and the guy with a temporary lapse in employment... all of whom the Welfare department rule ineligible for benefits.
In the wake of the recent school shooting in Florida, the debate on Gun Control is back in force. The hard-liners on both sides shout so loudly we shades-of-gray folks get drowned out. The fact of the matter is simple: both sides are correct, but only to a point. Banning AK47s is not going to stop the determined, but it might slow them down. The Second Amendment does exist, but like most things held sacred, is subject to interpretation.
Here's where I get to the connection. Lots of Gun Control Advocates like to hold up other countries as a model - Nogunlandia has only had 1 mass shooting in 57 years! Going by statistics, Nogunlandia likely also has UHC.
Every shooter I've heard of has been mentally ill and not getting proper treatment. (The anti-prozac folks made sure I heard about that.)
I'm not foolish enough to believe UHC would stop every incident. There will always be those who won't or can't seek help. There will be, and probably have been, shooters who are not mentally ill. However, I believe that proper and timely treatment of mental illness, especially the nascently dangerous, would go a long way toward that goal.
My own experience with mental illness has taught me that the existing system will not help you unless you can pay and/or have commited a crime. Far too many doctors toss pills at the problem without educating or following up with the patient. UHC would at least help with the first problem.
It is my considered opinion that Universal Health Care would prevent mass shootings. No one thing is going to be a cure-all, but it could be a cure-most.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Saturday, February 10, 2018
The Fashion Doll Market
Lots of news reports tell us that Mattel is foundering, that their signature doll lines are losing money. I've been thinking about why that is and what they (and other companies) can or should do about it. I realize the odds of anyone in power at those companies seeing this are slim. I just want to get it out there, maybe stir up some conversation about it.
Monster High pushed Barbie off her throne a few years ago. The first time I saw a Monster High doll, I was intrigued. The offspring of classic movie monsters as fashion dolls? And look at the articulation! The striking hair colors and face paint! Detailing on the wardrobe!
They lost their appeal for me, though, upon further inspection. For one thing, I find them way too skinny and their heads are disproportionate. They look like a lemon balanced on a chopstick. I've never been a fan of anime eyes on dolls, either.
As I understand it from Monster High fans, the problem with the line is that product quality has fallen. The Monster High dolls have lost the fantastic detailing. The face paint is suffering - these formerly dynamic personalities are beginning to suffer from Vapid Face. Yet Mattel's prices have remained the same, or even gone up.
Barbie doesn't seem to be suffering from a quality assurance problem so much as a customer feedback one. They introduced different body molds and skin tones and reintroduced the sisters, which gave the line a boost, but then Mattel... sat on their hands. I've yet to see those new body molds on anything but the Fashionistas and the sisters are stagnating while Mattel pushes 200 dollar dollhouses that can spy on you.
The sisters could be a cash cow. They could bring back the "sharing sisters" sets or even just make the sisters individual fashions. I've heard that Skipper will be getting some friends, but Stacie has none. And, oh, the play set potential! Yet all Mattel gives them is yet another horse or dog. Those horses really drive the price up, too.
Articulation was and is a big selling point on most doll lines, but your standard Barbie has very little. The head turns and they move at the hips and shoulders. Why would a parent pay as much for that as for another doll that can bend the elbow and knee? Maybe even wrist and ankle?
All of the popular dolls lines are rooted in friendships. Kids are going to buy the "best friend" or "sweetheart" of the doll they already have. Adult collectors are likely to do the same, for display purposes. Most of the lines are officially set in a High School. Teen Drama sells.
The companies need to get back to basics. Kids want to use their imaginations. Adult collectors want stunning detail work, and not in a motherboard. Parents want a good value. Stop with the amazing technology and just give us, you know, dolls.
Monster High pushed Barbie off her throne a few years ago. The first time I saw a Monster High doll, I was intrigued. The offspring of classic movie monsters as fashion dolls? And look at the articulation! The striking hair colors and face paint! Detailing on the wardrobe!
They lost their appeal for me, though, upon further inspection. For one thing, I find them way too skinny and their heads are disproportionate. They look like a lemon balanced on a chopstick. I've never been a fan of anime eyes on dolls, either.
As I understand it from Monster High fans, the problem with the line is that product quality has fallen. The Monster High dolls have lost the fantastic detailing. The face paint is suffering - these formerly dynamic personalities are beginning to suffer from Vapid Face. Yet Mattel's prices have remained the same, or even gone up.
Barbie doesn't seem to be suffering from a quality assurance problem so much as a customer feedback one. They introduced different body molds and skin tones and reintroduced the sisters, which gave the line a boost, but then Mattel... sat on their hands. I've yet to see those new body molds on anything but the Fashionistas and the sisters are stagnating while Mattel pushes 200 dollar dollhouses that can spy on you.
The sisters could be a cash cow. They could bring back the "sharing sisters" sets or even just make the sisters individual fashions. I've heard that Skipper will be getting some friends, but Stacie has none. And, oh, the play set potential! Yet all Mattel gives them is yet another horse or dog. Those horses really drive the price up, too.
Articulation was and is a big selling point on most doll lines, but your standard Barbie has very little. The head turns and they move at the hips and shoulders. Why would a parent pay as much for that as for another doll that can bend the elbow and knee? Maybe even wrist and ankle?
All of the popular dolls lines are rooted in friendships. Kids are going to buy the "best friend" or "sweetheart" of the doll they already have. Adult collectors are likely to do the same, for display purposes. Most of the lines are officially set in a High School. Teen Drama sells.
The companies need to get back to basics. Kids want to use their imaginations. Adult collectors want stunning detail work, and not in a motherboard. Parents want a good value. Stop with the amazing technology and just give us, you know, dolls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)