Dear Customers,
A few shipments arrived this week. If you log into your account at www.toywonders.com, before clicking on any of the links below, approved wholesale accounts will see wholesale pricing.
Forgot your password?
Having trouble viewing this page
Missed a previous week's newsletter?
DIECAST Collectible Model Cars And More
|
Image |
Item# |
Description |
Stock Status |
|
11030R |
|
New |
|
11030W |
|
New |
|
12014KH |
|
New |
|
12020BU |
|
New |
|
12022W |
|
New |
|
12029BE |
|
New |
|
97013OR |
|
New |
|
97014BU |
|
New |
|
98203BU |
|
New |
|
SC105GN |
|
New |
|
SC130BU |
|
New |
|
SC160W |
|
New |
|
SC367BBU |
|
New |
|
P4397/9964 |
|
New |
|
T6244/9964 |
|
New |
|
T6245/9964 |
|
New |
|
T6918/9964 |
|
New |
|
92118R |
|
New |
|
92138GN |
|
New |
|
92327BU |
|
New |
|
92327CM |
|
New |
|
92558BK |
|
New |
|
92558R |
|
New |
|
92618R |
|
New |
|
92718BG |
|
New |
|
31158GY |
|
New |
|
31173BU |
|
New |
|
31628BK |
|
New |
|
31201R |
|
New |
|
31201YL |
|
New |
|
31204W |
|
New |
|
31205R |
|
New |
|
31205W |
|
New |
|
31207OR |
|
New |
|
31208W |
|
New |
|
31209GY |
|
New |
|
31209R |
|
New |
|
31220OR |
|
New |
|
31256SV |
|
New |
|
31269OR |
|
New |
|
31270BU |
|
New |
|
31271BK |
|
New |
|
31271R |
|
New |
|
31272R |
|
New |
|
31272SV |
|
New |
|
31273BN |
|
New |
|
31273BU |
|
New |
|
31280OR |
|
New |
|
31295BK |
|
New |
|
31935BU |
|
New |
|
31935R |
|
New |
|
31952BK |
|
New |
|
31952OR |
|
New |
DECALS FOR 1:24 SCALE VEHICLES
Image |
Item# |
Description |
Stock Status |
|
GR11015 |
|
New |
|
GR11016 |
|
New |
|
GR11017 |
|
New |
Please do not reply to this email address.
Any questions or comments, please email us at [email protected].
To unsubscribe to this newsletter, send an email to [email protected] and put the word 'unsubscribe' on the subject line.
Thank you
Lu Su
Toy Wonders, Inc.
www.toywonders.com
201-229-1700
God and the Art of Toy and Diecast Marketing
Where Evil Resides (part 2 of 2)
By L S Su
My assistant Winnie just asked me if I had a nice Easter essay. I told her that instead of talking about Christ's life, death, and life again (big yawner to many), I wanted to talk about evil and cannibalism (go the route of TV sensationalism).
Last time we were the subject of this former NYPD cop named Gilberto Valle, who was prosecuted and convicted of a crime that he had planned, but not yet committed. This man residing in New Jersey (I assure you it's not me) had agreed to pay Valle (a NYPD officer at the time) $5000 for him to kidnap a particular woman and for him to bring her to his house where both of them had plans to rape, torture, cook, and eat her. If you ever considering moving to the East Coast, welcome to the neighborhood! Let me introduce you to my neighbors.
This incident reminded me of the movie The Minority Report that starred Tom Cruise; Tom played this police like enforcement officer who arrested criminals before they actually committed the crime. In this futuristic world these strange looking woman apparently had this ability to monitor people's thoughts. They would relayed the information to the authorities and the law enforcement officers would arrest the bad guys before they did something bad. Think about it. A world without victims. Things were going well for officer Tom until.............the authorities targeted Tom for a crime he was about to commit.
But back to the 21st century. The authorities were tipped off by Valle's wife. She fled the state with their child, after learning about her husband's deep desires to murder and eat her and do the same with other woman. The FBI successfully monitored Valle's activities and movements. Through their assistance, the great bulk of the evidence came from Valle's internet chat conversations which revealed his deep desires, intentions, and plans. Believe it or not there are these web site with these chat room that are designed specifically for individuals that have a passion for eating people.
The existence of God is often debated, but I have yet to see a debate on whether evil exists or not. It appears that people of all faiths, including the faith that believes in the absence of a god and the one that believes there might be a god, all accept that evil exists. One day, but not today, I like to show you that if you reject God's existence you will run into a major problem in defining evil.
Without God you will have no moral absolute. Without absolutes, evil will then be mostly determined based on your feelings. Feelings are subjective agreed? Feelings change right? In our society, It's probably not too hard to find someone that doesn't feel the same way about an issue right? So if what is evil can change, because feelings change, then it's very possible that eating women could one day be consider common place and no longer evil.
I thought the defense attorney that represented Gilberto Valle took an interesting approach in defending his client. The defense attorney argued that Valle never committed acts of kidnap, rape, torture, or cannibalism. Though he may have talked about it, the defense argued that nobody was harmed and his client should not prosecuted based on his thoughts and fantasies.
The prosecutor presented the case well and revealed Valle's written words, which absolutely horrified the jurors. Moreover the prosecutor was able to show that Valle translated his thoughts into action. The prosecution showed clearly what concrete steps Valle took in moving towards his end goal.
Some of his actions included accessing the police database to get addresses and phone numbers of many single women. Obtaining instructions on how to use chloroform. Haggling over the price he needed to be paid for kidnapping a particular woman and bringing her this man living in NJ. From my understanding the authorities arrested Valle after he physically showed up on the woman's block in Manhattan and after Valle used his cell phone to call her residence.
Valle defense attorney's strategy didn't work at all. It flopped big time. The jurors didn't accept it. In fact I think it was a unanimous decision against Valle too. Then I thought how I would have defended Valle if I was given this unpleasant task. How would a toy salesman argue such a case? Probably my first mission is to do my best in preventing a jury to form in the first place.
"Your honor, my client is entitled to a 'jury of his peers' and none of these potential jurors I interviewed have the desire to kidnap, rape, torture, and eat woman. Furthermore all of the potential jurors find cannibalism distasteful; this fact alone will certainly serve as a bias and make it impossible for my client to receive a fair trial."
Though the above might be a good stall tactic, it's still not a defense. If you recall, the Jeffery Dahmer case where he lured, kidnapped, and ate boys still went to trial. The defense attorney had argued vehemently that Dahmer was unfit to stand trial. Comedian George Wallace had an interesting take on the subject on cannibalism. He said that if he was elected President, he would do many things to save tax payers money.
One obvious thing he would do would make it a rule that if you eat three (3) people, you automatically go to jail without a trial. Bringing a case like Dahmer's involved many people, went through several appeals, it's time consuming, and very expensive. Wallace argued that the rule is very simple. "Eat three people and go directly to jail." There would be no get out of jail free card. No trial. This would save tax payers time and a ton of money.
But Wallace realized that some people might inquire "Why do we have to wait until a person eats three people before the rule kicks in?"
"Maybe with the first two people, the person was was....... a little curious?" remarked Wallace. "But..... definitely by the third person, they should be considered crazy and sent directly to jail."
I'm sure Valle's defense attorney was aware of the details Dahmer case and that the insanity plea failed then and would most likely fail again. Needless to say, Valle's defense attorney didn't use the insanity argument. The defense that Valle shouldn't be prosecuted based on his fantasies, flopped. So what would have been the best defense?
I think if I was the defense attorney for Valle, I probably would have used a combination of two defenses that are used today on two very controversial issues. One is the right to life for the unborn and the other is the definition of marriage. In my opinion they are more diversionary tactics than defenses. But a good defense is a good offense. And a good diversion is a part of a good defense and offense. Let me explain.
If you play chess, I think you have a better chance of understanding the overall strategy being used here. Pretty much from the beginning to the end, adept chess players are positioning their pieces to mainly take control of the center of the board. The reason is simple. The shortest distance between two objects is a straight line and efficient movement of pieces requires access through the center of the board.
So the one who controls the center gets greater control on piece movement. In chess you want your own pieces to flow freely, but you want to restrict your opponent's movement. Inevitably what happens is that you butt heads on a particular piece/position (like the issue of marriage or abortion) and neither side wants to back down. So in chess you find yourself in the situation where your opponent might have multiple pieces all positioned in place to win on a single piece/position.
When this occurs, fleeing may not be an option. Typically more pieces are then brought in to help defend that one piece/position. If you attack me with your piece, I'll in turn retaliate with this piece. Chess players are always doing the mental math in figuring out the different permutation an exchange may go down and calculating who will have the advantage at the end of the exchange. But inevitably what happens is that you are unable to bring in more pieces to defend a position. Your opponent piles up more pieces than you have resources to protect it. You are being out gunned. What do you do? The strategy is to then to create a diversion and go pursue something your opponent might find greater in value -all in the hopes and effort in drawing their attention away. Let me give you a demonstration on how this would work in Valle's case.
The argument would go something like, "Jury members, the issue is NOT about Valle's desire to terminate this Manhattan woman's life in some grotesque way. The issue is all about Valle's right to free choice. Valle should have the right to choose what he does to his own body and what he wants to put into his own body. Now I will not affirm whether another life is being terminated or not, but in either case the victims lives do not supercede a man's right to choose."
Then dovetail in, "Valle has every right to pursue what would bring him happiness and fulfillment. Our Bill of Rights says he has the right to pursue happiness. He should be accorded the same rights and benefits given to individuals that happen to have different culinary tastes. Now if you side against my client, then you are engaging in blatant discrimination against my client and for those that share similar taste in women. Though we discriminate every day (some call it use good judgment), work into the argument that "discrimination is wrong and you should not be so judgmental."
See how this diversionary tactic works? Get the jury members off the subject of whether kidnapping, rape, torture and cannibalism is evil (an argument you would unlikely win anyway) and go after something they might value more. We live in a relatively free society. We want people to be free and have lots of choices. We don't like to hear that discrimination is going on. If they don't vote for your client, then brand them as a person against "free choice" or one that "discriminates" against NYPD cannibals.
Back to the top
