testing capacity story, more m&m damning evidence

Had a story on the front page today: San Antonio companies score big with test mandate.
Also of interest to regular crabwalk.com readers: M&M vote gets sticky.
“I want to start a totally worthless, clandestine campaign,” the e-mail [circulating among the gay community] says. “We need to vote for the pink M&M. I don’t need to say why. Is it trite? Sure. Is it subtle? Absolutely. Is it just plain stupid? OF COURSE IT IS. … [But] when pink wins the vote, you can snicker at your knowledge of the power of a gay voting bloc.”
You may remember my pointing out the gay implications of the pink ballot earlier in this space.
Continues the author: “Now that pink has its cheering section, where are the special-interest groups for the other two colors? Purple has Prince fans, but who will come out for aqua?” Come on, that should be obvious.
Finally, this article finally contains the evidence we need to bring down the M&M cartel. M&M spokesman Scott Hudler has an off-handedly damning quote in this graf:
“And out of the three, aqua is the color that needs support most dearly, according to figures from the last M&M color campaign, in which blue won. ‘We have some historical data from ’95 when we did the original color vote,’ Mr. Hudler says. ‘Blue ran away with it, but purple finished a high second with 32 percent. Pink was a little lower. Aqua came in third.'”
Whoa! Two points, before I go get my guns and start a candy-coated revolution:
– If purple finished with 32 percent and pink “a little lower,” it’s almost certain that they combined to win more than 50 percent of the vote. This proves my thesis that the pink/purple ballot choices were designed to split the vote on that end of the color wheel and shove a less-than-revered blue into the candy bag. Get me Woodward and Bernstein!
– Aqua was not even a candidate in ’95! Let me rephrase that: aqua was not a publicly acknowledged candidate in ’95! All the ballots said were blue, purple, and pink. So how could aqua have finished third? (For the moment, we’ll look past the fact that according to his own numbers, aqua finished fourth.) How long will America put up with rigged elections with “shadow” candidates?
I’ve already called M&M on their revisionist history before. What’s next, a memo claiming that all M&Ms have always been purple, and contrary memories are to be stricken from the public record? “Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia”? And I’d like to point out again that the candy czars still have not revealed what color will get the axe with a new color is crowned.
It’s a lonely fight, battling for justice. Join me in my struggle.

7 thoughts on “testing capacity story, more m&m damning evidence”

  1. Your argument is holier than the pope.
    First of all, it’s possible that pink didn’t get enough of the vote to make up more than a 50 percent pink/purple vote. It depends what he means by “little lower.” maybe he was being sarcastic and pink got almost nothing. And clearly he misspoke and meant that aqua came in fourth, behind the three on the ballot, clearly implying it was a write-in color. Lastly, having just got back from the M&M store in Las Vegas where there is a floor-to-ceiling dispenser of every color imagineable, I have to say I saw aqua. I liked it. It made me happy. Happier than tan, that’s for sure. I think you’d be happier if all the M&M’s were just white. And Christmas was canceled.

  2. It’s a shame when the candy cult brainwashes otherwise able people. A damned shame.
    Sure, it’s possible pink + purple they keep the numbers secret. What ever happened to an open democracy? Would you have been satisfied if, in November 2000, Dan Rather intoned: “George W. Bush is the winner, by what we can safely describe as ‘a bunch’ of votes”?
    And sure, perhaps he misspoke when he said aqua finished third instead of fourth. But you’re missing the point! Aqua wasn’t even a candidate! It’d be as if (to stretch a metaphor to its limit) Dan Rather had said: “In Florida, George W. Bush finishes first, followed by Al Gore, Ralph Nader, and Sir John Gielgud.” No matter your thoughts on Sir John Gielgud, he wasn’t an announced candidate! Indeed, I don’t even think he’s an American citizen! Or even alive!
    Finally: Christmas is carnage!

  4. Oops — bad tag in my comment. Second graf should start: “Sure, it’s possible pink + purple (less-than symbol) 50% — but the only reason we’ll never know is because they keep the numbers secret.”
    How sorry is it that I feel the need to correct a comment on a post about M&M corruption.
    Don’t answer that.

  5. Well, I dunno… I think the author of the VOTE FOR PINK piece needs to rethink some basic assumptions, namely: that gay vote, the prince vote, and the mac vote are necessarily three distinct groups. I mean, come on!

Comments are closed.