Candy controversy nothing but empty calories

Now that M&M’s “spokescandies” have become cannon fodder in the culture wars, Tucker Carlson must await his next empty calories battle.

I feel sorry for his wife. This guy must wake up every night in a cold sweat after having nightmares in which Tony the Tiger comes out as trans — “Call me Toni the Tigress, that would be greeaaat!” — or the Kool-Aid Man crashes through a kindergarten wall to teach critical race theory.

The Sour Patch Kid is demanding we defund the police!

Mr. Peanut is providing abortions! It was about a year ago when Mr. Carlson’s head did what it does every weeknight, which is explode on live television. The Fox snowflake was triggered by M&M’s decision to tweak its cartoon mascots to reflect a more “progressive world.”

Green was trading her white go-go boots for sensible sneakers. Brown’s stilettos were to shrink down and be less sexy. Orange would start tying his shoelaces and be less anxious. Red, once a bully, was to embrace his kinder, gentler inner confectionary.

To Tucker, it was like discovering the Hamburglar had joined Antifa.

Since logic melts in his mouth and not in his hands, Carlson screwed up his constipated resting face to bemoan this woke corporate push to make candy mascots “deeply unappealing and totally androgynous.” As opposed to what? An animated buxom smokeshow in a miniskirt that gets you hot and bothered for Laffy Taffy?

That’s where the story should have ended. M&M’s tried to be more inclusive in 2022 and, months later, Carlson was probably texting Alex Jones about how Green is a lesbian.

Alex, I just long for the return of Miss Chiquita. She was hot enough for open borders.

But instead of becoming an ephemeral sugar high in conservative media — see also: 2022’s Oreos are “gay cookies” — M&M’s restocked the outrage pantry this week by bringing back the issue. Mars Wrigley, the parent company, announced an “indefinite pause” on its animated mascots because “even a candy’s shoes can be polarizing.”

And, somewhere, Tucker unbuckled his pantaloons in front of Jessica Rabbit.

Polarizing candy shoes? I don’t know about that. Nobody ever glanced at the black orbs on Jelly Belly’s feet and started arguing about BLM. M&M’s new spokesperson is the human Maya Rudolph, which is odd since she seems more of an Everlasting Gobstopper.

Also, just for the tag line wordplay possibilities, why not go with Eminem?

It’s possible this is all a publicity stunt in advance of a new campaign to launch during next month’s Super Bowl. “Indefinite pause” is not

I’m not picking on M&M’s, even if I prefer Smarties. But knowing what we know about nutrition and healthy living, all junk food mascots are as disturbing as the Marlboro Man

the same as “banished forever.” I wouldn’t be surprised if M&M’s gives Carlson future nightmares by bringing back the characters he has no interest in seducing. Then they will double down with a new one, Aquamarine, a globalist elite who voted for Joe Biden and is a #MeToo crusader.

But there is a bigger issue: Why are food mascots limited to unhealthy foods?

With obesity rates on the rise, wouldn’t it be better if our kids were exposed to an occasional Cartoon Carrot or an Animated Apple? It wouldn’t even matter if these characters were the opposite of woke. If he can help cut down on Type 2 diabetes, who gives a fig leaf if Captain Kale wants tax cuts for the one per cent? Let Ophelia Okra run her yap about dismantling the CBC so long as she’s also a cheerleader for metabolic vigour and Vitamin D.

Here’s the thing about advertising to children: it works.

I remember watching commercials during Saturday morning cartoons in grade school and, the following week, watching Saturday morning cartoons in grade school with a bowl of Count Chocula in my lap. If Bugs Bunny had a flamethrower sponsor, I would have begged my parents for that and quite possibly burned down the house.

I’m not picking on M&M’s, even if I prefer Smarties. But knowing what we know about nutrition and healthy living, all junk food mascots are as disturbing as the Marlboro Man.

You can’t possibly tell me Mr. Turtle does not look like a park flasher. That tux and top hat are clearly a ruse. And I’m sorry, Lemonhead has the haunting grin of a human trafficker. Does Toucan Sam keep telling people to “follow your nose” because he’s a shill for violent cocaine cartels? That rainbow beak is not fooling me.

And don’t get me started on those Nerds abominations.

You don’t anthropomorphize a blob unless you are up to something sinister.

“In the last year, we’ve made some changes to our spokescandies,” M&M’s said in its statement this week. “We weren’t sure if anyone would even notice. And we definitely didn’t think it would break the internet.”

That’s a humble-brag that’s sure to clog the arteries of common sense.

Outside of conservative media, nobody noticed or cared last year when Green and Brown went from adversaries to allies in a nod to female empowerment. Yellow could have morphed into a postmodernist who believes even daydreaming is the result of a systemic power imbalance, and sensible people with names that don’t rhyme with Mucker Darlson would have yawned into their pomegranate seeds.

The problem was never that M&M’s cartoon characters were changing with the times.

The problem was always that M&M’s had cartoon characters in the first place.