An Unhappy Meal

When, exactly, was the downfall of responsible parenting? When was it that parents simply gave up and blamed everyone and everything else for their unwillingness to do the hard stuff? I know that people have been like that for a while, but it seems that more recently it has been OK to vocally be that way. Take the Sacramento woman who is suing McDonald's for "deceptive advertising". Want to hear her example of their "deception"? They're putting toys in Happy Meals. I swear. And we're doomed.

According to the fine and thrifty folks over there at Wallet Pop, a Sacramento woman who isn't shy about being named in this insanity, a one Monet Parham says in her lawsuit that "Dangling a toy in front of a child is like putting a scantily clad woman in front of men." Good Lord. I can't believe she went there. There is so much to not like in that statement that it's hard to know where to begin, but I'll give it a good go here. I'm going to start with "Are you on glue?" (I tried to find a picture of this individual and the only one I could locate offhand was what appears to be what she uses as her profile picture on Facebook. I'm sure you won't be surprised at all. Behold!)

Um, yeah. Ok, then. Where was I? Oh, yeah. She must be, as in the article, she goes on to exemplify her incompetence as a person in charge of raising children when she says "My children really want the toys that are in those meals. I'm concerned about the health of my children frankly...I don't think it's OK to entice children." Soooo...because your children really want something, you have to get it for them? And of course, in this scenario, you're being forced to eat at McDonald's, otherwise why else would you be in such a situation where the health of your children is jeopardized because you have to buy them an unhealthy meal with a toy because you were forced to take them there to eat. Oh, wait. Those are all choices that someone with half a spine could actually make. Never mind. Carry on.

The article also includes the revelation that "...the meals often get cold while her children -- ages 6 and 2 -- play with the toys instead of eating." So, now McDonald's is responsible for her not being able to keep the toys from her children until they're done eating to play with them? Wow. I had no idea that McDonald's was such a powerful parenting entity. I might have actually decided to have children if I knew that McDonald's could have raised them for me!

What is wrong with this person? Does she honestly believe this nonsense that she is spouting for the sake of her lawsuit? Why can't she tell these kids no? Are they giants? Particularly menacing giants? Why does she have to take them to McDonald's? Why does the 2-year old even understand the concept of a Happy Meal? Why is she feeding McDonald's to a 2-year old? So many questions. So few answers. Actually, I take that back. There is one answer. She's a moron who can't stand up to a freaking two-year old.

It's unclear to me in what context the woman was saying the things that I've quoted. Oh, how I wish that the person she was talking to could have asked the follow up questions that I just asked. Not because there would have been any sort of rational explanation, but because it would have been ten times more amusing to hear her explain why she's such an irresponsible parent who is completely incapable of telling her children no.

The children aren't buying these meals. She is. She is taking absolutely no responsibility for her part in this and it angers me. If it's all about the toy, shouldn't she be suing other fast food franchises that include toys in their meals for children? (She probably isn't suing them because she doesn't take her children there, thus they don't want their toys. Ah-HA! Problem solved.) For that matter, she better include Cracker Jack in her lawsuit. After all, they've been including "toys" with their unhealthy product since 1896! (I realize that it's a stretch to call the things that are in Cracker Jacks "toys". I was trying to make a point!) I hope that someone is around to interview her after she loses. I'd like to hear what her strategy for keeping Happy Meal toys out of the hands of her own children is going to be then.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Not-So-Happy Meal

As if it wasn't bad enough that a bunch of halfwits (also known as the Board of Stupidvisors Supervisors) in Santa Clara County (that's in the failing experimental utopia of Northern California) "...voted to ban toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county". Yeah, they felt like because there was a toy in the Happy Meal it was contributing to childhood obesity. I know. I know. Wuck? (I know! This is not news to me. I have live in this clown county.) But now, a group is taking stupidicy to a whole new level along these same lines. That's right. Some asshat "watchdog group" is now threatening to sue McDonald's if they do not remove all of the toys from their Happy Meals altogether. Good Lord, what is wrong with some people?

According to the still very respectable when other daily newspapers are going to crap LA Times, the "...Center for Science in the Public Interest said that the plastic promotions lure children into McDonald's restaurants where they are then likely to order food that is too high in calories, fat and salt." What the dimwits over at the Center for Science in the Public Interest fail to explain is how those children are actually lured there. I was at a McDonald's just today and I didn't see any Happy Meals on sticks that were luring in unsuspecting children. Nor did I see any children who had (allegedly) been lured driving themselves to the McDonald's in order to get their unhealthy meal/toy combo pack of death. Oh, that's right. Because children have parents! And it's parents that should be making these choices. I knew there was something vital that was missing from the whole "luring" argument.

According to a one Stephen Gardner, Head Asshat the litigation director for this group (who looks just about how you'd picture him to look), "McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children. McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity." Yeah, there's some immaturity going on here, but I don't think that it's the young children. What does he mean that McDonald's is the stranger? McDonald's isn't a stranger to anyone! It's that friendly clown! With burgers! And fries!

I'm failing to understand why taking care of a kid is no longer the responsibility of the parent. If the kid whines and cries that he wants McDonald's, the parent can say no, right? Right. If you can't handle saying "no" to your kid every time they want McDonald's, then you should probably just put your kid up for adoption right now. It's only going to get worse.

I also find it interesting that the commercials that McDonald's puts out these days are far less kid friendly than the commercials that they used to put out. The commercials used to have all of the characters and their wacky 30-second antics. There was Mayor McCheese (who must have been forced into retirement, as I almost never see or hear from him anymore) and his big burger head. There was that chicken-like bird thing with the goggles that flew around. There was that crafty Hamburglar who was always burgling the ham. The extremely rotund and purple Grimace (who is likely banned from all advertising due to his plumpness and rotund nature). They even had puppets of all of the food with eyes and mouths on them! (The burger even had a little bow tie!) Those were pretty awesome. Those guys were extremely kid friendly. What are the commercials now? A bunch of homies playing loud music and showing off their bling because they're lovin' it. Not kid friendly. Homey friendly, perhaps. But not kid friendly. So how come we weren't hearing these arguments back then? Oh, right. Because parents had the guts to say "no" to their kid. That's right. I knew it was something.

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit turns out. Oh, I know that they've only threatened to sue if McDonald's doesn't comply and remove all of the Happy Meal toys. (It's a move that is oddly reminiscent of blackmail.) But you know McDonald's isn't going to do that. Why would they? Actually, the more important question here is why should they? What happened to capitalism and the free market? What happened to the land of the free? I don't think that our free land needs to have its children's meals regulated by some self-serving, feel good group which seems to operate on pollyanna principles. Grow a spine! Parent your kids! And gimme my Happy Meal with a Shrek toy, please. (That's right. I've been lured!)

Sphere: Related Content

Childhood Obesity Is Fueled By Toys

We're doomed. Doomed. Once again, leave it to a county in California to be introduced a bill that "If it is passed, this would be the first such legislation in the nation." California: Leading the way to making sure that no one is responsible for themselves anymore. And we're going to be pushed further down that path by making sure that there is not, of all things, a toy in a child's fast food meal. Of course. No, wait. What now?

Correct. According to the fine folks over there at KGO-TV, "A Santa Clara County lawmaker will introduce legislation to stop restaurants from handing out toys with fast food menu items geared toward children." OK, then. Almost all I have to say is that this guy had better not be a SCC lawmaker for very much longer. Are you freaking kidding me?!

Let's hear the lame ass justification for this waste of time and money effort, shall we? According to a one Ken Yeager, the apparent dip ass behind this measure, "One in three kids are overweight or are obese, and we're finding out more and more that if you're obese as a child, you're going to have health problems your entire life." Hmm. I don't disagree with that statement, but I kind of doubt that we're "just finding out" that a fat kid is going to make for an unhealthy adult. That seems to be a stretch. I also highly doubt that the one in three kids that is overweight is in that condition because they received a little plastic R2D2 with their burger. I highly doubt that.

Yeager claims that "Ten out of 12 meals that are associated with the promotional toys are the high-caloric, high-fat, high-sodium meals." First of all, which 12 meals are we talking about here? There aren't 12 meals with toys that are available at just one chain, so what is he talking about? Sadly, due to extremely poor reporting, this question isn't answered.

Also, how many meals that are not associated with a promotional toy (ie, the ones that aren't "for children") are "high-caloric, high-fat, high-sodium" meals? At a fast food place? I'm guessing most of them or at the very least, half of them. It's fast food, for cryin' out loud. But again, sadly, due to poor reporting, this aspect is not further explored.

Supervisor Yeager wants his proposed ordinance to regulate "...fast food restaurants' ability to offer toys or other incentives with kids' meals." Um..."other incentives"? What are "other incentives" when you're buying a sack of toy-laden fast food? What other incentives would their be? NOT being hungry when you're done? That's an incentive, all right, but regulating "an end to hunger" seems odd. What other incentives could he be referring to? Hookers? Can they give out hookers? That'd be an incentive, but probably not for children. Hmm. This is a head scratcher, all right.

Wait! I just came up with one! When I buy Coca-Cola products, there is a little code inside of the 12-pack that will give me My Coke Rewards Points when I enter the codes online. If I save up enough points, I can buy a Coke logo emblazoned yacht or something similar from the Coca-Cola store. I guess those points would be considered an "incentive" to buy Coca-Cola products (that and a really strong desire for the unattainable goal of purchasing a Coke yacht). And since regular sodas are filled with at least one five pound bag of sugar per 12 ounce can (so I've heard from the anti-soda groups), those points are making kids who drink those products obese. Is Mr. Yeager proposing not allowing the sale of any products from various carbonated beverage manufacturers who use promotional gimmicks to sell us their "liquid death"? Of course he isn't. Has he suggested such a measure? Of course he hasn't. You know why? Because it would be idiotic, that is correct. (My words, not his. Given that he wants the "no toy" ban to be in effect, he'll probably consider this scenario next.)

Of course, this must make sense to Mr. Yeager because, as we all know, if a child wants something, it is the duty of the parent to immediately purchase that which the child wants immediately. Thus, if the child wants the high calorie, high fat, high sodium, very tasty meal with a toy in it, well, the parent will have to buy that child the meal, no questions asked! And we also all know that you must take your children to have fast food all of the time when they are little. That must be the case because, if kids are as fat as Mr. Yeager says that they are and that the meals with toys are to blame, then those kids must be eating that stuff morning, noon and night. It's a shame, really. (God, what a moron.)

Let me just briefly summarize what this Yeager fellow thinks is a good idea, OK? He thinks that it's a good idea for the government to tell companies that they cannot put a toy in with a kid's meal. That's right. A toy. He believes this to be the solution to childhood obesity, for some reason. So rather than let parents regulate the food intake of their own children, Mr. Yeager believes it is best if the government takes AWAY choices from people in order to get them to make what the government believes to be the right choice. Sure, that sounds like the America I know.

Mr. Yeager, I'm going to present you with an alternative. How about, instead of taking out the toy, you let the fast food companies leave the toy in. But instead of just handing the food to the child (or the parent, wherever they are in this scenario. From what I can tell, these fast food places are in some sort of Lord of the Flies scenario, as good parenting versus bad parenting doesn't seem to be a factor), how about you have the kid run around the restaurant three times before he can get his food? The parent places the order at the drive-thru speaker, pulls up to the first window and then lets the kids out of the car. The kids then sprint around some sort of Olympic sized track and when they finally make it to the finish line (assuming that they do), they get their meal AND their toy handed to them for them to enjoy. It seems reasonable. They'll have gotten some exercise (which we all know they don't get enough of) and they'll still get fed. It'll balance out. The yin and the yang. I can support installing Olympic sized running tracks around all of the McDonald's in the county. THAT I could support. Banning companies from putting a toy in the meals for kids? You've gotta be dry shavin' me.

Sphere: Related Content

Not-So-Happy Meals

What in the hell is wrong with people? Not just people in general (though I have questions about them as well), but certain people. You know who they are. You know the ones. The ones that do things that are just so not smart and so incredibly inexplicable that it makes you wonder how they've managed to keep themselves alive for this long. The folks over there at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) would be some of those people. (Alicia Silverstone over there on the left? She is so not one of those people. If she keeps looking like that, she can be an axe murderer for all I care. But she's definitely not one of those.)

Again, I ask what is wrong with them? This time, their outrageous, inflammatory and "in your face" method of bringing attention to how animals (otherwise known as "food") are allegedly mistreated during the process of growing the animals in captivity until they are to the point where they become known as "delicious". I'm not denying that some of the conditions (in which animals that are raised for food live) are less than ideal, but how ideal is it in reality? I mean, overall. The animals? Yeah, they're gonna die. And we're gonna eat 'em. That alone is "bad" enough. Again, I'm not in favor of horrific conditions for these creatures, but it is kind of like making sure that executions by lethal injection are done in a completely sterile environment so that some sort of infection doesn't develop within the condemned. I'm just sayin'.

So PETA, not satisfied with the response (or lack thereof) that they receive from adults, have apparently decided to target small children with their horrific and in-your-face tactics and they've seemingly decided to use McDonald's as the outlet from which to spread their scary ass message of slaughterhouse horrors to those who enjoy McDonald's the most. The small.

Not only are their tactics abhorrent, they've targeted my favorite McDonald's crap! The McNuggets! And that's just a futile effort in and of itself, going after either McDonald's and/or the McNuggets. They're both not going anywhere. You could tell us that torturing our loved ones in a back alley is part of the McDonald's food making process and we'd probably just ask (likely with our mouths full), "What kind of torture and for how long?" We don't care. We will continue to eat McDonald's until the day that it is ultimately responsible for our own early demise due to a sedentary lifestyle and arteries clogged with trans-fat. The only regret we'll have is that we weren't able to manage one last taste of Mickey D's before the taste of sweet, sweet death.

There was an ad campaign by....I don't even remember which other fast food chain, which took aim at McNuggets with the slogan "Parts is Parts". Funny, to the point, and possibly true. I don't know and neither do you. Nor do we or anyone else even CARE. McDonald's sold a gazillion McNuggets before that commercial came out and it has continued to sell a gazillion McNuggets since that commercial came out. And it's a little ironic that I can remember "Parts is Parts" and that I LOVE me a McNugget, but I cannot for the life of me remember which other fast food chain launched that campaign. I didn't care where they found these "boneless chickens" then and I don't care where they find them now. All I care about is that I find the correct number of McNuggets in that little box when I order.

But PETA has decided to take their campaign against McNuggets WAY farther than "Parts is Parts". According to Fox News, people showing up at a McDonald's in Albany, New York found "Unhappy Meals" which were clearly supposed to represent the opposite of McDonald's iconic Happy Meal. "Inside the box they found a bloody rubber chicken, packet of ketchup blood, knife-wielding Ronald McDonald, and a tee-shirt." Yes, I would be extremely unhappy if I found that as opposed to my McNuggets. That would be a "Really Pissed Off at PETA Meal" if there ever was one.

Now, since the reporting was horrendous from both Fox News sites that I referenced (the one linked above and this one) it's unclear to me exactly HOW the patrons of McDonald's came across the Unhappy Meals by PETA. Were they substituted for their regular meals and if so, how did that happen? Were they handed out to people and some folks just thought, "Free is free. Gimme!"? I don't know, but it does support the statement "Fair and balanced" because it's fair to say that both sites had equal amounts of crap reporting on them, balancing out that crap scale just fine. Fortunately, I found everything I needed to know over there at New Jersey Newsroom. And from their website it would look to me like they had these Unhappy Meals available for one to pick up at their leisure if one so chose to do so. It also appears as if the table of Unhappy Meals was being monitored by a giant Pac Man character, though it is unclear as to why that was.

Now, all PETA claims it was doing was "...asking McDonald's to switch to controlled atmosphere killing which their own research has shown would be far less cruel for the birds," so said a one Kristina Addington, PETA Peddler (and sharp dresser!). In reply "A representative for McDonald's defended the franchise, saying it supports the use of a stunning technique that numbs its chickens before they are slaughtered." Oh good! NumbNuggets!

While I'm not FOR cruelty to animals, I'm not so thrilled about the method that PETA wants McDonald's to implement (though I AM glad that they aren't just tauting their very tired "NO MEAT" mantra). PETA's preference is "...called Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK), and involves slowly replacing chickens' oxygen with inert gases, slowing putting the chickens to sleep." (Wow. It sounds like Chicken Euthanasia, Michael Jackson Style!) Um, the chickens that I eat, see, their oxygen is distributed throughout their bodies which I then, as previously alluded to, eat. I don't want to be eating the equivalent of a chicken that has just been put to death in a gas chamber. I know that none of the methods are desirable (especially for the damn chicken!), but unfortunately it is what it is.

The thing is, I have the feeling that PETA could be very effective in getting something other than just free freaking publicity if they toned down their scary shock and awe methods and instead acted like reasonable human beings to get their message out there. Because I'll tell you, if there is one thing that most people will shun and dismiss it is the rantings of a crazy person. And having a life-sized, fuzzy Pac-Man creature handing out Unhappy Meals with bloody rubber chickens inside? Yeah, that will be shunned and dismissed.

Immediately.


Side note: Turns out it was Wendy's that told us "Parts is parts." I still don't care. I heart the parts.

Sphere: Related Content