Still Not A Winner

Hey, guess what happened? The Mega Millions winner in Maryland came forward and guess what? I know this will shock you, but it turns out that it was NOT that possibly mentally ill woman who called herself Mirlande Wilson on the news, but who goes by Sheila Paraison on Facebook (for reasons that I still cannot ascertain). Shocking, I know!

Seriously, this woman has been going around for at least a week and telling everyone that she won. Well, that was at first. Then it was that she won, but she hid the ticket at the McDonald's that she worked at. (How that McDonald's was not torn apart McNugget by McNugget is beyond me.) After that it was that it was in her house somewhere, but she couldn't find it. (For some reason, her 15-year old daughter had been asked about this and she responded that Mirlande/Sheila wouldn't let the kids (she has SEVEN of them) look for the ticket and the girl said she was crying because "it's a lot of money". Yes. Yes, it is. Sorry to say that you won't be getting a lot of money. Also sorry to say that your mom is a bit of a cuckoo bird.) I think after that it was in God's hands. (That didn't make any sense to me either, because God can't cash it in. Why would he have it?) And the worst part about that whole fiasco is that she had gone in with a bunch of her McDonald's co-workers to buy a bunch of tickets and basically said that she won, but that she wasn't sharing because she bought her ticket separately. Yeah, OK, then.

But yesterday it comes out that the winners have claimed their prize in Maryland and (spoiler alert!) it was not Ms. Wilson/Paraison. The winners were three Maryland public school system employees who have chosen to remain anonymous. That's a little different than the woman who had been claiming that she won. Looking back, considering that she didn't win, the anonymous route probably would have saved her a little bit of humiliation. Well, that is, if she understood that she really didn't win.

See, she's still denying that she didn't win. According to the New York Post, she "...insisted yesterday that she didn’t lie when she told her lottery pool co-workers — and the world — that she had hit the Mega Millions jackpot." But...but...she didn't win. They didn't give her the money. And she was saying that she won...sooooooo....what now? I don't get it either. But after the lottery folks announced that these other three people had actually won (and apparently had the ticket, and now the money, to prove it), she said “I don’t know who lied. I’m not the liar!" But...but...you are.

Tell me something. What do you think that this woman was thinking was going to happen with this little story of hers? Did she think that the lottery people were just going to give her the money simply because she said that she won? I think that's why they make you actually show the ticket. And what about all of her co-workers at McDonald's? How did she think that this was going to go over with all of them? Can you imagine how tense things must be around that deep fryer these days? She's going to find herself minced up in one of those God-awful Snack Wraps one of these days I'd imagine. Just one more example of how I just don't get people. I don't get this crazy line of thinking. Oh, wait. That's right. She's crazy. Never mind. I got it. Carry on!

Sphere: Related Content

Vaguely Familiar Numbers

It's time for a crazy lottery story. As you may or may not be aware, the Mega Millions lottery got ridiculously large last week. We're talking second-world country big. It was over six hundred million dollars. And with so many people buying tickets because every one of them expected to win, it was almost inevitable that someone would win. And someone did. Three someones, actually. And one of them appears to be fairly crazy, so that's good.

Our story begins in Maryland. That's where we meet a one Mirlande Wilson. Now, according to the folks over at the New York Post, Ms. Wilson works at McDonald's where, in addition to providing delicious Chicken McNuggets for hungry consumers on the run, she joined a lottery pool with at least fifteen other employees. The deal was that they'd all chip in some money and she would buy the tickets. If a ticket won, they all won. Well, wouldn't you know it? A ticket won! But she says that they didn't all win. No, she says that she won. That's right. Just her.

Ms. Wilson claims that she bought tickets on her own separate from those that she bought with her probably former friends at this point. "I was in the group, but this was separate. The winning ticket was a separate ticket,” the single mother of seven said as she and her fiancé left her home in the squalid Westport neighborhood to attend church." Wow, there's a lot to like in that sentence. First of all, thank you New York Post for describing her neighborhood as "squalid". That paints quite a picture. Next up, does that say seven children? AND she has a fiance?! Did she have the fiance BEFORE she "won" a squintillion dollars? If so, I'd like to know more about him, please. Really. I'd like to know more about the kind of guy who is engaged to a woman who has seven children and lives in a squalid neighborhood. I'd like to know his story AND their story. I'm sure I'd enjoy it.

But back to Ms. Wilson. Of course, her co-workers are not happy with these developments. “She can’ t do this to us!” said Suleiman Osman Husein, a shift manager and one of 15 members in the pool. “We each paid $5. She took everybody’s money!” Strong words coming from folks who make $7.50 an hour and might be getting screwed out of millions of dollars. But wait! Perhaps they all weren't quite so lucky after all! Dun dun dunnnnnnnnn!

Here's where it gets a little wacky. I guess after her big announcement, as she was continually pressed for more information, she lets this out: "I don’t know if I won. Some of the numbers were familiar. I recognized some of [them]...I don’t know why people are saying differently...I’m going to go to the lottery office [today]. I bought some tickets separately.” Wait a minute. What now?

She doesn't know if she won?! Look, I understand that she's a Haitian immigrant (what I don't understand is what exactly that means, but that's a completely different post) and might not fully grasp some American customs. But I'm having a hard time believing that the lottery is one of those customs. She doesn't know if she won? Well, shouldn't she figure that before, oh...I don't know...perhaps telling everyone that she won?! And SOME of the numbers were familiar? Well, I should hope so! After all, they ARE numbers! But I usually reserve comments like that for when I look at calculus problems. "Hey! I recognize some of those numbers!" But it rarely happens in day to day situations, much less when it comes to winning the lottery. I wonder which numbers weren't familiar?

I have no idea if this woman won or not. The whole "Some of the numbers were familiar" bit could just be a highly ineffective way of trying to throw the other possibly rightful winners off of the money trail. But she does seem a little shifty. And doesn't seem like she makes the best of decisions. (Yes, I drew that conclusion from the fact that she has seven children, isn't married and works at McDonald's. Like you didn't?) She said that she's going to the lottery office on Wednesday. Can't wait to hear how that turns out! If I had to guess, I'd go with she didn't win at all and she's just a little nuts. It is going to make for an awkward return to work if that's the case, though. Very awkward.

Sphere: Related Content

The McWhat?

The McRib is back. Personally, I couldn't care any less that it ever left in the first place. But there are apparently folks who are really into this thing. It quite possibly has become the most ridiculously over-hyped menu item of all time. It has this cult-like following that seem to hold the sandwich in a higher esteem than that of the Pope. (And with all of that child touching that's gone on in the Catholic church, that probably isn't that hard to do.) I'm going to see if I can knock it down off of its sanctimonious little high horse bun a little bit here.

Do you know what's IN a McRib? I mean, the term 'rib' would imply that it is some sort of pork. (I suppose it could be beef, but it's not the size of a brontosaurus burger, so I'm going to go with pig.) And apparently this thing has seventy ingredients. And while most of those ingredients compose the bun and the sauce, what you really need to be concerned with is the "pork patty". You know the one. It's some sort of congealed meat that is shaped to look like it has bones in it. There are no bones. That's the good news. The bad news is that there isn't exactly all that much "pork", either.

According to KSEE24 News, "The slab of "restructured meat product" consists of salt (980 mg, more than half your recommended daily intake) and pig innards, like tripe, heart, and scalded stomach." Mmmmm! Tripe, heart and stomach. Sounds like a band from 1974 that was modeled after Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Tripe, heart and stomach. So, they take all of that and blend it all up (kind of like a shake), form it into a patty with fake bones and then slap it on a bun with a little sauce, onions and pickles. Sound good? I hope not. And SF Gate is even reporting that Time magazine is reporting that the McRib contains something called "...azodicarbonamide: a flour-bleaching agent that is most commonly used in the manufacture of foamed plastics like in gym mats and the soles of shoes." Huh. I'm going to assume that whatever that stuff is can also be found in several other McDonald's products. There are an awful lot of menu items there whose taste could definitely be compared to that of a yoga mat.

Look, I realize that one can just just about every part of the pig except for the oink. But that doesn't mean that one should. And I also realize that one cannot come to expect a very high quality level of meat in fast food products. But I'd like to think that there is some regular meat. I don't think that one should have to be subjected to innards disguised as pork rib sammies. And apparently, I'm the only one who thinks that as this sandwich has become more popular than God. We are truly doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

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

Dollar Menu "Discrimination"

Hey, San Francisco! How's your utopia coming along? Are you making sure that you're keeping plenty of entitled homeless people around who are disillusioned about what they feel that they should be getting? You are? Ohhh. So that's why there are folks that are sans home complaining about a particular McDonald's that has done away with their dollar menu. Whatever.

Here's the deal according to SF Gate: The McDonald's in the Haight-Ashbury area on the corner of Haight and Stanyan has eliminated the dollar menu from their tasty offerings. Instead of 99 cents, those items are now $1.49, constituting a difference of a whopping fifty cents. (Now, I should probably mention that there are a gazillion homeless in the Haight area. You can't swing a dead shopping cart without hitting one. And they're far from sedate individuals. They are some of the more aggressive panhandlers that I've ever come across. You can't walk by them without them hitting you up for a "donation".) And, of course, the homeless feel that they are being (wait for it) discriminated against. Behold! The discriminatees!

That's right. They have this price hike thing all figured out. See, they're thinking that the McDonald's just doesn't want them hanging around all of the time and sitting in their patio seating. So this is "...the restaurant management's ploy to get them to go somewhere else." A simply shocking assertion. You may also not be shocked to learn that "Management locks the bathroom door and frequently calls the cops." You don't say? Yes, I'm shocked. Stunned, as it were. Uh-huh. Can you imagine wanting to lock the bathroom door and call the cops on the folks below?

I can't imagine why that would be. Why on earth would the owner of the McDonald's not want their business cluttered up with a bunch of scroungy looking homeless people who are asking your entering and departing patrons for money? Not to mention scroungy looking homeless people who take up your seats outside all the live long day. It's a mystery all right. But the owner of the franchise, a one Natalie Gonzalez, claims that isn't the reason. Well, she sort of claims that. In a statement that was issued, she asserts, "The speculation as to why I no longer offer menu items for $1 in this location is absolutely false. This was a business decision based on a number of contributing factors. And while these items are no longer available at $1, they are still available at what I believe to be a good, everyday value."

I like how she doesn't mention the "contributing factors" specifically. I'd say that having a bunch of homeless folks hanging around all of the time and pestering anyone who walks within three feet of them for their hard earned cash a "contributing factor". But for some reason, she doesn't want to say that. And I just don't get that. Why wouldn't she just say that she doesn't like the "clientele" that having a dollar menu attracts? The homeless act like they're just like everyone else, but they fail to see the obvious and striking differences between themselves and the homed. The homed tend to not ask others for money. The homed tend to wear clean clothes. The homed tend to leave the majority of their belongings in their home when they leave it. And the homed don't spend all day taking up seats in the outdoor seating area of the McDonald's. I find it to be perfectly acceptable to change your way of doing business in order to get rid of those who stand in the way of your doing business.


The other thing that really bugs me about the homeless and their fake uproar about this? That would be that they act like it is damn near impossible for them to scrounge a dollar or two. Give me a break. Get over yourself. Or get a job. Either one of those would probably work out pretty well for you. But whatever you do, just pipe down about it. You're not entitled to a dollar menu at every fast food establishment. And is that the only freaking McDonald's in town? I highly doubt it. Why don't you go be sans home outside of a different McDonald's? Say, one with a dollar menu. It's not like you've got anything else to do.

Sphere: Related Content

...Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?

From the files of "Authorities believe alcohol may have been involved", we have this tale from somewhere called Spartanburg County, South Carolina: A woman stole a sandwich from McDonald's. How she stole it will shock you gross you out.

According to WYFF4.com, a woman bought two sandwiches and two small coffees. That seems reasonable. What does not seem reasonable is that after she bought them and after she received them, she took one of the sandwiches and shoved it down the front of her pants. Wait. What?

That's right. Shoved it down her pants. For the purpose of what, you ask? Why, for the purpose of getting a free sandwich, of course. See, her story was that "...her order had been shorted" and "...the employees owed her a free one". Granted, the employees were right there. It's not like it was all that hard to figure out what went on. It was probably a little harder to figure out why it went on, however.

Anyway, as these crazy people tend to do, this woman, a one Lori Turner, became loud (ie, swearing). In fact, "The responding deputy said he could hear Turner screaming obscenities at the cashier when he went into the McDonald’s." Wow. OK, lady. Calm down. Or something. Actually, what say you take that sandwich out of your pants and then you calm down, OK? First things first. Oh, and by the way, this woman looks just like you'd expect her to look. Behold!

See? When the officer took the woman outside, he "...said he could see a large grease stain on the front of her pants." Yeah, McDonald's isn't exactly the healthiest place to be pilfering items to shove down your trousers, that's for sure. Maybe if she were stealing sushi rolls or something she would have gotten away with it. But not with the telltale grease stain from the golden arches. No way. And of course, grease stain and all, the woman "...denied having the sandwich until a female officer arrived to search her." Gross. Whoever that female officer was deserves some sort of bonus or day off or something for being called in for that duty. Fortunately for that female officer, "Turner pulled the sandwich out of her pants and put it on the hood of the police car." Finally.

Naturally, she "...continued to shout profanities and smelled of alcohol". I'm dying to know what she was saying. I can only imagine. I just don't understand this entire scenario at all. I mean, she clearly had enough money for two sandwiches and two coffees. As far as I can tell, she was by herself. She couldn't have maybe only ordered one coffee and three sandwiches. And why are they calling them 'sandwiches'. They're burgers, aren't they? I don't think of a sandwich as something that is going to leave a grease stain when I shove it down the front of my pants. (Metaphorically speaking, of course. I don't do things like that. On weekdays.)

But of all of these intricacies that perplex me, here's the one that I really can't fathom: "The McDonald’s refunded Turner’s money and had her put on a trespassing order." The trespassing order I get. The refunding of her money?! What is up with that?! Why would they give her money back? Were they not paying attention? The sandwich was IN HER PANTS! It's hers! She paid for it. She received it. She put it in her pants. There should be no refunding of anything! You can't just put some McDonald's down your pants and not expect to pay for it. Granted, I'm sure that she's paying for this in more ways than one, but you see what I'm saying, right? Good.

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

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