Going After Financial Bonanza

By Semperpapa

When one is too lazy to earn their wages or to be a parent, there is always the possibility of finding an ambulance-chaser that will concoct a law suit against some deep pocket corporation and one can get financially set. The part of the ambulance-chasing is, in this instance, played by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Some Sacramento woman, one Monet Parham, is just such a person. She has found the right backing that would take her law suit against McDonald restaurant chain.
The suit claims that McDonald is adopting marketing techniques that are designed to entice young children to eat at the restaurant franchises by offering toys that children want.

She says:
“I don’t think it’s OK to entice children with Happy Meals with the promise of a toy,”

Ms. Parham complains that she has had to say no to her daughters, 6 and 2 in age, when they would pressure their mother to visit McDonald to get one of the “Shrek Forever After” toy collection.

“Needless to say, my answer was no,” Parham said. “And as usual, pouting ensued and a little bit of a disagreement between us. This doesn’t stop with one request. It’s truly a litany of requests.”

Oh my God! The woman has had to say no to her daughters! The suffering!

In the first place, the advertisement campaign of McDonald is a marketing tool used by every business in order to attract customers. It may not be politically correct or socially acceptable any longer for a business to pursue customers and aim at a profit, but it is still legal.
When the marketing ploy is directed towards adults, the beauty of capitalism is that the consumer has the choice to patronize that business or not. Directing a marketing campaign to a young audience does not jeopardize the ability of the parents of such audience to decide the nutritional habits of said child.

Secondly, expecting a business to modify its entire “legal” marketing campaign because one woman is annoyed by the nagging of her two young children is beyond preposterous. What we are witnessing is a lazy, poor excuse of a mother attempting to have her definite minority demands being forced upon the vast majority of the rest of the country.

And finally, there is what I see as the real reason behind this vast waste of taxpayers money.
This obviously indolent woman has found a way to score some free money from a corporation, yes, one of those evil corporations, which success depends inherently on public image. It is not far fetched to connect the Sacramento woman legal action to the publicity that San Francisco’s ban on Happy Meals toys has generated last Summer.

The crusade against fast food establishments (everything Michelle Obama wants) and especially an evil corporation continues, fostered by groups that place the word “science” on their business cards and expect everyone to just genuflect to their elitist wisdom. Just as many did with the global warming farce.

In a perfect world, the San Francisco Superior Court would just throw the whole thing out and tell the woman to employ some form of parenting instead. But the world is not perfect and even less so in San Francisco, or California in general, where social insanity is rampant, and where it is very likely that the woman will receive one of those nice cash infusion that will allow her to be even less of a mother to her daughters.

Just my thoughts!