xmlns:og='http://ogp.me/ns#' Yeah. Good Times.: Why bother with responsible parenting when this lawsuit will take care of that for you?

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Why bother with responsible parenting when this lawsuit will take care of that for you?

This one: McDonald's Threatened With Lawsuit for Pairing Toys With Happy Meals

Here's a snippet:

The Center for Science in the Public Interest announced Tuesday that it will file a lawsuit against McDonald's, calling the practice of marketing toys with junk food "illegal" under consumer protection laws in Massachusetts, Texas, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and California. 

"Dangling a toy in front of a kid to try to get them into your restaurant is unfair and deceptive, because it's targeted at kids who are what? Four years old? Six years old? Who don't even understand the concept of advertising," Michael Jacobson, executive director of CSPI, said in an interview with ABC News' Yunji de Nies. 

"It's not just a meal. It's the technique you're using to get kids to buy a meal," he said. 

Yes. It's the technique you're using to get kids to buy a meal. You know, that four year old (OMG MY kid is four! HE'S IN DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGER!!!!!!!!!!!) the one who can drive a car and can count out his own money; he's always taking my car and going to McDonalds because of those goddamn crack/happy meal toys. He's just an innocent child, fer crissakes, a VICTIM who doesn't understand the concept of advertising; and here I am, his mother, HELPLESS against the illegal marketing practices of Evil McDonalds, which dangles toys in front of him and makes him fat. FAT!! MY KID IS GOING TO BE FAT AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT. DAMN YOU, MCDONALDS. DAAAAMMMNNNNN YOOOOUUUUUUUUU !!!!!!! *violent fist shaking*

Okay, you're probably seeing my point here. I should tell you straight out that we go to McDonalds; every Friday after school, that's what we do. They get the Chicken Selects (do I get royalties for mentioning those? I'll go look in my mailbox and see if there's a check there) and the little one even dips his in ranch dressing! We call it "getting chicken and french fries," even though we never actually get the fries, because if there are fries in my car at any time I will eat every last one of them, so it's best to keep them away. From me. We don't get the happy meals, though, usually because they come with french fries (see previous) and also because they're the McNuggets, and not the Selects, which just aren't as good according to my picky children. But, you know, the reason we go to McDonalds and not Jack in the Box (which doesn't have happy meals!!!) is because McDonalds has the good coffee, and if I can't get coffee during this excursion, I'm just not interested in the entire process. But I digress.... Yeah, we go to McDonalds. I should get that bias right out there in the open right away.

Child 2, my four year old (the one AT RISK here) is the kind of kid who will see an ad on TV and immediately want it. It's how we ended up with that fucking Zhu Zhu Pet (did you know those things moo'ed? Why does a guinea pig toy moo?) So, if he were to see an ad for a happy meal, and it was something that interested him, he would probably want it. But, you see, The Center for Science in the Public Interest, yeah, I'm talking to you now, that's kind of the part where I come in. No, he doesn't understand advertising, and yes, he's interested in pretty much every shiny thing that passes his field of vision, but it's my and hubs' responsibility as his parents to teach him how to eat properly and to take care of himself in the long term so that all the advertising in the world will pass by his field of vision and still allow him to grow up a healthy and happy adult (unless it's one of those Sham-Wow infomercials, I mean, I'm only human, I can't protect him from everything). But what you're doing here with this lawsuit is saying that not only am I powerless as a parent to teach my child how to eat right, but that it's not actually my responsibility, anyway. I can just let go of all of that, and if my kid ends up fat and unhealthy, LOOK! I have somebody to blame! It's totally not my fault, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest SAYS SO.

Seriously, what's wrong with us? Can't anybody take responsibility for anything? This article might as well be from the fucking Onion, but it's NOT. It's not a joke. Somebody really thinks Happy Meal toys should be illegal in the state that I live in. Because kids today are fat. And that, apparently, is where their argument ends, and they're not even joking! And countless number of parents will probably agree with them, too. They're probably the ones with the fat kids.



14 comments:

crystal said...

No ... they're the ones with the skinny-ass kids who never eat at McDonalds anyway and wouldn't know a Happy Meal toy if it hit 'em in the head. Freaking killjoys. Too busy eating tofu and alfalfa sprouts. They think up these lawsuits during their regular dumps on the throne.

jillsmo said...

I'm pretty sure I've been hit in the head with a happy meal toy once before

crogers said...

Jack in the Box does have happy meals. They are called "Kids Meals" and nobody wants them because the toys they come with are not hyped on TV/tied in with the latest Disney movie:

http://www.jackskidstoys.com/

I don't really know what my point is except: too many laws and too many lawyers.

jillsmo said...

Yeah, but their coffee sucks so who cares?!

crogers said...

Jesus. I had to click "Post Comment" like 5 times to get that to show up. I apologize if it appears 5 times. But hey, more comments is always a good thing, right?

jillsmo said...

I look so popular now!!!!

Nibor said...

To answer your question (one of them, anyway), no, nobody can take responsibility for anything. And I don't think it's because the responsibility has been lawyered or legalized out of them.

Basically, people are fuck-ups (am I allowed to curse here?) and will, given the opportunity, do the wrong thing at every turn. And those who are slightly less fucked up (notice that I'm cursing here whether I'm allowed to or not) end up paying for the greater fucked-uped-ness of other others in one way or another, or in every way.

So yeah, people need the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and laws and lawyers and anyone with the least bit of common sense and RESPONSIBILITY to prevent them from fucking stuff up for themselves and everyone else because no, they won't do it on their own.

Have a nice day.

Nibor said...

This makes my point more clearly:

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/06/this-is-why-ill-never-be-adult.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Hyperbole-and-a-half+%28Hyperbole-And-A-Half%29

(Okay, that was probably too long. Just go to the Hyperbole and a Half blog, via the link over there on your right.)

"Attention-deficit squirrel on PCP," indeed.

jillsmo said...

Okay, first of all, you're not fucking allowed to curse here, goddammit. I do enjoy you using Allie Brosh, my blog idol, as an example, though.

Secondly, what you're describing is The Nanny State, where the entire country get their rights eroded because a few of its citizens are stupid. I don't want my choices to be limited because people are stupid. That's their problem, not mine. Let Darwin take care of them. I know how to parent, I know how to keep my kids safe, I don't need any more laws and I certainly don't need any higher prices at McDonalds because they had to pay out a frivolous lawsuit settlement and they passed the cost onto me.

Call me a Libertarian. It's okay, I don't mind.

Nibor said...

A FEW of its citizens are stupid? Exactly how many times was George Bush elected president? (That's sort of a trick question.)

So what exactly are the "rights" that are being eroded here? The "right" of some company to put plastic shit (I did it again!) in food so that kids will whine so annoyingly that parents will buy it for them? Parents' "rights" to buy food with plastic shit in it?

You know that some stupid parents are going to sue McDonald's for making their kids fat via Happy Meal toys if the Center for Whatever doesn't sue them first to axe the toys. Either way, your coffee's gonna be more expensive.

Besides, evolution takes too long.

jillsmo said...

Wait. Did I mention the slippery slope before? Because I meant to mention the slippery slope before. Today: Happy Meal toys are illegal, and that's okay, because people are stupid. Tomorrow: You can't drive your car anymore, and that's okay, because people are stupid.

Nibor said...

The slippery slope is just part of sliding down the razor blade of life.

jillsmo said...

That's beautiful.

*sniff*

Lizze said...

I could comment on the article part of the post. But I won't. I choose instead to focus on the Zhu-Zhu Pets sentence. Maybe it was two sentences. Anyway, I don't know why they moo. I also don't know how they *know* when my children are asleep...wait! This would be much better on MY blog.

Never mind. Just know that I hate the Zhu-Zhu's too. And they keep multiplying here. *shivers*

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.