Don't Toy with Mickey D's!

McDonald's was recently sued by a mother of two, Monet Parham. Along with nutrition and healthy food safety advocate, The Center for Science in the Public Interest. They demand McDonald's remove toys from Happy Meals, CSPI  claims it violates California law, making  meals too appealing to kids, causing overeating and life long obesity. I ask, What do the toys have to do with obesity? McDonald's now offers substitutes for Happy Meals, apples for fries, milk for soda. Happy Meals do not equal obesity. Parham also claims her childern's persistance for the meal causes her to spend money she wasn't intending to spend and causes her children to pout. She states, "We have to say no to our kids so many times and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat." Michael Jacobson, CSPI's executive director compared the tactics to tobacco companies marketing to kids with things like Joe Camel. This suit is ridiculous to say the least. Parents are the authority, with the means to purchase what their childeren consume. There are far better and more significant issues to sue a company over.

Why McDonald's?  Its not  the only fast food chain who provide a toy with their kid's meal. Chickfila, Dairy Queen, Sonic, Burger King, Whataburger, also offer toys, just to name a few.Where are their lawsuits? Toys aren't just "toys" some toys offered are educational, some are story books and some promote current movies.. A toy in the kid's meal should be a postive for parents, you can feed your child and offer them a toy for under 4 bucks. When I was younger I recall collecting the Barbies given in my Happy Meals, and the small Disney Princess figures like Snow White and Cinderella, would be used as decoration in the huge hair bows my mom would make me as a child. I have very found memories of McDonald's toys growing up. McDonald's says it is proud of its Happy Meals and will defend the company's brand, its reputation and its food. "We stand on our 30-year track record of providing a fun experience for kids and families at McDonald's," said Bridget Coffing, a company spokesperson.  Now being a parent myself I don't share the same attitude toward happy Meal toys as the Parham. If my daughter wants McDonald's and its not something I am willing to buy that day, I wont, period. She can throw a fit, and she will forget about it 5 minutes later, very simple.

If this case were to rule in the favor of the Parham it would set precedent that would allow too many silly lawsuits that will waste the court's time and money. For example, a wife could now sue a strip club and say, "Strip club X has half and sometime fully naked women advertised to my husband, and well he can't help himself to go in there. Thus spending his paycheck, leaving us in debt. Now I want to sue Strip club X for millons of dollars and demand the entertainers to be fully clothed." Or a husaband can sue Lancome or Estee Lauder (leading cosmetic comapnies) for advertising  "free gifts with purchase" because "My wife spends all her money on cosmetics when the "free gift" is being offered, and she is being lured by Beauty Consultants as she walk by the counters. Lancome and Estee Lauder should discontinue this free gift event and stop the Beauty Consulants from talking to my wife." Sound silly right? This Happy Meal Lawsuit is just as silly and is clearly a way of blaming someone else for bad parenting. The court system is designed to protect the people and our rights, not as a place to make a quick million, or to point the finger to avoid their short comings as a parents.

Wheres the "Deets"?

 

In search for a topic for our Blog 6 assignment to critique a classmate's Blog I came across Government for the People 2011's  "No guns on campus!" article. I agree- strongly agree with my classmate's stand on the debate, its not a good idea. As I read the opening paragraph, I wondered ...Who is debating? Congress? ACC? Texas? UT? As well as, What would the outcome be, if those for guns on campus would win this debate? I would have liked there to be a source of the debate to better understand the extent of the debate. I just now Googled  "guns on campus" and discovered Arizona has approved, guns to be carried on "public right aways" roads and sidewalks. The proposal originally allowed guns  to be carried in campus buildings as well. But if a person with a gun is going from "a" to "b" on a sidewalk and "b" is a classroom, are they going to drop off their weapon before entering the classroom?  7 states are debating on allowing guns on campus, including Texas. Knowing the debate is a national occurrence and could be approved in Texas, has now emotionally has heightened my stand against the debate. 

Cho Seung-Hui was the shooter of the Virginia Tech Masacare.

      My classmate made valid points on why he is against guns on campus. More guns, more casualties, gun related violence causes post traumatic stress syndrome, stray bullets can injure bystanders, officers on campus are trained to be diplomatic and rarely if ever resort to weapon use. All true, but where are the examples of these points? Sadly within in the past 20 years there are countless examples of why guns on campus should be avoided. April 2007, 32 killed  at Virgina Tech, and the shooter killing himself.  April 1999 Columbine High School, 12 students and 1 teacher dead and 21 wounded, these are just two infamous events that I can recall vividly watching unfold on CNN, many young lives lost. Guns do

n't just kill others,they are also a self endangerment as well just last week a 15 year old student took her own life with a gun in a Leander High School bathroom. Even if the gun carrier has no bad intentions there are still chances of accidents. 

       My classmate chose a great subject to blog about, we in this class can all relate since we are all college students who will be on campus and could be directly effected if Texas were to pass the gun proposal.The points given by my classmate i feel could have been stronger by using concrete examples similar to  the ones I just gave. Its a serious subject, with fatal consequences and could have better been defended.