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.

...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.

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!)