Pretty Exiguous Turmoil Attempt

I wouldn't consider myself an animal rights activist. I could never be a vegetarian, because I love bacon. That being said, I don't eat veal for moral reasons, nor would I ever consider wearing fur. I've watched PETA videos depicting the gory reality of factory farms and Chinese fur farms, and have been as shocked and disgusted as I'm sure the majority of people would be.

But there are times where I'm amazed that PETA even manages to exist, let alone be so popular amongst so many people. Some of their approaches and logic leave me dumbfounded. Most of the time it's just flipping hilarious. Since last night, I have been experiencing one of those moments of hilarity.

Baby seals are cute. Really cute. And helpless. The seal hunt, not so cute. I have no qualms against Inuit people hunting seals as part of their cultural livelihood and for survival, but I do have a problem with the large scale hunt for the sole purpose of fur harvesting. Unfortunately, this has been magnified into a Canadian problem that has turned into a festering public image sore for the nation. A large part of that is due to the attention laid upon it by PETA (which my 13 year old brother says stands for People Eating Tasty Animals...sorry, it fits with my mood and I think it's funny).

It is on that note that I bring your attention to PETA's current campaign regarding the seal hunt: Olympic Shame 2010. Their approach now is to take advantage of the current international focus on Canada surrounding the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver/Whistler. This is very clear in the design of the campaign, which features demonized versions of the 2010 mascots clubbing baby seals in an animated introduction, and a mimic of the Vancouver 2010 logo in the top right corner of the page where the inukshuk is now a person holding a club over a baby seal. Put your cursor over it for a surprise!

Now, this is not a bad approach. Many NGO's shifted their focus on China's human rights violations leading up to the 2008 Summer Olympics. It's a smart time to campaign when so many people are paying attention to the country in light of a huge international event. Certainly PETA cannot be faulted for adopting this approach.

But continue looking through the website, and you'll find...
HOLY CRAYOLA BATMAN! COLOURING PAGES!

That's right. My particular favourite is the one entitled "Evil Quatchi is Clubbing Seals!". 'Cause colouring is not just for kids (although Trix are). Here is mine (sadly it's blurry for some reason, but you get the idea)!


There is also a kid-friendly colouring page, "for your little one who loves baby seals." You'll also find e-cards and protest photos.

But the best part is how they plan to really hit Canada hard with their message. You may have noticed it if you clicked the above link for the home page. PETA's strategy is to "boycott a material that is VITAL to Canada's economy":

MAPLE SYRUP.

You have got to be shitting me.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Canada's primary exports include:

• motor vehicles and parts
• industrial machinery
• aircraft
• telecommunications equipment
• chemicals
• plastics
• fertilizers
• wood pulp
• timber
• crude petroleum
• natural gas
• electricity
• aluminum.
  

Did you read maple syrup in there? Yeah, me neither. Sure, Canada may very well produce 85% of the world's maple syrup, but that doesn't make it vital to our economy. How's that for a stereotype.

"...by buying this Canadian product, you are supporting Canadian cruelty." All you people who enjoy a little sugary treat a-top your Saturday morning pancakes and waffles - you are all shitty people. That's right. And if I drink milk, I'm supporting the veal industry. Only that message was narrated to me by Alec Baldwin. Breakfast is for sadists who don't care about animals.

Maple Syrup comes from a tree, for goodness sake! It has NOTHING to do with seals. ...gah. It saddens me that a lot of people are going to do this thinking that they're actually saving baby seals.

Good luck to you PETA. Thanks for the laughs, and the headache.

Emotional Reactions Do Not Equal Effective Ones

Unless you've been living under a rock, everyone in Canada knows about 8 year old Victoria Stafford. This is an undoubtedly tragic event, one that was not anticipated by many, and has unfortunately drawn comparisons to the cases of Paul Bernardo and
Karla Homolka. Not surprisingly, the circumstances surrounding this case have been drawing a heavy amount of criticism and emotional response from people throughout the country who are outraged that something like this could happen.

I stumbled across one of these responses today in the form of a group on Facebook, entitled "Tori's Law - Petition for tougher Laws!". The essential purpose of this group is as a starting ground for a petition demanding tougher laws for child offenders (meaning offenders who target children, as opposed to youth offenders who are young people that commit offences - confusing, I know), particularly in the form of mandatory sentences with no chance of parole. This is a natural response to this type of crime - we saw it before with the Holly Jones case and the petitions for Holly's Law featuring similar demands. As the introduction of this group specifically requested that people abstain from sharing their opinions on the matter, I am doing so here.

Signing a petition allows people who are powerless to do anything in the circumstances to at least help in an indirect way, and for many people it provides an opportunity to take action while acting as an outlet for their empathy and outrage. Signing a petition demanding change is their way of recognizing the circumstances, and making it known to the family of the victim that they have their sympathies.

These are by no means invalid reasons to sign a petition asking for tougher laws, and naturally these demands are very emotionally fueled. I do feel it necessary to provide an outside perspective on this for people to consider.

The reason for this demand is to prevent such offenders from being released early, thus eliminating the opportunity for these offenders to recidivate before having completed their mandatory sentences. There are significant problems with demanding tougher laws for child offenders, especially those that are being requested here. Namely, these approaches do not work and can in fact create more harm than good.

Many people become outraged in finding out that an offender, however serious, has been released on parole. I find this anger to be misinformed and misdirected. When offenders are released on parole, they are obliged to adhere to strict conditions regarding their movements, associations, counselling, and almost anything else under the rainbow that the judge may find appropriate to the circumstances. Furthermore, they are required to regularly attend appointments with their assigned parole officers. These individuals are not entirely free to behave however they wish, but instead are heavily supervised while living in the community. The purpose of parole is to reintegrate the individual into society while at the same time keeping close tabs on their behaviours so as to ensure that they live as law abiding, contributing members of society. When a parole condition is violated, such as by committing an offence, then that parole is revoked and they are more often than not sent back into custody.

When an offender is held in custody for the entirety of their sentence, they are released into the community with NO conditions, NO supervision, and NO means of monitoring their movements. It is possible to impose conditions following completion of a sentence, such as under s.810 of the Criminal Code which many may remember occurred following the release of Karla Homolka, but it is difficult to apply this and so it is not often what occurs. Instead, they are released cold turkey from the prison environment, left to their own devices to find their way in society and keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

Parole is community supervision in place of secure custody. For example, if an individual is sentenced to 10 years, and receives parole after 5, they they are supervised on parole for the remaining 5 years. That's 5 years of reintegration while having an additional resource to address underlying causes of their criminal behaviour, and assist offenders in managing triggers that may be found in the everyday happenings of society. When that opportunity is taken away, it is more likely that the individual will recidivate (re-offend) because they lose this support and often are unable to cope outside of the highly disciplined and monitored environment of secure custody.

Asking for mandatory sentences, otherwise known as mandatory minimum sentences, is all well and good, but longer, harsher sentences bring with them their own league of potential problems - primarily, they have not been shown to be any more effective. Longer custody sentences do not act as any greater a deterrent than a shorter rehabilitation-focused sentence. Furthermore, more severe sentences bring with them the possibility of a Brutalizing Effect. This is the primary reason why capital punishment is ineffective. The Brutalizing Effect is what occurs when, due to severe sanctions, offenders commit more serious crimes than they would normally in order to avoid conviction. For example, a sex offender is more likely to murder their victim in order to attempt to avoid a 25 year sentence than they would if there were a 10 year sentence.

It also must be said that the type of offenders that these demands are in relation to, mainly where there is a sexual element to the offence involving a child victim, are for the most part impervious to rehabilitation and have a very high likelihood of recidivism. Paraphilias, or sexual disorders which includes paedophilia, are in essence sexual orientations as much as they are perversions (which is purely a result of social constructs) and are engrained in the individual. Try to make your heterosexual male friend a homosexual - you won't likely succeed. The same is true with these individuals. Throwing them away in prison for a long time certainly removes them from society and incapacitates them from committing further offences, but it does not do so permanently...at least not initially. With these individuals in particular, parole becomes of incredible importance because we are able to maintain some level of control over the individual as opposed to absolutely no control once they have completed their sentences.


So what is the solution then to dealing with these types of offenders? Well from a punishment standpoint you need to look at the two C's: certainty and celerity. A higher likelihood than an offender will be charged for an offence, and the greater speed at which a charge is laid following the commission and detection of the offence are greater deterrents to criminal behaviour than simply having harsh sentences. You could have a life sentence for these types of offences - if it is known that there is a high likelihood that you will escape being charged, and that even if you are it won't occur for some time, then the length of the sentence becomes completely meaningless. Instead of asking for harsher sentences, instead ask for more specialized police resources dedicated to these types of offences and greater funding to support them. Harsher sentences do not address the problems leading to the individual's criminal behaviour.

Another solution could involve demanding better monitoring of student pick-ups at schools. Individuals picking up children could be required to show identification in order to ensure that they are the right individual to be taking the child, or be required to provide advance documentation when there is a change in the pick-up person. To achieve this, which is more of a preventative measure than a sanction, it would be necessary to demand greater funding to either school boards or police so that this service could be provided.


Since there is little that can be done in ways of altering the offending behaviour with these types of criminals (you cannot change those who do not wish to be changed, after all), the most important thing is to educate - your children, your siblings, your family and friends. Parents communicating this topic to their children, and discussing how to deal with strangers at an age appropriate level is a very important part in avoiding these tragedies. It is very easy to want to protect children from knowing of these evils, but ultimately discussing these situations with them and entrenching in them a sense of trust and confidence in you as a parent is the best protection that can be offered short of never letting children outside.

I realise that I may appear cold, detached, and completely lacking in sympathy and/or empathy, but I assure you that I am as disgusted and saddened by the circumstances as I'm sure you are. That being said, it does no one any service to make emotionally charged demands without first examining whether or not what you are asking for will in fact create the change that you desire.

But go ahead and demand away. Everyone will feel better to have done something, and with the current government it is very likely that the demands of this petition will be implemented. The Conservatives are all for "getting tough on crime". They're just looking for a reason to do it.

Implementing them will not solve the problem or even make it disappear, sadly. But what do I know...

In order to evaluate my qualifications in making these statements, please note that I am graduating in June with an Hon.BA in Criminology, am currently employed as an Assistant Youth Probation Officer, and am commencing studies for a JD at Osgoode Hall Law School this year.
Images retrieved from google image search.

Protests: The Bigger Picture

It's almost 4am, and I should really be in bed...but I couldn't sleep until I put in words what I've been thinking about.

I've just spent the past couple hours reading up on the situation in Sri Lanka, spurred by the continuing protests on University Avenue. It's very hard to determine precisely what is occurring in a country that refuses international entry, particularly by media, and so I will admit that I do not know a great deal about the situation. I'm not writing to comment on that anyway.

I would more so like to comment on the actual protest itself. There has been a lot of coverage regarding the protest, particularly since the group number has risen significantly and a section of University Avenue, the central downtown street lined by office buildings and three main hospitals, has been blocked off in front of the US Consulate. Naturally people form opinions regarding what is depcited to them through the media and what they have seen first hand, and thanks to the open forum that is the internet, we are able to see many of these opinions. Here are some select comments that I came across while reading National Post coverage online.

For the full article and comments, click here:

by mnolz Apr 27 2009 1:12 PM

Blocking a whole street and impairing ambulances, fire fighters & police from doing their jobs is no way to win over my heart & mind. Yes, tis sad what is happening to the Tamils but there is a reason the Tigers are on the terrorist list...they're terrorists!! Now, all you Tamils, back to work or no welfare for you!

by Darren in TO Apr 27 2009 3:42 PM

BBC is reporting that Sri Lanka is no longer using heavy weaponary. So these protestors can finally leave our streets alone, and stop disrupting our daily lives.

by Sarah54 Apr 27 2009 4:04 PM

I'm a Canadian and I'll protest whatever I think is important, whenever I want. That's my right, I pay taxes and I obey the law. If anyone has a problem with that then go live in Sri lanka or China where you won't be bothered by protests.

by Hara41 Apr 27 2009 4:55 PM

Sarah54 You can go naked if you want but don't disturb others. What you are doing is public disturbances.You have to learn the meaning of NO. Don't use Tamil Tiger Tactics in this country. And get rid of that ridicules flag with two AK47 and bullets.I hope Sri Lankan security forces will finish your terrorist leader very soon.Hope we will have a break at least then.

by gwestbound Apr 27 2009 5:13 PM

Sounds like the police are doing a fine job of looking after the protesters' rights. What about ordinary citizens' right to move unimpeded on the public streets?

For full article and comments, click here:

by john_97 Apr 28 2009 1:01 AM

...Torontonians don’t follow sri lanka news. They much prefer to criticize every move the united states makes because as of the last 30 yrs canadians have adopted the role of north america’s whining bitch. They follow hockey, baseball, football or their own personal life. They don’t want to be inconvenienced by having a street closed down for a day but the matter is that people including small children like your sons & daughters, elderly like your mothers & fathers are having clusters of bombs rained down from hell on them... ...Maybe Canadians are more racist than they think they are. Maybe they have spent so much time calling Americans racist that they forgot inaction to help an individual or a collective group of individuals because they are “other” (to quote obama who by the way has never experienced a day of racism in his entire life), or black, as are tamils, is racism! Come on Canadians! Practice what you preach! Help stop racism wherever it raises its putrid head! Or are you all a bunch of phonies who just like to point fingers & gossip like a bunch of old fuckin women! Closed down the street for a little while? Did they? Awh, that’s too bad.

by Dave_12 Apr 28 2009 9:13 AM

...No John-97, Tamils have no right to shut down our streets to protest your uprising some 7,000 miles away. ...It is only that our cowardly politicians and police are too frightened to respond properly to this illegal civil threat that you can do this.

by john_97 Apr 28 2009 8:14 PM

...It is perfectly legal to protest & demonstrate your grievances in Canada.. ...You don’t have the least clue the terrible racism & yes indiscriminate killings in sri lanka point does this killing become genocide? Easy for you to fluff it off. You live in a country that makes its citizens soft, weak, overindulgent,undisciplined, whimpering, whining, without compassion for a fellow human being.

by Jay Patel Apr 28 2009 10:47 PM

... TAMILS: (1) Get off our streets and do some work, make some money, and offer it for development, NOT TERRORISM.

So to summarize, there seem to be two general positions on this protest:

1. I live in Canada and I have a right to protest whatever I want, however I want as guaranteed to me by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If you refuse me that right, then you are racist.
2. I live in Canada and have a right to carry on my life day to day without undue interference from other people's grievances. Do not inconvenience me with your problems.

Yes, it is absolutely correct that all Canadian citizens and persons living in Canada are entitled to Fundamental Freedoms under Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

It is furthermore true that the second right I outlined is not an entrenched right in the Charter. That being said, that does not mean that simply because it is listed in the Charter that it is to be regarded as being of higher value or flaunted in spite of that right where it competes with your aims.

One of my professors this year put forth the idea that there are no rights without responsibilities, and it is a point of view with which I am in complete concurrence. Yes, these rights are guaranteed under the Charter, but that does not allow you to exercise your right with a complete disregard for the autonomy of others in society. Every citizen has a responsibility to acknowledge the rights of other citizens in order to claim rights themselves. The Tamil protesters have a responsibility to recognize the rights of every person travelling along University Avenue to not have their autonomy impeded unreasonably, just as every person has the responsibility to recognize the rights of these protesters as outlined in the Charter. Neither group of individuals can fully and justly claim their rights, in my humble opinion, unless they share this mutual recognition.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to respect. When the protesters were on the sidewalks, no one complained. The freedoms of the protesters of peaceful assembly and association were recognized without issue, and the people surrounding them were free to carry on their daily activities without impedement. There was mutual respect for the rights of each group of people, whether on a conscious or sub-conscious level. That mutual respect no longer exists. Currently the situation is one of competing rights, and the real issue as Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair stated is "striking the balance".

When one group decides to exercise their rights over the threshold of mutual respect, and thus do so in disregard of the rights of others, they may garner more attention for their cause but they lose any support from laypersons. Particularly those who have been unduly impacted by their actions. Just ask the Ontario farmers how well it worked out for them.

Respect for one's cause is not something that any person is entitled to - it is something to be earned. It has to be remembered that just as you are entitled to your freedom of thought and expression so is everyone else in the country, and they are equally entitled to disagree with your thoughts and cause. If you are going to put your rights above those of another individual, it should come as no surprise that you do not have their respect for your efforts or agreement with your cause. And that does not in and of itself make someone racist or intolerant.

At the same time, roads are closed all the time for various reasons. It is inconvenient, yes, but not impossible to deal with. Realistically, a closed block of street is the least of anyone's concerns nowadays.

Eventually this will all end - the protesters will cease their protesting, the road will re-open, and everyone will get on with their lives just as they were before. But maybe, just maybe, everyone will come out of it with a little bit more understanding.

Image by Ren Hui Yoong from The Varsity

"It goes on and on and on and on..."

I would like it to be known that Journey = awesome. Don't believe me? Well, did you know that one of the most epic songs in existence costs $1.29 on iTunes, above the normal $0.99? That is proof of quality my friends.

Come on, how could you not charge extra for a song this excellent?

Don't Stop Believin'

Just a small town girl
Livin' in a lonely world
She took the midnight train goin' anywhere

Just a city boy
Born and raised in south Detroit
He took the midnight train goin' anywhere

A singer in a smoky room
A smell of wine and cheap perfume
For a smile they can share the night
It goes on and on and on and on

Strangers waiting
Up and down the boulevard
Their shadows searching in the night
Streetlight people
Living just to find emotion
Hiding somewhere in the night

Working hard to get my fill
Everybody wants a thrill
Payin' anything to roll the dice just one more time

Some will win, some will lose
Some were born to sing the blues
Oh, the movie never ends
It goes on and on and on and on

Strangers waiting
Up and down the boulevard
Their shadows searching in the night
Streetlight people
Living just to find emotion
Hiding somewhere in the night

Don't stop believin'
Hold on to that feelin'
Streetlight people

Don't stop believin'
Hold on to that feelin'
Streetlight people

Don't stop believin'
Hold on to that feelin'
Streetlight people

Listen to the song and tell me it's not fantastic. It's effing brilliant. And look at these guys:


Epic. You'd best be believin'. I'm a believer! Oh wait...

Image retrieved from google image search

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff...And Trust Me, This is Small Stuff

I'm sure it won't come as a total surprise that I am writing about this, however I feel it is worthy of comment.

This was first brought to my attention on the way home this evening while listening to 680 News. I was not completely in the know until I managed to stumble across it in a way I cannot currently remember. Take the time to watch it first before reading on so that you can be completely in the know.

Okay, so what do we have here? It really depends who you ask. According to the majority of the 11,000+ comments on the video, it is just another typical demonstration of "American ignorance" towards Canada, and just another reason why Fox is the asshole of American news networks. And they're right to an extent.

Since this has been aired, the host Greg Gutfeld has issued an apology, and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and his department accepted it after contacting Fox Networks earlier in the day to demand one. Gutfeld also had this to say on his Twitter:

"My apologies to the Canadian military, they probably could at least beat the Belgians"

His official apology came off as being more sincere...

It is completely understandable why so many people are outraged about this, given the fact that four Canadian soldiers just travelled down the Highway of Heroes today. It would be an untruth for me to say that I was not offended by this video. I found it to be completely distasteful, disrespectful towards the sacrifices of our soldiers and their families, and most of all saturated in ignorance. My heart goes out to the families of these soldiers and others who have no doubt been exposed to this as a result of the attention it is receiving (it was covered on the 11pm edition of Global National News).

There are some things you do not poke fun at, and the military of a country engaged in active war is one of those things in my books. Despite your sentiments and thoughts regarding the legitimacy and merit of the war in Afghanistan, I think it is safe to say that all Canadians found this to be a shot below the belt. This goes for any country and any war - soldiers are sacrificing their lives, some without a choice in the matter, and that is something to be respected or at the very least civilly acknowledged. You do not need to agree with their position, but I feel it is necessary to respectfully acknowledge their willingness to sacrifice their lives on behalf of their country.

But before everyone flies off the handle, let's take a step back and look at this for what it really is: a show we'd previously never knew existed comprised of a panel of American nobodys who did nothing but make complete fools of themselves.

Red Eye is aired at 3am on weekdays, and it is aired at that time for a reason: it is not a quality show. It is intended to be a satirical news program, much like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report only with more suck, featuring a panel of individuals who make off the cuff remarks on the subject at hand. Immediately we know that nothing said on this show is meant to be taken seriously, but it goes without saying that this does not excuse their targetting and off-hand remarks regarding Canadian soldiers. Especially because it is impossible for this topic to have been chosen without any knowledge of the number of good Canadian soldiers that have been lost in Afghanistan.

Let's look further at the panel featured on this episode: who in fact are these people?

Greg Gutfeld graduated from UC Berkeley, and has been a writer for Prevention and Men's Health magazines. He went on to become editor-in-chief of Men's Health and most notably Maxim UK. He was once a contributor to The Huffington Post and now runs his own blog entitled The Daily Gut. He has also published two books: The Scorecard at Work: The Official Point System for Keeping Score in the Relationship Game and Lessons from the Land of Pork Scratchings.

Doug Benson is a stand-up comedian who was recently a contestant on Last Comic Standing. He is known for doing his comedy bits high, and was named "Stoner of the Year" in 2006 by High Times Magazine.

Bill Schulz is a regular writer and panelist on Red Eye, and an All-American. He is a direct descendant of William Dawes Jr., who rode with Paul Revere to warn the colonial minutemen about the advancement of the British. He has this to say on his Twitter:

"To all canadians that keep emailing me: R u really from the land of SCTV and jim carrey? Lighten the fuck up. ."

Monica Crowley has a BA in Political Science from Colgate University and a PhD in International Relations from Columbia University. She acted as Foreign Policy Assistant to former President Richard Nixon from 1990-1994. She has a radio show entitled The Monica Crowley Show and has appeared in a number of Fox Network shows. She is best known for allegations of plagiarism and off-colour remarks about President Barack Obama during the Democrat Presidential Primary.

Most of us likely did not know who any of these people were prior to seeing this video, and there is a good reason for that: these are not notable Americans. They are not prominently in the public spotlight, and frankly are not known for much. To put it into perspective, they're appearing as panelists on a show that comes on at 3am. So why do we care so much about what they have to say? What makes their remarks and opinions regarding the Canadian military worth the fuss we're making over it?

They don't matter. If they were based on an ounce of fact, then perhaps the outcry would be worth it, but there is no fact. If there were, there would not be references to outdated ideals of Manifest Destiny or to the stereotypes of the RCMP. Let's not forget that many RCMP officers have been lost in the line of duty as well, and they deserve just as much respect as our soldiers do.

Lines such as "Is it not the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country?" courtesy of Mr. Gutfeld and "This is not a smart culture." from Mr. Schulz definitely are not taken kindly, but remember who these people are. They're nobody of importance to anyone in Canada, and so it's not worth investing so much disdain in the ignorance that so unfortunately leaves their mouth. But it is furthermore important to remember that these people do not represent all Americans - in fact, far from it. It makes no sense to generalize your dislike of the videos to all Americans, as this is not demonstrable of "American ignorance" or of the "American perception of Canada". The only people they have had the misfortune in representing is themselves, and their remarks only reflect poorly on them - no one else.

This primarily goes out to everyone who has taken the time to write a comment on the video, and the many people who have likely created accounts with YouTube in order to do so - you are no better than those panelists when you start to misdirect your ill feelings towards Americans as a whole. Be the better people here, and take out your frustrations on those who created it only.

Peter MacKay had the right idea when he said:

"I don't think we should dignify this with more commentary other than to say it's highly regrettable..."

It's happened, and it's time to move on. It just isn't worth fretting about such a blatant display of stupidity.

But there is one positive to come out of this. Look at the huge display of Canadian patriotism that's happening as a result! There is plenty to be said about that, but that is a topic for another post...

Images retrieved from google image search.

A Catastrophe of Nugget Proportions

It's wonderful little tidbits such as this that make procrastination worthwhile.

In Fort Pierce, Florida, 27 year old Latreasa Goodman phoned 911 a total of three times after being informed that McDonald's was out of chicken McNuggets after placing and paying for her 10-piece order.

She was later quoted as saying to police:

This is an emergency, If I would have known they didn't have McNuggets, I wouldn't have given my money, and now she wants to give me a McDouble, but I don't want one.

She attempted to get a full refund, but was informed that all sales were final by the cashier, who according to her 911 call was also the manager. You can listen to the recordings of the first and second 911 calls here and here. She is now facing a misuse of 911 charge.

Are you done laughing yet? Perhaps you are too flabbergasted to laugh?

Is this the extent of North American consumer culture, that it now becomes an emergency worthy of police involvement when we don't receive precisely what we've ordered? It's not as if she was being refused her food, she was simply being offered an alternative, larger portion of food for the same price due to the lack of chicken McNuggets. This is something that happens in various restaurants across the world everyday. For those of you unfamiliar, as I was, the McDouble is the new name for a Double Cheeseburger.

Oh, but that isn't chicken. That's mystery beef. So order a McChicken? No thanks, I'll just call the police instead.

There was a time when I would respond to this type of story with "This could only happen in the United States," but sadly I would be no more surprised to hear of this happening in a McDonald's in my city. The sense of self-entitlement that exists amongst so many people these days, across all generations, never ceases to amaze and disgust me. How any person could look at this situation and view it as an "emergency" is entirely mind-boggling to me. We don't even need to ask ourselves whether she gave thought to the fact that she would be pulling police officers off of their regular patrol in order to tend to her "crisis", either taking them away from real emergencies or from being able to prevent criminal activity, which is in fact their job. We know she gave no thought other than to her own situation and needs. Three 911 calls tells us that.

McDonald's had this to say about the incident:

Satisfying each and every customer that visits our restaurants is very important to us.
Regarding this isolated incident, we apologize for the inconvenience caused.
In the event that we are unable to fill an order, a customer should be offered the choice of a full refund or alternative menu items. We regret that in this instance, that wasn't the case.
We want to correct our mistake. We will be sending the customer her refund, along with an Arch card for a complimentary meal on us.
We never want to disappoint a McNuggets fan or any McDonald's customer.
Customer satisfaction is our top priority.

Carlos Solorzano
McDonald's Operations Manager Florida Region

Holy Sweet and Sour Sauce Batman! Not only is she now going to get her refund, but she's also going to get a complimentary meal to correct the mix-up that caused her mental anguish. That's just fantastic. Back in the day, McDonald's would have heard this story and likely just laughed. Now they have to "cover their ass" to prevent a possible civil suit.

My favourite part of all of this is that if she had just given a little more thought to the situation, and directly called the police station rather than 911, she would have still gotten the police involvement she felt was so necessary AND her refund without the misuse of 911 charge.

Isolated incident right? WRONG! In Boynton Beach, Florida, roughly a month earlier Jean Fortune placed a 911 call when the Burger King he had just placed his order with informed him that they did not serve lemonade, with additional complaints that his food was taking too long to cook and that the employee was rude to him. He hadn't paid for anything. Not surprisingly, he was also charged with misuse of 911. You can listen to his 911 call here. This one is great, because unlike Latreasa's calls the 911 operator tells Jean like it is:

The Police are not for customer service complaints. They are not here to respond to your beck and call.

We can only hope that these charges teach Latreasa and Jean the proper function and purpose of 911, and that others will learn from these stories.

People are so consumed with their own rights to live as autonomous individuals that they forget that it's necessary to respect the autonomy of others to maintain order - you cannot do what you will as you will, your actions must be curbed to respect the rights of others. There are no rights without limitations. The sooner people all over the world - of all ages, races, and cultures - learn that, the better.

Does anyone else want McNuggets right now?

**McNugget photo from google image search. Burger King drink image from Flickr by "di+mars".

Fail and Update

I haven't posted anything in over a month. Wow. That is so fail.

Things have been so stressful and busy lately that I just haven't had the time to sit down and write. And I've had so many ideas! I definitely need to become more in-tune with this blogging business and post more regularly.

I figure to get the ball rolling I might as well make this an update of my chewing gum abstinence rather than just a "Wow-I-fail-at-blogging" post. Dare I say it, I'm succeeding? ...not quite.

Immediately after my dentist appointment, it actually was going well. I really took what he said to heart, and since I only had one pack of gum left and am poor I quickly finished off the pack so that I had no gum left to chew. That being said, I definitely chewed each piece for much longer than the recommended 5 minutes. Try 5 hours. When they say Stride gum is everlasting, they are not kidding my friends.

So I ran out, and had gone for two weeks without gum. I was sitting here on my computer when my brother walks in. He pulls from behind his back 10 packages of gum. TEN! He offers them all to me, saying I can take as many as I want.

I honestly felt like a recovering drug addict having a vial or crack rocks or something equally illicit dangled in front of my face. I took half of them. These are packs of gum I don't even like. Shortly after, I found a pack of Stride gum I had gotten for Christmas in my room. Awesome.

I will proudly report that I still have all of these packs of gum, a couple in various states of consumption. Do I only chew pieces for 5 minutes? Absolutely not. That is just a waste of good gum. But at least I'm not chewing multiple pieces of gum a day...at least, not every day.

In summation, it's a work in progress. If someone from Stride wants to give me a PR job for the two mentions I gave you in this blog though, that'd be fantastic. I need the money.