How A Busybody College Instructor Got Herself Banned From McDonald’s
I came across this article that I thought raised several issues. First, the story.
It seems that Chandler, Arizona resident Erin Carr Jordan was at her local McDonald’s with her kids when she took a closer look at the play space in the restaurant. To her surprise, she found it disgusting (and why wouldn’t it be that way? Kids were crawling all over it!) and subsequently complained to the manager. During ensuing visits she found the play space still didn’t meet her standards.
So, what did she do when faced with this potential bubonic plague of a threat to civilization?
- Did she simply decide to not patronize the offending McDonald’s and take her kids to a local park? I mean, there are no germs in a public park, right?
- Did she write a letter to the management, perhaps informing them why she no longer planned to patronize their establishment? Unlike government monopolies, such as the post office or the DMV (and even educational institutions, in some cases), private companies need business to survive and generally respond well to reasonable (key word there) complaints.
Of course not!
Instead, she actually had samples taken, which were then analyzed by a lab. The result? Horrors! All kinds of pathogens were found! She then went on a crusade, complaining to the manager, bothering other parents in the McDonald’s about her findings, and just made such a nuisance of herself that her local McDonald’s actually banned her from their restaurants. Who would have thought that was possible?
I think this story nicely illustrates some real differences in how conservative/libertarians view the world vs lefty progressive types. To wit:
- If you find something in a restaurant you don’t like, simply stop doing there? If you’re really gung ho, write a letter saying why you are no longer visiting the premises. Why go on a regulatory crusade?
- Isn’t she interested in finding out how many plagues can be linked back to McDonald’s playgrounds? I have a guess at this number – 0.
- Why isn’t she interested in the pathogen count in public playgrounds? Or at public libraries? Why pick on McDonald’s?
- For that matter, why not do a check for pathogens on kids themselves? Is she not aware how unhygienic they are? They pick their nose and eat it. They eat glue. They drink from dog bowls, for crying out loud. Maybe we should get “at the root causes” and mandate that all kids should be encased, bubble boy like, in plastic?
- Isn’t she slightly worried that if she gets her wish and some new regularity framework is set up, that many restaurants, including McDonald’s, might decide that having a play area is just not worth the bother?
As a conservative/libertarian type I accept that fact that the world is not perfect. However, I know that any attempts to fix that come with costs that must always be weighed. It seems to be that the Erin Carr Jordan’s of the world have their risk/cost meters seriously out of adjustment. What do you think the pathogen count would be if you did a count in her fridge?
What do you think? Would you be at all surprised if I told you that Erin Carr Jordan was a college instructor? Aren’t you kind of impressed that she was banned (I LOVE that part, actually, makes me want to buy a Big Mac in solidarity)? What do you think it reveals about the progressive mindset?
Related articles
- Dr. Erin Carr-Jordan, Mother of 4, Banned from AZ McDonald’s (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)
- Mom Gets Banned From McDonald’s For Wanting To Be Clean! (wycd.radio.com)
- Specialist Says that the Filth at McDonald’s Playgrounds Can Kill Your Child (cutie79.wordpress.com)
Barack Obama Quote Of The Day
“Is it foolish to think that a nation stained by centuries of slavery and racism is prepared to elect a black president? Rarely phrased so bluntly, that’s the central question posed by Barack Obama’s candidacy — especially for many African-American voters, whose doubts are informed by having seen many an oasis turn out to be a mirage.” – Eugene Robinson, writing in the Washington Post, Dec 11, 2007
This quote, from the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, I think accurately portrays the skepticism that many black’s had to the possibility of a black president being elected. This is why so many black’s at this point were Hillary Clinton as opposed to Barack Obama supporters. They seriously underestimated how badly white America wanted to vote for a black president.
On a side note I’m debating whether to use the term ‘African American’ more instead of ‘Black’. To me it is a somewhat silly term. Is there anything wrong with being called ‘Black’ or ‘Brown’ or ‘White”. Further, how would you describe someone like Nelson Mandela? A little heavy on the ‘African’, light on the ‘American’, if you ask me.
The 1% the 99% SHOULD be protesting
Currently, the “We are the 99%” and the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd are (in theory) protesting against the “1%”. The problem is that these 1 percent make up the people who create and invent new goods and services for people. They are protesting the most productive people around. Societies that lack these people collapse. However, there is another 1% that the protesters SHOULD be protesting. This 1 percent really does live parasitically off the other 99 percent. Who makes up this villainous class? The STATE. Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. of the Mises institute has more on this here:
The State Is the 1 Percent
Related articles
Barack Obama Quote Of The Day
“I want Barack Obama to be president,in 2016. It’s not a matter of being inexperienced. It’s a matter of being young … there’s a certain level of maturity … you’ve got to learn to take a certain amount of (expletive) … There are more black people that Bill and Hillary lean on, you cannot be president alone. … To put a brother in there by himself is to set him up for crucifixion. His time will come and the world will be ready for a visionary leadership.” – Civil rights icon Andrew Young, explaining why he doesn’t believe Obama’s time is now, largely due to his lack of a support network, Dec 10, 2007
I think this quote showed some prescience on Andrew Young’s part. Due to his inexperience, Obama didn’t have a support network of any kind coming in. Reagan had Reagan people, Clinton had Clinton people. Who did Obama have? This is the reason there were so many leftovers, particularly from the Clinton years, in his administration. The line about learning to take a certain amount of (expletive) is noteworthy as well. If you’re going to pass legislation in a truly bipartisan way you have to learn to take some hits. I was never a John McCain fan as a politician, but this is what he did constantly. When he worked with Kennedy on immigration reform it nearly cost him the nomination. Obama initially supported this effort, but bailed when the temperature got too hot. Obama never learned what it takes to get things done, as he never got anything done.
We don’t have to surrender to public-sector unions
This article by Neil Reynolds looks at the history of public sector unions and why they’re a problem. In my mind, I’ve come to the conclusion that in most cases public sector unions simply shouldn’t exist. They are fundamentally different from private sector unions for two reasons:
- Unlike a private company, the government has no incentive to keep costs down. It can’t go out of business. There is no bottom line for a government. It can agree to almost anything and simply raise taxes or add on more debt.
- Public union members are also voters. When a government gives rich contracts to public sector unions it is literally buying votes. This is a huge conflict of interest that is simply wrong.
All over the western world, public sector pay and benefits are far more lavish than their private sector counterparts. In order to bring things into line public sector wages and benefits should be tied to whatever the going rate is in the private sector. If we don’t want to wind up like Greece, I don’t see any other way. Here’s the article:
We don’t have to surrender to public-sector unions
Cuckoo for Switzerland
I came across this article from the American Enterprise Institute on the success of Switzerland. Switzerland, in my view, is a prime example of the benefits of an English Style, bottom up society. In Switzerland, due to its system of citizen based referenda and it preference of keeping decision making as close to the people as possible, is now one of the most successful countries in the world. Read on to learn more about Switzerland’s success.
Related articles
- Top 100 Startups Based in Switzerland (centernetworks.com)
Obama Quote Of The Day
“If, as president, I travel to a poor country to talk to leaders there, they will know I have a grandmother in a small village in Africa without running water, devastated by malaria and AIDS. What that allows me to do is talk honestly not only about our need to help them, but about poor countries’ obligation to help themselves. There are cousins of mine in Kenya who can’t get a job without paying an exorbitant bribe to some midlevel functionary. I can talk about that.”
“I have lived in the most populous Muslim country in the world, had relatives who practiced Islam. I am a Christian, but I can say I understand your worldview, although I may not agree with how Islam has evolved. I can speak forcefully about the need for Muslim countries to reconcile themselves to modernity in ways they have failed to do.” – Obama, speaking on why his biography will allow him to deal differently with the world, Dec 10, 2007
I think this quote really demonstrates Obama’s overestimation of the value of his story in relation to the rest of the world. Saying “I can relate to you” may help in an AA meeting, but nations often have competing interests. Saying “I can relate to you” isn’t going to convince Iran give up its nuclear program, for example. In fact, it is likely to have just the opposite effect as the Iranian leadership would likely find it amazing that the leader of the world’s most powerful country could believe in such touchy-feely notions. If I were the leader of a rogue nation, and Obama said this to me, I would take it as a signal to step on the gas before reality wises him up.
Related articles
- Quote of the day, “Obama’s campaign and metaphors” edition (crushliberalism.com)
- Quote in context (alhittin.com)
The Great Green Energy Crackup
Patrick Michaels has a great article today on “The Great Green Energy Crack-Up”. It outlines how so many of the promised green technologies are not panning out. To me this demonstrates how far too few people realize that the price system is an information system, and an incredibly complicated one at that. When a government comes in top down style and says X is preferable to Y, it misses untold reasons as to Y was choice #1 to begin with. Being addicted to oil is really just another way of saying addicted to a cheap and plentiful energy supply.
Obama Quote Of The Day
“Hillary Clinton is running from the center, John Edwards is running from the left. And Obama is running from above. He wants to be above politics.” – Dennis Goldford, a Drake University political scientist, Dec 8, 2007
Obviously, this is not quote from Brarack Obama, but it is about him. I think this quote goes a long way to explaining the initial appeal of the Obama candidacy. At this point Obama was still considered a long shot over Hillary Clinton, but he was beginning to make some headway. One of the reasons for this was that he spoke to Americans who wanted to be part of something more, something beyond politics. This is why so many of Obama’s early campaign appearances took on the the feeling of a religious revival. He was promising something more than politics as usual, vote for me because Republicans are bad etc. He saw fault everywhere and offered the promise that he could transcend it, much as he transcended race. Hillary was running a conventional campaign from the centre, whereas Obama was above it all right from the beginning.
Why Tesla is Doomed to Extinction and Electric Cars are the real Dinosaurs
In the movie Jurassic Park “chaos expert” Ian Malcolm is immediately skeptical of John Hammond’s attempts to bring dinosaurs back from extinction. In his view dinosaurs have been tried and found wanting. Evolution consigned them to the scrap heap of history for a reason, he notes, and trying to bring them back is to demonstrate unforgivable arrogance in the face of nature’s judgement.
This thought occurred to me when I was reading about the recent introduction of the Tesla Model S Sedan. Unlike the models put out by the likes of GM and Nissan (with the Volt and LEAF respectively) Tesla has captured the public’s imagination. It’s an electric car that’s actually sexy. Not only will you be helping the environment (in theory) you’ll look good too. Who doesn’t want one?
Well, I don’t. Here’s why. Much like how nature and evolution have pronounced judgement on the viability of dinosaurs, so too has the market spoken on electric cars. The truth is that there is nothing new about electric cars at all. When cars were in their Jurassic stage electric cars roamed the Earth, along with their gas guzzling brethren. However, overtime they were out-competed by the gas powered variety and died a natural, evolutionary death. May they rest in peace.
However, just like how John Hammond refused to accept nature’s judgement, so to are there people who insist on ignoring the markets lessons. Hence, the Tesla (and the EV-1, LEAF, Volt, etc). I canvassed Ricochet readers (the place for intelligent right of center discussion on the web) for their opinions, and these are some of the responses I got:
First of all, electric cars are not that environmentally friendly. 44.9% of electricity in the United States comes from coal. Only 6.9% comes from Hydro (which most environmentalists don’t even like) and 3.6% from renewables. To generate the power needed for a country full of Tesla’s you’re going to have to build a lot more coal, nuclear, and hydro electric power plants. Is that really the best for the environment?
The real sticking point for the Tesla though, is that same as its always been, namely its reliance on batteries. Read this article for a story on the issues encountered with the battery life in a Tesla Roadster. It’s not pretty. What’s more, those same batteries will cost up to $30,000 dollars to replace after 5 ears. Fuel, not batteries, remain the best energy storage system we have by a country mile. The Tesla doesn’t change this.
Having said all of that I still have a ton of respect for Elon Musk. Making his money from Paypal, he has put most of his fortune into bankrolling Tesla (as well as SpaceX) in order to try and make something new. If we’re going to get the North American economy going again, we need more Elon Musk’s. Still, like John Hammond, I think he’s let the dream cloud his judgement. Let them rest in peace.
Related articles
- Tesla Model S Gets Sneak Preview (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)
- My Dream Date With A $109,000 Electric Car, The Tesla Roadster (TSLA) (businessinsider.com)
