McDonalds Rips Off Patron

Latreasa Goodman thought she was in a legitimate business when she walked into a Fort Pierce McDonalds last week. But after paying for her 10 piece McNuggets, Goodman was told they were out of the chicken dish.

And things got ugly.

When Goodman turned down an offer of a burger to replace the chicken, she was informed that "all sales were final." The cashier refused to refund her money, even though they are obligated to do so by law; you can't collect money for goods or services you can't deliver.

Irate, Goodman decided to call the police; after all, McDonald's was ripping her off.

Unfortunately, she called 911 instead of the direct line. And worse, she called 911 three times.

Goodman was served a notice to appear on a misuse of 911 charge.

Yes, Goodman was wrong to call 911 over the matter. But McDonald's was wrong to take Goodman's money when they could not deliver the product they promised. Once Goodman turned down the offer of a substitute, her money should have been refunded immediately.

You see, what the clueless idiot at the McDonald's register failed to take into account is that a sale isn't final until the agreed upon product has been delivered. While offering a replacement is a good business practice, you can't force someone to accept a product they don't want. The customer wanted McNuggets, and when they ran out, they were obligated to offer a choice: a replacement, or a refund.

If McDonalds has been forcing patrons to accept food they didn't order or lose their money, they are breaking the law, and should be dealt with; firmly and harshly. One hopes that this clear violation of the law is limited to the one restaurant. But I'd be hesitant to do business with McDonald's until I know that they've corrected the situation, and an error this size calls for some staffing changes at a minimum.

Let that be a warning to you: McDonald's might rip you off, and if they do, call the police business line and not 911.

Right-Wing America's Beloved Junkie

I hate writing about certain people. I feel that I'm falling into their trap by dignifying their drivel by The mentioning their names.

And that's why I will be using an anagram to discuss America's Addict, a man I shall henceforth refer to as "Shah Limb Guru." If you really want to know his real name, feel free to run it through an anagram server.

Now, I don't why anyone thinks that this junkie ever says anything worth listening to.

When Prince Georgie W was president, I knew he was going to fail, but I hoped I was wrong, and I said so.

"I think Bush is going to make a mess of things," I'd say, "But I really hope I'm wrong."

But not the GOP's top drug abuser; he's stated on the record that he hopes that our President fails us.

When he's not spewing hate while accusing those who notice he's spewing hate of being haters themselves, this celebrity druggie swings from getting the facts wrong to simply lying outright.

Chez at Deus Ex Malcontent illustrates the manner in which the GOP's Junkie parades his ignorance on a daily an hourly basis:

"We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. Liberty, Freedom. And the pursuit of happiness."

I'm sure you do, pookie, but that doesn't make it true. The preamble to the Constitution actually goes like this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The sad part is that he stated this during a speech in which Shah Limb Guru was accusing President Barack Obama of "bastardizing" the Constitution. Like Shah Limb Guru would even know, given that he doesn't know how the preamble goes.

Why anybody pays any attention to this clueless blowhard is beyond me.

Dictionary Fun with the Miami-Dade Police

According the the Miami Herald, a woman died last night when a Miami-Dade Police car collided with her Nissan.

WSVN reported that the police were trying to pull over the driver:

According to a news release... Police followed the car and tried to pull over the driver, but instead collided with the Nissan Altima that the woman was driving.

The Herald spoke with Det. Bobby Williams:

''They were not chasing the vehicle, they were following it,'' he said. ``There was no reason for their [sirens and lights] to be on because they were not in a pursuit and were not initiating a traffic stop.''

Det. Williams said much the same thing to CBS4:

"He was not in 'pursuit' of anyone," Williams said. "He was following this vehicle when the accident occurred."

So, Det. Bobby Williams would have us believe that "pursuit" is a completely different word from "following." Perhaps he's right. As you know, when people use words in a manner that seems contrary to common sense, I like to turn to the dictionary:

pur·sue
Pronunciation: \pər-ˈsü, -ˈsyü\
Function:verb
Inflected Form(s)pur·sued; pur·su·ing
transitive verb
1: to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat
2: to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : seek <pursue a goal>
3: to proceed along <pursues a northern course>

synonyms; see chase

OK, no surprises there. Now let's see what it says about 'follow:'

fol·low
Pronunciation: fä- lō\
Function: verb
1: to go, proceed, or come after <followed the guide>
2 a: to engage in as a calling or way of life : pursue <wheat-growing is generally followed here>
2 b: to walk or proceed along <follow a path>
3 a: to be or act in accordance with <follow directions>
3 b: to accept as authority : obey <followed his conscience>
4 a: to pursue in an effort to overtake

synonyms; follow , succeed , ensue , supervene
see in addition chase

All right, you might notice that both words have "chase" as a synonym. But let's look at these definitions again, and this time I'm going to emphasize some crucial bits:

pur·sue
1: to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat
2: to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : seek<>

synonyms see chase

fol·low
1: to go, proceed, or come after
2 a: to engage in as a calling or way of life : pursue
2 b: to walk or proceed along
3 a: to be or act in accordance with
3 b: to accept as authority : obey
4 a: to pursue in an effort to overtake

synonyms follow , succeed , ensue , supervene
see in addition chase

Well, it appears that Detective Bobby Williams is full of crap. Or he's illiterate.

The police were obviously not "following" the speeder as a vocation, nor were they "following" the speeder as a code to be in accordance with. The only way "follow" works in this case is that they were chasing a speeding car to apprehend a law breaker, and that means that "follow" and "pursue" are exactly the same thing in this context. It was a chase.

The reality is that the police cruiser absolutely should have had its lights and sirens on. In fact, the only reason those cars HAVE lights and sirens is so that the taxpaying and largely law-abiding public will be alerted to the fact that they are to get to an emergency and we need to get out of their way.

The officers in question showed a total disregard for public safety and a flagrant disregard for the law. Det. Williams demonstrates a lack of candor that we should not tolerate from those whom we entrust with our safety.