The quotation marks around the word "mom" are deliberate for a variety of reasons. JammieWearingFool has the goods on Monet Parham, a California activist and state employee passing herself off as a "concerned mother" who is suing McDonalds with the help of the Marxist front group
Communists for Pseudo Science to Line Our Own Pockets Center for Science in the Public Interest. The suit states McDonald's engages in deceptive advertising when marketing Happy Meals. The group wants the suit to take on class-action status in order to line the pockets of other shysters in the state (which will also increase Democratic campaign coffers).
Reading JWF's post on this, there are a lot of questions that come to my mind because this whole thing just stinks to high heaven. There's some choice cuts below the fold.
Left Coast Rebel links to the suit and highlights some key points:
107. Although Parham frequently denies Maya’s repeated requests for Happy
Meals, these denials have angered and disappointed Maya, thus causing needless and
unwarranted dissension in their parent-child relationship.
So, Parham says no but little Maya gets angry. Oh how awful. See, this isn't Parham's problem:
108. Maya’s exposure to Happy Meal marketing has undermined Parham’s
parental authority, because the advertisements result in Maya’s desire for poor nutrition Happy Meals, and inability to understand why Parham will not generally buy them for her.
You could just say that Parham could turn the TV off to keep little Maya from viewing these evil ads. Alas, that supposedly isn't enough:
104. Maya learns of Happy Meal toys from other children in her playgroup,
despite Parham’s efforts to restrict Maya’s exposure to McDonald’s advertising and
access to Happy Meal toys. This is McDonald’s advertising directive – to subvert parental authority and mobilize pester power in order to sell unhealthful meals to kids using the lure of a toy.
See, McDonald's is subverting other children and inducing them to use "pester power" (is that a legal phrase?) to subject little Maya to the horror of Happy Meals.
OK, enough of the snark. But this leaves me with all kinds of questions. Hot Air Pundit has a video of an interview Parham did on ABC's Good Morning America. It is said she is a mother of two. Is she really? Or more accurately, is Parham the mother of the child on whose behalf she is suing McDonald's? I think it's a legitimate question because what mother would use her own children in such a ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit? Parham is asked point blank if it is her job to say no to her children. All Parham does is reach for excuses; she doesn't even sound like little Maya's mother. Any parent worth their salt, which is the vast majority of parents in the country, wouldn't hesitate to say no and punish their children if they act up over the answer. What isn't mentioned by ABC, and which was highlighted by JWF, Parham is a state employee working as the Regional Program Manager for the Network for a Healthy California, part of the CA Department of Public Health; in other words, she has a political agenda. I can see a political activist like Parham to use some child to advance her cause.
But let's assume that little Maya is Monet Parham's child. We know she's a political activist exploiting her own child in this frivolous lawsuit. She's also admitted that she's a rotten parent and is looking to blame someone else for her own failure. This is not out of the realm of the impossible. Maybe someone should put a call into the California's child services people to see if it's possible to have Parham's two children removed from Parham's custody since she doesn't know how to be a good parent. Or maybe they should call Supernanny to teach Parham how to be good mother, or at least a better one.
So that's one thing, questioning whether Parham is Maya's mother and/or her lack of parenting skills. The other question I have is what will the judge do when asked to adjudicate. If justice were truly blind, this lawsuit would be dropped, the judge would throw the book at Parham and CPSI, fining the Marxists several million dollars, and then McDonald's would countersue CPSI and taking everything they've got, putting them out of business. If Eric Holder is any kind of Attorney General, he'd have CPSI investigated for possible RICO violations. But this is California, and the case is to be handled in San Francisco, so anything can happen.
Addendum: It's also very interesting how this case comes so quickly on the heels of Congress passing Michelle Obama's nanny-state food bill that regulates bake sales. Kind of makes me wonder how much Monet Parham is involved with the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign.