search
top

Is This For Real? Say It’s a Hoax, McDonalds!

UPDATE: It’s a Hoax

Apparently McDonalds is teaming up with the NYPD to try to talk people into surrendering their 4th Amendment rights.

McDonald’s and the New York Police Department are launching Three Strikes, You’re In!, a new program that rewards New Yorkers for their patience with the NYPD’s “Stop and Frisk” policy.

This makes me glad I generally prefer to go to Wendy’s or Chic-Fil-A. But it gets better!

The company says that Three Strikes, You’re In! is a project of McDonald’s 365Black.com, which celebrates African American culture and achievements all year round. Vouchers for “Three Strikes, You’re In!” may be downloaded at McDonald’s Web site.

So McDonald’s idea of celebrating African American culture and achievements is, let me make sure I understand this, aiding and abetting the NYPD to stop and frisk more black people? To help convince blacks to surrender their rights under the constitution? To make them feel happy in the violation?

I think I feel pretty comfortable saying McDonalds is participating in a blatantly racist program here. Anyone out there among my readers who’s African American care to comment?

UPDATE: Hoax. Good. I don’t eat at McDonalds very often, but I’d hate to have to boycott it over something like this.

12 Responses to “Is This For Real? Say It’s a Hoax, McDonalds!”

  1. terraformer says:

    “This is just one way McDonald’s gives back to the communities we’re a part of,” said Mark Ramos, a McDonald’s spokesperson. “We’re proud to provide copious, satisfying, affordable food in areas that other chains don’t dare operate. With ‘Three Strikes, You’re In!’ we’re showing we also recognize these communities’ safety and civil liberties problems.”

    I can’t imagine it’s not a troll with that “spokesperson quote”.

  2. Dirk Diggler says:

    As an African-American, I am offended. McDonalds President and COO (Donald Thompson) is African-American (http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company/leadership/don_thompson.html). Sounds like he needs to be OVERWHELMED with email. Of course, he is from Chicago. More importantly, their General Counsel (Gloria Santona) is Hispanic (http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company/leadership/gloria_santona.html). I know her from bar association events. I am shocked she even let this pass given her other professional affiliations (“In addition, Ms. Santona serves on the Board of the Constitutional Rights Foundation of Chicago”).

    I think the McDonalds Board needs to be contacted as well (http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/corporate_governance/board_of_directors.html). Easiest way is through their investor relations group: http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/newsroom/press_contacts.html

    • mobo says:

      Fellas, fellas….

      If I must type out “African-American” on my tiny little Android keyboard every time I need to refer to black people, I must also insist that I be referred to as a “European-American” instead of the belittling term “White”. And don’t forget when in verbal communication to take that awkward pause (you know what I’m talking about) during that split second where you can’t decide whether or not it’s acceptable to refer to European-Americans as “white”. ;)

      • mobo says:

        Or you could just call me a “Cracka.”

        • Sebastian says:

          I wonder if Siri can interpret the word “cracka'” Probably will say write cracker, but close enough.

          I’m comfortable calling people whatever they want to be called. If they prefer African-American, I’ll use that. If they prefer black, I’ll use that. It doesn’t make much of a difference. I don’t consider it racist to refer to folks by skin color… but there are Indian folks who have the same skin shade, but nonetheless wouldn’t, in the vernacular, be considered “black,” because they are not African-American. So the skin color description could be regarded as somewhat inaccurate, in the vernacular sense.

          • ecurb says:

            Hmm, “cracker” is more accurate and much less offensive to me than “European-American”, so I’m voting for that one. “European” is one step away from calling me French, or even German!

            Referring to people by their self-identification is a gesture of respect. But when it turns into a silly PC thing it can be offensive and defeat the whole point. I’ll never forget a school friend lecturing a well-meaning idiot: “I’m Samoan, from Samoa, and I’m not American.”

            This was a fantastic hoax though. I hope they publicized it within the community, as well as on the internet. Satire helps folks take a step back and realize how insane things are becoming.

            (edit: this should have been a reply to mobo, not seb)

  3. GMC70 says:

    Really? Do we sell our souls, our personal liberties, our dignity so easily? For a happy meal?

    That NYPD even has a “stop and frisk” program – one which they in effect acknowledge is unconstitutional, as they have to bribe people to “cooperate” with it – is an affront of the highest order.

    I’ll say again: NEVER consent to a search. EVER. Under ANY circumstances (is that clear enough?). And yes, I know of which I speak; I’m a lawyer who does overwhelmingly criminal work. And never speak to law enforcement under circumstances where one could possible be a suspect, either.

    And for McDonald’s food? Would I be required to actually eat it? Sounds like a punishment to me . . .

    • GMC70 says:

      So it’s a hoax; the happy meal part, that is.

      However, apparantly the stop and frisk part is quite real. If this hoax get the attention of people and puts pressure on the NYPD’s excursion into unconstitutional stops, so much the better.

      • GMC70 says:

        Let me add this, BTW.

        I note that the NYCLU’s concern is racial bias. There may be racial bias, but that would not be my primary concern. Much more important is whether the officer has a basis – “reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts” – that a crime has, is, or is about to occur before the officer makes the stop, AND that he has a reasonable belief – again based on articulable facts – that there is a potential threat to the officer’s safety before the frisk, AND that the frisk is limited to a cursory external patdown, not an intrusive reach into pockets.

        That is, of course, the constitutional standard that must be met for a “stop and frisk” to be legal. And if officers abide by those limits, racial bias is not an issue.

        Surely the officers are abiding by those rules. Surely.

  4. Secret Squirrel says:

    That there’s a hoax. It’s sad that I actually considered that it might be true.

  5. Alpheus says:

    If this hoax helps put an end to the Unconstitutional “stop-and-frisk” program in New York, then I think it will have been worthwhile! This is something that has disturded me, as far as I can remember. It is also a clear example of how infringeing on one right, and attempting to outlaw self-defense tools (such as pistols and knives) leads to the violation of other rights.

    After all, if you aren’t allowed to have weapons, then we need to make sure no one has them, no?

  6. Chas says:

    Just stop and frisk now? So, NYPD isn’t doing the sodomy with a toilet plunger handle thing anymore? They’re getting soft. They’re still an evil bunch of police state, malevolent misanthropes, but they’re lightening up on acting it out on ordinary people. Only a modest level of invasion of privacy and abuse now. Except when they’re spying in New York and New Jersey for the CIA.

top