These days “fast food” is almost as expensive as real food,
and whenever I do feel constrained to satisfy my internal consumption needs, I
stick to the “value” or “dollar” menu When one considers that fast food
establishments should be sued for false and misleading advertising purporting
to show burgers requiring two hands to hold, you are more likely to get more
“value” for your money that way.
Anyways, in one location in Kent there is McDonalds and
Burger King next door to each other. The former was advertising two Big Macs
for $5; the latter has a new menu item, called the “Big King.” It looks exactly
like a Big Mac, selling for $3.89. I told the clerk this, and he told me that
it was, and in his “opinion,” it was “better.” I thought I’d find out if this
was true. I should have known better. Five minutes later an order was put on a
tray and called out for pick-up. I thought to myself “That can’t be mine. That
sure is a small burger.”
But the clerk indicated that it was my order, and I
incredulously went forward. I examined the “Big King,” and it looked more like the
court midget. I was disturbed enough about this that I called on the manager to
ask him if some kind of mistake was made, that this couldn’t possibly be worth
$3.89 plus tax. He “assured” me that this was indeed all I was going to get for
my money. And it didn’t taste as good as Big Mac, either. So be forewarned:
Don’t buy the “Big King.”
Anyways, the next day before I left for work, I decided to
take advantage of the “deal” on two real Big Macs. I wanted to save one for
breakfast and the other for lunch. I consumed the first without incident, and
placed the second in the refrigerator in the company break room. Over six hours
later, it was time for lunch. Except that I couldn’t find it, at least not in
the refrigerator. I did find its remnants, however: The empty bag and carton
was right there in a garbage can a few feet away, on top of the heap indicating
that it had been recently consumed. I was naturally unhappy about this, and
naturally nobody admitted to or had seen the theft.
So now I’m thinking, who here could have been so
contemptuous of others to take and consume something that they knew belonged to
someone else, right in front of everyone, not caring if the owner walked in and
caught them red-handed? Someone who might say “I didn’t know it was yours,” or
more likely, “I don’t give a damn”? There are a few people I suspect of having
such contempt for societal norms that is just part of the “culture” of
disrespect of others—the same people who demand “respect” for themselves.
This behavior, unfortunately, is becoming much too pervasive
in this society, thanks largely to the “mainstreaming” and “acceptability” of
gang “culture.” There was a recent incident in Seattle where a 17-year-old high
school football player demanded the cell phone from a man who refused to
comply. The ‘kid” walked away, but when he overheard his intended victim call
911 on his cell phone, he returned with gun in hand and shot the man dead. The
“kid” made off with the victim’s cell phone, which he complained to a friend
was not as “nice” a model as he had expected.
As shocking as it is that someone could act in such
cold-blooded contempt for another human being, it is also demonstrates how many
people are naïve about how their belief that other people share the same
“respect” for civilized norms and the props that keep it up. The victim here
made a fatal mistake in his faith in the “system.” Even more “shocking” was the
attitude of the victim’s wife and the killer’s mother. The former had already “forgiven”
the killer, while his mother claimed he had been a “good kid” until a few
months ago, and was completely “surprised” upon hearing of the shooting. If
this is the “message” that such people are receiving, than no wonder this
behavior is becoming all too pervasive.
Contempt for civilized norms can be found in some of the
damndest places. I’m no fan of” Judge Judy” Sheindlin,
but I was amazed how the usually
verbally contemptuous judge afforded a black
defendant in one case every benefit of the doubt, probably because she didn’t want to be
accused of racism, since the plaintiff was white. I wasn’t entirely buying the
act, because surely the judge has to prepare for each show, and she would be a
poor “judge” if she went into a case without any idea of its particulars. Apparently the defendant and
the plaintiff had lived together for awhile, had a falling out, and some items,
like a plasma television, mysteriously disappeared. The plaintiff was accusing
the defendant of theft.
Judge Judy told the plaintiff that just because she said the
defendant was guilty did not make it so. It soon became obvious that the
defendant was guilty as hell, despite his too-casual denials. He claimed he
didn’t remember an email he sent to the plaintiff in which he told her to stop
emailing him; she had been “played” and needed to get over it. He must have
been “on drugs,” and the judge with feigned empathy informed him that drugs did
indeed make people do “dumb” things. I frankly had never heard such “nice”
things coming out of Judge Judy’s mouth. Still, I think she was just playing
for the cameras, because after that you kept thinking that this guy needed to
be in jail, and she knew it.
Up came a witness who said she was told by the defendant’s
friend that he had a television for sale—the exact one stolen from the
plaintiff. When asked where he got the TV from, he smirkingly said Walmart, and
you just wanted someone to come in and haul him off to jail right then. His
unfriendly witness friend also stated that the defendant admitted to clearing out some
property from the plaintiff’s apartment, apparently because she "deserved" it. The defendant was asked about his
prior criminal record, and he pompously asserted he was a “free man”—that is
not currently on parole. He had his own “witness,” except that as soon as he
opened his mouth to explain his presence, it was clear he was only there to cast
dispersion on the plaintiff, who was trying to get his “bro” in trouble (again).
I didn’t watch the finale of this episode because I had to
leave for work, but I thought that whatever punishment meted out short of
having him arrested was not enough. This defendant’s attitude obviously indicated
that he felt he had done nothing “wrong,” at least according to his warped interpretation
of “civilized” norms. It was “OK” to steal from another and lie about it, so
long as it abided by a particular “code” opposed to that which is generally
accepted. On a larger scale, it would be called “looting,” and that usually
occurs in the total absence of respect for law and property.
While I consider myself a “liberal” on most issues, unlike
right-wingers I am not ossified in that position. If a person believes that
they are justified in behaving in a manner that “confirms” negative stereotypes,
they do not just hurt themselves but others by “connection.” I have nothing but
contempt for people who have no respect for themselves in how they are
perceived by people who are trying to live by accepted norms, or for others
that do.
No comments:
Post a Comment