The Unsinkable brian cork™

Brian Patrick Cork is living the Authentic Life

losers pay


We’ve certainly taken things from the British. This obviously includes a lot of real estate.

However, a process we need to take as an example from our English brothers is their collective approach to the process of litigation within the court system. In Great Britain, if a person or organization sues another and loses they are responsible for paying all related fees and expenses. Obviously this makes the aggressor think twice before they take action. Following this example would help simplify our own court system by reducing the number of frivolous cases that currently make the judicial system a blunt-edged weapon. Who knows, fairness and reason might even prevail minus avarice and greed – driven by temptation.

A good example for the need to evaluate such a change is the story of the woman (I can’t bring myself to write “lady) in Sacramento, California, that is apparently suing Mcdonalds because her kids make her take them there for kids meals – because of the toys. She wants McDonalds to stop including toys in the kids meals. And, she expects McDonalds to pay her a lot of money because:

a. She is an idiot.

b. She is a moron.

c. She is greedy.

d. She is unemployed.

e. Probably over weight and generally undisciplined.

f. Thinks Boston Market is upscale dining.

g. All of the above and soooo many more things the reflect what is completely stupid in this country.

Whether this might be an Urban Myth or not, is immaterial. Other examples exist. In any event, this does not have to make sense. It can’t. The defiance of logic (and, for nuance, the absence of reason) is only matched by the clear drive of greed and lack of class.

It’s bad enough she is a moron and abuses the judicial process. But, she’s aided and abetted in doing so by a lawyer.

Other topics I’ll touch on might include: the flat tax, consumption tax, and my emerging theories around college scholarships based on a play-off system.

My thinking is simply along the lines of fairness and equity. So, feel free to try and debate me. Do it!

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

posted under Education, Government, Stuff
2 Comments to

“losers pay”

  1. Avatar December 20th, 2010 at 9:54 am Jeff Hunter Says:

    Given our litigious environment and the thrashing around to set in a full-fledged Nanny State…perhaps she’s pretty smart. “Get while the gettin’s good”… Don’t ever forget that one’s culture is never the dominate culture – especially in America. So just because you have a certain set of ethics and try to live by them, does not mean that others do so. Regardless of the driving factors (greed, ‘lack of class’), our society currently encourages this behavior and you’ll continue to see people ‘work the system’.

    So, all points about greediness, lazy, ‘ethicalness’, etc aside, perhaps she is not so stupid. She’s figured a line of attack that might get her some cash (and a lawyer, I’ll be, working on contingency). Works for everyone – whats the problem! 😉

    Not everyone walks in Heb 13:5…

  2. Avatar December 20th, 2010 at 10:32 am Brian Patrick Cork Says:

    well… I’ve found myself in the “opinion trap”, haven’t I?

    As it turns out, it’s a D.C.-based nutrition watchdog group called the Center for Science in the Public Interest (“CSPI”) that’s helping the woman, Monet Parham of Sacramento, file a class-action suit against McDonald’s, demanding that the burger chain stop marketing toys to children.

    They claim that the marketing of Happy Meal toys has: interfered with her ability as a parent to provide her two children with a healthful diet. In fact,here’s a quote:

    “I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,” Parham said. “But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes it that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

    CSPI is maintaining that advertising to people who can’t understand the concept of persuasive advertising amounts to deceptive – and therefore illegal – advertising. There is even a news release from CSPI announcing the action against McDonald’s:

    “According to the Institute of Medicine and the American Psychological Association, kids as young as Maya do not have the cognitive maturity to understand the persuasive intent of advertising. Advertising that is not understood to be advertising is inherently deceptive — an idea that CSPI’s lawsuit points out is well established in law. ‘Every time McDonald’s markets a Happy Meal directly to a young child, it exploits a child’s developmental vulnerability and violates several states’ consumer protection laws, including the California Unfair Competition Law,’ said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner.”

    So… I did not call this woman “stupid”. I’ve inferred that she is part of the problem – as opposed to being part of the solution. One opinion I’ll generate from this is that this represents a parenting issue more so than a matter of deceptive marketing. It’c common knowledge that McDonald’s is fast food, but also working harder than most fast-food chains to reduce trans-fats and other evil ingredients in it’s foods.

    Look… My own status as a world class athlete and nutritionist aside, my own two kids haven’t always, and don’t always, eat as healthfully as they probably should. In fact, sometimes I’m surprised and even embarrassed by their food choices. But I can’t recall a single occasion on which either child saw a McDonald’s ad and bullied me into taking them to to that place. And if they had, the answer would always be an easy: “no.” Mind you… This is not to say that we have never eaten under at McDonalds. It’s just that, as parents, Joanne and I, decided nutritional standards.

    In our family, the kids aren’t in charge.

    Beyond this… I’ll stick to my point of how lawsuits like this bog down our judicial system. It’s not meant for matters such as this. So, your point around change only then does have merit. And, Monet Parham and the CSPI probably know that McDonalds will likely prefer to quietly settle the matter. So, now the cost of McDonalds will likely reflect that later. And, this is an abuse of the system. If the CSPI knew they would have to actually fight fair, likely lose based on the material facts, and be held accountable financially, it’s unlikely they would pursue the matter.

    This Parham woman makes me think of the Mom in Walmart that screams louder than her kids and then resorts to hitting them if they won’t stop wallering (another English terms that is fitting and apropos, eh).


Email will not be published

Website example

Your Comment:

What’s All This About?

"What am I looking at?", you might wonder.

Lots of stuff.

Meanwhile, here, I discuss events, people and things in our world - and, my (hardly simplistic, albeit inarticulate) views around them.

You'll also learn things about, well, things, like people you need to know about, and information about companies you can't find anywhere else.

So, while I harangue the public in my not so gentle way, you will discover that I am fascinated by all things arcane, curious about those whom appear religious, love music, dabble in politics, loathe the media, value education, still think I am an athlete, and might offer a recipe.

All the while, striving mightily, and daily, to remain a prudent and optimistic gentleman - and, authentic.

brian cork by John Campbell

photos by John Campbell


Share this Blog with friends or enemies (via Twitter). Do it!:

Twitter Updates

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.



Email Subscription


View Brian Cork's profile on LinkedIn


%d bloggers like this: