Why the Wendy's-Finger-in-the-Chile-Woman's-a-Whore Story Bothers Me

If the woman charged with trying to bilk Wendy's out of money from Wendy's supposedly "finding" a severed finger in a cup of Wendy's chili, then obviously, I don't have a lot of sympathy for her. So don't post comments that "shut the fuck up because she deserves what she gets", because again, if she's guilty, I agree what she did was heinous. I have zero respect for people who file nuisance suits, let alone for those who file fictitious lawsuits.

But even with that said, let me tell you why this story bothers me. Let me tick them off.

1) This woman's background was raked through the media (would you want that if you have a legitimate case of a company presenting something so awful to you) even before the case could be investigated. Normal mortals don't have a way to get that kind of attention, but a smart company like Wendy's does. Again, if you legitimate found a severed finger in your chili or your soup, would you want a corporation to destroy you in the press when you don't have a way to respond?
2) A story about how this woman might have obtained the severed finger (from some wild animal preserve near her home where a woman lost her finger) was played up endlessly in the media to make this woman look just horrible. But it turned out the finger lost was NOT the finger found. But you didn't hear about that second part because it got nowhere near the play. Again, this woman was trashed without her day in court.
3) The press conference today between the sheriff's county and Wendy's announcing this woman's arrest on two different counts of grand theft (one for asking money from Wendy's when she actually withdrew her lawsuit about two weeks ago and a second on a different case involving a trailer and another Wendy's litigant) was very strange. It was extremely PRO WENDY's (mind you, I like Wendy's and loved those old Dave Thomas commercials but...) and made it very much seem like the sheriff's office was acting as the specific agent of the poor, defenseless, mega corp Wendy's against a woman who doesn't seem especially bright even if she is litigious. Gee, what's wrong with that picture?

That last point bothers me a lot. More and more (although this has always been the case, even before America was founded), we see concrete evidence of police (and yes, even the military, especially when US soldiers are acting in foreign lands) acting not as the fair and just protectors of the people but as corporate security and foot soldiers. But the corps don't pay them; citizens do (remember how little many corporations pay in tax - much, much less percentage wise than we as individuals do).

Intentionally or not, this sheriff's department has pretty much shown that they are there for Wendy's and willing to pull out all the stops to protect Wendy's. But how much concern do you think they might have shown if Wendy's had inadvertently passed a severed finger along in its chili? No one at Wendy's would have been arrested, for example, nor would they have trashed Wendy's publicly and often as they have this woman.

I think we have to be very careful in situations like this. But I also think this is an excellent wake-up call to where the power and protection is being shifted, especially in the Bush years (and yes, I found lots of fault with the Clinton Administration on corporate protection although only to a fraction of what the Bush years have given us).

If you're paying the sheriff, and you actually do find a finger in your chili, or a (hardware)nail in your coffee, or you buy a product that, when used correctly, hurts you because of a fault with the product, doesn't this case indicate that you're going to be turned into a pariah rather than the victim?