Matthew Vincent: [you] Ruined It for Everyone!

Ever wonder who is responsible for everything that sucks? Well, I have, and this book is the result. It contains what are, in my opinion, 101 of the most egregious RIFEs—[people who] Ruined It For Everyone.

So sit back, relax, and get ready to point some fingers!

Oh—this must be the part where the author wants to protect his ass. In a word, YEP. Did you just skip over that last page? It was really important and I must reiterate—the “FACTS” section of each RIFE is NOT necessarily factual. To the best of my knowledge it is true, but I didn’t have the time or the resources to physically ask the people/companies mentioned in this book if every detail is true and legit. I Googled it. And believe it or not, there might be some untrue information available on the Internet. But at least I can proudly say that I did not step foot in one single library. And let’s face it—some of the “FACTS” are lies told by me just to get a laugh. So, with that said, if you want to sue someone, sue Google—I’m sure they can spare the cash.

For promoting ridiculous lawsuits.

What paved the way for ridiculous lawsuits? In the last few decades, there has been a spike in lawsuits won by people who have blamed others for their own stupidity and ignorance. Ms. Liebeck may not have been the first to start the trend, but she certainly wins the blue ribbon.

In 1992, Stella Liebeck’s grandson took her to a McDonald’s drive-thru for a cup of coffee. After the purchase, they pulled over so Stella could add some cream and sugar. As the car sat motionless, she removed the cup’s lid and clumsily spilled scalding hot coffee on her legs. This accident resulted in third-degree burns on 6 percent of her body. (Take note, she spilled it on herself. A Mickey Dee’s employee did NOT drop it on her lap, nor did one vindictively throw the java in her face. It was just a simple, self-induced mistake.) After the incident, Ms. Liebeck sought $20,000 for pain and suffering. McDonald’s refused to settle out of court (which ended up being a rather expensive mistake), and a jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.9 million.

Why the hell is an eighty-one-year-old meddling with blisteringly hot coffee over her lap in a vehicle anyway? Did she forget what Dirty Harry said? Stella, “Man’s got to know his limitations.” This applies to grannies too! Now don’t get me wrong, I love my Gram-Gram, and I’d certainly be laying the smack down if I caught someone messin’ with her. But… she’s old. She spills stuff all the time. It’s expected. And McDonald’s needs to share the blame too. Next time, don’t use Grimace and the Hamburglar as legal counsel. Send a company-wide MEMO: Juries tend to side with sweet old ladies in a BIG way!

So thank you all, because this helped pave the way for anyone to sue anyone just for being a jackass. What happened next? Here you go: A guy sued Michael Jordan for looking like him. A family sued Honda because their daughter couldn’t remove a seat belt while underwater and drunk. A woman sued Wendy’s for finding a finger in her soup, which she planted herself. A guy sued a strip club because a dancer gave him whiplash. A family sued Oliver Stone because his movie inspired a woman’s crime spree. A man sued a dry cleaner for $65 million because they lost his pants. I rest my case…

For making us spend two months’ salary.

If you truly loved your girlfriend, you would spend at least two months’ salary for her diamond engagement ring. If you find yourself asking, “Is that before or after taxes?”, then you may also be wondering who came up with this bullshit. It was De Beers. The company also came up with “diamonds are forever” and “diamonds are a girl’s best friend.” It’s the reason we associate a diamond solitaire with poppin’ the question. De Beers started this marketing campaign in the 1930s and is still bamboozling us with this sparkly razzle-dazzle nonsense.

Everyone knows these diamond companies are shady, greedy, and sneaky. Just watch ten minutes of the movie Blood Diamond and you’ll see. De Beers also keeps the price of diamonds high by controlling supply and demand. Try to forget about all that for a second, and focus on the question “Do you really NEED a diamond to propose?”

Congratulations, De Beers, you convinced everyone that a diamond is mandatory when a guy gets down on one knee. You also made everyone think there is a direct correlation between the size of a diamond and the quality of love and devotion. Wake up, America! (Since you are, indeed, the world’s largest diamond consumer.) You have been DUPED. Who says you have to buy a diamond ring for an engagement? Your girlfriend? No, the diamond industry tricks people with its exceptional marketing ploys. And we fall for it. De Beers claims you should spend about two months’ salary. Since the typical American male makes about $36,000 a year, that means the average Joe owes his woman about $6,000 of sparkly (and tries his best to comply). More than 80 percent of American brides receive diamond engagement rings. Take note, about 95 percent of the U.S. population has sex before marriage. This means that most people refuse to obey God and the church regarding premarital sex, but they will listen to De Beers about the six grand.

Think, people, THINK! Spend your money on a great honeymoon or start a trust fund for your unborn child’s education. Or maybe spend it on counseling before your marriage ends in divorce! Remember, a diamond is just a rock someone found in the ground. It takes more than digging in the dirt to make a marriage work.

For inventing Speedos.

Peter Travis was many things: a designer, sculptor, ceramist, kite-maker, and teacher. But the Australian is most famous for bringing millions of unwanted winces of disgust to the faces of people after seeing repulsive men wearing Speedos. This phenomenon is undeniably awful.

Don’t get me wrong—the Speedo does have its place. It is, after all, very functional swimwear. It has low resistance for swimming competitions, it doesn’t restrict movement while diving, and it can even lend itself to a bodybuilding competition (although that last point is highly debatable).