Super Size Me
Melissa Erin | May 10, 2004
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | May 10, 2004
It's really amazing to see this boisterous, funny guy plunge into the diet, and emerge at the end a mere shell of a man. Even his doctors are shocked at the progression.
Jackie Mason | March 14, 2005
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | March 14, 2005
Or is it, everyone benefits? =)
I agree though, the lawsuits are stupid.
John E Gunter | March 14, 2005
Only if you don't go to any fast food restaurant, or work at one.
Course, where will it stop?
I also agree, most of these types of lawsuits are stupid. But I'm sure you guys already knew my thoughts on it.
John
Anna Gregoline | March 14, 2005
No, I meant that by being more expensive, people wouldn't go there, meaning everyone would be healthier...ah I guess it's not funny.
Even I eat the occaisonal McDonald's...but it does make feel crappy about two hours after I eat it.
John E Gunter | March 14, 2005
I actually knew you were trying to be funny, guess I'm just looking at the darker side of the lawsuit.
What I wonder about is do the people who bring about these lawsuits actually think about what the repercussions will be over the long term?
Oh and McDonald's food doesn't bother me after I eat it, course, I only eat it every once in a while.
But I know someone who has to really watch what he eats or he has nasty reactions. He's basically got some really bad food allergies.
John
Aaron Shurtleff | March 15, 2005
I don't agree with this lawsuit either. If you get fat (and I am) from eating too much Mickey D's (and I am a sinner, Lord. Can I get an amen??), that's your problem. Now if there is a secret ingredient that makes the food addictive (crack in the fries?), that's different.
Of course, I also don't agree with the smoking lawsuits either. I'm fairly certain that people know that inhaling smoke can kill them. I don't know for certain, but I would guess that people know that the smoke from a house fire, for example, can kill you before you can burn up, and that this knowledge was around before cigarettes. That said, ex-smoker right here. Look for me in the next lawsuit. Joe Camel made me do it! I wanted to be Alive with Pleasure! I wanted a piece of prime real estate in Marlboro country!! Boo-hoo! Sobsobsob!
Jackie Mason | March 15, 2005
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | March 15, 2005
Aw man. Let's not start that coffee argument again.
That said, I have to say, while you shouldn't put coffee between your legs, her beef was legitimate to me, and the lawsuit ruling fair - the coffee was NUCLEAR hot, dude. Way past what would be safe to serve anyone. She had to have extensive skin grafts and her medical bills were sky high. I was glad she was awarded the money.
Also, it made McDonald's lower their coffee temperature, which probably saved other people from being burned.
John E Gunter | March 15, 2005
Don't worry Anna; I won't pipe in about the coffee debate beyond this. You know my point on it so there's no need! "-D
But you reinforce my point with the restaurant suing Jackie.
John
Kris Weberg | March 15, 2005
As I understand it, the smoking lawsuits are justified on the basis that the cigarette companies not only withheld research for years, but actively promoted false research -- they deluded the public.
Anna Gregoline | March 15, 2005
I guess I piped in myself with the coffee debate - it's just that every time I hear about it, I feel the need to defend her. It was a valid lawsuit that was propagandized in the media as invalid. I also think that if the circumstances were slightly different, people would have sung a different tune - the woman did have her coffee in her lap, a dumb choice. But the lawsuit (about how hot the coffee was, therefore causing much more extensive injuries than regular temp. cofeee) wouldn't have been any different at base if the woman had simply spilled it on herself while walking or something. Would people have said, "Dumb woman, spilling her coffee?" We've all spilled. In fact, I JUST spilled a cup of water all over my desk! =)
Also, I can't help but think if it had been a child who was burned, I'm sure the majority of people out there would have been outraged.
Kris Weberg | March 15, 2005
Basically, the coffee lawsuit wasn't about where or how she spilled the stuff. The point was that the damage done to her body demonstrated that it was unsafe to drink as well.
If she'd sat down at a table and had a sip, she'd be getting surgery for third-degree burns to her mouth and tongue instead of her...uh...groinal area. Anyone think a lawsuit about that would be frivolous?
That's often how the law has to work; evidence of wrongdoing is evidence of wrongdoing, period. In criminal law, there's actually something called the "Silver Platter" principle related to evidence. If I break into a criminal's house and steal evidence, it's admissible even though a policeman doing the same thing (no warrant, right?) wouldn't be able to introduce such evidence.
Why? Because illegal search and siezure rules only affect the police -- the cops aren't penalized on evidence when they didn't do anything wrong. I, on the other hand, would almost certainly wind up being convicted of breaking and entering and theft. (Hey, just because I got the goods on a crook doesn't mean I get away with crime myself.)
Say, that reminds me of a pet peeve....
Jackie Mason | March 15, 2005
[hidden by request]
Kris Weberg | March 15, 2005
Again, the argument that "there are other information sources" isn't the point -- it's that the cigarette companies lied, with the intent of getting people to ignore the other info out there. And they were doing that into the 1980s. The age of the smoker isn't at issue, nor is the existence of a wealth of good info about smoking and related dangers. What's at issue is wrongful conduct by the cig companies, conduct that isn't technically criminal, bust still deserves penalty. That's often what tort is about.
Jackie Mason | March 15, 2005
[hidden by request]
Kris Weberg | March 18, 2005
Again, the law and common sense aren't the same thing on most issues. The smoker is irrelevant to the legalities of the situation -- all that matters is that the cigarette companies lied for decades.
Think of it this way -- an advertiser claims their product cures cancer by harnessing cosmic energy vibrations. The product ingredient lists only talcum powder. Is the advertiser doing something wrong? And if someone does fall for the lie, isn't that still the advertiser's fault for lying in the first place?
Jackie Mason | March 18, 2005
[hidden by request]
Kris Weberg | March 19, 2005
Ah, but you're not done imagining yet -- suppose that even after being forced to add the warning label, the company continues to suppress studies backing up that claim and continues to fund biased and misleading research.
Kris Weberg | March 19, 2005
To put it really simply -- just because some smokers are self-deceivers doesn't mean the tobacco companies get a pass for helping them deceive themselves.
Jackie Mason | March 20, 2005
[hidden by request]
Kris Weberg | March 20, 2005
The difference being that liquor companies don't claim that drinking and driving is okay, nor do they suppress studies that say so.
Again -- people are doing stupid things. No argument there. The tobacco companies aren't in trouble because people do stupid things. They're in trouble for lying. However, because of the way the law works, the only person who can sue them for lying is someone who can demonstrate that they were lied to successfully.
Basically, the only legal way to punish the companies for doing something wrong is to allow the stupid to sue them. Either the companies get in no trouble despite doing something that I think we agree is wrong, or stupid and self-destructive people are allowed to sue the companies despite being stupid and self-destructive.
Me, I'm more concerned about a big, rich, powerful organization's wrongoing than I am about a stupid, self-destructive person profiting from harmful things that they were partly responsible for.
At the end of the day, I look at who was hurt and who gained from their hurt. An idiot with cancer still has cancer, and the tobacco company made money from the thing that gave the stupid person cancer. Worse, they tired -- however clumsily -- to convince the stupid person that they wouldn't get cancer. The stupid person was harmed by their own stupidity, but also by someone willing to take advantage of that stupidity.
Let's try a different example: A con man convinces a number of people that their product cures cancer. Television news, newspapers, and various other sources convince most people that the con man is lying. But a few people, due to wishful thinking, pure stupidity, or serious educational defects, still believe the con man. Is the con man still committing a crime? Should the con man still be punished?
Jackie Mason | March 20, 2005
[hidden by request]
Jackie Mason | March 20, 2005
[hidden by request]
Steve Dunn | March 21, 2005
The McDonald's coffee lawsuit was legit.
The tobacco lawsuits were bullshit. Just because they have a plausible legal theory about withholding research doesn't make the lawsuits legitimate. At the end of the day: 1) everyone knew smoking was unhealthy; and 2) ample research from myriad sources proved that smoking was unhealthy. Theoretically, the "hidden research" argument should only hold up if people were ACTUALLY deceived by it, or reasonably relied on the tobacco's companies' bogus research. No one did. Everyone knows this. The theory was never really tested because the tobacco companies settled.
The tobacco companies settled because it was in their economic interest to do so. They're saving themselves the litigation costs and they've erased the prospect of a massive verdict based on generic anti-corporate and anti-smoking sentiment. They are busily expanding overseas, where people still smoke without freaking out about it.
In other legal news, OJ and Robert Blake were both guilty. Michael Jackson will definitely get off, and he might even be innocent.
The fast food lawsuits are utter horseshit.
This episode of legal news and views was brought to you by Steve Dunn.
Kris Weberg | March 22, 2005
How can you prove that someone was not deceived by something? Telepathy?
In the end, the tobacco companies did SOMETHING WRONG. Oddly enough, some of us thinkt hat means they should be punished, even if the means of that punishment is unlikeable. Not everything about society or the law can be perfect and wonderful and conform to our individual standards of justice -- because the law has to appear just to MOST people, not just me or you.
Anna Gregoline | March 22, 2005
The method is bad, the intention is good. Is my thinking on it. No matter how ridiculous the lawsuits are, they are the only way to punish the tobacco companies for doing evil and wrong things in the industry. I'm not entirely sure though, that this is the motivation behind most of the lawyers who take up these smoker's cases, I'm sure the money is a much larger motivator.
Jackie Mason | March 22, 2005
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | March 22, 2005
So do the tobacco companies get a free ride for the wrongdoings then? Kris, who would punish them otherwise?
Aaron Shurtleff | March 22, 2005
What if we made tobacco illegal?
*ducks projectiles*
That would punish the tobacco companies, and we wouldn't have to worry about second hand smoke or any other smoking-related problems. Plus, those horrible TRUTH commercials would get taken off the air! I hate those!!
What would MOST people find to be fair? What do most people here think is fair punishment for tobacco companies? Are there people who deserve compensation?
Dave Stoppenhagen | March 22, 2005
I'm a former smoker, almost 11 years, and could care less that people keep smoking. I made my own decision to smoke knowing full well what I was doing to my body. Personally I think it should be up to the owners of establishments to make the decision on whether or not they allow smoking inside, not a law passed because state/local gov. thinks it should be this way. If you don't like it don't go, its a choice. Personally I like that freedom, that I can choose if I want to be around it or if I let my kids be around it.
Jackie Mason | March 23, 2005
[hidden by request]
Steve Dunn | March 24, 2005
Kris, I disagree with your legal analysis. Just because someone does something wrong does not mean any lawsuit against him is valid. The plaintiff must show that he was harmed BY the wrongdoing, or in other words that the wrongdoing CAUSED the harm. In the case of the tobacco companies, one basic argument is that smokers were deceived by the tobacco companies' withholding of scientific evidence showing that smoking causes disease. This could theoretically support damage awards for individual smokers. Another basic argument (the states' argument) is that smoking-related disease caused higher than normal health care costs, which had to be paid out of the states' Medicaid funds. Both arguments are problematic.
First, it is highly unlikely (to the point of statistical impossibility) that any individual smoker was: 1) unaware of the health risks of smoking; and 2) BECAUSE the tobacco companies withheld their own research. I say this for several reasons.
The health risks of smoking were well known to the American population several decades ago. Circa World War ONE, cigarettes were referred to as "coffin nails." By the 1960s, scientific studies done by universities and the US government (not the tobacco companies) had conclusively shown that smoking causes heart disease and lung cancer. Beginning in 1968, the tobacco industry was required to print warning labels on individual packs of cigarettes. Many of us are in roughly the same age cohort, and we all know that we have been constantly bombarded with anti-smoking educational campaigns since we were small children.
It does not require telepathy to conclude that the chance of anyone actually being tricked into thinking cigarettes posed no health risk, due to the withholding of the tobacco companies' research, is vanishingly small. It only requires common sense. In my view, anyone who smoked after 1968 assumed the risk upon himself.
Second, the argument that states incurred additional health costs as a result of smoking is not supported by facts. On the contrary, smokers tend to die at an early age from conditions such as heart attack and cancer. Non-smokers tend to live longer and are more likely to die of long-term debilitating disease requiring intensive, expensive end-of-life care. As macabre as it seems, according to the actuaries, smoking actually SAVES Medicaid money. Instead of being sick, smokers tend to be dead.
Finally, a note on who's really responsible. Tobacco companies have been heavily regulated since at least 1968. They have had to comply with government directives not only in regard to warning labels, but also restrictions on marketing and age requirements for the purchase of their product. Through it all, cigarettes have remained LEGAL. Indeed, until 1974, cigarettes were distributed for free to U.S. soldiers in their rations. The government has not only tolerated, but actively encouraged smoking. The government and the tobacco companies have been working hand in hand for decades.
This is not to suggest the government is responsible - only to highlight the hypocrisy of the government's bringing lawsuits supposedly for our own protection or recompense. The government should sue itself.
No, the truly responsible parties are the smokers. The tobacco lawsuits are an insulting affront to our human ability to make our own rational decisions. The ultimate theory behind the tobacco lawsuits is that American citizens are pathetic, stupid, and weak. In order to buy the theory, you have to believe that millions of people got hooked wiithout knowing the risks (which we all know is not true), that they got hooked BECAUSE they didn't know the risks (which we all know is not true), that they did not know the risks because the tobacco companies buried some memos (which we all know is not true) and that, once hooked, they were incapable of quitting after they became aware of the risks (which we all know is not true).
The lawsuits are a bright, shining example of our collective ability to ignore facts and logic in pursuit of a politically expedient "justice." It is as though we are the South Park kids, conditioned to believe that "Tobacco companies are bad, mmm-kay" therefore anything and everything anyone wants to do to them is, by definition, also OK.
The legal system exists to filter out such nonsense, and I would have loved to see those lawsuits play out for real. The tobacco companies settled because, in their judgment, they got a good deal.
I actually think Aaron Shurtleff has the right idea. If the product is inherently dangerous, make it illegal. If we're not willing to do that, then let's face up to the fact that individual people CHOOSE to smoke in a realistic, intellectually honest way.
Aaron Shurtleff | March 24, 2005
But then again, I think there was a little thing called Prohibition that shows pretty well how we the people feel about the government banning something that's bad for us! :)
Plus, I think that in both cases, there are also the innocent victims of someone else's indulgences. Drunk drivers and second hand smoke and even fires caused by dumbasses smoking in bed (or while filling their car's gas tanks...my personal favorite) are all examples of how it's not just the person who does these things that can suffer the consequences. Not that the drunk driver or smoker is the one who is going to be sued (unless they happen to be stinkin' rich!)
It's a tough one. Looks like I picked a bad week to stop smoking! (That's from Airplane!, by the way. I didn't just quit!)
Amy Austin | March 24, 2005
Hahaha... you say some pretty funny things sometimes, Aaron. ;DDD (And don't forget about the grassfires from ciggys going out the car window... those are the worst -- especially in CA!)
Steve, I am 99.9% behind your argument, but I have to say that you must not have seen too many smokers like my grandmother or my step-mother's father. Carol's dad is already dead, but only because he had a weaker heart -- probably man-related... but he had some ongoing medical costs beforehand. Meemaw just got out of the hospital after a little respiratory fit put her there for ten days. She's 81, and she now has COPD associated with her emphysema, which is taxing her heart extra these days. Make no mistake, protracted emphysema is a costly thing, and the complications that are involved only get worse and more expensive over time. Many smokers live (die) long, drawn-out deaths, and I don't think lung cancer is necessarily quick/cheap, either.
Other than that, I agree with you. ;-)
Steve Dunn | March 24, 2005
Aaron, looks like I picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue. I'm not actually behind prohibition of tobacco. I'm suggesting if we're NOT going to prohibit it, we should treat it like the legal, regulated product that it is. Meaning, don't invent tortured rationales for suing companies engaged in legal businesses just because it's politically expedient to do so.
Amy, I hear you. There are exceptions to every rule, but the rule remains.
Everyone, sorry I was grouchy when I wrote that diatribe. I didn't mean it to be insulting to anyone, but obviously this issue gets me riled up - my blood pressure goes up whenever anyone tries to blame some external force for the consequences of their own dumb decisions.
John E Gunter | March 24, 2005
[quote]The ultimate theory behind the tobacco lawsuits is that American citizens are pathetic, stupid, and weak.[/quote]
[quote]but obviously this issue gets me riled up - my blood pressure goes up whenever anyone tries to blame some external force for the consequences of their own dumb decisions.[/quote]
I agree 100% with those statements and your general thoughts Steve. That's how I feel about most lawsuits where individuals blame someone else for their own stupidity. Not wanting to get into another discussion about a particular lawsuit, if you do something that you know is dangerous and get injured because of it, then it's your fault.
Commonsense and your body would even tell you smoking is bad. The very first time you inhale the smoke from a cigarette, you start coughing from the smoke. Smoke is bad and your body is telling you this via the coughing. But unfortunately that seems to be the direction our society and justice system has taken.
Same kind of thing with most food establishments. I find that when I go into a restaurant, the portions they give me are more than I can eat. So I eat just enough to give me a comfortable feeling and if it's something that can be heated up again, I take the rest home.
John
Dave Stoppenhagen | March 24, 2005
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit taking Amphetamines.
For a while there I was beginning to think I was one of the only people sick of frivolous lawsuits, and people sueing for their own stupid decisions, how about some personal responsibility people?
Amy Austin | March 24, 2005
Even though I agree with Steve's argument, it doesn't mean that I don't see the validity in Kris's as well...
Shit, this is harder than I thought -- it's taking me a long time to type, as I had a little accident this morning with my left ring finger and should not be typing with it. I have one of those little paper towel/combo dispensers (you know, for aluminum foil, wax paper, Saran Wrap, etc...), and I thought I had cleverly mounted it inside the pantry door at our "new" house (rental)... however...
This morning I bumped it while feeding the dogs -- which E did last night (another story) -- and my hand flew out instinctively to catch it before it hit the floor. Guess where I failed to catch it. Yep... right on one of those (very sharp) cutter blades. I could have gotten a piece of foil to wrap my finger's "leftovers", it was so meaty (yum). I screamed and cried, of course, and E came to my rescue with comfort and a bandage. Now, if he can just learn to stop saying that I act like a child when I'm hurt... LIVE WITH IT, E!!!
Hey... I've got it now... perhaps I should sue the maker of this damned device! YESSSS!!!
Kris Weberg | March 25, 2005
Humorous response:
Guess what -- attempted murder means that you failed to cause real harm as well! Strangely, it's still considered criminal.
You all sound like Sideshow Bob: "I mean, honestly, do they give Nobel Prizes in Attempted Chemistry?"
YES, the law is predicated on the theory that people are pathetic, weak, and dumb. It's predicated on the idea that people need means, sometimes extraordinary means, of protection in a society where means and access are not always as equal as rights. If you aren't protecting the stupid and weak, are you really protecting anyone who NEEDS protection?
More serious response:
Common sense is not and cannot be the law. Sorry. You live in a society where, odds are, no two people would AGREE on what constitutes "common sense." It's not that "common" after all.
Nor can the law, which is ultimately the instrument of individual rights in a democracy, operate strictly on percentages, chances, even assumptions about the typical person or citizen. Our rights -- including rights related to tort -- are designed to protect not the common-sense or majority position, but those positions that would otherwise be trampled by a tyranny of the majority.
There's a really good chance that raving about inequality might generate a violent mass response, but we can't outlaw protest speech. Hell, there's a GREAT chance that racist speech will induce racist violence; but outlaw one sort of opinion -- as opposed to action -- and you open a door that never gets closed.
Start decreeing certain types of lawsuits "frivolous," and before too long, every lawsuit is frivolous if the guy on the other side has the money and the media to make it happen.
People like to talk a lot about "frivolous lawsuits." They also like to forget that some corporations like to think of ALL lawsuits as "frivolous."
In the end, the argument isn't about the filing ofsuch suits, of course, but about the behavior of judges and juries. That's not an argument against a type of lawsuit, it's an argument against the civil judiciary system in general. And that's not an argument I'm comfortable making.
If someone dying of cancer gets a few million from a tobacco company, I'm not going to cry over it. If an old woman gets a few million from McDonalds, I'm not going to call that injustice. They've got the cash to spare, and they've done something wrong, even if that wrong was unlikely to cause real harm.
Unless you want to create a system in which we try to prevent harm before it happens -- second-guessing motives, assuming possibilities without proof -- the only real, practical, LEGAL means of punishing wrongdoing is after-the-fact. And as that means harm has already been done, civil courts tend to interpret causality a bit loosely at times for the simple and clear purpose of making sure the harmful or potentially harmful behavior stops and stops early.
The alternative is letting the behavior go on, and thereby ENSURING that either the behavior will escalate or a suitable victim will be found.
Idiots have the right to sue. Sometimes they win. That's not the fault of the idiots.
Amy Austin | March 25, 2005
Well, thanks for the concern over my finger, Kris... everybody!
Unless you want to create a system in which we try to prevent harm before it happens...
And that's the sad part about "frivolous lawsuits", really... the corporations that you rightly say think ALL lawsuits are frivolous are going out of their way to protect us from ourselves and to cover their own asses! The more idiots sue, the more business and government try to anticipate and prevent those tort suits from happening, and the more ridiculous our daily lives become (e.g., instructions and warnings that speak to consumers as if they just landed on the planet and don't speak the language, playgrounds getting more and more boring, helmet laws, release forms, disclaimers, liability clauses, insurance regulations, and on and on...)
Seems to me that we've already created that system, Kris.
Kris Weberg | March 27, 2005
Well, no, what we've created is a system that tends to induce companies to take often ridiculous measures to avoid potential tort liability.
Clearly, some juries and judges go too far with tort awards, but that's less a systemic flaw than it is a peculiarity that would be almost impossible to avoid.
It's also why there are appeals courts.
The big award for the dumb lawsuit makes headlines. The endless appeals in which that award is whittled away to a reasonable or nonexistent amount do not. Appeals are designed to protect the system from aberrant single outcomes, and they actually do work in general. Even some of the tobacco suits have undergone reversal on appeal.
And, of course, news stories tend to emphasize the aspects of a case that fit the "so dumb!" mentality. The judge and jury are typically aware of a history of problems, or of more specific details.
Look again at the coffee case -- McDonald's had a history of such incidents, and the coffee was unsafe to drink. It happened to spill rather than be sipped, but in either case injury would have resulted, one in a long series of reported injuries stemming, not from clumsiness or stupidity on the aprt of legions of customers, but from the fact that the coffee was being served at 180 friggin' degrees in flimsy styrofoam cups with ill-fitting lids. With that history in mind, a judge and jury saw fit to penalize McDonald's inducing them to lower the temperature of the coffee and improve the cups and lids.
I'd also argue that in some of the cases you mention above, like helmet laws and liability clauses, are often less for the benefit of a consumer than for the benefit of others. If the guy on the motorcycle in front of you has to wear a helmet, so much the better for someone else's insurance rates should there be an accident with medical liability. That's a case in which a "protective" law helps a major industry as well as protecting individuals from
themselves.
Likewise, I'm not too upset about "boring" playgrounds. Children are often reckless, and they can sometimes seriously hurt themselves. You can blame that on parental neglect if you like, but the parent isn't the one who suffers for it -- the injured child is. As such, we as a society will tend to err on the side of prevention, since those being harmed are those least able to protect themselves.
The alternative would be to effectively penalize children for having neglectful parents, saying soemthing like: "Well, other kids don't get themselves tangled in the swing-set chains. If your mommy had watched you, you'd be okay. Tough luck, sprout."
But overall, I think the notion that tort is out of control is trumped-up. We can't name more than one or two examples among thousands of suits tried every year, and of those exceptions I imagine further investigation would reveal plenty of reversals upon appeal.
But that's not exciting enough to get major news coverage, nor is it simple enough for politicians to make note of. So we get a diostorted view of legal outcomes, and focus on the bad exceptions rather than the workable routine.
Scott Hardie | March 27, 2005
Kris has so precisely articulated the argument I've been wanting to make all week that I have little more to add. Well put, Kris; I agree with everything you've said.
What I wish to add, I say in an ethical sense, not in a legal sense: Let us not get so carried away with the fight to restore "personal responsibility" in this country that we excuse corporations for acts of malice in the name of earning profit. I have long held that it is unfair to let corporations get away with behaving unethically — to use a favorite example, Blockbuster is underselling Netflix in an effort to steal their customers and put them out of business, and nobody bats an eyelash, but I'm not allowed to steal my neighbor's water supply and let her dry up like Terri Schiavo? Economists are so enamored of Adam Smith that corporations are allowed to get away with just about any behavior as long as they have market competition, which is ridiculous to me. The people who have gotten fat at McDonald's are they themselves to blame, but that's no reason as a society not to pressure McDonald's to stop having such high levels of fat & sugar in its food, or to stop advertising so heavily to children, both of which are acts of public endangerment that McDonald's pursues in the name of profit. Whether these obesity lawsuits are the proper means to combat the problem I do not know, but let's please continue to combat the problem.
Also: I hope your finger has improved, Amy.
Jackie Mason | March 29, 2005
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | March 29, 2005
Yeah, but part of Scott's point, though, Jackie, is exactly that McDonald's is providing those *somewhat healthier* options because of public pressure (like "Super Size Me" and "Fast Food Nation"). Even though they claim that these outside pressures have nothing to do with such decision-making, I think that's a pretty thin statement. (No pun intended.)
Oh, and thanks, Scott -- it's healing up quite nicely and pretty quickly, too. I still wear a Band-Aid all the time, but I can type normally now... ;D
Scott Hardie | March 29, 2005
But McDonald's does target children. Their mascot is a magical clown. The McDonaldland characters like Birdy, Grimace, and Hamburglar are not for young adults. "PlayPlace" playgrounds are not for young adults. Happy Meals are not for young adults. Most of their branded merchandise, such as the colorful child-sized plate sets decorated with the McDonaldland characters, are not for young adults. Plus, McDonald's has an entirely different set of commercials that they play during after-school hours and Saturday mornings, designed to appeal to kids, emphasizing their cartoon mascots. The "I'm lovin it" commercials with twenty-somethings only air during primetime.
Kris Weberg | March 29, 2005
In fact, they were so successfl at targeting children that in recent years they've launched several campaigns intended to recapture the adult market they've actually lost to other restaurants.
Anyone remember the name of that fancy burger on the potato bun from the mid-90s? That was explicitly meant to demonstrate that McDonald's could serve food that appealed to adults.
Amy Austin | March 29, 2005
Wasn't that the Arch Deluxe? (aka the SALTY burger...)
I'm sorry, Scott... I didn't mean to seem to brush off your comment about targeting children while responding to the publice pressure part as an indication of disagreement -- just didn't feel like saying all the (very true) things that you said after that. I should have prefaced my comment to Jackie with, "Target audiences aside..." I just thought that the public pressure point was the more important part of that observation. ;-)
Steve Dunn | March 30, 2005
Kris, common sense is actually a huge part of the American legal system. It's pretty much the whole underpinning of the jury system. Also, the concept of negligence is a "reasonable man" standard (or more recently, a "reasonable person" standard). Whether a particular act is, or is not negligent depends not on how the actual person actually acted, but how a "reasonable man" would have acted in the same circumstance.
I should say that in most cases, Kris, I agree with you. I think lawsuits are often labeled as frivolous when in fact they are not. The McDonald's coffee case is a classic example. As a lawyer, I am sympathetic to the work that other lawyers do, and I know the vast majority of them are basically trying to do a good job of doing the right thing. The civil justice system is an important safeguard against wrongful actions by individuals and corporations. The police can't be everywhere, all the time, and it's good for people to assert their own rights rather than always count on the government to do it for them. And doctors screw up sometimes. Much of the "tort reform" we hear about today is really about giving doctors and insurance companies special protections from liability that the rest of us do not enjoy. I see no justice in that.
But the tobacco lawsuits are different. They are truly frivolous, and they give my profession a bad name. I understand your desire to jettison common sense from the discussion, because common sense so clearly supports my position. What I cannot understand is why you are apparently convinced there is LEGAL merit to these cases. I do not think it is sufficient to say "they hid some memos," ergo, these plaintiffs have a rightful claim to damages. It smells of shorthand logic to me - tobacco companies are bad, and as you pointed out "they have cash to spare" therefore anything anyone wants to do to them is fine. I can't buy it. Fundamentally, the argument is that the tobacco companies failed to disclose something that everyone - everyone - already knew anyway. You are characterizing this as "the law" versus "common sense" however as I see it, the tobacco lawsuits were supported by neither.
The fast food lawsuits are just as bad. Scott, after making the surprising assertion that it is unethical for Blockbuster to deliver better products and better prices than Netflix, rightly calls for "society" to exert pressure on McDonald's to sell healthier food and stop marketing to children. Fine! Great! Wonderful! I absolutely agree.
Indeed, we do this, all of us, all the time. We exert pressure on corporations by living the way we live, buying the things we buy, doing the things we do. Corporations do not do stuff TO us, they do stuff FOR us. I can understand and appreciate a knee-jerk anti-corporate attitude, and such attitudes continue to thrive in certain corners of the world such as Cuba and North Korea.
If we allow ourselves to be, if only for a moment, only cautiously skeptical of corporations, we might entertain the notion that they exist to serve us, not to control us. No, really, just work with me on this for a minute.
If you don't like the food at McDonald's because it's fattening, or because it tastes like shit, you can exert pressure on McDonald's on a daily basis by NOT EATING THERE. It's just as easy as avoiding pornography on cable TV. You just have to change the channel.
Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2005
I've come to the conclusion that Steve Dunn and Kris Weberg should start a debate site together, or at least do it more here, because damn, it's interesting to read!
Steve Dunn | March 30, 2005
Thanks Anna. I always enjoy Kris' postings. Very eloquent and erudite, though often wrong!
Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2005
Oh I don't know about wrong. I can find him rather insightful - just one to take a different tack. One of the greatest strengths of TC, and I'm glad that it's still buried in here somewhere. I' m serious about you two posting more! I wish you would post your own discussion topics.
Steve Dunn | March 30, 2005
Insightful and wrong are not mutually exclusive. I didn't mean "wrong" as a prejorative, only as a handy personal shorthand for "having opinions that differ from mine."
Let there be no misunderstanding - I've got nothing but love for Kris Weberg.
I'd like to post more, too, but I'm running ragged trying to keep up with my own web site, travel, neighborhood activities, Netflix, reality television, playing with my dog, researching art, mowing the lawn, paying the bills, eating, and sleep. Oh, and work.
Digression: Anna, are you still watching Unscripted? I seem to have run into a wall of reruns after Bryan shot the film with Meryl and Uma.
Anna Gregoline | March 30, 2005
Yeah, HUGE wall of re-runs. I don't know why. I want more!
Scott Hardie | March 30, 2005
My issue isn't with Blockbuster offering a better price than Netflix, which is just ordinary market competition. It's that Blockbuster is such a wealthy company that they offer their monthly rental service at a loss, eating the deficit each quarter, in order to put the financially-strapped Netflix out of business, since Netflix cannot go that low. I read a lot of trade news, and the prevalent view in the industry is that Blockbuster's goal is Netflix's demise, at which time Blockbuster will raise their prices back up to a profitable level. It's the same thing Wal*Mart does to mom 'n pop stores: Take advantage of their massive size as a retailer to undersell the competition to the point of extinction, then turn the surviving Wal*Mart into a profit center to support further expansion. It's legal in free-market capitalism, but I regard it to be unethical. It doesn't mean I'm right; it's only my opinion.
And don't even say that Blockbuster offers a better service than Netflix. I won't stand for that kind of blasphemy. :-)
Scott Hardie | March 30, 2005
I should add: While the industry at large sees it this way, they also don't seem to care much. To them, it's just business. Myself, I do care, partly because it offends my sense of justice, but largely because I adore the doomed victim in this case.
Steve Dunn | March 30, 2005
Fair enough. Your position is more nuanced than I gave it credit for. I love Netflix, too, and I'll stand by them as long as they're around. To me, the Blockbuster product doesn't seem to be superior, so I haven't even considered changing. I have no idea how the business stuff will play out.
Generally, though, it's hard for me to get worked up about a company that delivers lower prices to consumers.
Kris Weberg | March 30, 2005
Scott,t hat's how plenty of companies do business -- once you'rebig enough, you can eat a loss and undersell the competition with ease, then raise your prices once the "war' is over and your business model has prevailed.
It's an old, old trick, and one that pretty much any industry leader has used at one point or another.
Jackie Mason | March 30, 2005
[hidden by request]
Scott Hardie | March 30, 2005
Kris: Believe me, I know. I consider it unjust whenever it happens.
Jackie Mason | March 31, 2005
[hidden by request]
Kris Weberg | April 7, 2005
Scott -- Playing devil's advocate:
Of course, the alternative would be to argue that a successful business isn't allowed to use resources it's legitemately earned for the purposes of further success. Essentially, you'd be handicapping any company with a certain profit level or cash reserve, and the end result would be an end to price wars that do provide some benefit to the consumer.
After all, what would be the incentive for underpricing a smaller company, a smaller business that would then set the lowest price level until it, too, made up enough in profits to hit the "handicap" level. Prices would stagnate in all markets, except in regards to inflation.
Devil's advocate off: Now, me, I'm pro-regulation and largely in favor of the kinds of mixed economies one gets in social dmeocratic countries, so I find the issues of a free(er) market irrelevant to my own concerns. Still, the above is an argument that makes sense in the comparatively deregulated American marketplace.
Scott Hardie | April 8, 2005
I hope that because I'm not saying more on the matter, it doesn't seem like I don't understand it or realize the impracticality of my ethics. I do. I just happen to be getting weary of whistling Dixie. :-\
Kris Weberg | April 8, 2005
Oh, I don't think your ethics are impracticable. I just think they'd require sweeping change not only to a few regulations, but to the American economic system as a whole.
Changes I'm not opposed to, of course.
Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.
Anna Gregoline | May 10, 2004
Everyone must check out Super Size Me, a movie about a guy who eats nothing but McDonald's food for a month. It's an amazing movie and FUNNY. Jesse and I saw it on Friday, and if I wasn't so poor, I might go again.