Related posts

• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited II (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited (6)
• Sanctimonious posse pursuing Ronald McDonald (0)

Related posts

• Toronto foodie culture, under the table (1)
• The dangers of corn shucking (5)
• Microblog 2008-11-25 (0)
• March 31 roundup (3)
• July 11 roundup (3)

Related posts

• Daily Show mocks SF Happy Meal ban (1)
• “San Francisco overrides mayoral veto, bans Happy Meals with toys” (3)
• “San Francisco bans Happy Meals” (10)
• “Hello, I’m with the government and I’m here to help you eat” (1)
• Sanctimonious posse pursuing Ronald McDonald (0)

Related posts

• McDonald’s sued over Happy Meals (10)
• “Whoppers with sleaze” (8)
• The “pie chart that doesn’t want you to eat pie.” (4)
• Stossel on the food police (3)
• Official nutritional guidance: the track record (1)

For to really embrace tort reform, you have to be willing to treat all potential plaintiffs as no-good grifters. … To support tort reform, you have to believe all lawsuits against businesses are a threat to the free market.

Stuever does not, for some reason, name any proponent of reform who has actually asserted either of the propositions. Do you think that might be because he’s trafficking in absurd caricatures? (earlier on “Hot Coffee” here, here, here, etc.)

P.S. More: Cory Andrews, WLF. And if lawyers are really eager to have the facts of the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case come out, it’s curious they don’t take steps to release the trial transcript, in the absence of which critics of the case are obliged to speculate on key points. And as I just wrote in a comment at Abnormal Use:

I believe organized tort reform groups were caught flat-footed by the McDonald’s case and didn’t get around to doing much with it until it had already become the talk of the nation through talk shows, late night TV and so forth. As often happens, plaintiff’s-side advocacy groups were more aggressive in seeking coverage for their side in the media. Thus Public Citizen and allies gave a press conference on Capitol Hill and were rewarded with a big Newsweek story summarizing their talking points (as well as, earlier, coverage in the news-side WSJ). I’m pretty sure no groups critical of the Liebeck award ever did a comparable press push; and the McDonald’s company itself, so far as I know, never chose to cooperate with commentators who might be sympathetic to its legal case.

Related posts

• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited II (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited (6)
• Overlawyering making America a laughingstock (0)

People don’t like cheap, tasty, high-calorie fare because McDonald’s offers it. McDonald’s offers it because people like it. … We live in an age of inexpensive, abundant food carefully designed to please the mass palate. Most of us, recalling the scarcity, dietary monotony and starvation that afflicted our ancestors for hundreds of millennia, count that as progress. But those determined to save human beings from their own alleged folly see it as catastrophic.

[Examiner]

Related posts

• San Francisco Happy Meal ban (9)
• Pelman v. McDonald’s going forward (10)
• McDonald’s sued over Happy Meals (10)
• McDonald’s obesity class action dismissed (2)
• McDonald’s and the legal academy (0)

Related posts

• Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case (23)
• Two more hot coffee lawsuit data points (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited II (3)
• Stella Liebeck and McDonald’s coffee revisited (6)
• Responses to comments on yesterday’s McDonald’s coffee posts (1)

Related posts

• San Francisco Happy Meal ban (9)
• “San Francisco overrides mayoral veto, bans Happy Meals with toys” (3)
• “San Francisco bans Happy Meals” (10)
• “Hello, I’m with the government and I’m here to help you eat” (1)
• Sanctimonious posse pursuing Ronald McDonald (0)

Also: Check out the further information Ira Stoll has developed at his site about the meals San Francisco serves at its own schools, which seem to compare not at all favorably with the meals the city’s council has seen fit to ban.

Remember, this isn’t a once-every-so-often treat provided at parental discretion, like a Happy Meal — this is the food the state is serving for lunch in the essentially compulsory government schools. The fact that it’s McDonald’s rather than the government schools that are getting sued by this parent and advocacy group gives away what the lawsuit is really about. It’s not really about food, or calories — it’s about an attempt to increase the power of the state over private enterprise by restricting the power of the private enterprise to market its product. The suit isn’t about the “meal,” it’s about the “happy.”

More on the nutritional background: Patrick Basham and John Luik, “A Happy Meal Ban Is Nothing to Smile About”, Spiked Online; David Oliver. On the legal: Russell Jackson. And welcome listeners of Lars Larson’s Portland, Ore.-based radio show, which welcomed me as a guest to discuss the case Dec. 17.

Related posts

• Welcome Lars Larson listeners (0)
• The “pie chart that doesn’t want you to eat pie.” (4)
• Sanctimonious posse pursuing Ronald McDonald (0)
• San Francisco Happy Meal ban (9)
• Pelman v. McDonald’s going forward (10)

P.S. Happy to see that as of late Wednesday evening my piece is the most read, most emailed, and most discussed at the Daily News opinion site. Followups and links here.

Related posts

• Happy Meals and Campbell’s Soup (4)
• “Whoppers with sleaze” (8)
• “San Francisco bans Happy Meals” (10)
• UK: menace of ice-cream vans (5)
• The “pie chart that doesn’t want you to eat pie.” (4)