Running Scared: Observations of a Former Republican
[Home] [Former Republican] [About the Authors] [RSS Feed] [Pointless Vanity]

"Losing my faith in humanity ... one neocon at a time."

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Warning: Fat Rant Incoming

posted by Jazz at 1/26/2005 07:14:00 AM

NOTE: YOU ARE VIEWING AN ARCHIVED POST AT RUNNING SCARED'S OLD BLOG. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW BLOG HERE.

Just what I needed to start my day. (Sarcasm meter on, please.)
Obesity suit may dog McDonald's

Court reinstates part of suit accusing the company of tricking kids into eating fattening foods.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court Tuesday revived part of the widely-watched obesity suit against McDonald's Corp. that accuses the world's biggest fast-food company of using misleading advertising to lure children into eating fattening, unhealthy foods.
I've tried to avoid this topic because I can rarely discuss it without beginning to froth at the mouth and thrash around on the floor violently like some sort of carp dragged out of the pond onto a bed of electrified tacks. I would also like to preface this by saying that I do support some limited tort reform as long as it's not a big industry golden goose, still allows people to sue for real damages against dangerously irresponsible or criminally negligent entities, and has reasonable caps. This lawsuit, however, gets my pet goat.

Is McDonald's food fattening? OF COURSE IT'S GOD DAMNED FATTENING! It's a pile of meat, grease, cheese, etc. on a big hunk of bread. If you seriously thought that was health food, you shouldn't be allowed outside unsupervised. Unless there was somebody holding a gun to your head, nobody made you eat 312 Big Macs last year. And if they did, you should be suing the guy with the gun, not freaking McDonald's.

This lawsuit is not only without merit, it's offensive to every person in the country with an IQ higher than room temperature water. Look... I used to have a hobby that many people said was somewhat insane. I used to be a skydiver. Yes, that's right... nearly every weekend we would drive out to one of the local Drop Zones, I would suit up in some very questionable equipment, fly two miles up in the air in small, overloaded planes that were barely capable of flying and throw myself out of them. And I kept on doing that until one day my parachute didn't open. I managed to deploy an emergency reserve with less than ten seconds before impact and lived to tell the tale, but it scared the living crap out of me and I quit.

My point is, if I had not managed to get that reserve chute out, I wouldn't expect my wife to go and sue the company that ran the Drop Zone, or the pilot or the manufacturer of the parachute. I would be dead because I was intentionally JUMPING OUT OF A FUCKING PLANE. That's NOT very smart, and it could fairly be said that I not only deserved to die, but probably increased the national average IQ slightly in doing so.

If people were getting sick and dying from eating McDonald's food because they were spicing up the Special McSauce with lead based McPaint and not telling anybody, I could see the point. You'd definitely have a valid case in court. But these people are suing because... eating a shitload of obviously fattening food .... surprise ... makes you FAT. You either need to make the production of all possibly fattening food in the country illegal (not practical) or the judge needs to come out from behind the bench, walk up to the plaintiffs and their attorneys, and break all of their fingers with his gavel. His only comment at that point should be, "There. Now you can't hold any fattening sandwiches to eat them. Problem solved. Dismissed."

Since I've already lost the battle, yet again, to control my temper when talking about this subject, let me just add in a tangentially related note. I'm also fed up with people who want to be able to sue gun companies because somebody in their family got shot by a functional gun. Unless you can prove that the gun itself was manufactured in a defective fashion which would allow it to discharge when it definitely shouldn't, it's not the fault of the manufacturer. If your sister was intentionally shot by somebody, it's the shooter's fault. If the gun was accidentally picked up and fired, then it shouldn't have been left laying around. These people aren't suing gun manufacturers because they are culpable. They are suing them either because they're looking for a deep pocket, trying to get a back door around the second amendment, or both.

And while we're at it, you can all stop suing the tobacco and alcohol companies, too. If you don't know by now what's good for you or bad for you, you need more help than a court can provide.

I'm going to stop now, go outside, and throw myself into a snowbank.