Wednesday, February 23, 2005

The McDonald's Myth

This is a particular favorite of mine, but not in a good way. Anyone who has gotten into a layman's conversation about "tort reform" has inevitably encountered the McDonald's story. You know the one right? The one about the woman who won millions of dollars in a lawsuit against McDonald's because she spilled some coffee on herself. Its a favorite story told by those who like to complain about the runaway legal liability cases. Everyone chortles and tsks in response to the story since everyone knows how ridiculous it is to think that this woman deserved any compensation for her clumsiness.

Think Progress has the facts:

FACT: As a result of her injuries, 79 year old Stella Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years

FACT: Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald�s about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000. McDonald�s countered by offering her $800.

FACT: The original, $2.7 million award was equal to two days of McDonald�s corporation coffee sales.

FACT: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

FACT: During trial, McDonald�s admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald�s received more than 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks.

I have no evidence for this, but I am certain that the popularity of this story is due in part to the fact that it is pushed hard by insurance industry propagandists.

UPDATE:

BTW, Think Progress is doing a whole series of articles based on the latest Frank Lunz "How To Lie and Win" manual. The "McDonald's Myth" is just the first in the series. My "favorite" so far:

Finally, Luntz advises, 9/11 is the perfect way to dodge responsibility for sinking the country in red ink. In a section headed �Without the context of 9-11, you will be blamed for the deficit,� he points out �supporters are inherently turned off to the idea of fiscal irresponsibility.� The best way to counter that fact? �The trick then is to contextualize the deficit inside of 9/11.�

When will someone confront Luntz on TV about this and ask him why he thinks it is acceptable to use 9/11 to "trick" the voters?

Foot stomping Dems

So, one reason the Democrats have yet to come out strongly against the effort to attack AARP is because there is still some "lingering resentment" against the organization because of its support of Bush's disastrous prescription drug bill (from The Hill):

The Democrats� apprehension about AARP, the nation�s largest group representing senior citizens, registers at different levels throughout the caucus. Some lawmakers are willing to set aside their lingering resentment over the party�s defeat on Medicare in hopes of defeating the president�s proposal to offer personal accounts. Less forgiving Democrats, however, say AARP should stay on the other side of the aisle and work with �their new GOP friends.�

Message to "Less forgiving Democrats": get over yourself.

I'm as upset as the next person at AARP's stupidity with respect to that bill. But there is simply no point in letting that resentment get in the way of what could be a strong and lasting alliance between the party and AARP. AARP is a powerful political force in this country and they will remember who their friends are if the Democrats come to their defense now.

According to The Hill, Nancy Pelosi has been excluding AARP from strategy meetings. Bad idea Nancy!

One of those "Less forgiving Democrats" is named in the article:

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) is one Democrat who has not moved beyond AARP�s support for the GOP prescription-drug plan.

�I am still very disappointed,� said Ackerman, who suggested that AARP might find more doors open on the Republican side. �The Republicans are the ones that bought them, or at least rented them for a while.�

�Let the AARP deal with the Republicans, their new friends,� he added.

Contact Pelosi and Ackerman. Let them know that they need to stop acting childish.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Waahhh!!!

What a bunch of whiners!

Ten Republican state senators in Washington have put forward a measure to ask President Bush "to create a new state east of the Cascades that would comprise 20 of the current state's 39 counties," the AP reports. The senators consider the Cascade Mountains to be an "indisputable wall between political ideologies," and thus wish to create the 51st state. "But even if the measure passes the Senate and House and is signed by the governor, the U.S. Constitution says that Congress, not the president alone, has the power to create a new state."

Especially laughable is the fact that Bush has no power to change state lines yet these yahoos apparently think he does!

Game Plan

Steve Soto lays out a precise plan for how the Democrats should hit back on the USANext attack ad.

But will they actually do it?

I'm a bit disappointed that there has been so little official comment on this from anyone (AARP, Reid, Pelosi and even Howard Dean).

Get on the ball guys! Opportunities like this don't come along every day.

Stop USA Next

Democracy for America has a petition

Monday, February 21, 2005

Time to invoke the Chicago rules

The first strike in the "Unfit To Age" campaign against AARP is out. This is an ad running on the front page of the American Spectator web site. (courtesy dKOS).

On its surface this is a laughable. The suggesting is that AARP is anti-troop and pro-gay. Yet clicking the ad, while taking you to the USANext site, will not provide any explanation for the attack..

AARP should not treat this as a joke, however. They should not assume, as John Kerry did, that these kind of attacks will be laughed off. AARP should hit back and hit back hard. They should demand a retraction. Furthermore, they should make anyone bleed who doesn't demand a retraction who should logically do so.

Yes, this will just bring publicity to this campaign. But don't doubt that this campaign won't become a big deal without our help. Apparently USANext has around $10 million to promote this effort. FOX will undoubtedly be on board. The time to respond is now!

The good people at dKOS have come up with an excellent counter-ad:

Those who forget the past...

I've seen several people openly mock the idea of pulling a Swift-Boat style smear campaign against AARP. Josh Marshal's post makes it sound like he is amused by the whole idea of attacking grannies. There's a whole thread of people over at dKos chortling over the idea as well.

I'm sure John Kerry thought the idea of attacking his service record was equally laughable.

Closet Tolerants

I'm going to side with Matthew Yglesias on the question of whether Bush is a "closet intolerant". It is clear to me that Bush personally has no problems with homosexuality. Indeed, I am often struck by the impression that he is almost liberal in his personal views on many aspects of human relations. I think it is a mistake for people on the left to ascribe to him motives for which there is very little evidence.

The sin of Bush is not intolerance but his willingness to use the intolerance of others for his own personal gain. Bush strikes me as a person who is so enamored of his own personal qualities that he thinks that it excuses him from the pain he causes by enabling the intolerance of others. He is not personally hateful, so the hatefulness of others is not his fault.

I would also suggest that it is Bush's own personal openness that makes him so personally appealing to those who advocate for social tolerance. How many times have we heard stories from people who are his political opponents who, none-the-less, find the guy personally likable? Bill Clinton is just the latest in a long line of such individuals. But, just as Bush enables the intolerant by his manipulation of their feelings, those who personally like Bush are also guilty of the sin of enabling his own self-inflated ego.

Damn but this country is in serious need of an intervention.