Ron Johnson
-
Posts
1,512 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by Ron Johnson
-
-
Steven, I have painstakingly broken down the McDonald's case for you, but I can't make you understand it. Water cannot be hotter than 212 degrees, above that it turns into steam. That is common knowledge. I am incredulous that you rather sarcastically state that boling water is not hazardous. If you do not feel that boiling water can be hazardous I encourage you to bring a pot to a rolling boil and then pour it onto your genitalia. Upon release from the hospital, please post on here again and let us know if you opinion has changed.
As for your comparison of junk food to tobacco and breast implants, they are not at all similar.
Tobacco contains nicotine which is a physically addictive substance. Tobacco companies knew this and manipulated the level of nicotine in cigarettes in order to make sure that people were "hooked". This was a fact that Jeffrey Wigand revealed when he blew the whistle on big tobacco. In this way they were behaving much like Tommy's pot dealer.
Breast implants were alleged to be defective in that they leaked silicon into the body. You are correct that the causal link between silicon and connective tissue disorders was difficult to establish. However, it was breast implants themselves that were the subject of the lawsuit, but a certain type of breast implant which was alleged to have a defect (leaking silicon).
Junk food is not addictive in the sense that the drug nicotine is. Some people may not be able to control their consumption of junk food, but that is due to their own psychological disorders or impulse control problems.
Junk food is not defective in the manner that the Dow Corning breast implants were. No one is alleging that Big Macs are generally safe but some batches have been known to leak extra fat into the bloodstream due to a manufacturing or design defect.
If tobacco wasn't a physically addictive substance, no plaintiff would have prevailed.
If Dow Corning breast implants had not leaked silicon, no plaintiff would have prevailed.
Neither of these elements are present in junk food.
Some idiot may attempt such a suit someday, but unlike the McDonald's case, he/she will not have much with which to work.
-
jhlurie: They hide in your wine cellar and only come out when people who subscribe to Cigar Afficianado come to your house. Be afraid, very afraid.
-
Steven: As I said in the first line of my post, I have no animosity specifically toward Fox News. Don't really know how much clearer I can be on that one.
As for the McDonald's case, it is simple. The plaintiff was badly injured. Why was McDonalds at fault? Because they sold a product that they knew was likely to cause injury but did it anyway in order to make money. The coffee was served much too hot so that it would discourage refills and remain hot during the commute to work. This gave them a market advantage over competitors that served coffee at lower temperature. They served a beverage that was hot enought to severely burn human tissue in a cup that would not contain the coffee if spilled. Why, because changing the container would cost more money. Ultimately, McD realized that it would be more profitable to settle cases with those injured than change their behavior. So the jury thought that 2.7 million might make them rethink that.
It is no different than the Ford Pinto case. There, Ford knew that the gas tank was too close to rear of the car, but did the math and realized it was cheaper to settle cases with those burned/killed in accidents than retool the assembly line. It was an internal memo stating this strategy that caused them to get hit with a punitive damages award.
However, having severe burns from coffee is viewed as acceptable by the public.
The bottom line is that people love to bash trial lawyers until they need one. It is interesting how the injuries are always frivolous until they or their loved ones suffer the injury.
I actually had a potential case where a man's young daughter was burned on the face because she was standing at the counter with her father and the counter-clerk spilled hot coffee across the counter and splashed onto her face. She had some significant scarring, but we declined the case because no jury in America would award anyone damages for being hurt by hot coffee after the McDonalds case. Corporate America wins again.
-
Tony: there are many who share your feelings. The 100 point system is inherently flawed, especially when no wine scores below 50, making it in effect a 50 point system.
My approach to Parker is simply to acknowledge his predisposition toward huge, oaky, tannic monsters, with highly concentrated fruit and obvious over-extraction. These wines have a folllowing, and Parker serves them well by rating these wines, usually between 90 and 99 on his scale. Parker is a champion of the winemaker over the the varietal, the vineyard, or the vintage. He is a testament to the power of man over nature.
However, thats his right and I don't begrudge him one bit for it. Rather I simply do not choose wines based on his numbers.
Instead of gnashing your teeth over it, Tony, I suggest you find a reviewer that you like. I like Claude Kolhm of the Fine Wine Review, and I also go to the Robin Garr's Wine Lover's Page for tasting notes from people who have a similar palate to mine.
Best of luck to you.
-
Wine doesn't have a visual side? Interesting. Actually ther color and appearance of wine is one of the most important indicators of its quality.
Italian truffles to button mushrooms? That would be like comparing Cote Rotie to Budweiser. I will galdly accept the challenge to correctly identify those two with a blindfold.
You would be right if these experts were tricked in a "statistically significant manner" but they weren't. If one of them was blindfolded and then uttered, "All great Bordeaux is made from Zinfandel" then I might agree that the blindfold proved the person was not an expert on wine.
Cheers.
-
I harbor no animosity toward Fox news. However, it was clear from the responses to the article that many readers were under the impression that some lawyers had indeed undertaken such cases.
Therefore, the support for my statement that they have written about a scenario that is not currently in litigation is the fact that even their own article cannot cite to a single instance of such litigation in this country. However, the article gives the impression that thousands of money hungry trial lawyers are eagerly licking their chops as they prepare to file suit against the "junk foood" industry. Because they are unable to cite any such case, they are forced to elicit hypothetical scenarios from law professors and then pass them off as if these individuals have some profound insight into the future of litigation in America. Even you admit that this topic has been relegated to discussion in the law school classroom. If there is any group of individuals in the legal profession who are less in touch with the realities of law, especially litigation, it is the professors sequestered in their ivory towers with only the faintest notion of how to find the courthouse. However, by publishing such a story/hypothetical scenario Fox has suceeded in perpetuating the myth that trial lawyers pursue frivolous lawsuits and only for the purpose of lining their own pockets.
A myth that has grown immeasurably due to the terrific power and wealth of the insurance industry. Their public relations campaign has been relentless and unbelievably successful. This is evidenced by the posts of Peter B Wolf and Blue Heron above, both of whom are firmly convinced that the myth is true.
Peter B Wolf even took the time to describe several cases which have received a "Stella Award". When taken out of context and given only a tiny sound byte of the facts of a case it is easy to make them appear 'frivolous".
The truth of the matter is that less than five percent of the cases that are in litigation in this country involve personal injury. The rest are businesses suing other businesses, businesses suing people, and divorces. Of that five percent that are personal injury only a tiny miniscule amount are frivolous (brought by inexperienceed lawyers who think they know how to pursue a Plaintiff's case). Those suits that are frivolous do not make it to trial due to Summary Judgment. This is a matter that if left to the judge, it never gets to a jury.
As for the "Stella Awards", it is interesting that everyone always talks about the 2.7 million instead of the actual amount of 躀,000. Furthermore, the devastating injuries she recieved are always conveniently forgotten in order to heighten the "frivolousness" of her lawsuit. She was severely burned in a location that I will not mention here and had to undergo serious procedures to remedy it. Additionally, it was proven that McD knew that there coffee was served at a temperature high enough to cause severe burns, that it was served in cups that would not contain the coffee if tipped over (not the case with coffee houses which have secure lids), that they served their coffee at a temp much higher than others in the industry, that they knew a high percentage of coffee was spilled especially when served at drive-thru window, that they continued to serve the coffee at the high temp because it lessened the amount of refills given and people liked the fact that their coffee was still hot when they got to the office. In other words McD engaged in behavior that they knew put their customers in danger, but continued to do so because it made them lots of money. Of course that doesn't fit so neatly in the space alloted for the Stella Awards.
There is an oft-quoted line from Shakespeare:
"First, kill all the lawyers." However, few people know that the entire quote is actaully:
"If tyrrany is to prevail, first kill all the lawyers."
Everday I represent people who are hurt by the negligence or intentional acts of large corporations. These people have no money to hire a lawyer who charges an hourly fee. Therefore, I take cases on a contingency fee basis. Some of them pay me well, which barely makes up for those that don't pay at all. Additionally, I advance the costs of litigation so that my clients don't have to, often costing me in exccess of 贄,000 for a case. If the case is lost, so is the money. I am not getting rich doing this, but I believe in what I do. It offends me greatly that people so flippantly assume that I am a money grubbing, unscrupulous scumbag because I choose to represent people instead of corporations. No one ever seems to bad-mouth the large firm corporate lawyers who make millions of dollars per year and often defend corporations that they know intentionally hurt people in order to make money. Hmmm, thats odd.
Well, thats just my two cents worth. And for what it is worth, I come to this website periodically throughout my day as a way to escape from the rigors of my law practice and talk about what I really love: wine and food!
-
Foxnews has no journalistic integrity. Did anyone notice that nowhere in the article does it state that any lawyer in America is currently pursuing such a case.
Foxnews totally invented this scenario and then asked some bozos to comment on it.
Their follow up story will be about the possibility of suing John Denver and Tommy's pot dealer.
I think that you can get more reliable hard news from E! Entertainment Network.
-
no, didn't do the whole shot, just a taste out of each.
-
I don't know what this proves.
I prefer Hickey Freeman suits, but if you blindfolded me could I tell if it was that or a Hart Shafner? Probably not. What does that mean? Nothing.
Could an expert like Fat Guy be fooled into believing a "choice" steak was "prime". Perhaps, but does it mean that he doesn't know anything about food. Clearly not.
Anyone remember those Folger's commercials? "We secretly replaced the gourmet coffee used by this fine restaurant with Folger's Crystals." Ok, I could tell a difference with that one.
However, my point is that attempts to "trick" an expert are often used to discredit an expert when they succeed. But what does that prove? That the expert can be fooled? So what. On a bet I once correctly identified 10 different vodkas in a similar price bracket that I tasted blind. I knew the ten brands and had to match each shot with the brand. Probably half of my choices were luck. Just as that does not make me a vodka expert, this type of experiment does not prove that the "wine experts" are wrong either.
-
Simon: I was wondering how long it would take you to weigh in on that one. You know I was only pulling your leg. However, given Blue Heron's post above, I believe that you have been supplanted in the Bourdain lovefest. At least you never called him the Russell Crowe of chefdom. eck!
-
Paul: Was it Lynn's Paradise Cafe? Lots of kitschy decoration and somewhat retro? She is know to cook with a slight Mexican infuence.
-
Lreda: I haven't been in several years but the best restaurants in Key West are Louie's Backyard and Bagatelle. Both have very good food for a vacation place like Key West.
However, the can't miss place is Pepe's. Go for breakfast, it is very good. I always ate a late breakfast there and then migrated to the outdoor bar where they squeeze the juice fresh to order (grapefruit and orange). Ask the guy to fill a glass with ice, three fingers of vodka, and then place under the grapefruit press. You might end up staying at Pepe's all day. It used to be much less touristy, but then again so did Key West. Have a great trip.
-
Paul: I must admit you got me puzzled on that one. Lilly's is run by Kathy Cary, she is known for cooking with regional ingredients indiginous to Kentucky and surrounding areas. She has been invited to cook at J. Beard house repeatedly.
Perhaps her lunch menu could have had some Mexican type thing on the day you were there, but I wouldn't describe her restaurant as a small house on a side street. Probably was not Lilly's. Hmmm, I want to figure this out. Could you give me a few more clues about this place? What part of town was it in? Expensive or cheap? Mexican-French? that part really has me puzzled.
So what brought you to my fair city?
-
Steve: sorry so late in replying, but forgot about my post here. If you liked the rolled oysters at Mazzoni's you would love the ones at Check's Cafe in Germantown. 1995 would have been right before I returned to Louisville from Memphis, but I have found some quite good fine-dining here, namely Lilly's, Jack Fry's, Equus, Le Relais, Oakroom, and English Grill. Maybe things have improved since '95? If you want to see how things have progressed go to www.louisvillehotbytes.com there are reviews and a pretty lively forum.
While in Memphis I did eat at Raji, and got to know Ms. Jallapelli fairly well. I was the bartender at Cafe Society and responsible for the wine list. Many of the distributors conducted wine tastings at Raji. Amazing food, and a super nice lady. Actually lots of good food in Memphis, the barbeque was far superior to anything found in Louisville.
I take it you are no longer dating a Louisvillian, but you ought to stop in for a visit sometime anyway.
Maybe if we talk about Louisville enough, Kentucky can be added to the "American South" in this forum!
Cheers.
-
Tommy: the problem with Naked Chef is the #### camera work. Its like trying to read scrap of newspaper floating in the ocean through a four inch porthole while riding in the steerage compartment of a underpowered steamship. Puke city. For God's sake, zoom out, zoom out!
-
Tommy: That would be cool. jackie loses it after months of verbal abuse from Bobby. She splits his melon with the nearest cutting board and then goes after the silicon injected blondes smiling idiotically in the audience.
Over the top? No way my good man. Pure genius!
-
Can't believe that I forgot the Naked Chef! The show has such intense close-ups and shaky camera work, not to mention sudden sweeps from Jamie's nose hair to a tiny mole on his hand, that not only I am unable to discern what technique he is employing, but I have also experienced motion sickness. That show cannot be viewed without the benefit of dramamine tablets.
Wilfrid: I too disdain violence toward women, however, given Bobby's inclination to treat Ms. Malouf like a piece a trash, I am afraid the backhand is coming any day now. Their relationship is oddly reminiscent of a pimp and his 'ho (sp?).
-
I know that this topic was tangentially addressed in the Bourdain lovefest featuring Chef Anthony and Mr. Mamdujar. However, I thought it was topic worthy of its own thread. My Ũ.2 on the various personalities is as follows:
Sara Moulton: PROS: Nice lady, decent chef. CONS: call-in shows make me wince. Are we Americans really that stupid. Also it bothers me how she is always making the guest chefs rush through their preparation.
Mario Batali: PROS: Seems like a heck of a nice guy. Definitely genuine passion for his cuisine. Probably among the most talented of the chefs on the newtwork. One of my personal favorites CONS: My god the man mangles the english language. His efforts to use the most poly-syllabic and verbose terminology to describe an item often leave him severely tongue-tied and gasping for air. Rooney, the idiot sidekick on his travel show, must be killed.
Bobby Flay: PROS: He came to my state (Kentucky) and he said nice things about it. CON: He acts like a jerk. The only thing left for him to do to Jackie Malouf is smack her on camera. Even the format of his show is exclusionary, sexist, and self-serving. Oh yeah, and he uses a gas grill. So much for him being a real man. I wish Jack McDavid had kicked his ass on their last show.
Emeril Lagasse: PROS: Nice guy. Creating more interest in food and cooking. CONS: Makes tons of mistakes on his show. Dangerous source of misinformation to new cooks. Acts like a clown. I keep expecting him to pull up to the set jammed into a tiny car with "Doc Gibbs" and Cliff, all wearing red noses and humongous shoes.
Gordon Elliot: PROS: None CONS: Him. Shoot on sight.
Ming Tsai: PROS: Got the fusion thing down. Seems nice. CONS: Tends to be cheesy.
Alton Brown: PROS: Best cooking show on TV. Extremely informative sessions with just enough classroom shtick to keep it from being a lecture. I wish Emeril would watch some of these episodes. CONS: He lets the Rooney guy on his show.
Wayne Harley Brachman: PROS: Makes good desserts. CONS: Acts like a creepy serial killer. And whats up with that voice?
Padma Lakshmi PROS: She is even hotter than her food. CONS: Not a chef. Continues to do her show clothed.
Keith Famie: PROS: He didn't like that woman on "Survivor" either. CONS: After her the person I hated next was him.
Anthony Bourdain: PROS: A guy from the trenches makes good. CONS: Does he have to pay Hunter S. Thompson royalties for stealing his identity?
Martha Stewart: PROS: K-mart filed chapter 13. CONS: This is too easy.
Thats all I can think of now.
-
ericw: Instead of just being extremely sarcastic, why don't you give us your list of the top 50 or tell us why you thing some (or all) of these choices are bad. You can't just hit and run.
-
Beer v. Wine
in Beer
A Balic: The designation "New World" would in fact encompass Australia, New Zealand, etc. Which is further evidence that "New World" does not equal Bad wine. New Zealand Sauvigon Blancs are a revelation. However, these countries do exhibit "New World" tendencies by creating over-extracted, super-ripe, high alcohol, fruit bombs, which get high scores from Parker but don't show much long term complexity or evidence of their terroir. They also do not marry as well with food. Given their over the top style, they tend to dominate other flavors, especially subtle ones.
Your question about Super-Tuscans raises an excellent issue. What happens when winemakers employ "New World" techniques in an "Old World" arena. In addition to Super-Tuscans, this phenomena can also be seen in the garagistes of the right bank in Bordeaux. My opinion would be that these wines should be considered "New World" because that title is more accurate as a description of a style of winemaking than it is a description of where the wine is made. Just as there can be "New World" wines made in France and Italy, there can be "Old World" wines made in the U.S., Australia, NZ, etc. In California I would point to the Edmund St. John's Syrah based wines as an example of "Old World" style in the U.S.
Cheers.
-
Beer v. Wine
in Beer
dstone: um, ok. now am I the baseball or the football? or are you the football player and wine is a baseball game? no, wait, I get it, people who drink wine like to play football, right?
-
Beer v. Wine
in Beer
Bux: the bargains are everywhere, they just need to be found. I think that the cabernet francs from the Loire Valley are tremendous values. I would also agree that many wines from the languedoc are bargains. Especially those that are using mourvedre and not gimmicky winemaker tricks.
Prial is a heck of a nice guy, but I tend to disagree with him much of the time. Like when he said that Sancerre was made from the melon de bourgogne grape.
I think Kermit Lynch's little book does a nice job of explaining why Old World wines are more rewarding than New World, as well as discussing the significance of terroir.
Cheers.
-
I just throw away my dishes after each use. Eliminates the need for sponges, as well as the dishwasher.
Cheers!
-
dstone: some webers have flaps on the edges of the grill surface that allow easy access to the charcoal below, if yours does not have these then the answer is: there is no easy way. However, it isn't that hard to get a couple towels and lift the grate straight up while someone else chucks a few more coals on the fire. Lift the grate up with the pork on it, dont try to take the pork off, as it might fall apart. As for the wood chips, they should be small enough to pass through the grate.
Make sure you cook with the top on, if the fire starts to die, then open the air holes on the top of the lid, once the fire gets too hot, close them back up.
Good luck, and dont forget to put slaw on your sandwich. Now, thats Memphis style!
Class action suit against junk food companies?
in Ready to Eat
Posted
Home coffee is between 135 and 140 depending on the type of machine. Liquids at 140 degrees will cause pain but not serious burns to the skin. Any liquid above 180 degrees will cause third degree burns if in contact with the skin for longer than 2 seconds. McDonalds served their coffee between 180 and 190 degrees. No other fast food chain serves coffee at this high temperature. McDonalds also continued to serve their coffee at this temp depsite knowledge of more than 700 people who had suffered serious burns as a result of coffee spilled on them.
On another note, last night I recalled once when I was a waiter spilling an entire cup of coffee on another waiter as I was turning with the cup in my hand. She said it hurt, but she never had any blisters or scarring. That was coffee from one of those commercial machines I believe made by Bunn or something like that. So it must not have been over 180.