I completely agree with you and feel very strongly that people must be more responsible for themselves, but unlike many of these other reaching lawsuits, the McDonalds did actually have some merit. At that time McDonald's had the policy in place of free refills on their coffee. It was found in corporate documents that the company encouraged to heat the coffee to an excessive amount, so that it would take customers longer to drink it...therefore reducing the amount of refills requested. End result? Coffee dangerously hot, here it left 3rd? degree burns.

Lana,

The fact that you reference that case with such disgust proves that you are not aware of the details of this particular case.  It's not that the coffee was just hot, an obvious assumption, it's that the coffee was boiling hot, far hotter than one would expect coffee to ever be, for example, if you went to another restaurant, or if you used a standard coffee maker.  This coffee was so hot, that the woman in question received 3rd degree burns, requiring skin grafts and several years of treatment.

The problem with that particular case is not that it was frivolous, as the woman was simply trying to reclaim medical costs, but that people such as yourself dangerously oversimplify the case.

"Are Americans so stupid they think everyone else is to blame for their stupidity?"

Yes!!!  It is everywhere I look.  The majority of people do not take responsibility for themselves or their actions.  They just point fingers and expect something for nothing.  No one wants to work- why work if you can sit around all day and get paid for nothing?  It's quite a shame.

Then again, maybe I am the sucker, working a full time job and paying all of my bills.  Perhaps I should sue Taco Bell because their "fire" sauce is too spicy.

Ah shoot, I posted to the wrong comment the first time.  Oh well. 

Again, I have to say though, it seems like you're oversimplifying things. I don't believe that statement, but that you are using a condescending attitude to try and generalize frivolous lawsuits, as well as use that as a lens to judge all Americans.  I support safety and warning disclaimers because I know that it's impossible for everybody to know all the dangers about everything. 

Denny's, McDonalds, I don't care which company, should want to label these things, they should want to prevent disaster, but all they ever seem to care about is shareholders and profits.  This is one inherent danger in the overall beauty of capitalism, and one that requires government intervention. Is it perfect? Of course not, it can never be.  But we should be willing to work with it for the welfare of our society.

Adam,

It does not matter what that woman's injuries were.  It was HER fault that she spilled the coffee on HERself.  SHE DID IT.  Why should someone else pay for her stupidity and/or mistake? 

What if I bought some high quality knives at the store and I chopped my finger off while cutting veggies?  Should I sue the store for medical costs?  Should I sue the knife company because they did not warn me the knife was sharp (something that is utterly obvious)?  Is it not my fault because the knife was "unusually" sharp?  NO!  Everyone knows that knives cut!  Everyone knows that coffee is hot and capable of causing burns!  Coffee is almost synonymous with HOT!  I can't drink coffee for five minutes at least after buying it because it would burn my tongue.  And of course if I spilled it on myself immediately after purchase, while wearing clothes that would not allow me to undress immediately, then I would get 3rd degree burns too! 

I disagree that coffee would not be as hot at other places, since I have experienced many a coffee shops and cups of coffee.  So I am not making any 'dangerous' assumptions.  I am relying on my experience and smart mind to know that most coffee is 'dangerously' hot and thus I assume that all coffee is hot - so I don't go haphazardly placing cups of coffee between my legs - I simply would not take the risk.  Plus if that cup did say "caution hot" - the same thing would have happened to this woman who placed herself in an unsafe situation by putting a cup of hot coffee between her legs.  Just like if I was handling lye in chemistry class - I would know of the dangers of being burned, so I would take NO chances of burning myself by lazily/stupidly placing the cup between my legs. 

That woman's burns were a direct result of her OWN actions.  It was idiotic of her to place the hot coffee between her legs (not a very steady place to hold a cup of hot liquid) - it's not like she was driving and did not have the use of both hands.  Any responsible person would hold the cup in one hand, and lift the lid with the other.  That coffee spilled because of her stupidity.  Even if she wasn't stupid and it was a true mistake - it is still HER mistake.

I reference the case with disgust because IT DISGUSTS ME!!!  It's just another story of another irresponsible American who does not want to take responsibility for herself - who would rather have SOMEONE ELSE PAY FOR HER MISTAKE!

Adam-

True capitalism never requires government intervention.

If you truly are interested in understanding my view point, I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged.  Read that book and you will never support government intervention again.

You see, without the government sticking its nose into businesses, the economy, education (all places in which government does not specialize), then consumers would be able to get exactly what it is that they want.  If they want ridiculously obvious labels, then a company will give them labels once they see their profits falling because they are not giving the customers what they want. 

Government intervention only gets in the way of growth, quality products and a strong economy- especially when the government goes around bailing out FAILING companies.  A true economist knows to let the failing companies die so that new, more able companies can take their place and fill the need.

In a truly free market, with no government intervention, companies would HAVE to do exactly what the customer wanted - or they would go out of business because some other company would be smart enough to fill the need.  Without the government placing regulations and saving dying companies, only APT companies would survive.  And they would have to be run ethically and honestly in order to do so.

I know you probably don't understand it now, but the reason for this entire economic mess and the "golden parachutes" that everyone blames on the "free market" is the government's regulations.  Regulations caused this whole mess.  We have never truly had a free market or a true capitalistic society.  Like I said, read the book and you will understand.

The idea that corporations do not have some degree of liability for their actions  or their products is absurd.  If a toy has been contaminated with lead, leading to a poisoning of a child, doesn't the company have some kind of liability there? On the other, would McDonald's have liability for an obese customer who eats there every day? Of course not, that idea is also absurd.  This is proven case law, the fuzziness in the issue lies at where to draw the line with liability. 

You are right with the sharpness example, however, the issue with coffee was not so. We expect coffee to be hot, but NOT that hot.  And if it is, that hot, you would expect some type of warning that it was so.  The fact of the matter is, you probably would NOT get third degree burns from coffee that you made at your home or received from another restuaruant, unless you specifically made or asked for it that way.  In addition to this, McDonald's had recieved numerous other complaints about the temperature of their coffee, but had deicded that it would be more profitiable to pay off (usually in a hundreds of dollars of range) the vicitims, or simply ignore their requests, instead of making a massive change to the way that they conducted business, that is, reducing the termperature of the coffee, or placing a disclaimer on the coffee itself.   McDonald's was found liable for the situation for this reason, not only was the coffee abnormally hot nor was it labeled as such, but because they had recieced numerous complaints about it and had done nothing to recitify the situtaiton in any way. 

Of course coffee is hot, but there is, within common reason, a limit to how hot it would be.  Would you expect you coffee to be at a rolling boiling when you receive it?  

The jury interpreted the case in that she was, for all extents and purposes, trying to be careful by placing it between her legs.  You make thing this is "stupid," but I think many people would agree with the notion that it is a very stable place to put any type of drink.

Clearly, Adam, this argument has come down to opinion. 

I believe that coffee is hot and IS capable of causing 3rd degree burns.

I also believe that it is irresponsible and not very bright to put something so dangerous between your legs.  Hands have evolved for thousands of years to hold cups and other objects that are dangerous.  Legs have not.  They're for walking.

And- if led was in a company's toys in a FREE market, then the FREE media would report it and that company would not get any more customers, therefore going out of business.  End of problem, end of faulty/dishonest businesspeople.  In a free market your product and service must be perfect, or your company will go down the tubes. 

Lana -

You have a pie in the sky opinion of how business is run. This is not how reality works. When companies can keep their ingredients secret when there is no government law requiring them to reveal the contents of their product, they will get away with poisoning people who buy their product in exchange for profits. If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of very greedy people in business.

Sorry, but I'm not a free market capitalist. People have laws that rein them in, corporations need to as well. People sometimes do bad things and so do corporations. Or are you one of those anarchist types that think we should all be lawless? In that case, it will become "might makes right". That is reality.

Would you rather buy goods from a company that disclosed what its product is made of or a company that didn't? Which company would be more successful?

Daniel, please see my long comment at the bottom of the comments here. Any serious economist knows that the market simply won't work without -some- degree of tort liability; simply assuming people won't buy things they don't know enough about won't work, since information acquisition costs are too high (how many things do you purchase in a day? How many hours would you have left in a day if you'd done thorough research about every single one of those purchases?). The only disagreement is over the extent.

As for which company would be more successful, I think it's clear that a company with clearly unhealthy food has a market incentive to hide nutritional information - people will generally assume the food is not particularly healthy but won't know just how. The best approach, of course, is what Denny's did: put nutritional information online where they know most people won't think (or bother) to look for it (I know I don't look on a restaurant's web site every time I eat there!), and then make a big deal in the media about how open they are about the nutritional value of their food.

PS -

On rereading, this thread gets funnier and funnier!

"hands have evolved for thousands of years" - Because you know, a lot of evolution can take place in thousands of years.

whether or not coffee is usually hot and can cause third degree burns is now a matter of opinion, not fact, and everyone's entitled to their own beliefs about the matter.

The only reason that products we see nowadays aren't PERFECT is that our market is not free enough (I guess because the government keeps butting in?), not because we don't live in an economy with infinite liquidity and zero market-entry costs.

Ah, the beauty of having just enough knowledge to think you know something, but not enough to realize what you don't.

`Are Americans so stupid they think everyone else is to blame for their stupidity?`

The short answer is YES.

The United States had devolved into a `nanny state`, where no individual is personally responsible for thier choices/actions/behavior.

What in the world does this lawsuit have to do with Obama? I really wonder about people in this country. Were you a product of Bush's no child left behind?

I like you Elaine!!!

Debbie - Elaine is only trying to open your eyes.

Although many peoples' eyes are open, they are still fast asleep.

And Debbie, can you tell me what a Marxist dictatorship is?  The test will be in 30 minutes, your results should show us whether or not you were a product of NCLB. (I doubt it, since NCLB calls for teachers' accountability for students' results - if a teacher's students fail, that teacher is out of a job).  I guess anything that forces people to take responsibility for their actions is utterly stupid...

Even if you fail the test, Debbie, hopefully you will do a little research and understand exactly where this country is headed- and which side you are fighting for.

Thank you, Elaine, for doing your part to educate the masses. 

P.S.      I doubt Debbie will do any research on Marxism to pass her test  :( 

Lana -

I will ask again. What does Obama have to do with this lawsuit? He is not suing Denny's. He has nothing to do with this individual. Let's separate fact from fear-mongering, why don't we?

Hahaha, Debbie you failed the test!

I knew you did not know what it meant.

And it's not fear mongering if it is the truth.  You know the truth does not care about ignorance.

Like I said, do a little research.  Google "MARXISM" - maybe then, just maybe, you can awaken from your dream.

Oh yes, your question.  Obama has everything to do with the entire idea that someone would have the audacity to sue Denny's over salt content.  It just so happens that ridiculous occurrences such as this only can survive in a society in which no one takes responsibility for their own actions.  A society in which everyone expects to get something for nothing- in a MARXIST society - something that OBAMA is the leading figure of.

Can you connect the dots now?

Lana,

Please outline the differences between Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Lennism, Stalinism, Maoism, and Trotskyism.  I know the differences, do you?

For your information, Obama in know way resembles Marxism, though I do think you are speaking of Stalinism from which he is further from.  He has absoultely nothing to do with this lawsuit or any other liabilty lawsuit in this country. I know that because, well for one I look into things a little deeper than your petty slogans and half truths, but also I know because he is a fierece defender of our civil liberites, something that both certain Republicans and Stalin had in common.  I would like to see us all stay on topic though....

Lana -

Can you see me? I'm rolling my eyes at you. I don't need to be schooled on Marxism. Obama is barely any different from Bush on policy. I don't like either one, personally. So you won't catch me defending Obama on much of anything, but blaming lawsuits on Obama is absolutely RIDICULOUS.

Adam - Marxism greatly resembles communism.  Since the last few times I've mentioned communism my posts have been removed (too close to a truth?), I left it at that.  Yes, I could tell you what all of those words mean.  Apparently not many people in this country truly understand the dangers of communism, since they back Obama 100%.

Debbie - I did not blame the lawsuit on Obama, I only said that lawsuits like this are POSSIBLE in a socialist environment - and since Obama is a radical socialist, these types of lawsuits will certainly thrive. 

And yes, I can see you.  You're kinda hard to miss.

Work let out early, kiddies (Friday's are always so slow during the summer).  Sorry I won't be around to continue this enticing argument.

Have a great weekend!

Debbie, what does Obama have to do with this lawsuit? Nothing directly but he eptiomizes and is the perfect example of our culture which is a dumbed-down, suing crazy, non-thinking, brainwashed, indoctrinated, fearful, irresponsible, blame someone else, out-of-control culture with no direction, no care about the consequences of actions, and dependent upon others for support.

Wow, Elaine. Have you actually read what you wrote? Really???

I see a bit of projectionism in your post. You might want to re-read it.

Debbie, thank God I was not a product of the so-called educational system of today.

I was forunate enough to live at a time when children actually received an education rather than merely being brainwashed and indoctrinated into thinking they are the center of the universe, that government is the be-all and end-all of all that is good, and people actually took responsibility for their actions. All of which is foreign to you it seems.

Interestingly, I lived in a neighborhood and community and at a time where people of all ethnicities, religions, and backgrounds got along without filing lawsuits, creating dissenion, and depending on the government to support them and micromange their lives.

We used to ride our bikes without helmets! (gasp!)

We used to travel in cars without seatbelts! (gasp!)

A handshake was all that was needed to seal a deal. One's word was enough.

We ate dirt, played in the mud, didn't wash our hands with antibacterial soaps, ate junk food, and basically lived our lives free of the government micromanaging every aspect of our lives.

How the world has changed!

Now we don't trust anyone except those in the government who in fact, care nothing about anything except their own political careeros and who believe that free people aren't intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

The government treats people as imbeciles who are never responsible for their own actions and need to be led by the hand to be safe.

The reality is this. No one can ever make everything safe. There are risks to everything. Good government does not exist to make someone else responsible for your bad decisions.

You need to grow up and take responsibility for yourself. If you are so concerned about the food people eat, encourage everyone you know to grow their own food and never, ever eat at any restaurant.

You know what, Elaine? You have made an awful lot of assumptions about my beliefs, which I don't think I've said very much about here. The only statement I've made is that restaurants should be required to list their nutritional ingredients so that people can make an informed decision. I never said that government is the be-all, end-all of life's problems. I never said that people should sue over every little thing. I never said that people should do anything here, other than be given the ability to make an INFORMED CHOICE.

Yes, the world certainly has changed. Corporations cannot be trusted to do business honestly and fairly. That is a fact. I can list half a dozen cases offhand: Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, loan modification companies, credit repair companies, AIG... to name a few examples.

The fact is that government represents US, the people, and NOT businesses. The document states "We the people...", not "We the corporations..."

I'm not entirely sure why you brought up the diversity of the place you grew up. Not sure what its relevancy is to your argument.

I said you were projecting, because while you were so busy telling us that we are blaming our ills on corporations, YOU ARE BLAMING ALL THE ILLS of the country on Obama. I will repeat that I am not and have never been an Obama supporter. But blaming Obama for the state of our country after 6 months in office is absolutely insane.

For the record, I'm out of school a LONG TIME before NCLB was implemented... And I thank my lucky stars for that.

Marxism: the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Class warfare is a predominat theme of the Democratic Party, along with sex and generational warfare.

Obama hates capitalism and free markets. He is a racist and eugenices promoter. His administration is a list of appointees who are the whos-who in the anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, anti-democracy, anti-life, anti-free market, anti-America, and pro-government rule by extreme liberals who intend to destroy every institution upon which America was founded and remake it into a Socialist uptopia run by radical extremists.

Way to repeat Republican talking points. Good job.

Anti-Christian? Someone's been listening to too many right-wing wacko talk show hosts. Sounds like a little Lou Dobbs, Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck all rolled up into one.

LOL, it's like Elaine thinks we've never heard the term "Marxism" before, and if we only learned as much as she knows, we'd all agree with her! How cute.

Also rather amusing to learn that apparently, she thinks the government has gotten in the way of people playing in the mud and using soap that's not antibacterial? This would come as news to most of my family members.

Also, in Elaine's world, people were responsible for their own actions, and this apparently means that they didn't wear helmets or seatbelts. Because "responsible" people are totally the ones that think to themselves "I could listen to the statistics or the science or the general common sense saying that protecting my head means I'm less likely to crack my head open, or I could just feel secure in knowing that nobody I know has died from not wearing a helmet... yet." Okay, in that past world, maybe people WERE more likely to die in an accident, but at least they knew it was NOBODY'S FAULT BUT THEIR OWN when they did!

THOSE WERE THE DAYS, I tell you. Nowadays, we tell kids to take safety precautions when they do things that are potentially dangerous. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO LEARN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT WAY???????? HOW???????????????

Debbie, what is the relevancy of mentioning my bringing up? Common sense and a complete lack of a sense of right and wrong, morality and immorality.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, people had common sense. They didn't need a government bureaucrat to tell them that life has risks or that certain actions might cause injury. They almost instinctly knew that eating too much ice cream might give you a stomach ache or putting your hands in a lawn mower that was running would cause injury and if you did these dumb things, you were responsible.

Today, no matter what you do, you aren't to blame. Someone else always is. Common sense has died. Individual responsibility has died. Look in any telephone book and see how many lawyer's there are. We are a blame someone else society refusing to use common sense and accept individual responsibility. We need warnings on every product we use because someone will sue when they have no common sense or will not accept responsibility for their actions.

The reality is that the government cannot protect us from all harm. Being alive creates all kinds of risks.

The issue we are discussing is an issue that involves a lack of common sense and irresponsibility and the lawyers who accepted this case ought to be disbarred from practice, sent to a class that teaches common sense, and put out of business.

Elaine -

I think it is common sense to think that a meal contains an average level of sodium. Why would people suspect that one meal contains more than a day's supply of sodium? The amount contained in the meal is way higher than if you made that same meal at home. That is outside of the bounds of what a reasonable person would expect. That is why this is a lawsuit. Of course, yes, people can just stop going to Denny's. They have enough of a crappy reputation on other things already.

Honestly, though, I think the large number of lawsuits can be attributed to the ever-widening gap between rich and poor in this country. When that gap is much closer, you see a lot less of the "bad" things in society. Here is a study to back that up:

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

"I think it is common sense to think that a meal contains an average level of sodium. Why would people suspect that one meal contains more than a day's supply of sodium? The amount contained in the meal is way higher than if you made that same meal at home. That is outside of the bounds of what a reasonable person would expect."

I have to disagree. 'Chain' resturaunt food is ALMOST ALWAYS above average.

"This meal includes eggs scrambled with cheese,, bacon, diced ham and sausage that comes with more meat on the side plus hash browns and pancakes."

Forget the individual ingredients, this meal SCREAMS high sodium! It is also not unreasonable to expect that unless something says so otherwise (usually in a downward or healthier direction), you can pertty much expect resturaunt chain food to run as much as %20 higher than the same items from your refrigerator.

Having gone to Denny's website and read thier published data, I found the vaules at (the high end) of what I would have expected.

Additionally, the body can handle eating like that on an OCCASIONAL basis. If this is one's daily diet, then one is also a fool to think one would remain healthy.

I will agree however, that poverty (in varying degrees) has a lot to do with these lawsuits (in general). The more affluent simply tend to eat better in general, and there things like this are relegated to the status of 'non-issue'

Dunkin Donuts (for example) like to try to make the upsale of 2 donuts to go with my coffee, when I ask for just one. To which my response is "One fat pill per serving, thank you". Why? because I know that one is bad enough, I dont need the other one.

@ Harold - Just to clarify, the website link I posted above is measuring these various attributes based on the gap between rich and poor. Japan has a nearly 1:1 gap, meaning people are mostly equal. If you notice in the various graphs, Japan does very well on most of these attributes that were measured. The smaller the gap between rich and poor, the better these countries fared. Where there is a large gap (and the US and UK are two that have a very noticable gap), you will notice that we do very poorly on most of these comparisons: health, obesity, crime, social mobility, etc.

Debbie, sorry if I did not make that clear, I was actually agreeing with you on that particular point.

There is not currently a federal law requiring restaurants to provide nutritional information. Some counties are starting to require this, but I think everyone should have access to full nutritional information on foods provided by restaurants. Why should restaurant-prepared foods be different from products you purchase at the grocery store? We should have the ability to know what we are purchasing so we can make an informed decision.

Denny's has their nutrition facts available (as do most restuarants). http://www.dennys.com/LiveImages/enProductImage_690.pdf

We don't need federal laws for everything. Nearly 100% of chain restuarants already provide nutrition facts because it's what the consumers want. A federal law requiring ALL food sold to have nutrition facts would harm small "mom and pop" resturants, school bake sales, etc.

People need to take some responsibility and realize "oh hey, that's full of grease and enough food for 5 people, it's probably not healthy". We live in a society where lack of common sense is rewarded.

There's nothing wrong with eating junk food occasionally. Yes, some people eat it to much; just like some people drink too much. But like you said, people are responsible for their individual health and make their own choices.

"I find it amusing that Ayn Ran fans seem to be reading change.org's food sustainability blog in the first place."

Just reading to see the level of intelligence that people on change.org possess.  And it is Ayn RanD.

Jennifer - If a person is fat, he most likely is lazy.  It is called exercise and it doesn't cost a penny.  If a person is poor, he needs to go get a friggen job or some darn foodstamps (which are quite easy to get).  If that's not enough, get a second job.  Being poor does not mandate that money must be spent at McDonalds.  I could go to the grocery store and buy 2 weeks worth of veggies for less than it would cost me to eat crap at McDonalds all week, so I don't buy it that healthy food is not affordable.  As for eating out- yes, McDonalds is way cheaper than Salad Works BUT just because you are buying a cheeseburger, large coke and grease-sopped fries, does it mean that you have to eat the whole meal?  Perhaps an education on portion size is direly needed in this country.  Even if the ingredients were listed on the label, people would eat it anyway!  Just like people still smoke cigarettes, still drink liquor... you get the point.

"Who are you to say that it is up to "stupid" to know if there is a reasonable amount of sodium or addictive chemicals in what is sold here in our wonderful free enterprise country?"

Who am I?  I am a free thinking American!  Who are you?  Have you ever had an original thought in your life?  Do you truly believe the bs you speak?  As for the above referenced quote (not written very well imo, but anyway) I believe that a person would be stupid to NOT know that a cheeseburger is unhealthy and that the healthy choice would be to opt for the salad instead (it is only $1 after all). 

As for this stupid story, I am not an advocate of keeping ingredients secret- but Denny's has their ingredients listed online!!  Geez.  It's not like they're refusing to divulge some top secret information.

On a final note, people like me LOVE life and would never, ever show it disregard.  What has me so angry is the complete ignorance of the majority and all of the evil that is done in the name of compassion and helping thy brother.  Help yourselves!  Then you will be in a much better position to help thy brother (as long as he doesn't expect it).  Taking responsibility for yourself seems to be a dying virtue.

Wow, Lana, you caught a typo! Good job, you probably had to graduate high school to attain that level of perspicacity. Now it's my turn: It's "McDonald'," not "McDonald's." You made that mistake at least twice, too. In addition, I believe it should be "2 weeks' worth," not "2 weeks worth." Now I can disregard the content of everything you say as well!

I also hope you realize that I wrote that quote, not the person to whom you replied. In the meantime why not try responding to the actual content of my posts?

Also, good to see that someone like you is thinking ORIGINAL thoughts here, like "people are generally aware that cheeseburgers are fattening." That kind of depth of understanding is hard to achieve in today's world. I mean, it's such a complex idea that the food service industry, cigarette industry, and popular culture just can't convey that message in terms the general population of the United States can understand. Remember, if others think you don't make sense, it's just because they can't read and refuse to think OUT OF THE BOX.

sorry, the HTML seems to be a bit wonky: "McDonald's," not "McDonalds."

Re: the "Ayn Rand" typo: in case you couldn't figure it out from my last comment, I actually do know who Ayn Rand is and how her name is spelled. You may be surprised to learn that I am in fact familiar with her work and yet still disagree with her (isn't that the definition of "free thinking"? The ability to be familiar with a point of view, understand it, and yet simply disagree with it?). On the other hand, judging from your bizarre assumption that simply reading Ayn Rand will make me agree with you and that anyone who disagrees with you simply doesn't know how to think, I find it hard to believe that you've actually read the works of any sophisticated thinker with contrary opinions. You're you're just sore because my misspelling was accidental whereas yours was simply because you didn't know how to spell the proper noun in question. I thoroughly apologize for my despicable failure to copy-edit my blog comments.

"The difference there would be that McDonald's sells mostly crap while Ayn Rand sells free-thinking SOLUTIONS to the world's problems."

See, this is the magic of capitalism: when you can't think for yourself, you can just buy your ideas from someone who can! Truly we live in a marketplace of ideas.

"Wow.  So what you are saying is that the majority of people are too stupid to understand the general FACT that cheeseburgers and cigarettes are unhealthy?  You are lying to yourself.  PEOPLE KNOW THESE THINGS, they just choose to ignore the reality and do what they want anyway."

I'm sorry, I forgot that free thinking makes people unable to understand sarcasm, which is, apparently, something that only those of us with réssentiment-driven mentalities use in conversation (I am assuming, of course, that you're also quite familiar with the works of Nietzsche, who was clearly one Rand's inspirations. Although her work was at least somewhat more logically coherent, don't you think?).

"If you don't think you are responsible enough to make your own decisions, then you can step aside while the free-thinking people take charge."

I have found that the people least capable of making sound decisions for themselves were also those least aware of their own limitations, don't you think? As they say, fools boldy go where angels fear to tread. What I mean is that it's exactly those who feel most confident in their ability to take charge that I'm most worried about actually doing so. So if you feel like you're capable of making your own decisions, please feel free to do so. In the meantime, I'm going to remain a bit skeptical of your supposed solutions for America.