It was fun to watch Dr Phil lay into that nervous lawyer. But then I've taken responsibilty for my health and can use fast-food to my advantage. Double-cheeseburger, anyone?

Unfortunately, that episode also played into the Dark Side's hands. Sure, the case is ludicrous and that particular lawyer was in over his head, but this could be the beginning of a process.

Does McDonald's take advantage of the fact that people like to eat cheap, filling, good-tasting food? Do they, in fact, attempt to make it even cheaper, more filling, and better tasting? Can McDonald's prove that a customer under the influence of their marketing will leave their restaurant healthier than when they entered? Do they not, in effect, prey on the under-privileged who are forced by circumstance to eat there? Should McDonald's not compensate society for the health-care burden to which they have contributed and from which they have profited by knowingly flouting the gov't's nutritional guidelines? Should McDonald's not become a partner in this country's fight against obesity by funding research, clinical care, and educational food programs for the poor?

By constantly airing and honing their argument before taking it to the courts, and perhaps using a more sympathetic host, they may eventually shape it into a "helpless little guy vs Evil, Rain-Forest-Burning Business" scenario and get some public opinion going in their favor. Blood in the water. And the government would be all too happy to feed at the Tobacco, Episode II trough. There are billions of dollars up for grabs in legal fees, settlements, taxes, and lobbying.

Coca-Cola could be next.

Whining is serious business.