The return of the ambulance, umm, waddlers

Jerry Nadler, call your office: the Second Circuit has reinstituted the suit against Mickey-Dees.

But you have to love the district court judge on this:

The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who blamed their obesity, diabetes and other health problems on Big Macs and Chicken McNuggets.

Sweet said the plaintiffs had not followed detailed instructions he gave when he first threw out the case and told the plaintiffs they could submit a new filing with information backing up their advertising allegations.

He said the complaint did not answer such questions as ``What else did the plaintiffs eat? How much did they exercise? Is there a family history of the diseases which are alleged to have been caused by McDonald's products.''

The judge said that without this information McDonald's did not have sufficient information to determine if their foods caused the plaintiffs obesity or if instead the products were only a contributing factor.

Of course, McDonald's is relying on the legal principle known as the Vernon Wormer defense, ie that "fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."

(I just deleted a longer bit that indiscriminately used the word "piehole" repeatedly, as it was a wee bit intemperate. Still, for my money, I have no idea why the word "piehole" is so funny, but Lawhd help me it is.)

BTW, nobody tell Ith about this----it could very well be a mellow-harsh-er.