I'm not sure which I hate more: McDonald's or Burger King. On the one hand, McDonald's has those sappy commercials that try to convince you that taking the whole family out to eat grease-soaked french fries and slimy, sugary hamburgers is an essential part of being an American. On the other hand, Burger King has that orange-and-beige color scheme, devised by psychologists to ensure that customers, subconsciously disturbed by the decor, will leave quickly and make room for more customers. Both companies display hideously misleading photographs that make their food look thirty times more plump and fresh than it really is. Stranger still is the fact that they want to emulate each other. McDonald's Quarter Pounder is designed to compete with the Whopper, and Burger King's "Big King" is designed as an alternative Big Mac. This, of course, makes it even harder to decide which one is the worst. Who to loathe, who to loathe?

Fortunately journalist Nick Brown wants to help. The fast-food critic recently focused his high-powered culinary faculties upon both establishments, intending to learn, once and for all, who's the worst chain at the mall. I won't reveal the verdict, but I will say that Brown's quest leads to some of the liveliest food writing I've ever seen. Here's a sample: "The bottom bun was crusty as toast while the top bun was more akin to bread pudding. The meat was dry and chewy around the edges and the lettuce was like wet crepe paper." Who says fast-food reviews can't be beautiful?

What's really weird is that in spite of Brown's description of the burgers as "cheap, bland, thoughtless things," the article made me hungry. Gotta run!