Pun Salad

… except for the drillin' in the wall:

• The musings of the New York Times Official Food Nag, Mark Bittman, have a strange fascination for me. This week, his withering stare is turned upon the Unspeakable Horror that is McDonalds Fruit & Maple Oatmeal. For Bittman fans, his gripes are predictable, and couched in the melodramatic prose typical of scaremongers ("only 10 fewer calories than a McDonald's cheeseburger or Egg McMuffin" Aieeee!).

  It doesn't take a sharp eye to detect where Bittman's scorn is really aimed, however:

  Some will say that [McDonalds Oatmeal] tastes better, but that's because they're addicted to sickly sweet foods, which is what this bowlful of wholesome is.

  It's evil, I tell you! And if you disagree, it's because you've succumbed to its evil spell, you weak-willed addict!

  Bittman can barely hide his contempt for people making their own choices:

  Others will argue that the McDonald's version is more "convenient." This is nonsense; in the time it takes to go into a McDonald's, stand in line, order, wait, pay and leave, you could make oatmeal for four while taking your vitamins, brushing your teeth and half-unloading the dishwasher. (If you're too busy to eat it before you leave the house, you could throw it in a container and microwave it at work. If you prefer so-called instant, flavored oatmeal, see this link, which will describe how to make your own).

  This is the language of the Born Nagger. Not content with having made his own choices, he's more than willing to tell you how to make yours too. After all, isn't he in a much better position than you to decide what's "convenient"? Hasn't that been a major factor missing in your life, a New York Times columnist to tell you when to unload the dishwasher and brush your teeth?

• Let me not be the only libertarian blogger to miss commenting on the ruling by federal Judge Gladys Kessler declaring Obamacare to be just fine-and-dandy Constitution-wise. Why? Well because of the infinitely-expansive Commerce Clause.

  It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not "acting," especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

  Bottom line: any "choice" you might care to make is fair game for the Feds, as long as there's a dollar sign involved.

  Limited government is a joke when judges like Kessler are eager to blow up the Commerce Clause into a loophole through which you can drive a large ambulance down the Road to Serfdom.

• Dear Obameter:

  With respect to President Obama's Promise 238 ("Conduct regulatory agency business in public"), I think it's finally time to rate as "Promise Broken". According to Politico:

  Caught between their boss' anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the reality of governing, President Barack Obama's aides often steer meetings with lobbyists to a complex just off the White House grounds -- and several of the lobbyists involved say they believe the choice of venue is no accident.

  It allows the Obama administration to keep these lobbyist meetings shielded from public view -- and out of Secret Service logs kept on visitors to the White House and later released to the public.

  I'll try to remember to keep an eye on this…