Apparently John Boehner is miffed that the House Cafeteria has changed its caterer and menu:

Members of Congress returning to the Capitol this week are being confronted by transformational happenings that have shaken the building to its foundations: Democrats have hired a new company to run cafeteria services. Naturally, this has caused an outbreak of partisan skirmishing.

"I like real food," proclaimed Republican leader John Boehner when asked about the new menu by a producer for another cable news outfit. "Food that I can pronounce the name of."

Boehner is now forced to wrap his lips around such phrases as "broccoli rabe and shaved persimmon," "balsamic glazed butternut squash," and "calico pinto beans"...all on this afternoon's menu, along with the downright patriotic "American Regional Yankee Pot Roast," which, even Boehner would have to admit, kind of rolls right off the tongue. On Fridays, there is a real sushi bar tended by a bona fide Japanese sushi chef. Gone are such grade-school cafeteria specialties as Salisbury steak and fried chicken, slathered in gravy and served with a side of chips.

Vegetarian and progressive blogger Chris Bowers offers some harsh commentary:

Why does Boehner care so much if the cafeteria food is different from his usual tastes? For that matter, why have conservatives frequently insulted the type of food (sushi-eating), type of coffee (latte-drinking), or type of alcoholic beverages (wine and / or microbrews) that progressives consume? It seems to me that they consider our divergence from their habits to somehow be an insult to them, rather than the outlandish possibility that we just prefer different kinds of food and drinks. Does their intolerance know no bounds? And if they really like the food, coffee and alcoholic beverages you consume, why does it bother them so much that other people have different preferences? That strikes me as a shockingly high level of personal insecurity concerning one's cultural preferences.

This literal distaste for pluralism, coupled with whining over something as petty as personal eating habits, is demonstrative of what has always struck me as the extreme insecurity among conservatives in the cultural realm. That someone even cares what someone else eats is absolutely pathetic. The inability to just live and let live reveals how the conservative cultural supremacist message is based in the highest levels of personal insecurity that one can think of. The fear of gays, of Mexicans, of Muslims, and even of food is infantile in the extreme. Does Boehner need to someone to scare away the unpronouncable words and diverse menu options under his bed at night, too? What else can conservatives fear and hate? Are they going to start holding news conferences about progressives hanging toilet paper the wrong way, too?

I think that Bowers goes a little too far in extrapolating the views of "conservatives" from this one aphasic Congressman who hates food he's never tasted. But a few thoughts more gustatory than political.

1. Speaking personally for a moment, I note that my own period of greatest overall health occurred when I lived without meat, and do routinely minimize my consumption of most meat, especially red meat which I eat almost never. Despite being overweight and a fairly stressful lifestyle, I have excellent cholesterol and blood pressure.

2. Much of the American diet simply sucks and we should not allow Boehner's down-home presumably faux ignorance about healthier, higher-quality food to erect a pretense to the contrary. Much of America's "cuisine" shows a lack not only of punctilious French subtlety and herbs but of basic respect for the ingredients. How anybody actually manages to choke down chicken-fried steak with gravy is beyond me. I think a lot of people eat that stuff because they identify with its cultural environment. McDonalds does not have to suck, but things don't "have to happen" for them to happen repeatedly and reliably.

While the same cultural snob appeal may be found among the drinkers of microbrews and sushi, it's hard to compare well-made vegetarian sushi or well-crafted brew with chicken-fried steak. Then again, perhaps it is indeed foolish to argue about tastes; "de gustibus non disputandum."

3. Notwithstanding 2 above, there are a lot of high-quality cuisine, wine, brew and other gastronomical delights produced here in the U.S. California is famous for its diverse cuisine and its excellent wines. Hard crabs are sometimes called a "delicacy" though I do think that that word was never meant to describe the smelly, carnal, brutal act of tearing crabs open over newspaper and drinking cold lager. New England lobster, Louisiana's varied cuisines, even Tex-Mex show a lot of care and respect for the ingredients. In a lot of small-town America, however, you can drive up to the one diner with a light on and expect to order a plate of Standard American Slop, because making tasty food would offend people, might be too ethnic, too City-fied, too progressive, too suggestive of dark people.

An excellent, simple and healthy example of food that a diner could serve profitably and quickly is kebabs; the meat cooks quickly, the rice cooks easily and the side of yogurt is easy to make and store. Vegetarian kebabs are even easier to make and probably more profitable despite a lower price; vegetarians will pay a little more readily for a meat-free meal. The meat is fairly lean and a lot of the excess fat drips away. But that would be too citified. Besides, if you cannot pronounce every ingredient before you tried it, it must mean that those A-rabs like Obama Hussein bin Laden must eat there. Homeland Security better close down the diner before another "incident" occurs.

4. While some of the differences in dietary preferences might appear to come from greater affluence, a fellow managing payments on a bass boat and a cheap mortgage in Chattanooga may easily have more money than a struggling young "progressive" who makes different choices with quite likely lower disposable income and higher taxes. The other night, I bought two five-dollar Blue Moons at a local bar and grill and enjoyed them immensely. I could have knocked back four Budweisers for the same price, but I would have gotten twice as buzzed (not desired) and would have enjoyed them a court a tenth as much (definitely not desired.)

5. Libertarian readers might chime in that the sellers are only responding to market demand. While I might share the libertarian concern about government stepping in to do "what's good for us," business is in the full time business not only of identifying demand but of creating it; hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of workers make their living marketing and advertising. It may be practical or moral not to disturb the market forcibly, but we need not genuflect at its wisdom either. At one time, a Cabbage Patch doll was a hot item; now it's a relic unknown to the younger among us except a peculiar collection obsession of Aunt Jane. Ultimately, the market is nothing more than people, decision-makers, who may be damn fools, self-deluded, self-destructive. Remember that unbelievable asshole you knew in college whom you would never trust and hoped would never reproduce? That asshole is what economists call a "market segment."

6. In general, the fact (if true) that John Boehner cannot pronounce the names of certain well-made foods that I enjoy enhances my pleasure in indulging those delicacies. So I guess I owe him and his party a debt of thanks. Bon appetit or, if you prefer, chow down!