...or should the city of New York let me clog my arteries should I so chose.

Once again your favorite chronicler of world events (me) finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. The city of New York is proposing to ban the use of cooking oils that contain artificial trans fats. As we all know, trans fats clog your arteries and increase your proclivity for a heart attack. The nasty stuff is used in a lot of tasty stuff but surfaces mostly in things like fried chicken and french fries. Substitutes are available but the taste just isn't quite the same.

I do not fear for the livelihood of the 20,000 or so restauranteurs in the Big Apple. Visions of New Yorkers walking or swimming to New Jersey to get a trans fat fix do not haunt my dreams. Upon sober reflection (do men really reflect on anything besides sports when they're sober?) I guess that the city of New York is only thinking of the welfare of its citizens. (Although if they really cared they'd ban bike messengers) Who needs a bunch of over-weight Manattanites littering the streets clutching their chests? What will the tourists think?

The core issue here is the tender subject of "banning".

We are big "banners" in America. Back in the 50's, cities like Boston had a reputation for banning music. (Remember, "They're Coming to Take Me Away"?) Leaded gas is banned; so was saccharine. In 1919 we banned the "manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors"(Talk about your sober reflection!). The XVIII Amendment alone should make us very cautious about banning things. It took thirteen years and a depression (my father's) before we were allowed to have a legal drink. Yikes!

Still, the prohibition of some things has been good for us. No cigarette smoking in public places has both public health and business liability overtones. Cell phone use is being restricted (thank God!). Violent video games are being kept away from young children. Chicago has banned foie gras. I guess the "hog butcher to the world" draws the line at force-feeding geese. If we want to ban something shouldn't we be looking at Hummers?

Where to draw the line? How much big brotherism will we tolerate in the name of, "it's for your own good"? I'm aware that McDonald's fries are bad for me but should government, however well-intentioned, prevent me from eating them? Wouldn't a printed warning on Col. Saunders chicken legs be enough?

There are real concerns about where this will all lead. When governments were trying to ban smoking, commercials ran on the radio that suggested, "What's next, french fries?" We laughed then but the question is still valid. If trans fats are outlawed, what about t-bone steaks? Au gratin potatoes? Will we ration the amount of animal fat the average American can purchase? I'm sorry madam but our records indicate that you have exceeded your rump roast quota for the month. May we suggest the brussels sprouts?

This noise may play well in New York but I wouldn't try it in Austin. I can see the bumper stickers now, "They'll take my Porterhouse when they pry it from my cold dead hands".

My attitude is purely self serving. I am a committed salt junkie. I'd put salt in coffee if it didn't revolt my wife. I am fearful of a time when my government, earnestly seeking to stabilize my blood pressure, will attempt to limit my saline consumption. My bumper sticker will declare, "Salt doesn't kill people, partially hydrogenated soybean oil kills people."

Thank you New York but for the time being, I support everyman's right to clog his arteries with trans fats. Until America gets serious about banning the private ownership of hand guns, I can't work up much concern over "death by Happy Meal".

Now, please pass the salt.