We Know Better Than You What Is Good For You

Paul beat me to the punch on this one. His prose is admirably succinct and has a wonderful clarity. There is no doubt where he stands on this topic. However, being a college professor compels me to use many, many words when few will do. It's an occupational hazard.

Chicago school bans lunches brought from home

Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.

"Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.

Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"

Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: "Do you see the situation?"

At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

Oh yes, by all means please protect us from ourselves. You and the rest of the nanny state demo-libs know so much more about what is good for us than we do. Thank you for your all-encompassing knowledge and compassion.

Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

Oh my - you mean there's a financial incentive for the school district to ban brought-from-home lunches? Who would have thought?

At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.

What's that? A government program that is less effective and less popular than letting people make their own choices. I'm shocked! And what if a home-packed lunch might might be healthier than those offered to crammed down the throats of the students?

"This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry.

"Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Wilson said. "This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda."

Then there's the cost aspect.

For many CPS parents, the idea of forbidding home-packed lunches would be unthinkable. If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like.

"We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich, Goldfish crackers and milk," education policy professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach wrote in an email. Her son attends Nettelhorst Elementary School in Lakeview. "Not only would mandatory school lunches worsen the dietary quality of most kids' lunches at Nettelhorst, but it would also cost more out of pocket to most parents!

Finally, what about teaching the kids to make sound decisions?

Many Little Village students claim that, given the opportunity, they would make sound choices.

"They're afraid that we'll all bring in greasy food instead of healthy food and it won't be as good as what they give us at school," said student Yesenia Gutierrez. "It's really lame. If we could bring in our own lunches, everyone knows what they'd bring. For example, the vegetarians could bring in their own veggie food."

"I would bring a sandwich or a Subway and maybe a juice," said seventh-grader Ashley Valdez.

Second-grader Gerardo Ramos said, "I would bring a banana, orange and some grapes."

"I would bring a juice and like a sandwich," said fourth-grader Eric Sanchez.

Like so many other things, including most of what the dingbats in congress waste time and money debating, little children make more sense than the so-called adults in charge.

In a similar vein, we have the mayor of Boston deciding what drinks can and cannot be sold 'for the good of the people.'

Boston Mayor KOs Soda, OKs Alcohol

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has banned soda, sports drinks and sweetened ice teas from city property...

In an attempt to reduce the city’s rising obesity rates, Menino has banned all sugary drinks from city vending machines, cafeterias and concession stands, just one day after reaching an agreement with the Boston Red Sox that allows the team to sell mixed drinks at its ballpark.

“I want to create a civic environment that makes the healthier choice the easier choice in people’s lives, whether it’s schools, work sites, or other places in the community," said Menino...

Meanwhile, Menino has signed off on a proposal that will allow Fenway Park to sell mixed drinks during baseball games...

Allowing the selling mixed drinks - or even just beer - at a ballgame gives the lie to Menino's efforts to get Bostonians to slim down. A 12 oz Budweiser has 145 calories while 12 oz of Coke has 142. A Rum and Coke has a whopping 314 calories while a Scotch and Soda has 135.

But try and take a beer away from a Red Sox fan and you would probably lose the next election.

Gee, could the possibility of losing votes influence the mayor to expand the not-good-for-you drink choices of baseball fans while narrowing the drink choices of everyone else "based on the idea that (he) knows what's best?" Naw, that couldn't happen - could it...? 

Our last point comes from the story of a 16 year old who only wanted to help a local elementary school's students celebrate a  - well, read the story for yourself.

'Easter eggs' renamed 'spring spheres' at Seattle public school

The educrats strike again, and make themselves look ridiculous again, according to a 16 year old student identified only as Jessica, who volunteered to do a project at a local elementary school, supplying plastic eggs filled with jellybeans. 

"I went to the teacher to get her approval and she wanted to ask the administration to see if it was okay," Jessica explained. "She said that I could do it as long as I called this treat 'spring spheres.' I couldn't call them Easter eggs."

Rather than question the decision, Jessica opted to "roll with it." But the third graders had other ideas.

"When I took them out of the bag, the teacher said, 'Oh look, spring spheres' and all the kids were like 'Wow, Easter eggs.' So they knew," Jessica said.

I'm not much of a Bible guy, but my parents, God bless 'em, did their best to churchify me. I seem to recall a quote from Isaiah: "... and a little child shall lead them."

Too bad no one else seems to remember that one...