America used to be the land of the free. It said so in our national anthem.

Now the national anthem is being supplanted by a song about how beautiful America is. Keep your beauty; I’d rather still be free.

The latest example of lost freedom comes from Little Vilalage Academy, a public school in Chicago, Ill.

Principal Elsa Carmona has prohibited students from bringing food to school because the food they brought wasn’t healthy enough.

According to a Chicago Tribune article, Carmona set the policy six years ago. “Nutrition-wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” she said.

She then cites the school’s ability to give students an evidently hard-to-find beverage called “milk,” which has been linked to increased cancer rates and early-onset puberty.

Never mind all that. If the school wasn’t in the food policing business, children could be less healthy.

Add this responsibility to ones which schools have already assumed, such as sex education and instilling morality, and schools have a fairly full plate. Luckily, they freed up some time when they stopped educating.
Students have protested, but not for the right reasons.

Instead of claiming their natural right to property, students are incensed at the poor quality of the cafeteria food.
Presumably a five-star cafeteria would make the rule just fine with them.

Parent Miguel Medina thinks the policy is a good idea. “The school food is very healthy, and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food.”

If only the home had some sort of responsible adult, Medina’s concerns could be addressed.

There would be an authority figure in place to oversee food purchases, and to monitor what was eaten and how much of it.

Unfortunately for Chicago children, it’s impractical to expect the principal to be in each of their homes.

A radical home-restructuring plan which would center the home’s authority in a figurehead called a “parent” is evidently too controversial for use in many Chicago homes.

According to this plan, the parent would be responsible for his children, instead of waiting for the school to oversee all aspects of their lives.

“Oh,” some might moan, “what about those parents who would be irresponsible?” Parents have a right to irresponsibility. It is a logical decision in the face of conflicting requirements.

Parents choose less healthful food to afford greater amounts of food. Carmona’s decision has forced parents to buy the school lunch, which is more expensive, which means it is more likely students aren’t getting any food during the day at all.

Students protest that, if they could, they would make healthy choices.

They give examples of lunches they would bring, lunches filled with fruit and vegetables.

These students have failed a civics lesson. The correct answer is, “I would bring 18 Twinkies for lunch, and anyone who doesn’t like that can kiss my freedom-loving ass.”

At least that used to be the answer, back when we were the land of the free.