Ponies change their names (And other lessons from a 4-year old)

It may surprise you to learn that My Little Ponies change their name upon reaching their sixth birthday.

It surprised me, at least.

The Pony Formerly Known as "Pinkie Pie" is now "Balloons," "Cheerilee" is now "Cherry Blossom," and the irrepressible "Star Song" will heretofore be known as, "Rock Star."

Just when I was no longer being chastised for confusing Toola-Roola with Scootaloo.

Such is the education of a father of a four-year with a mind blossoming before our eyes.  Hardly a bath goes by without Aislynn regaling me with a made-from-scratch story about her plastic submarine bath toy she named "Soapy the Submarine."  Usually some other friends ("Thomas the Tugboat" and the aforementioned Pinkie P -er- "Balloons," notable among them) must overcome harrowing obstacles in order to reach Soapy's house for a party.  Miraculously, they seem to emerge victorious each time the plug is pulled to drain the tub.

Then there's our nightly devotional reading, "I Can Learn about God."  At the end of each paragraph-length story, I ask a question to see if Aislynn has been paying attention.  Tonight we read about how God punished Adam and Eve for disobeying him by banishing them from Eden.  After we finished, I asked, "Aislynn, how did God punish Adam and Eve?"  To which she replied, "He gave them a time-out."  Nothing like a little personal experience application to instill understanding.

The wife and I have written before about the reason we have a deeper appreciation for such examples of mental development, and I won't belabor the point here.  We're grateful for her teaching us about everything from pony nomenclature to the "Spanish" word for "catch."  (Not sure she's accurate there.  Also not sure if Dora the Explorer is the best tutor.)

We're somewhat less enthusiastic about her increasing awareness of her status relative to little sis.  As you recall, 2-year old Isla at one time not too long ago enjoyed reign of the house over older, bigger Aislynn.  It was commonplace for the younger to simply walk up to and take a toy from the older with a gentle shove, which would send the ever-subtle Aislynn running up the stairs while yelling, "Whooooaaah!  Isla!  Don't push me up the stairs!"

Now, big sis is reclaiming her territory.  Isla is now met with stern reprimand simply for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.  Yesterday's round of princess hopscotch more closely resembled a theatrical blocking rehearsal, with Aislynn directing Isla where, when and how to stand.  And there's the all-too-often-followed suggestion by Aislynn that Isla be sent to timeout for disobedience.

It's safe to say I'm not the only one learning a few things from Aislynn.

All of which is perfectly normal for two girls under the age of five sharing the same roof.  It's a great course to take, and I'm glad class is in session every night I come home.

You feel me?



AF

P.S. - If you really feel me, click here to vote for Feeling Fuller to be one of the Top 50 Blogs in Indiana.  Out-of-staters, you're eligible to participate, too!

Find out what it means to me...

Over the last several weeks, a couple of media items have made me recoil in disgust.  I didn't know how to contextualize them until the last 24 hours, when I happened across a keenly insightful article.

The first item was Fox Sports' and Burger King's animated jab at Jessica Simpson's weight.  See for yourself here.  The video was shown during Fox's coverage of NFL football.

Put aside the fact that the spot is genuinely unfunny, regardless of the subject matter.  Also put aside the fact that, although the sketch attempts to demean Simpson's physique, she is probably in much better shape than approximately 99% of the males who viewed the sketch when it originally aired.

Frankly, I don't care for Simpson in the slightest when it comes to her talents as an entertainer.  The idea that she is by some measure overweight is, by any objective standard, laughable.  Yet the premise of this sketch, and countless tabloid reports of Simpson and other female celebrities, is that a woman's worth as a human being is drawn heavily - almost exclusively - from her ability to remain a certain weight.

The second item was Pepsi's release of an iPhone application called, "AMP up before you Score."  The tie-in to Pepsi's AMP energy drink portends to give men pointers on how to "score" with different categories of women, from "Sorority Girl" to "Married Woman." The packaging is sleek and the technology cutting edge, but here again, women are given value only for their ability to satisfy the sexual desires of men.

I realize fully that Pepsi intended the app as a "joke," as did Fox and Burger King with their sketch.  I also realize that Pepsi today pulled the app, and that Fox and BK apologized.  The cynic would say that either move seems hollow, as the surrounding publicity has already achieved the intended PR/brand awareness objective manifold. (Sidenote: #Pepsifail is a fascinating case study in the role of social media in brand management.)

I like to think I was always so sensitive to these kinds of degrading exploitations.  Fact is, I probably wasn't, at least not to this degree.  Perhaps chalk it up to being the father of two beautiful little girls, and shuddering at the prospect of what they may have to deal with in a dozen short years.  The lesson that beauty is skin deep while eternal value lay inside is timeless, but not easily taught or learned.

At first, I thought the lesson here is that the feminist movement, while making strides in proponents' political and legal aims, still has its work cut out in the cultural arena.  That may be, but the greater lesson here was actually revealed last week when the nation held its breath watching an odd-looking experimental balloon careen across the Colorado sky, hoping the assumed six-year-old passenger would make it out in one piece, only to find out it was a hoax.

The commonality between the genuinely odd Falcon Heene saga and the continuing degradation of women is wonderfully expressed in the words of a commentary in Thursday's Wall Street Journal: We're all Balloon Boys Now. 

When women are reduced to a weight or a conquest - or, pick any other humiliation of women or men - it is natural to decry the lack of respect in society.  This is incorrect, or at least incomplete.  At its core, what we have is a reality problem.  We just don't know what's real anymore.  In a culture where even the "poor" have several hundred cable channels, the lines between entertainment and news are becoming extinct, and television personalities are revered cultural icons, and issues of right or wrong are left to matters of perspective, reality takes a decidedly subjective bent.

We are obsessed with unplugging, "vegging," and immersing in an alternative reality because we are unhappy with our own.  We feel uncomfortable calling anything wrong less often for the high-minded reason of moral objectivity, and more often because we just don't know any better.  Eventually, this leads us to act in a manner similar to Richard and Mayumi Heene, according to the reality we believe others will want to watch.  In other words, we act by what we think is expected of us.


If we can't distinguish what's real, we have no hope of viewing our fellow man for what they are: beings created in a Magnificent Image.  Instead, we see them through a convoluted prism of how we believe we should see them, and treat them accordingly.  That's seldom good.  We treat them as objects or commodities, not organic beings with genuine experiences and emotions that contribute to an objective reality known as the human condition.  Meanwhile, objective reality continues its slow death.

You feel me?




AF

Judge what I say, not what I do

It is with little exaggeration that I say people the world over are scratching their heads at the selection of President Barack Obama to receive a Nobel Peace Prize.  Even the president's own spokesman was caught seemingly unaware.

The obvious criticism over the selection is that the man - despite all the soaring rhetoric and charming charisma - has accomplished little compared to others who have a lifetime of achievements to warrant such recognition.  Nominations for the award were due February 1, which means Obama was nominated before completing 10 days in office.

Obama supporters are fond of countering his impatient detractors by saying he can't fix all that's wrong with the country in the short time he's been in office.  "Give him a chance," is the common refrain.  Fair enough.  But that tacit admission of to-date relative ineffectiveness is a saw that cuts both ways.  Those who defend Obama by saying he's not been given enough time to effect the change he's promised cannot maintain intellectual honesty if they say this award is based on the change he's delivered.  Obama himself said the award was based largely on, "aspirations."

It seems this is as much an award withheld from George W. Bush as it is an award bestowed upon Barack Obama.  Whether you agree with that analysis or its underlying suggestion, it is a shame the Nobel process has become thus politicized.

But lying deeper here is a message becoming regrettably more prevalent in society: Judge by intentions, not results.  I blogged about this several months ago in relation to an article pointing out teachers' growing refusal to correct and growing tendency to equivocate.  We simply don't call a spade a spade anymore: Incorrect answers are justified by criticizing the question, half-hearted effort is encouraged for the fact it is an effort at all.  The pursuit of excellence and concrete results has been rendered impotent by our obsession with "what we meant to do."

There is inherent danger when we reward words over actions.  In the workplace, for example, planning and executing are two fundamentally different animals, and require different skill sets.  In my profession, the most effective media campaign on paper means little if it does not enhance my employer's visibility in the industry via tangible results.  The degree to which we value intention over production is the degree to which all are misled, and ultimately damaged.

We know something else about valuing rhetoric over results in life: Eventually, the bill comes due.  At some point, excuses run out, and your boss (employer, spouse, electorate) will want to see results.  That is why it is so important this problem of rewarding intentions be corrected in our schools and why the message the Nobel Committee sent today is so damaging.

It is now incumbent upon Obama to produce the change for which such an award has already credited him.  For the rest of us, a lesson: Far better to be recognized for what you do, not what you say.

You feel me?


AF

When in Rome Wednesday: My, how Rome's changed

Apologies in advance to those for whom this will incite feelings of "being old," but I am embarking on my last month as a twenty-something.  Twenty-nine will soon be gone, and 30 will be the new norm.

Reflective? Yes. Sentimental? Maybe a little. Needing something to blog about? Most definitely.

Brace yourself for an understatement: November 2009 looks a bit different than November 1979. I remember once when I was very young, we visited Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry.  I was given a printout of what made the news on my birthday. All I remember is something about the Pope.  So, what follows is an admittedly incomplete list of the areas in which "Rome" - which on this blog takes the meaning of my current locale and its customs and peculiarities - has changed.

Technology.  Probably the most obvious area, but still worth mentioning.  When I was little, the concept of a phone that folded in on itself and could fit in your pocket seemed like something out of the Jetsons.  (Which, by the way, was my favorite show back then. It isn't now for the sole reason I can't find it airing anywhere.)  Now, my little girls take our old phones, flip them open, and begin "talking" to their friends.  They know exactly what to do with them; it is just a part of their world.  At age 4, I would have looked at such an item and figured it was a G.I. Joe toy missing many pieces.

Similarly, last month, the wife left Aislynn at the computer watching a show, and came back to find she had completed multiple levels of an online American Girl game.  She just knew how to operate the mouse, keyboard, etc.  It is a part of her generation's home life from birth.  When I was in kindergarten, I remember very well several grades at Carlin Park Elementary sharing a single computer.  (Yes, we used it to play Oregon Trail.)  It was wheeled from room to room on a heavy steel cart.  Once a classmate of mine caught a bout of the jimmylegs and kicked a wire dangling underneath.  The computer sputtered and died, and the classmate was duly ostracized.  Their ire stemmed from the fact virtually no one then had a computer in their home.  Today, virtually no one is without.

The proliferation of the computer and Internet has brought numerous other changes - some within only the last three years - that would be the stuff of fantasy in the early 1980s.  Rather than explore the issues in this post, I'll direct you to my posts here, here, and here.

Television.  I mention it here largely because I believe what entertains us - and, more specifically, what we allow to entertain us - speaks volumes about us as a culture and us as a society. If I'm right, I think it's an easy case to make that we are a far more crass, vulgar culture than we were 30 years ago.

Frankly, there are certain things you can say on prime time TV you couldn't say 30, 20, or even ten years ago.  There are certain things you can show today you couldn't then, too.  I know mine is not the first generation to lament this, nor am I the first in my generation to lament it, but the effect of this loosening of our toleration threshold seems excruciatingly obvious.  I've said before the Jon and Kate debacle is a clear example of the laissez-faire attitude Americans increasingly exhibit regarding the traditional family, and it pains me to think what challenges to this fundamental tenet of our society and our faith my children will face.

Again, much more could be and has been written on this topic by people far more qualified and eloquent than I.

Politics.  At the risk of nauseating any historians reading this, it seems to me a few threads of American political life in the late 1970s are actually back again in 2009.  Consider: Iran is once again/still a problem.  The ruling political party is searching to bring the country out of an unpopular war everyone assumed would be over by now.  A president inaugurated amidst high hope has seen his popularity plummet dramatically, even as he invites comparisons to that same president of three decades ago in policy and practice.  There isn't much new under the sun.

And to be sure, there are some things I'm glad haven't changed.  My dad is still the pastor of a growing church in northeastern Indiana, just as he was 30 years ago and further.  My parents are still together and in good health, either of which is becoming increasingly rare among my peers.  And optimists still root for the Cubs.

People in every generation reflect on the past and hypothesize about the future.  It will be fascinating to hear Aislynn's and Isla's perspective in 30 years about where life was and where it is.  So here's to another 30.  And here's hoping blogging is still cool then so I can write about it.

You feel me?


AF