Wednesday I went to my daughter’s elementary school and had lunch with her. This is one of those obligatory-anticipations but pleasurable-on-reflection events I make a note to do a couple times a year when I happen to be working from home and have a hankerin’ for tatter-tots.
Walking by the gym while the youths play basketball on an eight-foot basket, like Gulliver in a modern-day Lilliput. I can’t help but thinking, “I could totally slam on that.”
Not surprisingly, but somewhat to my disappointment, I found I couldn’t be drawn into my daughter’s conversation consisting of bad knock-knock jokes, Pokemon card collections and silly songs with animal noises. This left my mind free to wander…. and it wandered to apples.
Of the twenty-three children sitting at our lunch table, eighteen had purchased lunch and five had brought their lunch. All eighteen buyers had an apple on their tray and one of the brown baggers had brought an apple. Only one of those nineteen apples had even come close to fulfilling its destiny, and that one looked as if the school mouse had been working on it most of the morning.
Then it occurred to me: how much of the apple industry survives on parental guilt? I know my kids don’t like apples in their lunches, yet I pack them anyway. The apple’s odds of being consumed are increased if I skin the apple first and put it in a Ziploc with a little lemon juice to keep it fresh. But even that is only marginally helpful, if my informal survey of lunch boxes coming home with the bag of still-fresh apples inside is any barometer. (Though I’m always surprised at how well the lemon juice works. That’s a great kitchen tip.)
The lunch ladies (much more physically fit than my memory or last trip to the Improv would suggest) must know, including apples is folly; and certainly the custodian has figured it out carrying the trash bag to the dumpster. This hasn’t changed in the thirty years since I was in elementary school and I’m going to make a bold prediction that lunch at my grandkids’ school will bear similar observations.
So why do we do it? Why do we drop $6.00 on a bag of apples each week when we know they will not get eaten? Why do schools include apples in lunches knowing they’re headed for the landfill? Guilt. Plain and simple. As a parent, I can’t pack ONLY what I know my kids will eat. A lunch of twinkies, oreos and sodas will be met with great enthusiasm and expanding waistlines.
The apple is a place holder. If we only included a) what kids would eat; but b) nothing unhealthy, then lunch would consist of two chicken nuggets and two shots of juice. I’d feel like I was starving my child. Tradition dictates that I pack the noontime, brown-bag equivalent of a beverage and four course meal: entrée, two sides (a fruit and a vegetable or carb) and dessert. Half of that lunch is for my child’s anaerobic benefit, half is for my emotional benefit.
I have drawn a similar conclusion about the majority of the Little Tikes line of products. These toys look great in the store or catalog: a rugged plastic kitchen with large, brightly colored utensils; or a big and bold tool bench with safe, easy-to-hold hammers and screwdrivers. But as any parent who has one of these in the house will tell you, the kids play with it for about ten minutes after they open the box and almost never again. Really, how much fun is it to hammer a fake nail into a pre-drilled hole that facilitates the construction of nothing? The product line is theoretically designed to facilitate imagination and pretend-play–games recent generations of children are not known to excel at. The greatest opportunity for long-term fun is from the big box Little Tikes products come in. (The exception is the Cozy Coupe. The Cozy Coupe rocks.)
Face it: these products are designed for the parents not the kids. The goal is to persuade parents that kids will like the toys, not to get the kids to beg the parents to buy them. I have five kids. Never once has any of my kids asked me to buy them something from Little Tikes. It’s all our idea. We have forgotten what is actually fun for kids and so we fall prey to the pretty colors and appeals to imaginative whimsy that could come from hours of pretending to build a spaceship with one blue nail and one red screw. Hmmph.
After the first ten minutes of play (in which kids do everything that can be done with the pretend kitchen—twice—and permanently cross it off their list of things to do) the next time the kitchen/tool bench will be of any use to the family is at next summer’s garage sale, where, once again, on the secondary market it will appeal to a less affluent, but no more insightful, group of parents and grandparents.
Good for the apple industry and Little Tikes that they have found a way to make millions of dollars playing on our guilt and uninformed, but well-intentioned, desire to buy things our kids will like. What a great business model: they have created markets for products that really serve no purpose and which the targeted user doesn’t really desire. They aren’t selling toys and healthy snacks for kids. They are selling affirmation to parents. It really is genius. I’d do it if I could.
There is no point to the article, except to note that we are funny beings–we amuse me. Although it does remind me that we need apples.
As I thought about that later though, I don't feel that way at all. Honestly, I don't know how Disney delivers as much as they do for so little money. $60 for park admission seems high, yes. But look at the infrastructure, the options, the employees, the transportation. I can't believe they do it for as little as they do. Personally, I think it's a tremendous value and worth every penny I spent. 
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. 
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
The point of your post is the point of PARENTING. It is a random and almost constant effort to keep trying to find your way. Whether it is feeding them right, or righting their wrongs – it is all part of the job. I reflect on my own awe of this process in my blog. Keep up the great work. W.C.C.
http://pjmonolog.blogspot.com/2010/03/my-last-teenage-year.html
Great post. I especially found it useful, thanks.