In New Zealand, a couple named their child Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii. That's the whole name. From the Talula part all the way through to the Hawaii part. Seriously. So, a court decided to intervene and legally change her name. From the story in the Telegraph:

"A lawyer acting for the girl claimed she was so embarrassed by her name that she had kept it from her friends, insisting she should be known as 'K' instead. She also feared that if it became public she would be mocked and teased.

The lawyer claimed the girl fully understood the absurdity of her name, unlike her parents who had not considered the implications when they named her.

Justice Robert Murfitt said the name clearly presented a social hurdle for the child."

Read the rest of the story, too. It's got lots of examples of names that folks have given their kids as well as names rejected by the New Zealand government. I'm also reading a book right now called Bad Baby Names which has some incredibly funny and sad (please don't name your kid Typhus or Rubella) baby naming blunders.

It makes me think of the "Seinfeld" episode where Jerry couldn't remember the name of the girl he was dating and she told him that it rhymed with a female body part. They spent the rest of the episode trying to figure it out. "Mulva?" Turns out it was Delores. It also makes me wonder how I would feel if the government wanted to tell me that I couldn't give my child a name that they didn't approve of. With the last name Brown, I had plenty of choices of odd baby names and being a strange girl with a bizarre sense of humor, some pretty entertaining ones came up during the initial phases of baby name negotiation. In the end, I chose a name that was pretty normal and had significance on both sides of our family. Certainly we won't be having any upcoming days in court over it.

Then I think about that song, "Boy Named Sue," and I wonder if giving your kid a name like Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii might build character or prepare them for some serious adversity that they may face later in life. Maybe they're doing a disservice by changing her name now. But... Nah. What do you think?

Some comments on a recent post (and the related original article) about the AAP changing their guidelines about whole milk for children who are at risk of being (or becoming) overweight:

Hat said,

"I thought that the fat content of the cow's milk increased the concentration/availability of fat-soluble vitamin D, essential for bone growth in early years, not just a calorific issue. Is this right?"

Yes, for healthy children who have a varied diet, the fat in whole milk is needed for all the reasons that people have mentioned (fat-soluble vitamins, brain development, etc.) but the thinking is that kids who are already obese at 12 months, who have obesity in their families or who have high cholesterol... the risks inherent there are going to outweigh the benefits of the fat in milk. They have a study in hand that says that basically, it wasn't harmful to switch to reduced-fat milk and it reduced obesity and bad cholesterol. And again, like others have said, they are very likely getting fat from other sources.

I'm not going to make any sweeping assumptions about how doctors are treating infants who are overweight as I'm sure there's a lot of education about those other sources of fat and hopefully parents are listening to it and cutting trips to McDonald's and sugary snacks and drinks... however, I think that this change in guidelines, even though it only affects a certain population of babies, is missing the point.

1.19 billion in profits for McDonald's last quarter (I'm watching this right now on CNN, in fact) but I know that even though your pediatrician might say, hey, cut back on the McNuggets and Fries, the AAP is probably unlikely to ever come out like that. Not in any strongly worded way that would create change. Not against McDonald's or anything to do with the National Dairy Council (which may have something to do with why they are saying drink milk with less fat vs. drink less milk and eat these other things that have the right amounts of calcium and fats and whatnot) though I can't imagine why... Maybe it's the consipiracy theorist in me, but I'm just saying. :)

On the other hand, some argue that the amount of milk babies are drinking now is too much and that if you are careful in planning your child's meals you can get the right amounts of the right fats, the right vitamins, proteins, calcium, etc. Vegan and vegetarian babies thrive in many areas of the world (not considering the recent death of a vegan baby that was very well publicized and really gives vegan / vegetarian / Indian parents a bad rap. I can't think of any parents I've ever known or heard of giving their 6-week-old a diet of apple juice and soy milk, nor have I ever heard of parents with common sense thinking that 3.5 pounds indicates healthiness in a baby that young. So, put that isolated incident out of your mind when considering vegan or vegetarian kids who do thrive. Of course, most vegan / vegetarian parents keep nursing (or at least keep lactating) to meet their child's needs, too.

Like I said, though, a diet that meets all those needs and doesn't include milk takes some time and planning and I think that many parents don't feel like they have that. Getting 6 servings of milk then is a good way to meet those requirements. If you are already rushed, hitting the drive-thru and preparing a lot of meals that are mostly processed (and so you have less control over the fat content or lack of essential nutrients / vitamins) is also convenient and I think this is a growing issue that is trying to be addressed (albeit from behind rather than directly, perhaps?)

Mom2twins said,

"I am disappointed with Ms. Brown’s headline, 'Whole Milk for Weaned Babies is Out….' While those who actually read the article discover that this ONLY applies to babies who are at risk of being overweight and whose pediatricians reccomend a lower fat milk, others who only read headlines may be mislead. It is unfortunate that *the media* feel compelled to sensationalize headlines even when it comes to the health of our children."

I’m sorry you take offense at my headline. It’s not meant to be sensational at all. I don’t even consider this topic to be a big controversy (though underneath, it certainly can have some elements of that, but there was no malicious intent in my headline). You don’t need to read the related article to see that it’s about overweight children, however. In my first line I say very clearly:

"For babies who are at risk of being overweight"

and I go on to say:

"be sure to talk to your health care provider to see if your child fits the new guidelines. Several things are taken into account including family history, your child’s current weight and possible cholesterol screening."

I sincerely hope that parents are not making health decisions like this based on reading just a headline or even just one article. I truly do not want there to be any confusion about who these guidelines are for and I do not want every parent out there to summarily switch to reduced-fat milk at 12 months (or wean from breast milk for the sake of drinking cow's milk -- what would be the point of that?)

I also think that NJC summed it up very nicely saying:

"I wonder if they considered the amount of french fries kids today eat when they looked at the obesity rates. Maybe they should put a limit on them, too."

I know it's a more complicated issue than just fast food or fries vs. milk, but for me, I guess that's a seemingly obvious nutshell. Your thoughts?