Got kids? Great, you’ll love this. If not, well…think of it as fantasy baseball for the home.

It all starts innocently enough. You see a wallpaper you like and think, geez, that’s really cute. Next thing you know you’re staking out Pottery Barn Kids, elbowing your romantic partner to get on with it already, and fretting over the goings on of your fallopian tubes.

This ain’t fantasy baseball, girls. Tread carefully on this post, because today we’re delving into kid land. We started responsibly by finding some baby-aware, eco-conscious essentials. And then went for the pretty. Don’t freak out. Creating a dream room for the kid you now have or eventually will is fun, like procreation should be. Another thing you need to keep in mind is that just because you have kids, doesn’t mean your home decor has to look any less cool.

New York-based Aimée Wilder is very particular when it comes to her wallpaper. It’s always cool, for a start. Each roll is created with sustainability in mind. Each pattern is hand silk screened on clay-coated paper. Left over inks are salvaged and reused. The paper itself is manufactured with responsibly-sourced chlorine free fiber.

VOC-free paint is a little more expensive, but that’s because it doesn’t come with all the formaldehyde, benzene, and perchloroethylene attached like the other stuff does. Mythic Paint is a trusted brand, which comes in colors like the lavender “Lav it Up” and soothing blue “Come Fly With Me”.

Young immune systems are fragile and they need to be treated accordingly with hypoallergenic clothes, blankets, and toys. Sheepskin rugs keep babies warm and toasty during cold months, and cool in warm months. Plus they don’t attract dust, dirt or other allergens. When the would-be kid’s not using it, snag it yourself for a spot of meditation. It’s the preferred rug of Kundalini yogis.

Now for the rooms we fantasize over just for the heck of it.

All right, so we’ve shown you ours. Now it’s time to tweet us your possibly, maybe, way down the line fantasy kids rooms.

Images: msscott218; Family Living via Aimée Wilder; Mythic Paint; Nature Baby; Mommy Goes Green; Pinterest via Inhabitots; Crafty Cake; Our Wee One via The Marion House Book

Kids are at once prime marketing targets, financial liabilities, and cheap labor.

The business sector seems to have children in its crosshairs. If they aren’t reporting child labor in their overseas supply chains, companies are aggressively marketing junk food to kids, denying them health care coverage and teaching them the benefits of dirty energy.

Leading Them Down the Garden Path

Scholastic is a brand that has long been synonymous with educational materials, and it won the hearts of millions by bringing the Harry Potter stories to the U.S. However, the company recently had to recall a fourth grade educational curriculum it developed in collaboration with the American Coal Foundation after a major public outcry.

Scholastic materials are used in 90 percent of American classrooms, and children, parents and teachers alike have come to trust them. But Scholastic has made questionable decisions about partnering with companies that many feel have compromised the quality and integrity of their materials. Are sponsored educational materials developed for learning, or are they just ads disguised as schoolwork?

The United States of Energy champions coal as an essential energy source, ignoring the issues that come with it, such as greenhouse gas emissions, toxic waste, and mountaintop removal. This book discusses the different energy alternatives, but does not steer students to ask any questions about which one might be harmful, or consider any consequences due to production.

The materials went out to 66,000 fourth grade teachers and were used for three years until child advocacy groups kicked up a fuss and The New York Times criticized the sponsored materials. After expressing enthusiasm over the partnership and hoping to expand it to fifth grade materials, the CEO of Scholastic released a statement declaring they would no longer produce or distribute the title beginning May 2011.

This isn’t Scholastic’s only partnership misstep. Advocacy groups have also protested a previous campaign encouraging kids to drink SunnyD, a sugary, fruit-flavored drink, to earn free books. Scholastic, you’ve disappointed us so.

What Do You Mean You Use Child Labor?

Apple makes stunning products, even their packaging is elegant. However, they build many of their products overseas, requiring them to utilize foreign suppliers, and the computer giant has uncovered some very ugly practices in their supply chain. In addition to health and safety violations and negative environmental impact, Apple has found that their suppliers have employed child labor.

Apple’s Supplier Responsibility 2011 Progress Report showed that the company discovered 49 underage workers across nine facilities, and 42 underage workers in another facility. Apple has pledged to make “social responsibility a fundamental part of the way we do business, we insist that our suppliers take Apple’s code as seriously as we do,” but what is their responsibility regarding third-party contractors? As a condition of doing business can they compel them to meet certain criteria? It is a question that many companies that use third-party labor struggle with.

In this case, Apple split the baby. For the first nine facilities, the company mandated that the suppliers must support the underage workers’ return to school. They also demanded that those facilities change their recruitment practices and age-verification procedures. Since these suppliers have indicated that they would comply, Apple has chosen to continue to do business with them.

As for the remaining facility with 42 underage workers, Apple instituted the same requirements, but later decided the supplier was non-compliant. Apple has since voided its contract with this supplier.

But should Apple have terminated its business with all of these suppliers? Isn’t using child labor until being forced to stop indicative of a less-than-ethical supplier? This has been a recurring problem.

Sweets to the sweet

Food marketing is big business, but the Federal Trade Commision (FTC) limits the amount of time companies can market junk food to children on television. However, marketers have found a new avenue around that restriction – the web. Obesity experts are concerned since much of the food being marketed to kids is sugary, high-calorie snacks and drinks, and companies are finding multiple, innovative ways to attract kids.

Companies like General Mills (LuckyCharms.com), McDonald’s (HappyMeal.com and McWorld.com), and Kellogg’s (AppleJacks.com) have developed multimedia games, online quizzes and cell phone and tablet apps designed to lure young internet users. In the past, companies had to sell parents on their products. Now, they can largely bypass the parents and appeal directly to kids.

The Atlantic’s Marion Nestle quotes Advertising Age statistics that show that over half of parents surveyed believe their children should be able to go online on their own by age six, and can use a cell phone for games by age five. The New York Times says that hundreds of thousands of visitors are hitting these sites each month, and about half are under the age of twelve.

Many say it’s the parents’ job to run interference, but it’s difficult when the messages are coming from all directions. The obesity problem in the U.S. has reached epidemic proportions, and experts trace much of the issue back to childhood eating habits. With children influencing household spending while inundated with images and games of sugary foods, parents are losing the battle.

Federal agencies have decided to step in. The Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Disease Control, and United States Dairy Association all partnered to propose new nutritional standards for food marketed to children ages 2-17. Foods either had to contain certain nutritional elements (no sugary drinks or fatty food allowed), or they could not be marketed. So, companies could choose to continue to produce fattening food with limited avenues of marketing, or produce more nutritional food that falls within the guidelines of marketing to that all-important age group.

To date, those guidelines have not been passed, leading to speculation that the companies are fighting these regulations behind the scenes. A decision should be made in the next few months. Just as they forced Joe Camel into retirement, will the Keebler Elves and their brethren receive their marching papers, or will they find themselves promoting healthier fare?

Don’t Come to Us for Help

The redesign of America’s healthcare system has caused so much anger and distress that politicians are literally at each others throats, health care lobbyists are working overtime, and the public doesn’t know what will come next or how it will impact them.

In early 2010, President Obama signed into law health care reform legislation. One of the major provisions of the bill was that insurance carriers must offer insurance to children with pre-existing conditions. In response, several major U.S. insurance carriers announced that they were dropping individual child-only insurance plans just days before parts of the health care law were to go into effect. WellPoint, CoventryOne and Aetna, Inc., among others, announced their intention to discontinue offering the plans in several states.

Insurance companies began to fall like dominoes, and within a few months there was hardly a child-only plan to be found anywhere. Insurance companies claimed that the new legislation allowed families to avoid paying insurance premiums for their children until they were sick, and then signing them up for insurance, potentially costing insurance companies millions.

Other scenarios include parents who work for companies that don’t cover dependents and need insurance just for their children, or parents who are out of work and decide to just cover their children because they can’t afford a more expensive family plan. Children with or without pre-existing conditions were still covered under a family plan that includes an adult, and children with existing child-only plans were not immediately affected.

In early 2011, states started to fight back, passing their own legislation that levied harsh punishments on insurance companies who refused to offer child-only plans. Many companies, realizing they would lose more revenue due to the state sanctions, grudgingly reinstated the plans.  Others instituted enrollment at certain times of the year. What’s up in the air is how much premiums will cost families.

Child-only plans represent a small percentage of insurance business, yet many children in the U.S. still aren’t covered. Taking this step to make it that much more difficult to insure children left many insurance critics with a sour taste in their mouths.

A Better Future?

The good news is that many of these companies are voluntarily making changes, some due to public pressure, some due to company conscience, but changes nonetheless. In some cases government or governing agencies are stepping in and mandating compliance. Are children disproportionately targeted by businesses to increase profits or minimize financial risks? Children are a booming market so the temptation will always be there, but it’s up to the public to keep it from being a dog-eat-puppy world.

image: thejbird

Nope, not like in the innocent ’50s and ’60s when the biggest thing to fear was the Boogie Man and The Blob. Not even like the ’70s, when middle class parents let their brood stay out on bikes in the ‘burbs until dark.

But was it really safer back then? If you buy into recent statistics, kids are actually as safe or safer now. A recent study by CCRC (Crimes Against Children Research Center) tells us sexual assault, bullying and other violence against children went down substantially between 2003 and 2008. Crime against grown ups is down too, although no one is quite sure why. Though experts are baffled and cannot put a finger on it, they can assert that media coverage is distorting our reality.

News programming must fill time. Thus, the media has a feeding frenzy with random acts of horror – Columbine bully revenge, abuse cases, molestation, neglect and the recent Tuscon, Arizona shooting spree that killed six people, including 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green. As someone who has worked for a 24-hour news network, I can tell you the goal is brainstorming as many angles as possible.

The images we are bombarded with create a chilling effect, aptly addressed in the book Free- Range Kids by syndicated columnist, Lenore Skenazy. She preaches that walking kids home from bus stops and forcing them indoors out of fear of imminent stranger danger is not only harmful to their psyches but does nothing to protect them from the most common offenders – people the kids know and trust. Instead of draconian sex offender registries, she says we are ahead of the game when we train children to protect themselves.

“David Finkelhor, the head of CCRC, reminds us that by constantly focusing on strangers, we are looking in the wrong direction,” Skenazy tells me. “If you want to keep kids safe, teach them starting at age three to discern good and bad touches, that they don’t have to do something an adult says if it feels weird or creepy, and that you won’t be mad if they tell you that something happened.”

Skenazy shared in her book about letting her own 10-year-old ride the Long Island Rail by himself, and took flack from observers like Dr. Laura – the same kind of bad mommy flack Ayelet Waldman took for confessing she loved her husband more than her kids, or Amy Chua for her recent Tiger Mom tales of raising highly restricted yet successful Chinese kids. But Skenazy sticks to her guns, insisting the crime rate today is equal to what it was back in 1970 and it is a bigger danger to strip children of freedom to roam the range.

“If you were a child in the ’70s or the ’80s and were allowed to go visit your friend down the block, or ride your bike to the library, or play in the park without your parents accompanying you, your children are no less safe than you were,” she says. “But it feels so completely different, and we’re told that it’s completely different, and frankly, when I tell people that it’s the same, nobody believes me. We’re living in really safe times, and it’s hard to believe.”

So hard to believe, the author and blogger says her book isn’t selling as well as one that might hype stranger danger and the abductions and killings that might result. In terms of hyping, she points to the recent boom in baby snatching hysteria over the hospital crime involving a North Carolina woman who turned herself in after taking a baby from a New York hospital more than two decades ago.

“Now there are specials on television telling us how to protect ourselves from this terrible fate and what galls me is the fact some four million babies are born in hospitals and one is taken, so the tips they are giving us are erroneous,” complains Skenazy. “CNN keeps harping on the fact babies are usually taken when mothers are in the bathroom, but there is no usually. As a result, new mothers – no matter how tired or weak they are – must grab the baby into the bathroom, otherwise they are not being a good mom and protecting their child.”

The safeguarding now extends to the internet which is considered by many to be the most threatening modern day crime spot for minors, one that literally brings pornographers and predators into our homes. Schools too, try to take a bite out of slime by offering internet safety as part of parent education, reacting to programs like the Today Show which told us danger lurks just click away.

Does it mean the filters we install just aren’t working, or is it that, just as in the mall or at the bus stop, kids must be taught how to ignore the weirdos who cross their path?

“With increased access to and depth of the virtual world, the potential dangers change rather than getting simply safer or not,” points out David Abusch-Magder, head of Middle School at Brandeis Hillel Day School in San Francisco. “No one is going to get run over by a computer or shot by a stray bullet coming from the computer, so it’s really about educating and working with students to build a common vocabulary to understand the dangers and to monitor their use.”

Skenazy insists the web is just another avenue used by society to make children deathly afraid of all strangers, while the reality is the web is no different from other public places where informed kids should know how to avoid being taken in by someone they don’t know.

“Studies show the places kids are in danger on the web are the equivalent of the red light districts in real life, sexually oriented chat rooms and you are putting yourself in a comprising place by going there,” says Skenazy. “Just X out or ignore the freaks. I tell my kids the same things as in real life -you can talk to people but you can’t go with anyone you meet; you can give someone directions but you never go with them in their car.”

Our kids are also in danger when they ride with us in our cars – in fact, car crashes are the number one way kids are killed in the United States. But as Skenazy points out, we don’t go through paroxysms of self doubt when we drive them to the dentist.

“The fear becomes a template of all of our parenting,” she says. “The danger may be remote but we are bad parents, incredibly negligent if now protecting them every second of the day. That is what makes us crazy about letting our kids do anything.”

In fact, the Blessing of the Skinned Knee theory argues not coddling kids and giving them more freedom early on allows them to function once they flee the nest, something past generations enjoyed much more than our own children. There will always be crime but we can believe the statistics on random incidents of violence and overcome our template of fear. By doing so, our kids might be able to tell their own children stories about hanging out at the neighborhood park and riding bikes until dark.

Images: Cia de Foto, Jezblog

He calls you “Cherie” as you channel the attitude of your mom, deriding the kids for not picking up their mess and complaining how canned salmon doesn’t taste as good as it used to. You hate him for it, but wonder if you are, indeed, morphing into the woman who raised you. This, despite the years of strident teenage rebellion, breastfeeding to one up her, and steadfastly maintaining the position you do not need to put on a frigging coat.

Lovable mom, angry mom, giddy and forgetful mom, resourceful, nagging, in need of a muzzle mom. The signs she is in there are surfacing daily. Here are ten I’ve been witnessing lately:

1. You embarrass your children with your exuberance.

This takes a variety of forms: Busting out in a song from a favorite musical while shopping at the mall; dancing in front of their friends at a Bat Mitzvah (i.e slapping your butt and twisting down to the ground during Shawty got Low) or Facebooking a personal anecdote about the great lengths they took to get spruced up for a dance. “Shoshanna got her hairy, ethnic lip waxed for the first time and didn’t even scream! That’s my daughter!”

2. Repeating yourself as a manipulation tactic to get your point across.
Your own mother told you no fewer than 20 times that Kathy Lee Gifford’s doctor ordered her to eat cereal with bananas when she was pregnant because she wasn’t gaining enough weight. You repeat the pattern, and pretend you don’t remember telling your kids 20 times that Zoe Goldberg got incurable lice from sharing brushes and scrunchies at camp.

3. Losing your car keys. Losing your house keys. Losing your luggage keys. Finding your keys in the trash.

4. Visible Links in the DNA Chain: Sore feet with corns, bunions and Plantar Fasciitis, Varicose Veins, impatience with tardiness, intolerance for loud music (it’s all too loud), flab around your middle, shrinking height, poor eyesight, bladder incontinence, laughing at silly greeting cards until you cry and wet your pants.

5. Becoming very friendly with the grocery store box boy, hair wax lady, or any strangers in line with you at the movies.

6. Sharing with your man, kids and friends fascinating details about the lives of the grocery store box boy, hair wax lady or strangers you met in line at the movies.

7. Wearing age-appropriate clothing, including labels you were convinced were only reserved for your mom and her old friends. (i.e. St. John, Chico, Ann Taylor, Coldwater Creek, Eileen Fisher, Jones New York, any support hose and shape wear.)

8. Adopting expressions you didn’t know were wired into your arguing mode: Put first things first; Wait until college to try that; Not while you are under my roof; That happened because god is punishing you for how you talked to me; That’s the only sister you will ever have, so stop trying to murder her; eliminate salt; things will look brighter in the morning; It’s Monday – brush your teeth! Bart takes his kids to Europe every summer and we have to go back to the Finger Lakes?

9. Talking about health problems with your friends. Talking about insurance plans with your friends.Talking about what you saved using coupons with your friends. Complaining about traffic, the president, gas prices and bad retail service with your friends.

10. Telling kids to wear a coat so they won’t get sick, even during sweltering summers in the Valley.

Images: Brett lider; Scraps to the Future; Crazyneighborlady; James Jordan; Podmapetit; Womanobsessed;Foxyvoxy;

I love Star Wars. It was the first movie I ever saw as a kid, and I watched it from the back of my parent’s station wagon at the drive-in theatre while draped over a seat. I was around five years old and so young that I didn’t understand how they shrunk Princess Leia down to her hologram size. What I wasn’t confused about was how totally, completely, and amazingly awesome I thought the light sabers were. This made me a girl who liked a boy thing.

But my love for Star Wars just kept growing. By the time The Empire Strikes Back rolled around, I was in love with Yoda’s ability to lift an X-Wing Fighter from a swamp. When Return of the Jedi came calling, I was smitten with Han Solo. (I was also crazy into the Ewoks – in my defense, I was an 11-year-old girl, apparently Lucas’ target audience for the third film.) But did anyone know this? Outside of the Princess Leia doll sitting in my Barbie Dream House – not really. I have a younger brother rich in Star Wars toys, so I just played with his and didn’t talk action figures at school.

So with a male imprint of “Han Solo Equals All Things Dreamy” firmly implanted in my brain, my love of a galaxy far, far away carried into my teen years. It was lurking just beneath the surface, flickering like a light saber every time I heard a John Williams-style trumpet or saw a roguish dark-haired dude with a crooked smile. I’d still declare my love of Star Wars to anyone who would listen. But it was always defiantly, with a “Mock me and I’ll call you a stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder.” Why? Because girls weren’t supposed to like Star Wars.

Now I won’t stop talking all things Lucas to anyone who lends an unlucky ear, but I’m closer in age to Mon Motha than Princess Leia. So when I heard about seven-year old Katie Goldman, who was recently mocked for bringing a Star Wars water bottle for school, my inner Ewok rose up in outrage. CNN picked up the story of young Goldman, who was teased by her friends at school for carrying something meant for boys. Katie begged her mother, Carrie Goldman, to change her Star Wars water bottle for a pink one. The senior Goldman took to her blog to decry the gender stereotyping inflicted on her daughter.

And as CNN reports, the Internet struck back. Goldman’s blog exploded with stories of people sharing their own bullying stories. Around 1,200 people left message of support. Others sent in Star Wars gifts, many of which Katie plans to redistribute to needy children. Katie’s school hosted “Proud To Be Me” day in honor of Katie on December 10th, where children were encouraged to come to school dressed as their favorite thing. Katie’s story had a happy ending and a lesson learned. May the force be with you, Katie!

But if Katie had been a boy wanting to do a “girl thing,” would the reception have been so positive? A friend who taught elementary school shared this story: “I once had an Opposite Day party and some of the boys had a blast dressing up as girls, and the girls all loved being boys. But one family was adamant that their son not dress like a girl – but they happily sent their daughter dressed as a boy.” Why is it so scary for some people that a boy would want to do a girl thing?

This past Halloween, the Internet went berserk over blog written by another concerned mother, this one entitled “My Son Is Gay.” It featured a smiling five-year-old boy called “Boo” dressed in his Daphne from Scooby Doo Halloween costume. In this blog, Concerned Mother pointed out how other mothers seemed to pile on with false concern that her child would be mocked for dressing like a girl, and that a Daphne costume would “make” her son gay. To which Concerned Mother replied, “[My job] is not to dictate what is ‘normal’ and what is not, but to help him become a good person.”

What do the stories of Katie and Boo tell us? That gender stereotypes haven’t changed so much since mini-Princess Leia first flashed across a drive-in movie screen. But it seems that awareness around these stereotypes has. And as long as there is a forum to post discussions over stereotypes, perhaps we can continue to chip away at them. Sure, some boys will always want to play with trucks and some girls will always want to be pretty princesses. Luckily, there’s always a light saber or a red-haired wig waiting for everyone else in between.

My cake toppers at my recent wedding.

Main image: Amidala Photo

“To be or not to be” – a parent, that is the question. The thing is, more American women are choosing “not to be.” Research shows that 1 in 5 women are now without children as opposed to 1 in 10 women in the 1970s. Childlessness has increased across most educational groups and all racial and ethnic levels.

Further, most adults no longer think you need a child to be happy. According to Pew Research (via YourTango) 59 percent of adults in 2002 said they disagree with the statement that people who don’t have kids “lead empty lives.” In 1988, only 39 percent of these people didn’t agree with that statement.

There are many reasons for this, such as better contraception options, and perhaps a heightened concern about financial security. But as Dr. Laura Corio told AOL Health, some of it may simply be due to a larger enjoyment of life. “People are enjoying their lives: they’re traveling, shopping, eating out. Putting a baby into the situation is going to change everything.”

What does this all mean? Some parents like to espouse that “when you have a child, you will love in a capacity like you have never known before.” Frankly, I think these are parents who never had nieces or nephews before they had their own children. Because for some devoted aunties and uncles, we’re already at “throwing ourselves in front of a train to protect them.” And you’re telling us there’s more?

Yes, some argue that parenthood opens up a sense fulfillment that you may never have experienced before. But it looks like American women just aren’t buying it like they used to. As we’ve mentioned before, having children is one of the most personal decision we can ever make.

And this is what we should be celebrating – that we have this choice. Yes, reproductive rights are still being assailed by extremists and this is a battle that should never be discounted. But the fact that we now live in a world where you’re not immediately cast in a tragedy as an unmarried, childless woman is pretty outstanding.

We live in a world where women have options to get educated and out of the house, or choose to remain in it. Obviously, due to our cranky uncle socioeconomics, this is much easier for some than others. But opportunities exist for women as never before – and I, for one, say let’s raise a glass to our feminist foremothers for making this happen.

Sure, there will always be the rogue relative who snarks at Thanksgiving dinner that you should be sitting at the kid’s table, or the bridal bouquet toss during which a cousin will insist on dragging you out on the dance floor. But chalk that up next to the burden of bearing 10 or more children or struggle to feed several more hungry mouths than you can afford, and things are off to a good start for women at the beginning of the 21st century. Let’s just keep the momentum going.

Image: carbonnyc

A for Apple, B is for Beluga, C is for Chullo. Pretty baby!

Parents on planet Hollywood and elsewhere are headed in that fruity, foamy and woolly direction in declaring devotion to Mama Earth via naming their young.

In the roaring Nineties, when real estate and dot comers were soaring, we saw a return to the Old Testament with the names Sarah, Jacob, Rachel and Eli in vogue.

“Eve and Adam, please leave the great room until Mommy is finished closing her Genentech deal.”

Now that resources are scarcer than ever, green is the rule for everything cool. Nature-bound moms and dads can reference all good things from fiber foods and soothing teas to fair trade crafts and endangered species in getting that family branding just right.

Here is an A-to-Z reference guide on the eco-friendliest labels for your bouncing baby Gore:

Acai (boy) Agate (girl)

Boho (boy) Bark (girl)

Corky (boy) Coral (girl)

Deepak (boy) Dibbler (girl)

Energy (boy) Etsy (girl)

Free (boy) Flax (girl)

Gore (boy) Glacier (girl)

Hemp (boy) Henna (girl)

Indri (boy) Ivory (girl)

Jungle (boy) Jute (girl)

Kale (boy) Kharma (girl)

Leonardo (boy) Laurie David (girl)

Marsh (boy) Mauritius (girl)

Nash (boy) Nectar (girl)

Otter (boy) Oolong (girl)

Prius (boy) Polar (girl)

Quince (boy) Quantum (girl)

Rooibos (boy) Rummage (girl)

Stevia (boy) Sprig (girl)

Tiger (boy) Teak (girl)

Urban (boy) Urial (girl)

Vegan (boy) VivaTerra (girl)

Wolf (boy) Watson (girl)

Xeri (boy, girl)

Yosemite (boy) Yurt (girl)

Zen (boy) Zona (girl)

*For catchy middle names with eco associations, we at EcoSalon suggest: Bradley, Sara, Amy, Heather, Scott, Vanessa, Barrington, Derby, Fitzsimmons, Leigha or Katherine.

Share with us what you have namestormed!

Each week here at EcoSalon, the editors choose a post from the archives that we think you’ll love. The original post can be found here.

Image: Will Foster

Recently, I got caught in a paparazzi crush. It wasn’t the first time. I live in Hollywood, and I’m used to the occasional swarm. I think it must be similar to living inside a beehive or getting caught in a zombie crush. Creatures clearly lacking reason fly at you from all angles, pushing and shoving to get a picture of the latest celebutante or, much more rarely, an actual actor.

But my latest experience with the paparazzi was a little different. I was walking up a street in my neighborhood, more known for its hipster hangouts than hot Hollywood enclaves. Crossing the street, a car suddenly careened into my path. I did what any rational pedestrian would do – I dove the heck out of the way. A man jumped out. I looked around, expecting to see an accident. Why else would someone screech his car to a stop in the middle of the street?

Then I saw his camera. And other cars were slamming to a halt, blocking the intersection, scrambling to surround a black livery sedan. Within seconds, two huge bodyguards stepped out of the car. “Come on, guys, give us some space,” one pleaded as he waved his linebacker hands in a sweeping motion.

Seconds later, the bodyguards were holding back the photographers. It was like there was a terrible emergency and you needed to give paramedics some space to save a life. Instead, it was just mayhem, screaming – and me, highly annoyed I was stuck in this crowd. So I stomped my way through the paparazzi, walking straight past the bodyguards. They ignored me, clearly unimpressed with my glare and my stomping.

Just three feet away from the black sedan, the door opened; massive amounts of white blonde hair and a jaunty cap spilled out. I expected to see a Hilton or maybe a Kardashian in a wig fall out of the car. Instead, a toddler climbed out. He turned his little head towards the crowd of people screaming for his attention.

And then one of those surreal moments happened – you know, when time seems to slow down, the movie score rises up in a big, dramatic moment, and you think, “Is this really happening?” Little Man just stood there, brave and quiet, looking at the crowd. He was probably only alone on the sidewalk for all of five seconds, but again, we were in Movie Surreal Moment. Then his mother stepped out of the car and grabbed his hand. They turned together, ready to face the photographers together.

Me? I got out of there so fast I never got a good look at Little Man’s mother, though I have my suspicions as to who it was. I was unsettled. Little Man had looked so brave when he stared at the throng of photographers. He was a tiny Max looking at all the wild things. But there was nothing cool and Spike Jonze-y about this moment.

Yes, the public has a fascination with celebrities. And the likes of Angelina Jolie, Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Garner, Heidi Klum, and Gwen Stefani all signed up to be stars. But why are their kids Maddox, Ava, Violet, Leni and Kingston being pulled into it as well? (And why do I even know their names?) Won’t someone think of the children?

The California state legislature has responded. As the Huffington Post reports, a law was recently passed fining photographers up to $5,000 or a year in jail for breaking traffic laws or impeding the operation of a celebrity’s vehicle.

Sean Burke is the founder and CEO of the Paparazzi Reform Initiative. As he explains, “This new legislation we’ve supported imposes jail terms for paparazzi driving recklessly in the pursuit of a photograph. Their incarceration time can increase to a year if a child was put at risk during the car chase. We feel this new law will improve public safety in general and hopefully prevent anyone else from getting hurt.” Europe has passed even tougher laws, and now the children of celebrities are obscured in many photos.

After my latest paparazzi run-in, I marched home and vowed to avoid all celebrity child photographs. Two hours later, I clicked on a link about Angelina Jolie and was directed to a picture of her daughter. Fail on all ends. Celebrity, paparazzi, and the publicity machines that they serve seem unavoidable in our current culture. Yes, don’t look at the pictures. But better yet, support legislation to reign in this behavior. And be very, very careful crossing the streets of Hollywood.

Image: oddwick

There was a moment in time when digital watches came on the scene in a big way. Ubiquitous Casios faced down analog timepieces in the marketplace to the extent that conventional wisdom (read: what my parents were saying) had analog going the way of the sundial. There was chatter among adults, I recall, that “it won’t be long before kids can’t even read a clock anymore.”

Today, I sometimes wonder whether handwriting will soon be written off. I don’t recall seeing my guys actually handwrite all that much while they were growing up. I did spy their notebooks and scrawl here and there, and I think I got one or two letters from camp, but it wasn’t like when we were young and wrote on everything we could get our hands on. I do see them typing. At least I think I do; their fingers move way too fast for me to know what’s really going on between user and keyboard. They text, too. I get their texts. I do not get “notes.” In any event, I just read this story about why I’m so much smarter than my kids!

Turns out, writing by hand makes kids – and adults, for that matter – smarter. This, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article by Gwendolyn Bounds, who cites a numbers of studies, including one based on magnetic resonance imaging. The upshot of the research, she says, is that handwriting “helps with learning letters and shapes, can improve idea composition and expression, and may aid fine motor-skill development.” This is the good stuff that we need to nail down early on if we’re going to know our ass from our elbows as we get on in years.

Speaking of getting on in years, we adults also reap benefits from putting pen to paper. Bounds points out that “some physicians say handwriting could be a good cognitive exercise for baby boomers working to keep their minds sharp as they age.” The Week adds to the mix a number of specific benefits, including studies that show that writing by hand “can get ideas out faster” and increases neural activity, which is always fun.

And in the perception versus reality department, good handwriting makes you seem smarter, as well: “Several studies have shown that the same mediocre essay will score much higher if written with good penmanship and much lower if written out in poor handwriting,” says Vanderbilt University education professor Steve Graham. “There is a reader effect that is insidious”¦ People judge the quality of your ideas based on your handwriting.”

While this all could lead to an unfortunate bout of tech bashing, consider, says Bounds, that “new software for touch-screen devices, such as the iPad, is starting to reinvigorate the practice.” I know that I got myself this little iPhone “paint” application that I read David Hockney uses, and I now find myself “coloring” again from time to time. Smarter me? Maybe. It makes me smile for sure.

So regarding my kids, I lied. My kids are way smarter than me. They certainly are when you put my 17- and 20-year-old self against where they’re at today. Beside their genetically endowed brilliance (had to), their access to and facility with information as they developed far surpassed mine in every way. The big question now is: Is information wasted on the young? Better jot that one down.

Oh, and neither of them even wears a watch.

Image: Caitlinator

Recently, an issue so-powerful-it-could-only-be-emailed was batted around the hallowed halls of EcoSalon. The issue was complex, kind of like asking 24-to-39-year-old women to name their favorite Jonas Brother. Sure, the middle one seems a bit cute, but is it really okay to have an opinion on the matter? And while we’re on the subject, could our own Stiv Wilson be dreamier while reporting on insanely important issues around the globe? Probably not, and let’s get back on target. (Seriously, people!)

Rather, the EcoSalonistas were debating another topic – and that was men having children past 50. As some of us saw it, people will go all monster judgey on women having kids over 40, but no one bats a fake eyelash over men doing the same. NBC’s 30 Rock is gravely exploring this topic as 50-year old Jack Donaghy has a baby with his younger girlfriend. He tells Liz Lemon, “50 is the new 40 for men. 50 is still 60 for women.” To quote the great Tina Fey via the great Liz Lemon, “Whatever, Tony Randall.”

Men often remarry or have children late. Aforementioned actor Tony Randall has his last child at age 78, while Charlie Chaplin had his last at age 73. Yet bring up a woman having children into her 40s and you’re going to hear some hooting and hollering on the matter. Recently, the bloggers over at Babble raised a spectacle on the web when they mocked a group of 30s-to-early-40s actresses who dared to risk aging out of their barren wombs. (The original article has since been taken down, but luckily our friends at Jezebel still have it cached.)

We responded by looking at the issue of fertility drugs for the plus 35 crowd o’ women. But what about the boys and men? Do men worry about older paternity? Or do they fantasize about changing dirty diapers alongside young girlfriends who look like Elizabeth Banks? We polled a few, prodded some others, and found the following.

PROS OF OLDER DADHOOD

“Derek” (names all changed for privacy aka “How many people are going to read this now?”) thinks older fatherhood enables more financial security and a better life for his kids. Stephanie’s husband is 16 years older, and she tells me that he’s very attentive, calmer and nurturing with their kids. And research backs this up, as “older dads are three times more willing and more likely to share in the daily child rearing tasks, including diaper changes, feeding the toddler, and putting the kids to bed.” Steve said he’s not ready to settle down anytime soon (Steve is 42) so it’s either older fatherhood or nothing. Probably nothing. Thank you, Steve.

CONS OF OLDER DADHOOD

Mike thinks older fatherhood means “more cash, less ass.” Quippy, and as Captain Obvious might point out, indicative of the fact that some people believe children cost money and can hinder your ability to sleep with women, sexually or otherwise. David says “having less energy” and “uh, DYING” as a con of being an older father. And Mitchell told me that he doesn’t want to be mistaken for his kid’s granddad.

Image: Courtesy of NBC