How do your kids get to school? How did you get to school when you were a kid? Taking the yellow school bus, walking or riding a bike may all seem like normal methods of getting to school. In the modern world, we drive and carpool as well. But what about in urban environments where a lot of parents don't drive or even own a car? They take the subway.

And they do it ALONE. That's right--I've seen it myself. Kids popping onto and off of the subway without a parent in sight. How do they manage it? And why, you might wonder, do their parents let them do it? Well, necessity is the mother of invention and a lot of other things, it turns out. Kids are going in one direction, their parents in another (to school versus work), and the main way to get around town in New York, for example, is underground.

Turns out, it's probably safer too. Driving in this city is a disaster on a good day. You're a LOT less likely to get into an accident on the subway than you are in your car. Plus, the kids tend to travel in packs on the subway. I never see a kid get onto an empty car at an odd (non-rush hour) time. They pick which car to meet up on and collect as the train makes its stops toward their final destination. I know because I can hear them screeching above my iPod.

Being overweight is tough for a kid. There are many options toward weight loss, but some are more (or less) appealing than others. For many, over the years, the weight-loss camp has been a dream. But, while "fat camp" is almost as American as apple pie, it's now going the way of many other American dreams--it's too darned expensive to attend. Like any other camp, weight-loss camp costs money to run and maintain. With more than nine million children who are considered obese in this country, such camp can seem like a knight in shining armor for families struggling to get their kids' weight under control. The weight-loss camps, while they can be affective, are far from free. Few to none accept insurance.

The government generally offers no more assistance than insurance companies. Instead the children rely on their essay writing skills and other means to win scholarships to attend. Yes, even weight loss camp is something only possible for the rich. Corporate sponsorship is one way to help get kids who can't afford the often more than $1,000-a-week pricetag what they need. Advocacy groups are being formed, such as the Childhood Obesity Treatment in Action. Some tax deductions are coming into play, and some insurance is starting to cover a portion of the cost--mostly in the cognitive behavior area.

But is it enough? Rarely. And financial cost is to say nothing of the emotional cost to the children, who are often left with either feeling exploited by their situation--their essays and their experiences become the property of the camp, who share that information freely with the media in hopes of growing the industry--and/or have to deal with life after camp, which can be even harder than before they found their salvation. While most children lose some portion of their body weight at the camps, few manage to keep it off after returning to the real world.

Pic by skampy.

In a draft report recently issued, the Federal Drug Administration has concluded that Bisphenol A is safe --at least when used in food containers. Commonly known as BPA to consumers, the chemical can be found in all sorts of children's products as well as cars, plastic food containers and lining aluminum cans.

This most recent study was one of two funded by the industry itself. Gee, of course any study funded by the industry that stands to make money off it is going to come out with data supporting a chemical's safety. There rationale is that people are exposed to so little of it that it won't do them harm. In other studies BPA has been found in 93% of testees' urine and has been known to cause cancer and behavioral disorders in lab animals. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) supports the findings as well.

Opponents of the decision say the study agencies don't have enough data to support their findings that BPA is safe. The country of Canada has banned the use of BPA and products containing the chemical, and national retail chain giants Wal-Mart and Toys R Us are set to remove all children's merchandise containing the chemical from their shelves as of January 2009.

Remember Bill Nye the Science Guy? Sort of a cross between Pee-Wee Herman and Mr. Wizard? Well, it's been about ten years since his TV show ended, but now he's set to return to the small screen in a new show called Stuff Happens, on a new channel dedicated to green living, Planet Green. On the show, Nye will explain "what happens when we use stuff, where it goes when we're through with it, and what impact it all has on the environment and the entire planet."

It appears the thirteen-part series will target an older audience than his previous show, but with "astonishing information, easy-to-follow science, lighthearted demonstrations, expert interviews and connective story-telling to amplify growing problems in the environment and important solutions," it sounds like it would be great for any kid old enough to care about science and the environment.

The first episode kicks off the series in the bathroom, exploring the impact of what goes on in the throne room. Other episodes will cover the bedroom, the attic, dinner, and breakfast. The first episode airs September 2 at 9pm Eastern. I think we'll be checking it out.

I was pretty much a klutz growing up. In fact, I still am. But I'm not obese (although in the last two months of my pregnancy I do feel rather large!). Is there any real connection between the two? Perhaps so, if we're to believe the findings of another recent study.

According to a new report on Reuters, there is a growing pool of evidence suggesting such a link between children with poor cognitive function and adults with type 2 diabetes or who are obese. A study of British children between the ages of seven and eleven (that started in 1958) yielded the results: those with the worst congitive skills were also the most likely to be obese later in life. Researchers were quick to point out these children were no larger than the rest of the kids at the time, meaning weight was not to blame for their being clumsy.

In fact, factors such as body mass at childhood and social class were both taken into account and adjusted. The findings were still solid. So what causes the link (if indeed there realy is one)? Well, that is the question, isn;t it? Researchers considered smoking during pregnancy a possibility as well as children not getting enough exercise during childhood--which is critical to developing fine motor skills.

pic by vlauria.

As many of you may know, I have a sixteen-month-old-son. When I first became pregnant I never thought whether I wanted a boy or a girl. I was simply thrilled to be having a child at all, and wanted only a happy, healthy child--the sex of the baby was inconsequential. Then, at one point I found out I would be having a son. I was an only child and a girl and knew not the first thing about having, and raising, a little boy. Now I'm on track with my second child, a little girl. I'm nervous and flustered and wondering just how different raising a child of the opposite sex will be. After all, I've had experience raising a baby, but he is all boy, all the time.

Is there such a difference in raising children of the opposite sex? Ask anyone, whether or not they're parents, and they'll have a pretty strong opinion about the world of boys vs girls. For example, when I found out I was having a girl, the pink clothing literally started pouring in. Everything is pink! When I was pregnant with my son I received clothes in all manner of colors, but not with my daughter. People also always comment that boys are much more rambunctious than girls in the beginning, but that girls are ever so much harder to deal with as teenagers--and that as the would-be mother of a teenage girl I have a lot of drama to look forward to.

The only real difference I've come across in my research is how you change a diaper. For girls you simply wipe in a different direction than with boys. Perhaps there's a little more clean-up involved as you're dealing with internal parts as opposed to external parts, but really that's the only difference I can discern. All of my friends who have two children, oddly enough, started out with a boy and then followed up with a girl. They all say that there is a real difference, even if it can't be defined in words, to raising a boy vs a girl.

Thoughts? Is there any real difference? Is it just society straining its concept of norms over us? Or is there more to raising girls than pink clothing that makes them intrinsically different than boys? After all, aren't little boys made of snails and puppy dog tails and such, while girls are made of sugar and spice?

Possibly just in time for back to school, last week Republicans introduced a bill to the Senate the stop bullying in schools. The bill includes language to cover harassment of students based on sexual orientation as well as transgender students in public schools. As one gay-rghts activist noted, youth are becoing increasingly comfortable with coming out of the closet at an early age. As a result, they can suffer harassment--and worse--and need protection.

According to a representative of Senate majority leader Dean G. Skelos, the bill was in direct competition with tax relief and was not to be discussed at last Friday's special session. The bill could be given the opportunity to be introduced at another session later in the month, and most likely will as it would be unusual for a bill to be entered this time of year without the intention of getting it passed.

If it goes through, New York will be the eleventh state to introduce and adopt a bullying bill. Legislation was originally introduced in 1999 but didn't make it far as critics were uncomfortable using language regarding transgendered students, who would be protected under the current bill. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities have long been calling for such legislation.

Little Levi Mcconaughey is certainly making the rounds. His father, periodically shirtless actor Matthew Mcconaughey recently took the newborn to his first concert. The concert was that of John Mellancamp. Levi, born mere weeks ago to the actor and supermodel girlfriend Camila Alves has already been surfing.

Now, I'm assuming this kid had his shots and a doctor's blessing to be out among the masses. I'm also assuming since McConohottie is a celebrity that he and the little tyke were able to keep the crowds at bay. They probably had special seating, etc. to ensure a little space for the newborn.

Says Mcconaughey, he wants to prepare his son to be around people and noise. My guess is they plan on taking their little one with them everywhere they go. Mcconaughey has no plans to change his lifestyle now that he's a father, and says one doesn't need to. I have a newsflash for him--parenthood DOES change you, and you cannot live the exact same life you did before (especially if you were a jetsetting, camera-friendly celebrity like McConohottie) once you have a child. Unless, of course, your child isn't really a part of your life As for Mcconaughey, that doesn't seem to be the case. He seems keen to include his son in all his favorite activities. Good for you, Matthew--that's what being a daddy is all about, right?

What do you think? Does life change infinitely and there are things you simply must give up when you become a parent, or can you simply absorb your child into your current lifestyle?

Yes, yes, you read that right. Sad but true, the Public Broadcasting Service, better known as PBS, has decided to cut Mister Rogers' Neighborhood. If ever there were such a thing as true classic television, that has since gained cult status among us adults, it would be Mister Rogers' and that crazy red cardigan of his. He will be sorely missed by a large portion of Americans, even if out of nostalgia.

Mister Rogers is basically an institution. Like Sesame Street, the show was some of the best of what educational television has ever offered. He was a nice man that got children to actually trust men, and he always took the time to change his shoes. Comfort was big with this man, and so it is with many of us today. According to Brian Linder, the head of the savemisterrogers.com, who is spearheading a campaign to get PBS to think twice about relegating the show to member stations, the show continues to provide " a special nurturing voice in the lives of children." Yes--that's what I was trying to say! Linder believes Fred Rogers, bedecked in his red sweater (and, uhm, comfortable shoes), taught not only the young boy a thing or two, but also his parents.

Frankly, I think it's pure blasphemy to remove Mister Rogers from programming. Can someone please tell me another show that is possibly good enough to take its place? That's what I thought: SILENCE FROM THE INTERNET. So what is to be done? Well, join the campaign to save our favorite cardigan wearing nice guy. Do your part to let PBS know how you feel by visiting the website. For my part, I'm imagining Mister Rogers the movie. Clearly we need one. If something as vapid as the Smurfs can get a run on the silver screen, then by golly Mister Rogers has a posthumous Oscar headed his way. Question is, who would play him? Possibly Will Ferrell? Will is sort of a softy and a sweetheart, so maybe he's our man. Or, maybe Luke Wilson. That might not work though, as Wilson is sort of too hot to be Mister Rogers. Thoughts???

Are these shows supposed to take his place?

Lately, my seven-year-old has shown an interest in playing a rather bloody video game. It's not exactly violent, but involves a skateboarder who bleeds profusely whenever he wipes out. I refuse to let her play because I don't like the way the bright red blood oozes realistically across the pavement. Of course it isn't real, but I am uncomfortable with the idea that she will become desensitized to the sight of massive amounts of flowing blood.

Clearly there are many parents who have no such qualms when it comes to blood, gore and assorted acts of violence. According to the journal Pediatrics, an estimated 2.5 million kids ages 10 to 14 watch R rated movies, often with parental permission.

The researchers gave 6,522 kids a list of movies, 40 if them rated R and chosen for their extreme graphic violence. When asked to list which ones they had seen, an average of 12.5% indicated that they had seen each of the R rated movies. The researchers didn't ask where they saw the films, but did include a question about whether or not their parents allowed them to watch R rated movies. One third said their parents were okay with it "sometimes" or "all the time". 22.6% of those who weren't allowed still managed to see at least one anyway.

Studies have shown that exposure to violent media can increase aggression and desensitize a person to real violence. For that reason, the researchers believe that violent movies should have an explicit warning that they "should not be seen by young adolescents" and they encourage pediatricians to talk to parents about the risks involved.

Of course, there are those who see no harm in exposing children to horror. Gerard Jones, author of Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Superheroes and Make-Believe Violence, says these experiences are "a classic, vital part of teen culture." I think the key phrase in the sentence is "teen culture". A ten-year-old is not a teen.

Officials in the UK have chosen to ban the word "obese" from letters being sent to parents about their children's weight. Instead the parents of these children will receive a letter saying such children are "very overweight." The move is being called both "prissy" and "namby pamby" by Tam Fry, a member of Board of the National Obesity Forum. Namby pamby? Regardless of what you call it, Fry feels a better approach is to just come clean with parents.

In the United States, we've tried to ban the word "fat" and have replaced it with the word "obese." This may or may not be having much of an impact on our nation or our youth as our waistlines continue to get bigger (while our wallets become smaller!). One person I know quite well, however, was in denial about his weight as a teenager until he saw a doctor write the word "obese" on his report during the physical he was required to get before he left for college. That person, at that exact point, took charge of his weight and his life.

%Gallery-28708%

As for the UK, Primary Care Trusts, or PCTs, are being guided to measure children's height and weight at ages five and eleven. Parents can choose not to participate, and so can their children. In the event that both do choose to participate, the measurements will be sent by letter to the parents and not the children. Naturally, a good portion of the obese children are not participating in the measurements, thereby negating the attempt to correct the situation. Children as little as seven years of age are being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, which was unheard of in the UK a decade ago.

What do you think? Should we go back to calling people fat? Should we call them obese? Should we only be telling their parents? Is there a good approach to any of this? I'd have to go with a quote from Aaron Neville on this one: Tell it like it is.

Pic by bethography - melting mama.

A University of Cincinnati research student recent reviewed studies on bullying from several different countries. What she found (and what she reported to the American Sociological Association) is that certain parenting styles may predict bullying behavior.

Elizabeth Sweeney found that children of parents who use an authoritarian parenting style -- demanding yet unresponsive -- are more likely exhibit bullying behavior. Her theory is an obvious one; kids who learn to be aggressive or dominating at home are more likely to repeat that behavior in the schoolyard. Interestingly, she found that kids from middle incomes are less likely to bully than those from low or high socioeconomic groups.

Newsflash--what you're feeding your children when you take them out to dinner is not healthy! A new report says that kids meals at top chain restaurants are full of salt, fat and calories. The restaurants in question are the likes of McDonald's, Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Well, to quote the ten-year-old me, who really enjoyed the kids meal versions of those restaurants: DUH! Items on the kids menu noted and tested were, for example, country fried chicken from the Chili's menu and the "Wacky Pack' from Sonic containing a grilled cheese, fries and a slurpie. Ok, two things. One, how is it that ANYONE serves this stuff to their kids for dinner? And, two, how could it not be apparent that things like country fried chicken are fattening and full of calories? You don't have to be FROM the country to know that anything "country fried" ain't that good for you.

Of the thirteen chains and 1,474 meal combinations possible, 93% of the meals exceeded 430 calories, one third of the daily calories suggested for children between the ages of four and eight. Sonic, KFC and Jack in the Box responded that they are striving to include healthier options for kids meals. This is coming from the people who chose to offer soda and cheetos as part of a kids meal om the first place. The report provides all the more reason to eat in. Money is tight in this economy, and, yes, even I give in to the temptation of eating or ordering out, but I do so knowing the caloric cost. Making things at home is cheaper and gives you more control of what goes into a dish and into your kids' stomachs. And, honestly, a lot of times it's tastier too.

Pic of kids meal by OctopusHat.

It seems like a day doesn't go by that we don't hear about another recalled toy -- lead paint, dangerous chemicals, magnets -- but that will, hopefully, become less common, due to legislation making its way through congress. It's been hailed as the "most aggressive overhaul in decades of America's consumer safety system" and comes after months of haggling where, in almost every aspect, safety came out on top.

The bill calls for stricter limits on lead in toys, beginning with 600 parts per million after six months and decreasing to 100 ppm after three years. There will be new safety standards for all-terrain vehicles and a half-dozen compounds will be banned from use in plastics. In order to make sure that companies comply with the new rules, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's budget will get a boost, state attorneys general will have the power to pull products off store shelves, and violators will face fines as high as fifteen million dollars.

Illinois Representative Jan Schakowsky called the legislation "a really strong, strong bill" and said of the plans for the CPSC that "it really, in many ways, is the birth of a new agency that will have much broader authority, particularly to keep our children safe." It's a shame that this is at all necessary, but I'm glad it's in the works.

Matt Damon is the next celebrity to invest in some good old fashioned charity work, this time by working on his children's charity. The Departed star, who recently piled on 30 pounds for The Informant, is taking the summer off to lose the weight and get the charity rolling.

The charity is to be called the One X One Foundation. Its mission is to support, improve and preserve the lives of children in Canada and around the world. According to Damon, singer Sheryl Crow is set to play at one of the Foundation's events. Earlier this year pal Ben Affleck (and daddy) recently hosted an inaugural event.

Says Damon, who is a daddy himself, making calls for the Foundation are "...easy."