Skyping your playdates

I remember when I was growing up and we used to run across the street to see our friends, or ride our bikes up the road to another friend's house. There were the few occasions that Mom would drive us to someone's house and we'd play there all day.

Fast forward to today, when many of those interactions are done virtually among today's children. Whether it be IM, text messaging or online gaming, kids today just don't see each other. They might communicate, but they don't interact. I see this as a problem, but apparently I'm not one of the cool kids, which isn't anything new. I mean, you don't get voted "Most Talkative" in high school because they like you, right?

I digress. The cool kids from yesteryear are now the cool parents who are experimenting with video playdates, which is exactly as it sounds -- kids playing with kids via computer modems and monitors. Which isn't really playing as much as watching a really lame reality TV show.

One of the leaders in this new realm of non-playing playdates is Lana Yarosh, a Ph.D. candidate in human-centered computing at Georgia Tech University. She's tinkered with regular video chats for kids, having kids play show-and-tell with multiple cameras and even WWE-style action sequences: "In another [method], playmates share a virtual playpen of sorts, where they see each others' toys and bodies projected onto the floor."

"They were jumping on top of each other. They were having battles. One of the kids said, 'This is a lot of fun and it's actually better than being in the same room because we're not hurting each other.' 

The purpose of these video playdates, Yarosh says, is for "friends to stay in touch when their parents can't drive them to each other's houses or to the park." To her credit, Yarosh does state that video playdates are "more work" because, you know, they're not in the same room. But Yarosh believes the same level of social interaction takes place in these virtual playdates.

The reaction by the masses: Thanks, but no thanks. I tend to agree. One of the highlights of the weekends for us is when Kaitlyn repeatedly asks us who we're going to see that day. It could be Declan-Lilly (they're always combined, I don't know why), it could be Baby E, it might be Sophia. She loves playing with her friends, running around in circles and pushing strollers and playing with dolls and cars and laughing. Lots and lots of laughing.

No matter how busy the schedule is, we'll always make time to bring Kaitlyn to see her friends. The need for interaction is important -- it helps shape who we are, it helps us later in life (see: School) and it creates a fun environment to explore and imagine.

Skype has its place; we love talking to Nana and Pop-Pop and Aunt Debbie, Uncle Chris and Cousin Colin and everyone else who has it. It just doesn't seem like a substitute for human interaction.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my online Scrabble game with Michelle. She's texting me feverishly from the other room because it's my turn. 

A win for responsible parents: Spankings not child abuse, jury says

I admit it: I have spanked Kaitlyn. Twice actually. The first time was when she was just over a year old and decided to a dish from Michelle’s grandmother as a shot put. The second time was this past weekend when Kaitlyn darted into the parking lot of Kohl’s on Wendover Avenue. But each time, I looked at her and explained why she was punished and told her that Daddy loves her and just wants her to be careful.

To some, that might sound hypocritical (You spank her and tell her you love her?) but the fact is Kaitlyn doesn’t know that yet. What she does know is she did something Daddy didn’t like and that she got punished harshly for it. Action-reaction.

She doesn’t get spanked for spilling milk. She doesn’t get spanked for repeating bad words (ugh on me). She doesn’t get spanked for telling us “No.” She doesn’t even get spanked for hitting Mommy and Daddy, since we know she’s really just playing and doesn’t realize she’s actually “hitting.”

Believe me, I don’t want to spank. But sometimes timeouts just don’t work. And it’s not like you can reason with a two-year-old, no matter what some new-age hippies tell you.

Nevertheless, some people will always consider spankings cruel and unusual punishment. And they will press charges and get good, responsible parents who don’t abuse the tactic in trouble. Our only defense and hope is that a jury of our peers will realize not all of us are Joe Jackson.

Case in point: Just this week, a local man was acquitted of child abuse charges filed after the boy’s mother (the couple is separated, which may or may not have played a role in the charge) noticed red marks on the boy’s bottom:

Michael David Ward, 37, of Kilby Street in Burlington admitted he had spanked his son last spring after the 8-year-old boy disobeyed his order to stay away from an old boat while he played outside and later lied about it, defense attorney Rick Champion said … Champion said his client used a belt to spank the boy in the buttocks. He said the boy testified during the trial that the spanking hurt and that he cried at the time, but it didn't bother him later … He added the boy said that after his father finished punishing him, he gave him a hug and the boy continued playing as usual.

Ward had a previous child abuse charge against him, too: “Ward was on probation for a misdemeanor assault on a child under 12 charge for a 2007 incident also involving his son. On that occasion, Champion said, the boy had doused himself in fabric freshener. Thinking the boy drank some of it, Ward panicked and grabbed the boy's face to check his throat with such force that it left a mark on the boy's face.”

One guess who likely levied that complaint, too. Spanking isn’t ideal; I’ll be the first to admit it. But sometimes it is effective. Many parents understand this is a fine line that gets crossed by the dumb parents out there who themselves probably deserve a belt to the bottom.

Strange(r) Than Fiction: Depressing News

Came home from work today and looked at the top news stories on the local newspaper's Web site. Here are three of the top six headlines:

"Man charged with taking indecent liberties with a child"

"Man wanted in rape of 6-year-old girl"

"Stokesdale man to spend up to 131 years in prison for raping teen"

I didn't even stay to read the rest of the newspaper. And normally I hyperlink stories when I find them, but I'm a little to depressed after reading those headline.

Hug your child.

Graco angers parents, doesn't build chairs from super-duper titanium that encases child in bubble

I don't get are parents who get all in a tiff over the fact that stuff might not last forever. Case in point: Graco's latest recall, which is due to "screws holding the front legs of the high chair can loosen and fall out" and that cracking plastic brackets can cause the high chair to "tip over unexpectedly."

These tip-overs resulted in 24 reports of injuries, including bumps and bruises to the head, a hairline fracture to the arm, and cuts, bumps and bruises and scratches to the body.

More than 1.2 million units have been recalled because of these bumps and bruises, which some have even called "Another Dangerous Baby Furniture Risk." Funny thing? The two dozen instances happened over a six year period. But some people still want to cause even more alarm, like this blogger:

Still yet, a high chair that tips over could really seriously hurt an infant if they land on a hard surface or hit something on their way down.

Funny, but I didn't think that serious injury from falling on hard surfaces or hitting something while falling down was limited to sitting in a high chair.

Strange(r) Danger: British Lady Dictates Child-Rearing

I think Michelle and I do a pretty good job with Kaitlyn. First, she’s still alive. Second, she still has all her fingers and toes. Third, she’s bigger than a Thanksgiving turkey. Fourth and most importantly, she’s still smiling and giving us hugs when she sees us.

In my book, that’s four-for-four. But some people might see a flaw in my parenting style. They might offer suggestions. They might even send some help.

Enter SuperNanny.

The ABC show (I can’t call it a hit show since I don’t know a single person who has ever watched a whole episode) is heading to Greensboro this weekend for casting calls. Apparently someone let them in on my little Strange(r) Danger post from a week back and thought, “This guy lets his kids play? We need professional help. We need SuperNanny!”

If you haven’t seen the show, a British broad is brought into a completely insane home with completely insane parents and completely insane children to transform them into an insanely complete family.

I thought about this long and hard and even sent Michelle an email:

Me: SuperNanny coming to Greensboro! Do we participate? LOL
Michelle: Totally!

Now I don’t know if she was serious or not, considering her mission in life is to get Kaitlyn “discovered.” I’m guessing she was kidding (please God, tell me she was kidding), but I started to wonder just what SuperNanny would try and improve on.

SuperNanny: Dad, I see you like to write about your dealings with Kaitlyn on the internet. Have you ever thought about how she might feel about this?
Me: No. She's 26 months old.
SuperNanny: Not now, but when she gets older and can understand these things.
Me: Well SuperNanny, I would hope that she would look back on this and see that we did everything we could to raise her right and have fun doing so.
SuperNanny: But you talk about some rather unkind things.
Me: Such as?
Supernanny: Your daughter's weight, for starters. You call her fat.
Me: Yeah. It's cute and funny.
SuperNanny: But don't you think she might develop self-esteem problems later on while reading how her father felt about her growing up?
Me: Um, no. Besides, my wife and I love her no matter what, even if she doesn't grow out of her Butterball figure and looks like you when she grows up.
SuperNanny: Um, okay. Moving on. Now Dad, how do you praise Kaitlyn when she does something good?
Me: Usually with marshmallows. Couldn’t you tell by the belly? Looks like you’ve had a couple marshmallows yourself.
SuperNanny: Dad, that’s not proper. You should make jokes about your daughter’s weight. But it’s good you’re offering some kind of reward. But maybe you should try something a little healthier, like apple slices.
Me: You didn’t answer my question. Have you been sneaking into Kaitlyn’s marshmallows? Kaitlyn might kick you if she finds out.
SuperNanny: Is that a problem with Kaitlyn? Does she act out and roughhouse with other children? Maybe when she doesn’t get her way?
Me: Only if you’re taking her marshmallows. And you’re dodging the question.
SuperNanny: No I am not. Do you have any hot cocoa?
Me: Give me back the marshmallows, SuperNanny.

Dora exploring a little more than we thought

Kaitlyn loves her some Kids on Demand from Time-Warner. I mean, she gets her daily fix of Dora the Explorer, Go Diego Go and the other Crack for Children wonderful programming that's available to her age set.

Luckily, though, she wasn't watching sometime around 10 a.m. Tuesday, since she would have gotten a little more than expected:

An 'equipment failure' caused preview clips for adult programming to appear on two channels dedicated for kids in North Carolina ... [Company spokeswoman Melissa] Buscher said the problem appeared on two "Kids on Demand" channels that were showing viewers a list of children's programming such as Dora the Explorer. 'Instead of being a preview for kids programming, you got a preview of adult programming,' she said.

Yikes. Luckily all is right with the world and they apparently fixed the problem. I'll let you know if they didn't when we go home later tonight and a preview for "Dora Does Dallas" is running across the screen.

Strange(r) Foods: Breast Milk Cheese in NYC

I have always thought to myself, Hey self, is there anything better in life than a nice cold glass of milk and some boobies? And the answer is simply, No self, there’s nothing better in life than a nice cold glass of milk and some boobies.

But the two are mutually exclusive. I don’t find myself rummaging through the fridge trying to find some leftover breast milk for my coffee. I just don’t see breast milk in that way. Maybe it’s because I watched Michelle struggle with breastfeeding. Maybe it’s because I subconsciously see the whole mother-child connection and don’t want to intrude on that bond. Maybe it’s because breast milk is a bodily fluid and you don’t see me drinking pee.

Whatever the reason, I believe breast milk isn’t for personal consumption after your infancy. But don’t tell that to Daniel Angerer and his wife, Lori Mason.

Angerer, chef and owner of Klee Brasserie in New York City, is putting Mother’s Milk on the menu in the form of homemade cheese. Apparently Lori was a milk machine after giving birth to their daughter and the couple had breast milk all over the place. So mad scientist boobie milk freak chef Angerer decided to cook up some boobie milk cheese:

After blogging about his efforts with the human cheese, customers started demanding a sample, he said. ‘The phone was ringing off the hook,’ the chef said. ‘So I prepared a little canapé of breast-milk cheese with figs and Hungarian pepper.’

The fetish experiment has caught the attention of everyone from the media to mommy experts and even the New York City Health Department, which seems less amused. Per reports, it has asked Angerer to stop offering his wife’s milk to the general public, even though there is no specific law on the books prohibiting it: “The restaurant knows that cheese made from breast milk is not for public consumption, whether it is sold or given away,” a Health Department spokeswoman told the New York Post.

But the attention hasn’t stopped the usual freaks from coming out of the woodwork, according to Mason:

Some people who clearly have issues have . . . e-mailed me saying, 'I wasn't breast-fed as a child, so can I taste your breast milk?' ... I'm not here to walk people through their psychological problems.

Not unless they’re willing to spend some ducats on maple caramelized pumpkin encrusted with Mommy's Milk cheese on a bed of texturized concord grapes, that is.

Strange(r) Than Fiction: Real Idiots

The latest from the Strange(r) Than Fiction file:

• Police have arrested a South Korean couple whose toddler starved to death while they were raising a virtual child online, authorities said. The couple fed their 3-month-old daughter once a day between marathon stretches in a local Internet cafe, where they were raising a virtual child in the fantasy role-playing game Prius Online, police told local reporters Friday.
• A 2-year-old boy who suffered third-degree burns on his upper body after igniting his clothes with a lighter remains in UNC Hospitals Jaycee Burn Center in Chapel Hill. According to warrants, the child lit himself on fire with a lighter after his parents allegedly smoked marijuana.
• The North Metro Task Force says an 11-year-old boy shot himself in the foot after his father used him to guard a medical- marijuana operation. "I think the 11- year-old was protecting the marijuana grow," said task force spokesman Jerry Peters. "It's a lucrative business."

Strange(r) Things You'll Be Seeing

Here's a real stretch on the topic, but I think all of us NaBloPoMo-ers are allowed a slight slip. I mean, what could be strange(r) than a whole new look to Growing Up Kaitlyn?

That's right, it's about that time. Kaitlyn's growing up, so why shouldn't her blog grow up with her? And instead of just shoving something down your throat, I'm giving you, all two dozen (that's being generous, isn't it?) readers a say in the process.

Here are the options:

wordpress.Fun 

Color Paper

dfMarine 

As with any template, it will have a little customization to it, including a new Growing Up Kaitlyn header and an actual logo for the blog. Any suggestions and comments on colors and the like are more than welcome. And if you happen to know a web designer who wants to create me a blog skin for absolutely nothing, then thing this little experiment will help direct that process. I mean, I'm good at this stuff, but I'm no pro.

There you have it. Voting starts today. Vote early and often. Kaitlyn appreciates it!

Strange(r) Things on the Web: Chatroulette

As I said in my intro to NaBloPoMo, strange(r) is a topic that we as parents are always concerned with. Case in point: Chatroulette.

If you haven't heard about this yet, you likely will very, very soon. Chatroulette, as described by the Associated Press, "randomly links users with strangers who could be anywhere in the world. If you don't like the person who pops up on the screen, just click 'Next.' Repeat." And it was built by a 17-year-old from Russia.

Think of it as channel surfing, except with real people. Everyone's got a webcam, so you're essentially peeking in on people at random times. Its equal parts chatroom, Facebook and voyeurism. And that's where the problems begin.

You see, for every quirky techno-geek you may find singing a song about apples ala Randy Newman, you can also find yourself face-to-face with a perv who could be introducing you to his "lil' buddy." Pretty scary stuff, huh? That's what experts like Dr. Keith Ablow are saying about Chatroulette:

Parents should keep all children off the site because it's much too dangerous for children. It's a predator's paradise. This is one of the worst faces of the Internet that I've seen. It's disconnecting human relationships rather than connecting them.

Or how about Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children:

(It's) a huge red flag. This is extreme social networking. Absolutely random. No limits. Graphic sexual content. This is the last place parents want their kids to be ... A lot of kids are doing it in groups because they find it funny ... But you want to talk to them about what they're seeing, because who does that? Who just exposes themselves to a webcam and then waits for a pervert to come along?

Who indeed.

Boo would never eat Kaitlyn

Kaitlyn gets a big kick out of playing with Boo. Since Boo is all of nine pounds, it's not like she's an intimidating presence that scares Kaitlyn.

It also helps that Boo has never done anything more than lick Kaitlyn's fingers and face. That's due in large part to Michelle and I making sure that neither Boo or Kaitlyn cross the line of playing (No Kaitlyn, don't pull Boo-Boo's ears. No Boo-Boo, don't take Kaitlyn's toy).

So it's a little bothersome when you read stories like this one from our great state of North Carolina. Another one to file under the "Dumb Parents" header:

The night of Aug. 31, 2009, [Robbie Lynn Jenkins, 20, and Tremayne Jerel Spillman, 23] both consumed Seroquel, a sleep-inducing medication prescribed to Jenkins, and left their 4-month-old child, Tremayne Jerel Spillman Jr., on a foldout couch in the couple’s Murrill Hill Road home. A pit bull puppy they were dog-sitting chewed the toes off the baby boy.

[Jenkins and Spillman] appeared in court Thursday, pleading guilty to felonious negligent child abuse involving serious physical injury and misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Jenkins received eight to 11 months. Spillman received 10 to 13 months. The couple also received five months credit for time served. Their plea was not part of a pre-arranged deal and they received the maximum sentence possible, according to state sentencing structure laws.

According to other reports, the couple was so blitzed that never heard the baby screaming and only became aware of the problem when they went to change their four-month-old son's diaper the next morning. THE. NEXT. MORNING.

Just as disturbing as the incident itself is the fact that they "received the maximum sentence possible." We've got pot smokers who get 24 months just for sitting on their couches with the munchies, but people who let a dog eat a baby spend less than a year in jail.

Two-year-old forward commits to Lady Volunteers

I know I'm sort of stretching here, but I think Kaitlyn's going to have a lot going on. A whole lot. I mean, she's getting some pretty good genes for athletics, as I stand at six-foot-three and Michelle's just shy of a strong five-foot-ten.

And with National Signing Day being this past week, I am going to make a stunning announcement: After careful consideration, 25-month-old Kaitlyn Moffat has committed to play for the Tennessee Lady Volunteers and legendary coach Pat Summitt.

Granted, it's only a verbal commitment, since Kaitlyn is, you know, 25-months-old and there are plenty of things that could change in the next 15 years. I mean, she may decide that Geno Auriemma and the UConn Huskies deserve some consideration, or even Daddy's beloved Duke Blue Devils. She may pursue Daddy's dream dream of becoming a professional golfer and getting dear old Dad on some of those courses he could never afford to play another career path.

The point is, it's never too early to start planning for the future, especially when it comes to the competitive realm of college athletics and recruiting. It's a game (pun intended) that's starting earlier and earlier for players, coaches and parents. Take the case of David Sills.

You see, 13-year-old David Sills is a good football player. Apparently he's got a pretty good arm. Good enough for Quarterback U. to take notice and offer the youngster a full ride. You read that right. Newly-installed USC football czar Lane Kiffin has offered this newly-minted teenager a scholarship to the University of Southern California. I wonder how many 8th grade Science Fair blue ribbon winners get full rides to M.I.T.

The scary part? The youngster accepted the offer. Or maybe what's scarier is that the parents are apparently on board with this plan. Why not, considering they'll reap the financial benefits of young Davy's golden arm. Especially at USC, where financial benefits start even before you turn pro.

Sills is 5-foot-11 and 136 pounds, with doctors having told him he will grow to be 6-foot-5. "I've always imagined in my dreams going to USC," he said. "But I never really detailed it to the phone call. All I imagined was playing in the Coliseum. But this is so crazy and out of nowhere." [David Sill's father] said he talked many times with his son about college, specifically USC, cautioning his son about "if that opportunity is there when the time comes. "We assumed that would be when he was a junior [in high school]," Sills IV said.

Note to Coach Summitt: I am no doctor, but I can assure you that Kaitlyn will grow to six-foot-eight (give or take 12 inches). And with my athletic background (I was the starting point guard on my middle school team and played some pick-up ball through my 20s) and Michelle's anal-retentiveness attention to detail, you will truly be getting a unique specimen, as well as a student of the game.

Milk: It does a body good (unless it's chocolate milk, then it's worse for you than heroin)

I have to admit: I love a big, honkin' glass of chocolate milk. It's fan-friggin'-tastic, especially paired with a equally big, honkin' bowl of ice cream. And thank God I'm not lactose intolerant because, well, we'd have some real problems.

There's just something about having a big, honkin' glass of liquid chocolate that gives me a good feeling all over. And by the way, I'm a purist. It's got to be Hershey's Chocolate Syrup in there. No store brand, no cheap alternative, no other name on the bottle. Hershey's. Chocolate. Syrup.

Not to mention that we're talking about milk here. I mean, it's good for you too, right?

Apparently not. According to leading nutritional Nazis experts, chocolate milk should be outlawed from schools and given the old heave-ho because it makes kids happy healthy fat.

There's almost this threat, like "If you don't drink chocolate milk, then your children will not get the nutrition they need!" says Marlene Schwartz, deputy director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. For Schwartz, the dairy industry's campaign is one as concerned with market share as it is with nutrition. "The real issue is a food-industry segment saying, "We want to market our product to children. So we are going to add extra sugar that is completely unnecessary to improve the taste so that kids will drink more of our product." And since more than half of all flavored milk in the U.S. is sold to children in schools, she says, there's a lot to be lost if chocolate milk gets kicked out of the cafeteria.

I failed to notice in Ms. Schwartz argument for eliminating chocolate-y goodness from schools the affect of reduced or eliminated physical education classes in today's schools or the lack of responsibility from dumb parents to haul their fat children away from the Xbox for an hour a day to play outside.

As expected, the milk industry isn't taking all this sitting down. They've launched a million dollar marketing campaign to get you to believe there is nothing wrong with chocolate in your milk. While I tend to agree, maybe they need to send people to places like Boulder, Colorado and Berkeley, California, districts where hippies parading like they own the friggin' place school officials have banned the nectar of joy from their lunchrooms.

Now, I have to be honest: Kaitlyn doesn't get chocolate milk. At just under two years of age, I don't think it would be prudent. Granted, by the time she's four or five, there's nothing wrong with giving her a little bit of chocolate-y goodness in my mind. Especially since I know she'll be taking walks with us and playing outside.

Sushi: It's not just for pretentious pricks anymore

Michelle and I always joke that Kaitlyn eats so much better at daycare than she does at home. I mean, we feed her veggies, pasta, chicken and other healthy options. Of course, there's always chocolate chip pancake night, but that's a special treat.

But when we get Kaitlyn's daily report card from daycare, we see her lunch menu consisting of beef tips, tilapia, barbecue chicken and other goodies that make my mouth water. I swear that Kaitlyn looks at us on the weekends thinking, I wonder what I would be getting at daycare today, just before we push a plate of chicken fingers at her.

Apparently, after reading this nugget from back home, Kaitlyn's getting the short end of the culinary stick. Because the kids at six Hillsborough, N.J. elementary schools are getting sushi for lunch. You read that right, sushi:

Lynne Richmond, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Agriculture, said that while items like sushi might not be commonplace in elementary schools just yet, there’s a growing trend toward expanding menus to include more options, including international items. "It’s a different world out there than it was 25 years ago or even 10 years ago," Richmond said. "We have definitely seen school districts trying to be creative with their menus in recent years using our nutritional standards as a guideline."

Now, there are a lot of people who think this is a little over the top, citing things like food allergies and tax dollars paying for sushi. And if you think this isn't going to happen elsewhere, think again. Hillsborough schools' food services are supplied by Sodexho, which holds contracts for thousands of schools systems across the country.

Moonshine provides Charlotte daycare owner with lucrative side business

 Today I raise a mason jar of some fine Carolina White Lightning to Gwendolyn Brown-Johnson.

Ms. Brown-Johnson found herself in a real pickle last week down in ol' Charlotte, N.C., according to the local press. You see, an undercover officer caught her selling off two gallons worth of some fine City Gin at the Parkview Community Center.

Problem is, not only is drinking Bush Whiskey illegal, but so is selling it. At a day care center. I repeat: At a day care center.

Agents say children were in the day care center when they sent in an undercover agent to buy two gallons of moonshine. Brown-Johnson told the paper she was set up by a neighbor. She says she was just holding a package for a man in exchange for $80 and didn't even know what was in it.

By the way, police also arrest 82-year-old Ervin Finger -- whom they say produced the Catdaddy in question -- after find more than 80 gallons of Ruckus Juice at his place. I repeat: More than 80 gallons.

Now to be fair, Brown-Johnson is claiming that she is being targeted by a "vengeful neighbor." According to the Web site of Parkview Community Center and its related foundation, Brown-Johnson is "a concerned and caring neighborhood resident [who] saw that the children in the neighborhood lacked adequate parental or other responsible adult guidance, supervision and protection from hazardous social environments." No word yet on whether selling $80 worth of corn liquor qualifies as "responsible adult guidance."

Personally, I think Brown-Johnson might have stumbled upon a business opportunity, knowingly or not. I mean, who needs a little Mule Kick more than parents and daycare workers?

Most Dangerous Toys 2009, aka "Ruining Christmas for Everyone, Part II"

I thought World Against Toys Causing Harm, Inc.. was the only group of Godless quacks consumer watchdog group we had to worry about this holiday season.

But thanks, GoodGuide.com, for being the hippie tree huggers most of the world has come to hate. You see, the people of GoodGuide.com are set to tell consumers everywhere about how the products in their homes cause the Earth to die. Or, according to their PR spin, "GoodGuide provides the world's largest and most reliable source of information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of the products in your home."

And, like the unholy despicable happiness-deprived watchdog group WATCH, these guys want to make sure you and your children are safe from evil toymakers who are out to destroy the world.

And while WATCH targeted such items as a book of numbers and an infant drum set, GoodGuide is going after the biggest of the big boys this holiday season: Zhu-Zhu Pets.

If you're not familiar with these furry little hamsters, they're, well, furry little hamsters. Just mechanical furry little hamsters. And they're going for $10 if you can find them. On eBay, they're five times that amount. One guy's giving you a deal with three for $100. I'm pretty sure you can find a real hamster for, like eight cents. But I digress.

So the people at GoodGuide are now saying that these fake hamsters contain tin and antimony, which causes cancer. According to head tree hugger and hippie GoodGuide co-founder Dara O'Rourke:

"We found levels of about 93 to 106 parts per million," O'Rourke said. "The new federal standard is about 60 parts per million."

I don't know what all that means, and I even tried to Google it. Everything reads like Latin. So either it's really way beyond me, or it really doesn't matter. If this was way beyond me, I don't think you'd ever put it in a children's toy. Unless your from China. Oh wait, Zhu Zhu Pets are made in China. Ouch.

Most Dangerous Toys 2009, aka "Ruining Christmas for Everyone"

It's Christmastime, which means that someone's got to ruin the holiday spirit by telling you what you should and shouldn't purchase for your children.

So thank you, World Against Toys Causing Harm, Inc., for dampening our holidays and bringing unemployment to the elf population worldwide.

World Against Toys Causing Harm, Inc., or WATCH, is a supposed consumer advocacy group formed by trial attorney Edward Swartz (cutting into business, aren't we Mr. Swartz?) to better inform parents about the dangers of toys.

Each year, this unholy despicable happiness-deprived watchdog group issues a Not-Top 10 list of the most dangerous toys known to man. This year's toys include a WALL-E foam rocket (eye injuries), a Curious George book of numbers that contains an abacus-like instrument (choking hazard), an infant musical instrument set (choking hazard) and, perhaps most perplexing of all, a Dark Knight action figure (potential for blunt impact and penetration injuries).

Please read that again. "Potential for blunt impact and penetration injuries." Those are not my words. Believe me, I have come up with lots of B.S. in my lifetime. I couldn't possibly make that one up.

Remember simpler times when you could just play with a BB gun and, after shooting yourself in the thigh, would get the stern "Told you, moron" look from your parents? Or when, along with your parents, you'd hurl child-sized javelins through the air? Now we're worried about something like this or this?

Editor's Note: This is normally where I would put a funny photo or clip or something, but unfortunately the good people at Saturday Night Live and Hulu.com have deprived us of video featuring Irwin Mainway and his Bag O' Glass and Johnny Switchblade: Adventure Punk. Thanks for nothing, SNL and Hulu, even though I still love you both.

Thank you, visitor Number 54

We here at Growing Up Kaitlyn would like to formally thank whoever is credited for page view #54 today, which became the 1,500th page view for this little venture.

Now, being a semi-retired Internet Communications Specialist, 1,500 page views isn't much to write home about. It probably would get you about a nickel on AdSense. But to think that I've actually been doing this for a month and nearly 700 people have made their way to this blog.

Who knows? Maybe someday Growing Up Kaitlyn will turn into a money-making venture. Or maybe it will continue to be a creative outlet and a way that I get to share Kaitlyn with all of you.

Or maybe someday it will turn into a money-making venture. I am semi-retired, you know.

Baby Einstein doesn't make children actual Einsteins

Kaitlyn loves her some television. Now, we don't plop her down in front of it for hours on end and let it entertain her. But she loves escaping into her Gabba Coma or Tinker Bell-induced psychosis.

One thing she never caught on to was the whole Baby Einstein phenomenon. We got a video or two after recommendations from friends. Gave'em a try, but Kaitlyn never got into them. Okay, so it's not for everybody.

Apparently, Baby Einstein isn't for anybody, at least according to the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which has been on a witch hunt we haven't seen the likes of since Happy, Doc and the bunch went after a certain queen.

Last week, after constant prodding, Disney announced that it would refund anyone who purchased the Baby Einstein babysitters time-wasters DVDs because they, in fact, did not make children geniuses.

"We see it as an acknowledgment by the leading baby video company that baby videos are not educational, and we hope other baby media companies will follow suit by offering refunds,” said Susan Linn, director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.

I'm all for turning off the TV to spend time with the kids. Do it all the time with Kaitlyn. But most of us grew up with at least a little boob-tube, which didn't rot our brains. It might have made us a little partial to certain products, but that's okay. We played outside and ran off the extra calories.

But let's not turn nothing into something here. If you actually thought purchasing a DVD was going to make your two-year-old a certified genius, you've got bigger problems than a talking sock puppet taking your $15. Besides, there are more pressing matters regarding children's television.

Greensboro cool for kids, but not as cool as Jersey City?

We see a lot of city rankings for a lot of different topics.

There's the most dangerous list (#1: Detroit), the most expensive list (#1 worldwide: Tokyo), the fattest cities (#1: Miami -- really?!?!) and even the ugliest cities (#1: El Paso, TX).

As with most things in life, we give a quick glance at such belittling things, discard their contents and never speak of them again, especially considering the sources. Unless, that is, you're on the list. Then you either puff out your chest and exult in your revelry, or you scream bloody murder and demand a magazine or Web site staff's heads.

This latest list, I really don't know what to make of. You see, the people at Children's Health Magazine decided "to rank 100 noteworthy American cities" to find out which are the best to raise a family. While commendable in theory, the people at Children's Heath Magazine leave a lot to be desired on disclosure.

Now, in fairness, they do tell us their criteria. There were 17 individual studies, reports and statistical comparisons used within three specific categories: Employment, Health and Housing. While the magazine tells us exactly which reports were used to determine these rankings, they don't tell us how they decided to choose the cities themselves.

Now, I am going to guess that the good people at Children's Health Magazine never visited the cities, since they give no synopsis on what they found in each city. They give a very short summary on their #1 choice -- Burlington, Vermont -- but not a word about the other 99 cities.

And some of those cities? You can probably guess those that ranked near the bottom (Detroit, Miami, Cleveland and Las Vegas were all in the bottom 10). Some surprises:

Orlando was ranked 98th out of 100. I'm sure that if you polled children, they would like nothing more than to live in Orlando. Trust me.

Fargo, North Dakota, ranked third out of 100. The magazine's explanation was the same as my reaction: Speechless.

Jersey City, New Jersey ranked 13th and Newark, New Jersey ranked 46th. Now, as someone born and raised in the Garden State, Jersey City and Newark are not the first places I would choose to relocate with the little ones. Granted, they're no Camden. But "Jersey City", "Newark" and "best places" don't deserve to be in the same sentence, unless we're including "cheap hookers" in that sentence, as well.

As for something a little closer to home, Greensboro, North Carolina, came in at Number 61 on this list. I can't really make a solid argument to move the Gate City much higher since I haven't seen the data or visited most of the other cities ahead of us. And I'm no magazine writer who looks at random data and puts a whole bunch of cities through the ringer for gits and shiggles, so I'm not going to bust open an argument.

All I know is that Growing Up Kaitlyn is proud to be based in the Piedmont Triad, even if we do have some of the ugliest men in the nation.