Recently in I (Barely) Survived the 1970s Category

Click right here to read today's column.

Does anyone remember the moment when we decided it was a little too risky to give a child a wrapped gift from an anonymous giver? It does make sense, I guess, but having your child wrap a gift for another child is a pretty cool part of the giving process.

I am presently surrounded by the aftermath of my 11-year-old's gift-wrapping procedure, which occurred moments after spending $62 of his own money to buy his family presents at Target last night. Yep, it's a mess, but that look of pride was priceless.

"Can we get Cocoa Puffs?" is a phrase uttered by my 9-year-old almost as much as "Please chew with your mouth closed" is spoken by me, followed closely by "Why are there socks behind the toilet?"

My boys and I are planted firmly within the generations of kids marketed to by cereal companies. As children of the 1970s, my brother and I could polish off a box of Lucky Charms in one sitting, no problem. Sure, Cheerios and Corn Flakes were always there in a pinch, but usually about one hour would pass between the time my mom got home from the grocery store and the whole box of Boo-Berry was empty.

As William Weir's story in this morning's Courant notes, right here in Connecticut a study recently showed that contrary to what your kids tell you while in that hideous cereal aisle at Stop & Shop, they actually will eat non-sugary cereals if offered.

Just because a cartoon character isn't associated with your breakfast food doesn't mean it won't carry your eighth grader through fifth period algebra.

Contrary to what the cereal industry has been telling us for decades, it is possible and perfectly normal to eat something other than sugar and carbs for breakfast. Really. A piece of cheese and a slice of ham? Yogurt and a banana? Leftover chicken? Think outside the cereal box.

I'm starting to think of Elmo as the Paris Hilton of Sesame Street.

He's in the news again, this time for a fight at a strip mall. 

Just last week, he was all over the internet cavorting with Katy Perry and her perky breasts.

If the battery still works on your kid's Tickle Me Elmo plush toy, he'll tell pretty much anybody "Elmo loves you." But many of us are just not that into Elmo. Sorry, dude.

Many of us with young kids were raised on Sesame Street in the 1970s, when the street was ruled by Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster and Big Bird. (After a decade or two of not watching the show, we were shocked to learn that Snuffleupagus could be seen by everyone, not just Big Bird. That was totally lame.)

And then Elmo kind of took over the place. He made movies, became a fixture on talk shows and even hogged a quarter of the show with "Elmo's World," in which he is free to speak in the third person for a full 15 minutes.

Maybe PBS is just trying to rein in the fuzzy red media hog and blamed their censoring on Katy and her threatening breasts. But it only feeds into the news coverage.

Looks like somebody could use a time out.

Here's today's column for your reading pleasure.

In the same way that I believe you should get calories taken away when you are offerered a doughnut and decline, I think I should get a few wrinkles and spots removed because of this fact: Nobody got a sunburn during a whole week we just spent at the shore. Not even the really white and freckly kid.

Have a great weekend and don't forget your sunscreen!

Before DVDs, MP3s and iPods, teenagers went to the movies. In 1981 -- the year I was 13 -- I saw close to a dozen movies, all in theaters, of course.

Looking at my many fine choices -- including Cheech and Chong's Nice Dreams, Stripes and Cannonball Run -- I'm pretty confident that I was dropped off with a friend and not escorted by a parent to any of these movies (except maybe On Golden Pond.)

During the recent heat wave I sat through two kid-appropriate movies: Toy Story 3 and Despicable Me. But I drew the line at The Last Airbender. I bought tickets for two 13-year-olds, a 10-year-old and an 8-year-old, told them not to seperate for any reason and to meet me in THIS SPOT at 3:42.

As I shopped at Kohls and bought myself an iced coffee and got my toenails painted I feared that I would either get arrested or at the least someone from town would see me and word would spread that I did such an unthinkable act.

Despicable Me? Or is this still acceptable?

Back in the days before Nintendo and iCarly, kids actually went outside -- even in the snow. Today's column discusses the struggle we kids of the 1970s face in terms of helicopter parenting, freedom and responsibility.

We don't want to deny our kids the experiences we had growing up but we're constantly told that danger is everywhere. Are you as a parent able to strike a balance?

Those of us who grew up in the 1970s -- riding our bikes all day with no parental supervision -- tend to have a bit of a mixed up view of how much parenting is too much parenting.

 
While many of us try to avoid hovering over our children, saying things like "We turned out alright" and "Nothing bad ever happened to us," there's a part of us that is more protective than our parents were.

The reasons we keep a better eye on our kids are many, and often not exactly justified: I hope to tackle a bunch of them in this here blog, eventually.

There are a few of us who let our children do things that our peers would not. I, for example, occasionally let my kids eat Oreos and drink soda. Crazy, I know.

 
While vacationing last week, my older boys and I spent a few hours at a place called Monkey Trunks in Chocorua, New Hampshire. It's a ropes and zip-line course that is much more insane from 65 feet above the ground.

Is this something you'd let your kid do?