Forgot Password?

Jennifer Margulis

Mothering Outside the Lines

These Are Not Food, They’re Pretty Poisons

March 30th, 2011

“Look what we’re having for snack?!” my son’s first grade friend said excitedly. He held up the box of faux fruit gummy snacks that his parents (one of whom is a doctor) brought to share with the class.

My son was delighted. I was disgusted.

The first ingredient: high fructose corn syrup.

The second ingredient: sugar.

Among the other ingredients: Artificial flavors, Red dye #40, and Yellow Dye #5.

In what way could this product possibly be construed as food?

No one would ever consider putting diesel fuel in a car that runs on unleaded gas. Yet we treat our children’s bodies with less respect than our cars, loading them up with substances that are barely edible (these artificial dyes come in large plastic canisters and look exactly like paint; they are actually made from petroleum products), and that have been shown to cause cancer in industry-sponsored studies on animals and hyperactivity in some children.

I grew up eating Froot Loops, delighting in the brightly colored syrupy milk left in the bottom of the bowl.

To this day I don’t understand why my parents bought that kind of processed junk food laden with toxins and fed it to my brother and me day after day.

The FDA is now considering whether this kind of crap that is passed off as food should carry warning labels. (Read more about this in this New York Times article. There’s also this excellent article by Christina Le Beau, “Food-dye news every skeptic should read.”)

Yes! Yes! Food with artificial dyes in it should contain warning labels.

But we should go one step further: these artificial petroleum-based dyes need to be taken out of American food.

They are nothing more than pretty poisons, used to color up faux processed food that our kids should not be eating.

To get rid of them permanently would be surprisingly easy, since many companies have already done so for European consumers. According to this detailed report, “Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks” published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, many multi-national corporations do not use these toxic dyes in Europe but still use them in America:

“CSPI has urged several major multinational companies that do not use dyes in Europe to do the same in the United States. Unfortunately, most of those companies said that they don’t use dyes in Europe because government has urged them not to—but that they would continue to use dyes in the United States until they were ordered not to or consumers demanded such foods.”

All parents care deeply about their children and their children’s health. We all want what’s best for our kids. Is it ignorance or laziness or a desire to please or a feeling of wanting to be part of what everyone else is doing or a belief in advertising? What is it that leads parents to buy gummy sharks for the school snack?

Tags: , , , ,

[ 28 comments ]

Please Pass the Iodine: ways to protect ourselves and our children from the nuclear fall-out coming from Japan

March 14th, 2011

No one is sure what the death toll in Japan will be from the massive earthquake that struck on Friday, creating a tsunami that then slammed into Japan’s north coast, but it has been estimated that more than 10,000 people may have died, just in the Miyagi Province.

Then there’s the problem of Japan’s nuclear power plants. There have already been two hydrogen explosions at one plant and there are fears that a second plant may be facing a nuclear meltdown.

When these nuclear power plants malfunction they can dump radiation into the atmosphere. It’s for this reason that Japan has evacuated almost 200,000 inhabitants living near the plants.

Radiation poisoning can cause instant damage to the human body, including organ malfunction and massive skin burns. Radiation exposure over a longer period can cause cancer, genetic damage, and tumors.

Radiation poisoning is not patriotic. Radiation doesn’t respect international borders and if the fall-out from the Japanese nuclear malfunctions begins to spread, those of us living on the West Coast–especially–have a good reason to be worried.

Short of living for the next few years in an underground bunker, how can we protect ourselves? How can we protect our children?

Since people are exposed to radiation through sunlight, cancer treatment, and medical/dental interventions, there have actually been a good deal of scientific studies on using nutritional supplements to boost the immune system and ward off the ill-effects of radiation.

There are literally thousands of articles about this on the Internet.

I’m not sure, honestly, what or who to believe. But I do know that the healthier our children eat, the less likely they are to succumb to disease. A healthy body is a body that can better fight being poisoned. So here are some suggestions to help combat the toxic exposure we might be facing in the next few days and over the coming months from Japan:

1) Eat brown rice: whole grains, especially brown rice, are high in fiber and phosphorous, which help remove harmful toxins from the body.

2) Eat seaweed, kelp, and other sea vegetables: Canadian researchers have reported that sea vegetables contain a polysaccharide that selectively binds radioactive strontium to help eliminate it from the body. According to this account, “In laboratory experiments, sodium alginate prepared from kelp, kombu, and other brown seaweeds off the Atlantic and pacific coasts was introduced along with strontium and calcium into rats. The reduction of radioactive particles in bone uptake, measured in the femur, reached as high as 80%, with little interference with calcium absorption.”

3) Eat miso soup: In 1945 when Dr. Tatsuichiro Akizuki, M.D., Director of Internal Medicine at a hospital in Nagasaki, had his staff eat a diet of brown rice, miso soup, seaweed, and pumpkin, and prohibited them from eating any sugar or sweets, his staff and patients were much healthier and did not succumb to radiation sickness.

4) Stop eating sugar or sweets of any kind: You’ve known forever that sugar, especially refined sugar and corn syrups, are harmful for you and your children. With this crisis in Japan it is a good time to go cold turkey and stop the sweets, which is another of Akizuki’s recommendations.

5) Consider iodine supplements: This might be the most important thing you can do in the longterm but I put it last on the list because I think whole food intervention should be our first defense and because I worry about the quality of supplements. Still, we want to make sure our thyroids don’t absorb radioactive thyroid. To do this, we must have adequate iodine levels in our bodies, but we also need to be careful not to take too much iodine and be aware that iodine is secreted into breast milk.

For further reading:
Technology’s Curse: Diet for the Atomic Age by Sara Shannon
Suggestions from James Jordan, an Ashland nutritionist
Site that reports atmospheric radioactivity in the United States
Information from the CDC on radiation emergencies
MIT NSE Nuclear Information Hub

Are you worried about the nuclear fall-out from Japan? What steps are you taking to protect yourself and your family?

Tags: , , , , ,

[ 31 comments ]

Another Reason to Feed Your Kids Organic Food (be forewarned: this post is a rant)

August 27th, 2010

-0127A long-term study of pregnant women from the Salinas Valley in California shows that expectant mothers with high levels of pesticides in their bodies (measured by urine samples) are much more likely to have children with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

There was a 500-percent increase in attention problems in 5-year-olds whose moms had had the highest levels of pesticides in their bodies when they were pregnant.

These findings add more evidence to another study, published in the journal Pediatrics in May (read more at Time.com) that links pesticide exposure in the womb to higher rates of hyperactivity and attention deficient disorders.

It’s hard not to have a million reactions.

Yes, of course, chemicals that are designed to KILL living creatures (”pests”) must be harmful to humans.

Though that seems so obvious, a statement like that won’t fly with skeptics without more specifics.

If you want to get technical about why/how, here’s the explanation from Time.com:

“Organophosphates are known to cause damage to the nerve connections in the brain — that’s how they kill agricultural pests, after all. The chemical works by disrupting a specific neurotransmitter, acetylcholinesterase, a defect that has been implicated in children diagnosed with ADHD. In animal models, exposure to the pesticides has resulted in hyperactivity and cognitive deficits as well.”

At the same time, I have questions about whether we are over-diagnosing children with ADHD and about what other things are causing our children to have trouble concentrating.

The CDC claims that 4.5 million American children have ADHD.

I wonder if the increasingly high rates of ADHD are partly the fault of an American school system that keeps children at their desks?

And of a society where on average children spend more than seven hours a day looking at computers, television screens, and other media?

I’ve noticed that my children are much more attentive and focused once they’ve had some time outside running around, goofing around, rolling down hills, jumping over fallen logs … you get the idea.

Human children aren’t supposed to sit still most of the day, be driven around in cars from place to place, or even spend the majority of their time inside.

So what can we learn from the disturbing information in these new studies linking pesticide exposure to hyperactivity and attention disorders?

1) America needs a government policy to stop the use of pesticides in agriculture.

2) American consumers (like you and me) need to buy organic food as much as possible, and demand that the price of organic produce go down.

3) Organic food is not a luxury for rich people. It’s a necessity for every American woman and child. And man too.

4) American children need exercise, fresh air, and sunlight. This will help them concentrate, improve their learning capacity, and put them in a better mood. Teachers need this too.

5) Parents need to push for more nature walks and outdoor time, as well as daily exercise as part of the American school curriculum.

6) American cities and towns (like Ashland, Oregon) need to stop spraying pesticides in public parks. Even in our progressive town, we are still using Montsanto’s Round-Up in public spaces. How sick and wrong is that?

Special thanks to ChezSven for first alerting me to news of the pesticide study. If you care about the environment, ChezSven (Alexandra Grabbe) posts about environmental issues and activism on her excellent blog about being an innkeeper on Cape Cod, updated daily.

Photo by Jennifer Margulis.

Do you buy your family organic food? Do you try to stay away from pesticides? Do you think ADHD is being over-diagnosed? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[ 20 comments ]

Mommy, I Want a Cell Phone

June 18th, 2010

My 10-year-old daughter, who turns 11 this summer, has noticed that a lot of her friends have cell phones.

“Mommy,” she says. “I want a cell phone.”

I wish James and I didn’t have cell phones. Every time I hold mine up to my ear I think of Ted Kennedy who died of brain cancer. Every time I multitask—talking on the phone while exercising, which is something I love to do, for example—I think of how Thich Nhat Hahn and other Buddhists believe that we should be where we are in any given moment, mindful of what we are doing instead of distracted by other things.

Though I held out for many years and I’m almost embarrassed to admit it, I like my cell phone. I appreciate that I can reach my husband while he’s traveling. I like that I can catch up on phone calls and go for a bike ride at the same time. I feel safer knowing that my kids can reach me wherever I am by just dialing a ten-digit number.

I am deeply divided about cell phones, though. When my battery recharger was misplaced and I couldn’t use my phone for several days, I noticed that the quality of my life, and my focus, improved.

There is little doubt that cell phones are bad for your health.

As Alexandra Grabbe, who writes Chezsven, a blog about living on Cape Cod and running a Bed & Breakfast in Wellfleet, Massachusetts, mentions in her post today, the forward thinking city of San Francisco will require cell phone manufacturers to put warning labels on cell phones because the radiation emitted may be harmful to your health.

Despite the powerful lobbying groups trying to keep this information underground, we know that cell phone radiation is harmful and we know that cancer in the United States is on the rise.

We also know that texting and talking on the phone while driving is responsible for thousands of car crashes a year.

There are many reasons to worry specifically about children having cell phones, as this mom points out in an article from last year in the New York Times: the cost, for one thing; downloading inappropriate or even illegal material onto the phone from the Internet; playing video games on the cell phone; texting at night instead of sleeping.

Maybe it’s time for me to model better behavior for my children and turn off—or get rid of—my cell phone…

Tags: , , , , ,

[ 11 comments ]

A Life-Ending Deal

June 1st, 2010

Yesterday I wrote about having a plan for your children in case you die unexpectedly.

Today, unfortunately, I’m writing again about death.

My writing colleague and cyber-space friend Katie Allison Granju lost her son, Henry Louis Granju, yesterday. Eighteen years old, Henry died while he was recovering from a drug overdose and drug-related assault.

Katie, who is loved by many Mothering readers for her book, Attachment Parenting: Instinctive Care for Your Baby and Young Child, is eight months pregnant with her fifth child. She’s been blogging every day, sometimes more than once a day, from the hospital waiting room, updating readers on Henry’s condition and posting pictures of her handsome boy.

On May 3rd of this year she came out about her son’s drug addiction in a post on the New York Times’s Motherlode blog.

In a recent blog post Katie urged parents to talk to our kids about drugs. And then to talk to them some more.

My father talked to me a lot about drugs. My two oldest brothers both had drug problems but my father and mother could not agree on how to deal with it. Because my mother thought it best to ignore the problem, they never confronted my brothers, set clear boundaries, or urged them to get help.

My father always felt he had made a mistake by ignoring a problem that did not go away. So with my third brother and me my father was much more open. Without being preachy, he told us about the dangers of drugs and about how drugs can mess up your brain and mess up your life.

He also shared his sadness with us about how sorry he felt that he never stepped in to protect my oldest brother from addiction.

It worked. I decided not to damage my brain with drugs. Even though a lot of my friends in high school and college were experimenting with LSD, mushrooms, cocaine, and other illegal drugs, I stayed far away from them.

On the update about Henry on the Motherlode blog, one reader commented: “…I will honor his memory by changing my attitude about ‘experimental’ teenage drug use. I used to think it was no big deal. After reading Katie’s blog, I realize that for some children and families, it is a very big deal. A life-ending deal.”

I feel so devastated for Katie, and for her children who have lost their big brother.

My older kids are only 6, 9, and 10 but we have already had many drug talks. Tonight at dinner we’ll talk about Katie’s son and about how drugs, harmful and sometimes deadly, can be a life-ending deal.

What about you? Do you talk to your children about the harmful effects of illegal drugs?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

[ 12 comments ]

American Academy of Pediatrics Retracts Statement, Had No Intention to Harm

May 28th, 2010

Even though it’s Friday afternoon before Memorial Day weekend, Dr. Judy Palfrey, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, found time to call me back to discuss the press release that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) sent yesterday about their position on clitorial “nicks.”

In that release, the AAP made it absolutely clear that as an organization they are against any form of female genital mutilation and that they categorically retract the 2010 policy statement about female genital cutting.

In their own words:

“The AAP reaffirms its strong opposition to FGC and counsels its members not to perform such procedures. As typically practiced, FGC can be life-threatening. Little girls who escape death are still vulnerable to sterility, infection, and psychological trauma. The AAP does not endorse the practice of offering a ‘clitoral nick.’ This minimal pinprick is forbidden under federal law and the AAP does not recommend it to its members. The AAP is steadfast in its goal of protecting all young girls from the harms of FGC” (my emphasis).

On the phone, Dr. Palfrey reiterated that the original detailed statement came from the desire to help the millions of women and girls who are at risk of being genitally mutilated.

“The number one issue is that this is a harmful procedure,” she said. “We are all trying to protect youngsters and it is such a hard dilemma. We have realized that [the policy statement] caused a lot of confusion so we have put out the new statement to clarify our position. We are absolutely against any form of harming young girls.”

Why even suggest the possibility of a clitorial “nick” in the first place? The idea behind it was to find a way to try to protect baby girls from anything more drastic or more harmful. As Palfrey mentioned on the phone, our world is increasingly global, doctors in major cities around the United States are treating patients who come from a variety of cultural backgrounds and who bring myriad beliefs with them, and the AAP was trying to find a way to make a nod to that cultural diversity and also save baby girls from the possibility of more radical surgery.

That makes sense to me. As I mentioned in an earlier post this week, I can see both why the AAP would strive to find a way to offer families a non-harmful alternative to FGM and why there was outrage from the activist community and many others over the earlier statement.

Though I often find myself disagreeing with AAP policies, there are many reasons to applaud them this week. They did something that many of us have trouble doing: they admitted making a mistake. They clarified their position in no uncertain terms, spoke out strongly against genital mutilation, and retracted a policy that many construed as damaging if not dangerous.

Despite the reaction against the original policy, I think the AAP has been acting with the best intent.

Dr. Palfrey put it eloquently at the end of our conversation: “We had no intention to harm, every intention to protect.”

Tags: , , , , , , ,

[ 7 comments ]

Should We “Nick” Our Baby Girls?

May 24th, 2010

I had a boyfriend in college who was from Eritrea and had fought in the war of independence from Ethiopia.

He fought side by side with women soldiers, some of whom had had their clitorises cut off when they were small children.

“What does it feel like?” He asked his fellow soldiers.

The women laughed at him. “How should we know?” They said. “We’ve never known anything different!”

Clitoridectomy, known in the Western world as female genital mutilation (FGM) is no laughing matter. According to the World Health Organization, between 100 and 140 million women and girls have already had their clitorises (often along with other parts of their female anatomy) cut off and about three million girls each year are at risk of having this procedure done (see the WHO’s “Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation“).

When this procedure is done on a newborn baby girl without her consent, it is the worst and cruelest kind of mutilation.

Which is why so many activists are very upset by the recent policy statement, issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), that seems to condone FGM in America.

In a statement issued at the end of April 2010, the AAP (calling the procedure “Female Genital Cutting” instead of “Female Genital Mutilation”) emphasizes that the procedure is harmful and dangerous but also suggests that it be decriminalized in the United States so that doctors can perform a “ritual nick” on baby girls, in order to “offer compromise and build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities.” The policy statement continues:

It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

Efforts should be made to use all available educational and counseling resources to dissuade parents from seeking a ritual genital procedure for their daughter. For circumstances in which an infant, child, or adolescent seems to be at risk of FGC, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that its members educate and counsel the family about the detrimental health effects of FGC. Parents should be reminded that performing FGC is illegal and constitutes child abuse in the United States” (my emphasis).

Is a “ritual nick” really something we should be promoting in this country?

I read about this when the AAP statement was first issued but wasn’t sure how I felt. It was a friend who urged me to write about it, Kristen Gough, a parenting, pregnancy, and food writer who also has a blog called My Kids Eat Squid.

Many thoughtful parents believe that the new AAP policy may actually help immigrant baby girls, which is the reason it was developed in the first place. They argue that on the surface it seems horrifying to consider that American doctors would even think about any form of FGM but if the alternative is that these girls are taken to other countries to undergo much more traumatic, life-threatening procedures instead, maybe a “nick” approach could actually help save them from harm. In an NPR story about the subject, one of the interviewees made the comparison to giving clean needles to heroin users without supporting heroin use. As a friend who wants to remain anonymous said to me, “In a perfect world, the AAP’s policy statement would be unconscionable but in the real world, it’s compassionate.”

On the other side are the outraged activists, both people from developing nations where this kind of mutilation continues and Americans who believe that a baby’s genitalia should never be harmed or cut in any way unless it is absolutely medically necessary. Taina Bien-Aime, executive director of Equality Now, argues that being respectful of the cultural norm is misguided and calls the AAP policy statement ill-advised. In a Huffington Post commentary she writes: “Hundreds of African women – and men – have dedicated their lives to end FGM in their own communities through awareness-raising, education, and advocacy for legal and policy changes. While resistance to progress may be at times fierce, as in most social change movements, stories of girls and their families who are successfully rejecting the practice and mobilizing their communities and governments to eradicate FGM are proliferating. The AAP should honor those commitments and not seek to undermine such advances” (my emphasis).

Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, is completely against the statement. In a call to action Intact America insists: “At Intact America, we know that any form of genital cutting of babies is wrong – ethically, morally, and medically” (their emphasis).

This is one of those thorny issues where I can see both sides. I appreciate that the AAP is being culturally sensitive but I’m not sure that “nicking” a baby girl’s genitals should be legal in this country.

What do you think? Is the AAP being culturally sensitive and keeping baby girls from further harm or are they tacitly condoning female genital mutilation and undermining the activists trying to change cultural practices?

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

[ 15 comments ]

Pre-polluted Babies

May 17th, 2010

Our neighbor’s 14-year-old son has been battling leukemia for the past two years.

My daughter’s classmate’s older sister died when she was eighteen of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

As parents we try so hard to keep our children safe and protected. The threat of cancer may seem amorphous: it’s not a contagious disease like the whooping cough that’s been going around our small town lately.

But, according to a 240-page report by the President’s Cancer Panel, our babies are coming into the world “pre-polluted.”

Exposure to harmful chemicals can be especially damaging during pregnancy. According to the report, three hundred different contaminants have been found in newborn umbilical cord blood.

I look at my six-month-old baby and I wonder if her blood is already contaminated, full of chemicals that may cause her cells to multiply out of control.

We know that childhood cancer is on the rise, but we don’t know exactly why. But harmful chemicals like bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates (used to soften plastics) may very well be part of the problem.

What can we do? At the end of the report is a list of specific recommendations for individuals. It’s sort of a general but here are five things you can start doing today to reduce your children’s risk of exposure to carcinogens:

1. Don’t microwave plastics. Ever. The good teachers at my son’s school are still putting plastic in the microwave. When you do this harmful substances leech into your child’s food.

2. Don’t put plastics in the dishwasher.

3. Kill your microwave. The report does not say to do this but does mention several times that microwaves emit harmful radiation. We got rid of ours five years ago and have not missed it.

4. Eat as much organic food as possible. Even if you feel you can’t afford it for yourself, buy organic food (especially raw fruits and vegetables) for your children. Food grown with pesticides contain endocrine disruptors that may be carcinogenic.

5. Filter your drinking water.

Click here to download a PDF of the entire report.

Do any children or adults you know have cancer? Are you worried about your child’s exposure to harmful chemicals? What steps do you take to minimize exposure to cancer-causing environmental toxins?

Tags: , , , , ,

[ 7 comments ]

My Father-in-Law Has Throat Cancer

January 14th, 2010

How do we ensure a healthy future for our children?

How do we ensure a healthy future for our children?

In America savvy marketers have effectively duped us into believing that convenience in the Holy Grail: fast food, paper plates, quick-drying high-tech fabric, take-and-bake pizza.

We eat our meals out of cans or boxes or plastic bags; we put diapers made of wood pulp and petroleum-based super absorbent polymers on our babies, and we use our cars to drive half a mile away.

The happy woman in the TV commercial spraying toxic chemicals to get stains out of a collar shirt has no wrinkles on her face. The family piling into the carbon-dioxide-spewing gas-guzzling SUV in the magazine ad does not bicker.

If you believe the status quo, canned carbonated soda pop and hormone-laden hamburgers with ketchup (which is a vegetable) are the foods of choice that lead to happiness.

But then you realize you’ve been duped: your friend’s toddler drinks Drano and is disfigured for the rest of his life; your neighbor’s son gets leukemia; a pedestrian in town is struck dead in a crosswalk by a driver too impatient to wait; and your father-in-law is diagnosed–the day before yesterday–with throat cancer.

Happiness doesn’t come with plastic packaging.

There is nothing we can buy to fix our lives.

There is no money to be made from clean air, exercise, unassisted birth, another mom’s hand-me-down cloth diapers, freshly picked green beans off the vine in your yard, vaccine freedom, intimate friendships, honest conversations, small kindnesses, or walking to school.

I don’t want the polar bears to go extinct. I don’t want the baby albatross to wash ashore dead with their bellies full of plastic, I don’t want my children to grow up allergic and diseased.

I don’t want my father-in-law to die of cancer.

But I do want you to come with me. Let’s fix what’s broken. Together.

Photo by Christopher Briscoe.

Tags: , , , , , ,

[ 6 comments ]

Counting Breaths

January 10th, 2010

SkyWithCloudsWhen Cheri Huber was thirty years old, she pointed a gun at her stomach and pulled the trigger.

The doctor was at her bedside when she awoke. Smoking a cigarette without tapping the ash, he leaned over her. “You need to figure out why you are still alive,” he said.

Huber recounts that experience in her book, How to Get from Where you Are to Where You Want to Be. I was reading that book, recommended by a friend (who used the book to get out from under $15,000 in credit card debt), while I was traveling for work at the end of my pregnancy with Leone.

Huber’s failed suicide brought her to Zen Buddhism and was the catalyst for her to change her life.

One of the most radical assertions in the book is that if you count your breaths from one to ten for five minutes every day your life will change. Her students who have been practicing Zen for a long time ask when they can move onto something more advanced.

But Huber says there isn’t anything.

Count your breaths.

For five minutes.

Every day.

Unfortunately, I got into a ferocious argument with the taxi driver in New Orleans who was trying to rip me off and I mistakenly left Huber’s book in his cab so I haven’t actually finished reading it. While he and I were exchanging angry words, I was barely breathing. My Type A personality is to Zen what high blood pressure is to good health. Still, I started counting breaths every day, usually in the bathtub, to get ready for Leone’s birth.

Now that the baby’s here it’s harder for me to carve out time to meditate but I’ve been trying to count my breaths anyway. I almost always manage to make it through the first ten breaths before my son calls, “Mommy, come wipe me,” my daughters need help with their homework, or Leone does a projectile spit-up.

That’s, say, 50 seconds of counting out of the 300 I hope to one day be doing.

Counting your breaths changes your parenting. It changes your life.

I think it might be working, 17 percent worth anyway.

Tags: , , , ,

[ 5 comments ]






     DISCUSSIONS              JOIN NOW or SIGN IN
How to Deal with a Completely Toxic Person? posted by bubbledumpster, Sun, 25 Sep 2011 23:44:20 +0000
TOXIC Family... let's have it. posted by Imakcerka, Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:55:34 +0000
my parents are coming to visit posted by Linda on the move, Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:33:00 +0000
In a world of endless choices....how do you choose?? posted by youngspiritmom, Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:36:13 +0000

Bottom Box