Clearly Nebulous

Kids not Immunized? Time to Rethink that One...

I'll jump right into the fray -- I think anyone who doesn't vaccinate their children truly needs to rethink their position.

There seems to be 6 prevalent myths that Wired magazine debunks here, but quickly they are:

• They cause autism. The Institute of Medicine looked at all the studies in 2004 and concluded no connection -- and thimerasol use in kids' vaccines was ended in 2001 (it's currently only in a flu shot) -- so why is autism still happening?
• Too many shots overwhelm tiny bodies. Again, no evidence found, but you can always request to have the shots spaced apart.
• They cause diabetes. This was actually a new one to me. But again the evidence is not there to support that vaccines are the culprit -- signs point to the rise in obesity.
• They aren't necessary since the diseases are gone. The diseases are out there, but they don't usually appear because children are immunized. And they aren't innocuous, they can cause great harm and even death.
• There's no consensus in the scientific community. Just a few doctors who get a lot of attention think that vaccines are unsafe. An overwhelming majority of doctors and scientists consider them safe and necessary.
• The aluminum that replaced mercury is just as dangerous. Not true and it allows the shots to be more effective, therefore fewer shots.

A very thoroughly researched article in Wired examined not only these myths, but the fallout of parents' decisions not to immunize and how it endangers us all. (The article is lengthy, but a very informative read.)

Because you see, sometimes a vaccine doesn't "take," but you don't know it. This usually isn't a problem since everyone else around you is vaccinated, so the virus doesn't thrive in your community. Problem is, if there are more than a few who don't get vaccinated, the virus can then be out there, and you will think you're safe from catching it...

And we're not talking about being stuck in bed a little uncomfortable while Alice the housekeeper brings you your lunch on a bed tray. Mumps and H. influenzae type b cause meningitis, which can lead to deafness, epilepsy, and cognitive impairment. Measles can lead to encephalitis, blindness, and death. 

Whooping cough can also be fatal, which is especially of concern since newborns can't receive the vaccine, and are very vulnerable. In fact, it seems that the vaccines do not last into adulthood, so adults -- new parents especially -- are being advised to consider getting a booster. The article points out that in 2004-2005, 66 babies under age 1 died from whooping cough, including 56 who were under 3 months old.

As for the fear of autism -- there has been new research that seems to link exposure to toxins in utero as the possible cause. You would be better off staying away from make-up, hairspray, and plastics with BPA while you're pregnant than not immunizing your baby or toddler.

I think I can understand the thought process by parents who decide not to immunize. They hear about the very rare cases (so few they can't be undoubtedly linked to the shots themselves) of negative effects from vaccines, and they weigh them against the more likely possibility of catching the disease and having a serious condition arise from it.

I think they look at it this way -- do I knowingly have something injected into my child, and therefore it would be something I willingly brought upon them -- or do I want to just take the chance that my child probably won't come across any of the diseases, and if they do they probably will be ok?

What I don't think they consider is just how contagious some of these diseases can be. All you have to do to get the measles is to inhabit the airspace of a contagious person within two hours of them being there -- and that person might not even have the rash yet, thinking they only have the flu.

The other thing to consider, is that maybe your child will be the one walking around, not knowing they are infectious. Heaven forbid they should come across someone whose vaccine didn't take or whose effectiveness has waned, and that person catches it from your child, and then it is passed on exponentially. And what if your child -- or the people they have come into contact with -- give it to someone with a compromised immune system?

Are you ok letting your children walk around being a danger to not only those newborn infants, but the elderly, cancer patients, AIDS patients, etc etc...? 

If you believe you have thought this over and reached the conclusion not to immunize -- you have to know that there is always new info out there, and that you have to accept the responsibility that this decision needs to be revisited. It should never be -- well, I made up my mind and that's it.

Your children's lives -- and the lives of those around them -- are at stake.

Bungling H1N1: Govt Should NOT be in Charge of Health Care

Am I stretching it? I don't think so.

The first cases of swine flu in the U.S. were reported back in March, after there was plenty of time to assess what was coming and make a plan to vaccinate the public. So here we are more than seven months later, and already we're seeing shortages, long lines, and the vaccine not going to those who need it most.

Here's a video from WashingtonPost.com about a shot clinic set up at a school in Maryland: it's basically a comedy of errors, as the school is overwhelmed by the crowd that shows up and has to bring in extra security and port-a-potties. The biggest mistake they make, imo, is not giving the shot to the pregnant women first:

In my county, shot clinics were also inundated with hundreds more people than they had doses for, and no one I know has any idea where to get a shot or when if their doctor might get some in.

The government has also failed in getting the message across how serious this epidemic is. Too many people are ambivalent about getting the vaccine, not recognizing that it can be deadly, even to those in fine health. Imagine if more people took the message to heart, just how much longer all those lines would be.

The good news is the outbreak may have peaked. The bad news -- we're at least weeks away from finally getting around to producing enough vaccine. But the WashPo said it best today, describing the governments efforts as "sputtering."

A glimpse of America under Obamacare? Count on it.

Guarding Against Gardasil

The Washington Post had an article today about how schools in D.C. and Virginia are "requiring" girls entering 6th grade to receive the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) There is an opt-out: In Virginia, you can just not get the shot, but in D.C. parents must fill out a form.

But of course, "opt-out" has already been lost on some. A quote from the article:

"It wasn't really a choice," Haggans said while waiting in line at Kelly Miller Middle School during one of the District's free immunization clinics Thursday. Lanise received her second of three doses of the HPV vaccine at the clinic. "The school said she needed it, so I got her it," Haggans said.

So even though it isn't actually required, some parents will still think it is, or simply go along with it, and get the three shots -- kaching! that's another $375 in Merck's pocket!

Well, my daughters will not be getting the HPV vaccine, even though I am a big advocate of vaccines -- for easily communicable diseases. My daughters don't need a shot for something that is sexually transmitted. 

I believe that there should be some mandates to protect the public at large -- but only for diseases that can be spread by casual contact and are potentially deadly. The government has no right to require protection from something you can only catch from sexual contact, potentially risking a bad reaction which has included paralysis and some deaths that can't be explained.

Jessica Varga of Nevada became paralyzed hours after receiving a dose of Gardasil.

I'm not so worried that my daughters will become promiscuous if they get this shot. Whereas, I think young women do avoid sex for fear of getting pregnant and some for fear of getting AIDS, I can't imagine too many are thinking about other sexually transmitted diseases or cancer when they're deciding whether or not to have sex.

But I do take exception to the notion that our schools and our government are assuming that young girls will inevitably become sexually active so soon that they feel that girls as young as nine need this shot. Even entering sixth grade these girls aren't even twelve -- and they're already being set up to have sex at a young age?

These proponents of Gardasil actually think they are empowering young women to take control of their sexual health. Not from where I stand.

My daughters will be truly empowered. They will be taught that it's best not to have sex until marriage, and all the reasons why. They will unequivocally believe that their sexuality is so special it is not to be trifled with, that no boy should ever be allowed to attack their self-esteem or trick them to think otherwise. A truly empowered young woman would never have sex unless under the best of conditions, practically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, physically, etc etc -- and not before they're at least eighteen.

If they do decide otherwise -- after they're out of high school, in a long-term monogamous relationship with someone whose health history they are fully aware of, and after full discussion and consideration of possible repercussions -- I will have taught them that they should be examined by a doctor first, and then they can make any health care decisions for themselves. (They will also be encouraged not to use an abortifacient to prevent pregnancy, and they will base their decision knowing that sooner or later they will get pregnant... but that's another blog post.)

What's really going on here is the bigger agenda of sex without consequences. Gardasil, birth control, abortion -- all being shoved down the throats of young women while trying to convince them they are "taking control of their sexuality." Sounds more like certain sexually liberal advocates are trying to convince everyone -- most importantly themselves -- that recreational behavior that can damage you both body and soul, and potentially can create another human being, can be alright if you simply get shots, pop pills, and undergo "procedures."

I'm not buying it -- and neither will my daughters.

Gardasil can also vaccinate men, though it has not yet been approved by the FDA to be marketed as such. Isn't it interesting that once again the responsibility of preventing sexual consequences is placed on young women? Why don't radical feminists have a problem with this, like traditional feminists do?

Update: Apparently the FDA has now approved Gardasil for males, as of October 16, 2009. So when will liberal groups push for young men to get vaccinated? Doesn't matter, my son will not be participating either...

 

 

If You Don't Have Your Health...

Another line from "The Princess Bride." It was actually said by a vile character, tongue-in-cheek, but it's so true. If you don't have your health, you don't have anything.

I like to think that I don't take my or my family's health for granted. We are very blessed that there are no major problems. Nothing can make you appreciate that more than a small crisis that knocks you out of commission.

Well, at least out of the blogging loop. I'm in the midst of a minor health issue that has lead me to distraction -- so much so that my daily diet, workout regimen, and schedule in general has suffered, but not bad enough to really cause too much duress.

It makes me think of all the families out there who face truly debilitating health problems that must be taxing on not only their bodies, but their hearts, minds, and souls.

If you are fortunate enough to be hale and hearty these days, thank your lucky stars and take great care to stay that way. Take nothing for granted.

So much going on in the world that I want to comment on, but it will have to wait. Stay tuned...

Do Your Part on World Malaria Day

Yeah, it was a big joke when there was a race for the first to have a millions "tweeps" -- twitter friends. But Ashton Kutcher won the crown and he made a silly situation mean a lot more when he promised to make a big donation to help fight malaria.

Malaria infects 300-500 million people worldwide annually, according to UNICEF statistics. Nearly 1 million people die each year from the mosquito-borne disease. The majority of deaths are to children in sub-Saharan Africa.

You can read more about what Christian organizations are trying to do at this link:

http://everydaychristian.com/news/story/1787/

and you can make a donation to World Vision's drive to buy protective netting at:

http://www.nightofnets.org/

I'm (going to be like) Ashton Kutcher -- and I'm awesome! You can be awesome too! Make a donation today!

Time for Macrobiotic Sex?

George Will had an op-ed about an essay over at Policy Review -- the topic at hand: how we are becoming a society that shuns gluttony and has all kind of eating taboos, while at the same time developing an attitude that anything goes in the sexual arena.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/25/AR2009022503123.html

It seems ridiculous that we are cutting trans-fat and red meat from our school cafeteria menus, while distributing condoms and pregnancy tests down the hall in the nurse's office. While restaurants are compelled to list nutrition information on all their menu items, abortion clinics can perform potentially deadly procedures without informed consent.

Why the dichotomy? Why are we becoming more austere at our dining tables -- eschewing animal products, pesticides, and growth hormones -- while becoming downright bacchinalian in our bedrooms -- ingesting birth control pills, Viagra, and aphrodisiacs? Cookbooks and diet books are best-sellers, while the most-viewed websites (amongst men anyway) are pornographic.

The articles above explore how the tables have turned. While our grandparents cooked with reckless abandon -- using lard, heavy cream, and fat-laden meats -- today it's all about non-hydrogenated monosaturated oils, soy milk, and tofu. Conversely, our grandfolks waited until they were married to have sex, stayed with that same person their whole lives, and had as many children as happened to come their way. Today, of course, people have many sexual partners, live together, have "starter marriages," and abort and/or limit the number of children they have.

The articles examine the reasons behind this phenomenon -- what they dance around is the idea that gluttony and unhealthy eating can be observed, and is reflected in our appearance. Promiscuity and all its hazards are experienced behind closed doors, or within our bodies or minds. Everyone can see if you're grossly overweight just by looking at you. No one ever has to know that you had a sexually transmitted disease or an abortion or an addiction to porn.

Day in and day out there are reports about which foods are bad for you. There is a drive to treat our bodies as temples... when it comes to what we eat. While it is true that our diet can affect our looks and even our lives, the damage that is being done to our society at large by the breakdown of sexual scruples is doing much greater harm. Sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse are on the rise. Forty percent of women experience the tragedy of abortion (and half of them more than once). While the family has broken down, churches sit empty and prisons are over-flowing.

Perhaps if we treated our bodies like temples in every aspect -- if we extrapolated "you are what you eat" to other facets of our lives -- we would truly achieve the purity of mind, body and spirit that so many seem to desperately crave.

Chicken Pox Ain't No Party

Have you been asked to one? A "chicken pox party"? Seems they're all the rage -- ok, maybe not. Maybe most folks realize that intentionally exposing your child to a potentially deadly disease is nothing to celebrate.

Growing up, chicken pox was looked upon as rite of passage. My mother, a nurse, purposely put my sister in bed with me when I had them so that she would catch them, too. Mom wanted to get it all over with. Even nurses back then considered chicken pox and other "childhood diseases" benign. Remember how the kids on the Brady Bunch all got the measles? Weren't they having a good time, as always?

But we know better today.

When my oldest got chicken pox, it was the pits. She was so uncomfortable, and she wasn't the best patient. I had to wait on her hand and foot, and she couldn't sleep, so I was up almost all night. When the vaccine became available in time for the rest of my children, I jumped right on board -- I have to admit it was mostly to spare me the inconvenience as well as them the discomfort.

Call me irresponsible -- believe me, I've heard worse over on a message board I frequent. There is a very heated debate going on about whether to immunize or not. And the fear of autism is only a small portion of the picture. There are some folks out there who have a real distrust of the medical community. (Others are libertarian types who just don't want to be told what to do.)

Today we know that chicken pox, measles, influenza -- these and many others are deadly diseases. Before the vaccine, there were 10,000 hospitalizations per year for chicken pox and 100 child deaths. (While I have to admit, I have no further breakdown of that number -- e.g. what ages or if the victims had compromised immune systems -- the fact remains: They all caught them from someone else.)

So fine. Don't immunize your children. That's your right. A right I intend to invoke if they start requiring the "Gardasil" shot. But if a school system requires them, prepare to home school your kid. (Or heck, start your own school -- another argument for school choice!) I'll also support keeping your kids away from public sports leagues, and other organized activities that involve physical contact.

Whereas going out your door everyday -- or sending your children out your door -- requires a leap of faith and acceptance of possible consequences, no one has the right to knowingly endanger children.

A New Wrinkle in Birth Planning

A new study gives some info to chew on for mothers-to-be re: scheduling c-sections. I'd say it was quite surprising.

Ok, so I've mentioned how my last 5 children's births were induced, right? Heck, one could argue all 7 had some "unnatural" intervention. My first -- I went in with very mild pains, but I was 39 weeks along so they broke my water bag and then things took off on their own.

With my second, my waterbag broke 10 days early, and with little progress I was given pitocin without an epidural. Worst. Pain. Ever. Definitely not the plan.

The twins were the first conscious decision to go in prior to any sign of natural labor. Again, I was 39 weeks and big as two houses. It went so well, that with my three subsequent pregnancies (again 39 weeks and gi-normous each time) I convinced my doctor to induce.

Ok, so it all went fine for me, and there were no c-sections, and no complications. Looking back, I would have done the same, because they were 39 weeks along, but here's what this study found that moms considering an earlier delivery should consider:

Performing repeat elective c-sections at 37 weeks gestation nearly doubles the chance of any complication, and causes four times more cases of respiratory distress. The actual percentages of any complication: a 15 percent chance versus an 8 percent chance. So not a huge number, but I'd say worthy of taking into consideration.

Even at 38 weeks there was a 50% greater chance of a problem, and even a few days more saw a 20% increase. Most of the complications were not life-threatening, but many involved testing and treatment and a longer hospital stay, and sometimes a trip to intensive care.

So whereas I can relate to "I am so over being pregnant" and wanting to deliver when certain loved ones are in town, it really seems to be worth giving your little one those extra days to minimize the risk.

Because let's not forget, it is all about them -- giving them the best start in life.

Not so fast -- about those virginity pledges...

Maybe you saw it in your local paper. Here in D.C. this was the headline in the Washington Post: "Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective."

Oh, the liberal press must have been salivating when they caught wind of the study that was published this month in Pediatrics magazine. Yeah, we'll show those conservative parents -- all that hooey about taking a pledge doesn't do any good. A promise to God doesn't mean a thing -- kids can't control themselves. Sex will happen, despite all your guilt trips and bible-thumping.

Yep, I just may as well chuck any notions of having my 14-year-old daughter take such a pledge. I should just run out and arrange a Bacchanalian orgy for her friends. If they're going to do it anyway, why not let 'em really live it up?

But of course, all the mainstream media got it wrong -- except for (small fanfare) U.S. News & World Report, my husband's employer. (I'm sure he didn't catch wind of it yet -- he's been too busy lately checking on the supervolcano in Yellowstone.)

It was Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of both the Red Cross and the NIH who is now their health editor, who pointed out that "virginity pledging teens were considerably more conservative in their overall sexual behaviors than teens in general -- a fact that many media reports have missed cold."

For example, teens who take a virginity pledge:

-  generally have less risky sex (fewer sexual partners and within a serious relationship)

-  are less likely to have a teenage pregnancy (or to have friends who use drugs, too)

- have less premarital vaginal sex (the Post article did not make the distinction that "having sex"  included a wide range of intimate activities in the study)

- tend to lose their virginity at age 21 (as opposed to 17 for the average American teen)

And one out of four of these teens do in fact keep the pledge to remain chaste -- somehow, despite all the media's "evidence" to the contrary about teenage sexual urges.

And, of course, despite the daily onslaught on tv, in movies (hope you didn't let your daughter see the second Traveling Pants movie), in just about everything around them that oversexualizes their environment outside the home or church community.

Don't be so quick to give up on the idea of a pledge -- for both your sons and daughters. Don't be so quick to offer to get them contraceptives.

The Jonas Brothers and Jordan Sparks will not be your only allies. This is going to catch on. Because while kids are impulsive, they also can be thoughtful and smart. Making a pledge and learning to respect themselves and to protect their future... It will take more than a short course at a youth group and a one-time ceremony, but we can guide our kids make the better choice.

 

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month...

and now I'm aware that I can no longer support the Susan G. Komen Foundation (SGKF) -- you know, the Race for the Cure folks.

Because apparently, they give money to Planned Parenthood! Like PP needs any more money -- and how many donors and participants of The Race for the Cure do you think know that this goes on?

[Read about it here: http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastcancer/komen/fact_sheet.pdf ]

Okay, maybe they give PP money because of breast cancer awareness pamphlets or something else that involves letting women know about screenings or whatever... Seems to me that considering PP is perhaps causing breast cancer (considering the more-than-possible link between abortion and breast cancer), they should be sending money to Komen, not the other way around.

The Komen Foundation lists abortion as number two on their list of things that do not cause breast cancer on their website, so the denial is deep.  (Number one is hair dye, btw -- although I don't need to worry about that, myself, apparently half the women in the US color their hair -- gee, only 40% have abortions, so I guess knowing that hair dye is safe is slightly more important...!)

So now I want to know where I can send money with a clean conscience -- I sent an email to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation to ask them if they have any ties to PP. I'll let you know what I hear...

First it was the Girl Scouts of America that I had to disassociate from, now it's the SGKF -- PP has to stick their dirty little fingers everywhere. Argh!

 

Leaving Las Vegas... and Atlantic City, and Monaco, and...

Here’s something else that bothered me from the episode of TV with Michelle Obama. TLOTV were talking about their upcoming week in Las Vegas and discussing which games they like to play. Apparently, Joy and Whoopi play the tables while the others hit the quarter slots.

MO told how her mother on two occasions won a total of $17,000 playing slots. (Didn’t mention how much her mom’s total loss was on all her gambling ventures, instead perpetuating the notion that "Hey, if someone I know can win big, so can you! Never mind how much you may lose in the process!")

Now, I’ve never been a huge opponent of gambling (yes, gambling not gaming!) but I just might become one. Especially after reading an editorial in The Washington Post.

Studies show that slot machines are continually redesigned to make the players lose as much as possible more quickly, and have become increasingly addictive. Every aspect of these machines is calibrated to maximize a player’s "time on device" and to ensure they "play to extinction" – i.e. until all their money is gone.

Slot machines used to have handles you pulled on and reels that spun – you would play with your cupful of coins a few times per minute. Now they have buttons and screens, and you can use your credit card to play hundreds of times per minute. Even the quarter slots could add up big time with this scenario.

The machines exploit the frail human psyche. Without the social factors, like other players and a dealer who may give them pause, machine players leave the real world and enter a realm where all their troubles vanish. This leads to addictive behavior – the vast majority of those in Gamblers Anonymous in Vegas play the slots.

I’ve only walked through a casino once, up in Milwaukee– on my way to a non-gambling event held in an adjacent dinner theater. It was a beautiful Sunday afternoon, perfect for any number of outdoor family fun activities. And yet the place was packed. I passed row upon row of folks – mostly women – sitting on their backsides, many of them smoking, looking like zombies, plunking in coin after coin.

"What a soulless place this is," I thought to myself.

I’m beginning to understand what the people who fight so hard against building casinos are really fighting for. They’re fighting for the souls of men and women who need more than a quick thrill to fill their barren lives. Who hopelessly empty their pockets, their bank accounts, and their futures seeking to fill a void.

Harmless fun? Pure escapism? Easy state revenue? I wouldn't bet on it.

I love me, I love me not...

So Monday's TOWS was quite a change from Friday's. On Friday we had women who weren't exactly svelte, embracing their curves and learning to love themselves. On Monday we had women declaring how disgusted they were with how fat they had become.

Granted, the latter were morbidly obese, and while they all lost an amazing amount of weight -- without surgery or pills, yay! -- some were still a little curvy. Ah, see the lovehate moment (...as opposed to lightbulb moment.)

Friday does a great job of helping women who aren't a perfect size 0 learn how to celebrate who they are in their own skin. Then we turn around on Monday and are told that if we have "that last 10 or 15 pounds" that we can get inspiration from weight-losses of over 100 pounds.

Yes, I know, it's always about being the best you can be and loving yourself along the way. Hate your fat and the way it affects your health, don't hate yourself for being fat and the way you look. But the lines blur sometimes, and women in weight crises need things to be crystal clear to assist in their success.

The latest madness: O is in the midst of a 21-day fast in which she is avoiding caffeine, sugar, alcohol, gluten, and animal products. She is writing a blog about it on her website -- well sort of. She started out with more than a few paragraphs on the first day saying how the "cleanse" had opened her mind to a new way of thinking about "conscious eating" (actually referring to eating animals as "gluttony" -- is O on the path to being a vegan? nah!)

She has kind of petered out on the blog -- after 8 straight days in which the entries got shorter and shorter (and one entry was a semi-rant about having to pose for endless pictures with people and how they said things like "Remember we met six years ago?" -- hey O, you're evil diva side is showing!) now she's skipping to Friday. Come on, it's only 21 days!

Anyway, which is it O? Should we embrace our Reubenesque figures or should we keep fighting for that optimum number on the scale? Seems O wants both worlds -- she's been in both worlds over the years (oh, because of a thyroid problem-- mm-hmmmmm) -- so that she can, as always, appeal to everyone, not offend anyone. Granted, I don't imagine she'd have much of a show if one day she declared, "Hey I finally got it -- you people are on your own!"

No wonder women are so messed up regarding body image. If Oprah -- who has every doctor, diet guru, chef, personal trainer, and stylist at her beck and call -- still ain't getting it right after decades of struggling -- what chance do we average Janes have?

How to Feel Good Naked

Friday's rerun of TOWS featured Carson Kressley (formerly of Queer Eye) who has a new show on Lifetime called How to Look Good Naked. ( www.mylifetime.com/on-tv/shows/how-look-good-naked )

But the more apropos title would be How to Feel Good Naked. By showing middle-aged women how to choose better undergarments and clothing, CK makes them look better when dressed. But it's how he makes them feel about themselves that changes how they look at themselves, naked or otherwise.

Two moms who had let themselves get off-track -- one to the point that she didn't even like to leave her bedroom when she got home from work -- were first challenged to really take a hard look at how they viewed themselves. An ingenious tactic was employed: CK showed them other women ranging in size from smallest to largest, and asked them where they fit into the line-up. Both women thought they themselves were a few inches larger.

So both are given a makeover -- nothing extreme, no Botox or dental cosmetics -- just more flattering clothing, a hairstyle, and make-up. As usual, the transformation was breath-taking. But CK took it one step further. He had the women pose tastefully wearing only a swath of cloth covering the essentials. And then he took the photos and had them projected on the side of a building in downtown Chicago.

Passers-by were asked to critique the photos. They accurately responded that the women looked gorgeous.

It all flies in the face of what women -- young and old -- are bombarded with every day. Why should it be a big deal for a "full-size" young woman (size 12?!) to win America's Next Top Model? We've been talking about super-thin models and actresses for literally decades now. When will the women's fashion industry wake up?

When all we women -- big and small -- go to the major retailers and say "Enough!" I don't just mean stop shopping there. Go up to store managers, write a letter to the corporation. (The latter is much easier to do these days -- just go to their websites and click on "Contact Us".)  Tell them you will no longer shop in their stores because you feel that they are contributing to an unhealthy body image problem for women.

Yes, talk to your daughters. Help them turn their noses at the trends. Make it a cause for them -- kids love to support a cause! Talk to other moms -- not in a confrontational way, but matter-of-factly. It can make a difference.

Now, if only O would tell her audience the same. Sure, she said a lot about how it all exists, and how we shouldn't believe it, and how we should be proud of our bodies, and how it affects our daughters -- but never how to take active steps to turn things around in the industry. Maybe she's gun-shy after the hamburger ordeal, but if O can't do it, who will?

OCD fear in my eyes

I'm not making fun. I watched today's show seeing everyday people whose lives had been destroyed. My heart went out to them. The saddest things was that they endured suffering for years.

Yes, it would be easy to be so dismissive -- just get over it, just stop it. But I realize it could happen to almost anyone. I feel lucky not to have been consumed by such a debilitating condition. I fear that one of my children may be prone to this, and I hope I am raising her to be able to come to me so that she will not suffer. I know that so many do not tell anyone. Not their parents, not their spouse, not their best friend.

What I loved about this show is that the therapy it featured could be applied not only to the severe cases presented, but to almost every aspect of life. It was about experiencing life. Getting in there and getting dirty and living with abandon, taking chances and being willing to face the consequences.

The alternative -- living in fear and avoiding mess at all costs -- it's just not realistic. Bad things will happen, messes will happen. You will find yourself frozen with fear once in a while. That's okay. But we have to choose whether or not we are going to live our lives or just let life make our choices.

"You are not your thoughts," said O. Now there's a flippity-dippity mantra I can get behind. Although I would say more specifically -- "You are not your negative thoughts."

The easy road is to give in to the darkness, to live a life in the shadows. To let those negative voices in your head prevent you from living your dreams.

There's a reason a certain Golden Book was on our grandparents' shelves, our parents' shelves, our shelves, and our kids' shelves. I'm going to buy it for my grandchildren someday. That little train had it right.

Never underestimate the power of "I think I can."