|
|
By Rian, on October 11th, 2009
To be honest, I’m tired and a little depressed.
I don’t think any of it has to do with sugar or anything related to it… unless we count the effect of my research yesterday. I know… we’re all just here for no good reason or at God’s pleasure or whatever you choose to believe and eventually the Sun will erase any cosmic remnant of our measly, meaningless existence into its giant garbage furnace in the sky. But still, when you find out how really ethically empty people can be in the interest of making a few dollars. It’s a little disheartening.
So, let’s just say that I made a big batch of oatmeal/chocolate chip/raisin cookies for the family tonight, and I really wanted to eat some. Really, really wanted to.
I didn’t.
Whoopee.
By Rian, on October 11th, 2009
Firstly, I know my sister-in-law hates me because she made this yesterday:
 Apple Cake of Hate That moist, apparently delicious by all reports, little finger in my eye is fresh apple cake. Our local nursery is having their Apple Festival this weekend, and I thought I’d just cruise through eating a bunch of apples and calling it good. But nooooo… she had to bake this. Did I mention how much I love baked stuff? Well, too bad, I still love her. Good try, though.
Today, I decided to take a walk to the grocery store to try to find some more stuff that I can eat. Specifically, I was jonesing for some English muffins for some odd reason. What I learned is that THERE IS SUGAR IN EVERYTHING!!! I could not find a single variety, from at least a dozen types and makers, that didn’t have added sugar. Fine. But I want some toast. I’ll let you guess how many of the whole grain breads didn’t have added sweeteners. Hopefully, you guess zero, or you’re going to be wrong. I don’t get it. I very rarely add sweeteners to my breads unless it’s supposed to be sweet. Whole wheat bread? I just made some. Flour, yeast, pickle juice (yes, that’s right, pickle juice), and water. Tastes just like bread. Good bread. Apparently, there’s a law with which I am not familiar that requires the addition of sweeteners to every packaged food item in America. Who knew?
Incidentally, there’s a guy who works at the grocery store who used to be… well, pudgy, let’s say. All of the sudden, some months ago, his clothes started to get baggier and baggier. Comedically so at the end. The guy dropped a whole load of weight in a relatively short period. I saw him today.
“Hey, what did you tell me that you did to drop all that weight? Seems like you’ve kept it off.”
(he laughs) “Really? I ate less. I cut out sweets and only ate when I was hungry.”
That guy should be writing a book.
The MMWS Rant of the Day
I know I said I’d talk about insulin, but… well, I’m not going to. Instead, I wanted to talk about a web site that I ran across during my research. Consider my mind blown. Enjoy.
From a web site called SweetScam.com (indeed), which is presented to you by the “Center for Consumer Freedom”:
“Most of what you think you know about sweeteners is probably wrong. Some of this is a product of simple misunderstandings. The rest is a giant scam.”
A giant scam?! Wow! A huge… uh… don’t eat sugar… scam… really? It must be the Nutrasweet people? The military-saccharine complex?
“Activist Groups like the Weston A. Price Foundation, Joseph Mercola, and the Naturopathy Movement, which have perpetuated unfounded myths about sweeteners, completely ignore the scientific and nutritional evidence to backup their outlandish claims.”
Oh. Yes. Damn that omnipresent Joseph Mercola and his sick campaign to… well, ultimately, to form communist death panels hosted on Swift boats of terrorism. And the Weston… um… I don’t know who any of those people are. They forgot to mention those potheads at the Mayo Clinic and their outlandish recommendations like: “Avoid foods that contain added sugar.” Like, groovy, man.
They go on to add this little nugget of goodness:
“Unfortunately, not everyone puts a high value on scientific standards. Entire schools of pseudo-science and ‘alternative’ medicine are built on the abstract principle that ‘natural’ (however they define it) is the only path to health.”
Crazy loony birds who claim that eating “natural” food is “good” for you. Wackos. Natural, schmatural, we say! Or do we… in their (slightly condensed) version of the manufacture of HFCS:
“After being separated, natural enzymes are added to the liquid, which converts some of the sugars in the liquid from glucose to fructose. The resulting liquid is typically 42 percent fructose and 58 percent glucose.” [emphasis added]
You know, the thing I don’t get, now knowing this, is how the heck the liberal elite media over at the Washington Post could publish an article called: “Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury“. In it, they say:
“The use of mercury-contaminated caustic soda in the production of HFCS is common. The contamination occurs when mercury cells are used to produce caustic soda.”
Hmm… I didn’t notice mention of caustic soda or mercury cells in the SweetScam site. They probably overlooked it. Honest mistake, I’m sure.
OK, so, let’s look at some of their common myths about sweeteners that they bust for the consumer’s benefit:
Myth:
“Sugary sweeteners are ‘empty calories’.”
Reality:
“Fundamentally, all sweeteners are carbohydrates. Whenever we eat foods with carbohydrates, such as table sugar, honey, or a potato—the body breaks these foods down into usable energy.
Sugar itself generally has trace amounts of nutrients, but people rarely eat spoonfuls of sugar by itself. Sugars like glucose or fructose are often part of foods like fruits, which contain a variety of vitamins and other nutrients.”
So… there you go. Clearly sugary sweeteners… hmm… are not a potato? Sugary sweeteners are, sort of by definition, empty calories. “Generally has trace amounts of nutrients” is being generous. Table sugar and HFCS are just sweeteners. If there’s anything else in them, it’s insignificant enough that nothing registers in their nutritional analysis labeling. That’s trace, all right. And, yes, fruits are great. They are not, however, ’sugary sweeteners,’ though, are they? The glucose and fructose in fruit didn’t get there through the addition of sugary sweeteners, did it? Tsk, tsk… I’m starting to get suspicious.
They go on from there to some other real winners like it’s a myth that “sugary sweeteners are bad for your teeth”. I don’t even want to dignify that with a comment. Then, to be sure we wouldn’t sleuth out their true identities, I guess, they added the very common myths like “all maple syrup is organic”, “Animal activists can be ethically ‘pure’ vegans by avoiding honey”, and “Hereditary ‘fructose intolerance’ is a serious illness similar to lactose intolerance, affecting millions of Americans”. I’d love to have sat in on that meeting. I know, let’s just add random crap in there to confuse everyone.
Seriously, I don’t know what else to say about that site other than the only thing that it tells me is that the Center for Consumer Freedom thinks we’re all complete idiots. So, who is this crusading force for truth and the American way? I’m sure they’ll just tell us where they get their funding, right? I don’t mean “over 100 companies” and “thousands of individual consumers” like it says on their web site. I mean… specifically… who? Well, they’d love to tell us, but…
“Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence and other forms of aggression some activists have adopted as a ‘game plan’ to impose their views, so we respect their wishes.”
Ah, yes… violent anti-sugar aggression. I admit that I would like to slap someone over there, but I promise to control myself.
Unfortunately for those poor, frightened do-gooders, the Center for Media and Democracy (they don’t care about the safety of their donors, apparently) identifies them like this:
“The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the “Guest Choice Network”) is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving…
The Washington Post says that the center started with a donation from… Philip Morris! Didn’t see that coming, did you? What the heck does the tobacco industry care about sugar? Well, it turns out that CCF is just anti-things for a living. Specifically, one guy, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (Good heavens there are a lot of centers out there.):
“CCF is one of a shadowy trio of tax-exempt front groups run by Washington lobbyist Richard Berman. That trio also includes the American Beverage Institute, which fights laws designed to curb drunk driving, and the Employment Policies Institute, which is opposed to raising the minimum wage, particularly in the labor-intensive restaurant industry.”
Why is it that people claiming to protect the American way are always so evil? Who fights drunk driving laws? I mean, I know who fights them– Richard Berman, apparently– but how broken does your ethical compass have to be? And what does it say about the sweetener industry that they would get in bed with this guy and hide behind his “Center”? Sometimes, I think “oh, they’re just people making a product that arguably really isn’t that bad for you used ‘in moderation’”. And then I see something like this. They know that “moderation” means we stop eating 160 lbs. of sugar every year and try to get back to a fraction of that. That means less money for them. End of discussion. Call Richard.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the same company that was hired to try to curb drunk driving laws and fight anti-smoking laws is now trying to convince us all to stop talking about sugar consumption’s effects on our health. I must say that the sheer deliberate deception of it surprised even me.
While I still believe that the only path to shaking off the sugar shackles is our own knowledge, informed choices, and consumer power, I understand more and more why there is a need to legislate and sue about these issues. When you’re dealing with this much money at stake, there’s about nothing they won’t do to keep it coming in. Left to their own devices, these industries will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, to separate you from your dollars.
Consider that the next time you read about how great “crystalline fructose” is. That’s the new name they’re going to use for dried out fructose from the HFCS process. I swear to you; I read how great it was for me just today on a package of bread at the grocery store.
Wow.
By Rian, on October 10th, 2009
I’ve spent about five days now explaining to people the theory behind a) my book, and b) my ridiculous experiment.
Common objections:
- “But honey’s ALL NATURAL!”
- “You really ought to cut out ALL simple carbohydrates.”
- “So, you’ll drink alcohol, but you won’t eat sugar. Alcohol is made from sugar. God, I hate you.”
- “Get off my lawn!”
And so forth. But by far, the most common thing people say, in one form or another, is: “It’s that damn high-fructose corn syrup.” There is a very common perception out there, among otherwise rational people, that someone has snuck up on us with a big bucket of corn syrup, which has mind-control powers, and we’ve all been duped into eating something with the health benefits of pureed cigarette butt stuffed asbestos cakes with a honey-mercury glacé.
Today’s lesson… CHEMISTRY!
Have you ever wondered what the difference between a fructose (it’s from FRUIT! Yay!), sucrose (boo!), and glucose (uh… comes in bags on rolling stands?) is? How about that high-fructose corn syrup? How bad could it be? Sounds like health food to me. Corn… from a plaid shirted farmer in Iowa… mixed with fructose… which they get from… uh… apples. High-fructose means more apple juice than corn because that’s more flavorful.
That’s almost right– except that instead of apples, the fructose comes from glucose treated by genetically-modified enzymes after being broken down from starches by some goo exuded by the aspergillus fungus. Throw in some mercury (yes, for real) and various other patented and frightening industrial processes, and you get high-fructose corn syrup! It’s “natural” (according to the ad campaign developed by the corn syrup refiners) and “fine in moderation.” That’s a glowing recommendation if ever I heard one. Slightly ambiguous on the “fine” and “moderation” definitions, but… you get the idea. Now, eat.
OK, let’s back up. Sugar 101. Note: I am not a chemist. My dad has a degree in chemistry, but that was then they grouped chemicals by “stinkiness” and “how burny it is when you stick your finger in it.” So, don’t expect text book science here. I just thought it was worth a quick review just to shed a little light on all this sweetener nonsense I’m going on about. If you find something here is inaccurate, keep it to yourself. You’ll make me look stupid.
“sugar: carbohydrate: an essential structural component of living cells and source of energy for animals; includes simple sugars with small molecules as well as macromolecular substances; are classified according to the number of monosaccharide groups they contain”
– Princeton’s Online Dictionary
Simple Sugars (or Monosaccharides):
For our overly-loose and unscientific purposes, this includes fructose and glucose. They’ve got the same chemical formula: C6H12O6. Fructose is an isomer of glucose. That is to say that they’re just built differently. Same parts, different design.
Glucose is the basic sugar that your body uses to convert into other forms of energy. In fact, it’s the basic sugar of life. It’s what plants produce with photosynthesis and serves as a building block to everything from vitamin C to protein. Glucose gets used by the body in a hurry. If you eat it, absent fibers and fats to slow it down, it goes into the liver and muscles as glycogen, feeds the brain, and stuffs the adipose tissue (i.e., makes you fat).
I don’t mean to give glucose a bad rap. You need it to live. If you don’t eat enough carbo fuel your body will start converting whatever it can get its hands on to glucose, starting with protein. Ultimately, you start to lose muscle mass, your metabolism drops, and you feel terrible. No, you want to keep getting enough carbohydrates to get a decent supply of glucose. As we’ll see, the trick to it is making your body work a bit to get at it.
For future reference, make note of the fact that the way plants, say your corn-type plants, store this glucose is in the form of starches (chains of glucose). Like corn starch, for instance. That’s called foreshadowing.
Likewise, fructose is a simple sugar. However, because of the difference in structure, it’s a different molecule, chemically, than glucose. Your body does not readily utilize fructose. In fact, forms of it tend to pass right through to your urine and lower intestine. Sounds good, right? Eat all the sugar you want and just pee it out! The problem is that your lower intestine is not happy about this concentrated “hygroscopic” stuff. In infants, excessive amounts, often in the form of healthy apple and pear juices, lead to something nice called “osmotic diarrhea,” which basically means excessive amounts of liquid forms in the lower intestines, mixing with the solid waste, and… you get the idea.
As swell as that sounds, there are some other little complications that fructose causes down there– assuming you get past the osmotic diarrhea stage of life. The natural beasties of the colon will actually ferment the fructose– colon champagne. While it doesn’t provide a buzz of champagne, it does provide the bubbles. Bubbles. In the colon. Use your imagination.
So, as I said, the body doesn’t use fructose. Instead, the liver converts it to glucose and fat (among about a dozen other things with names I can’t pronounce). By some accounts, the low “glycemic index” of fructose (a measure of the impact on blood sugar of different foods) is not so much a measure of the low levels of blood sugar as the shortness of duration. That is, they spike high but for a short time. Glycemic index is essentially multiplication of those two dimensions. So, fructose disrupts the system more, but leaves the eater feeling hungry faster.
Fructose, chemically speaking, is a little harder to defend than glucose. It doesn’t do anything very good. However, I fall solidly into the holistic camp on the matter. You are better off eating fruit than white bread. The whole package contains so much more nutrition that the included fructose has to be considered part of the deal. Fruit provides fiber, which luckily is just the thing to slow the absorption of sugar, vitamins, and all sorts of micronutrients. Simple carbs, like processed foods contain, are just that– simple. You might find simple starches have less fructose than a pear, but I’ll take the pear.
On the plus side, fructose tastes sweeter than glucose. It also tends to last longer (you see where this is going?). Fructose is more… industrially friendly than glucose. Also, when combined with other sugars, it has the interesting affect of making the whole mix taste sweeter than its individual components.
Sugar and High-Fructose Corn Syrup
As you can see, the name “sugar” is a little ambiguous. I’m talking about table sugar from cane and beets. That stuff is mostly sucrose, a disaccharide of, guess what, glucose and fructose. That means that each molecule of sucrose is a chemically bonded pair of glucose and fructose molecules. Oddly enough, that’s the best part. It seems that the necessity of the body’s enzymes to break up this bond, which it readily does usually, contributes to some degree of “self-control” of the absorption of the glucose part of the equation. The body has some ability to control that reaction by regulating the enzyme that does the splitting. As with fiber and fats, if you keep the body occupied tearing down the food to digest it, it slows the absorption of the glucose and, so, controls the release of insulin (the stuff that shuttles glucose to its assigned destinations and helps utilize it, more on that later). If you juice a sugar beet or sugar cane and cook down the results, you get, more or less, pure sucrose.
So, what’s the deal with high-fructose corn syrup? Remember my tricky foreshadowing about starches in corn? It turns out that if you take those starches and break them up, you get a lovely syrup of nearly pure glucose. Glucose, though, doesn’t keep too well, and it’s not nearly as good for making processed food as fructose. Luckily, the Japanese came up with an industrial process to convert glucose to fructose back in the 60s. It involves several stages of conversion that include nifty components like an aspergillus fungus product and, apparently in some cases, mercury. That probably contributes to it being a weirdly secret industrial process. When Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis made the film King Corn and tried to follow their corn through that stage of the process, they were refused entry to the plants. Hmm…
What you get at the end, though, is a very stable blend of, most commonly, roughly equal parts glucose and fructose. The syrup is easy to transport and process, keeps for a really long time, and dissolves readily into everything from soda to yogurt. If we skip the reports of nasty trace contaminants, like the aforementioned mercury, and stick with the physiological effects, you may see the problem with this stuff already. There’s nothing to break down. HFCS is straight up glucose, which goes right into the blood, and fructose, processed with some difficulty by the liver into fat and more glucose (and, in the extreme cases, farts and diarrhea).
So, HFCS is bad, right? Yeah, I think it is.
So, HFCS is responsible for me being so fat, right? Whoa. Hang on, there, chubby.
All of the above said, there are a couple of over-arching items that, in my reading of this material, swamp out the vast majority of any differences between all of these forms of sugar. First is the forms in which they’re eaten. If you chow a box of All-Natural Fruit SugarBomb Breakfast Bars, you’re getting a huge serving of sugar mixed into pre-masticated carbs, with a preservative topping. I’m sort of surprised that stuff doesn’t make people just pass out from the blood sugar jolt. If you then pick yourself up a Double Caramel Latte (with skim, please), you’re doing it again. And we do it again and again and again. We live in a time and place where it is actually harder not to do those things. You have to exert yourself to resist the play between your actual hunger, your boredom, peer pressure, your genetic predisposition to eat sweet stuff, and the pervasive availability and marketing of every variation of processed “food products”.
I don’t care if they make those things with HFCS, freshly harvested honey, “evaporated cane juice” (my favorite euphemism for sugar), or boiled down pear paste. It’s all concentrated over-available sugar. Is sucrose better than HFCS? Not if if comes in a 64 oz. Double Gulp. The long and short of it is that we eat great gobs of sugar– most of it fructose to add flatulence to injury. It just so happens that the worst offenders are processed foods, and processed foods use HFCS because of a strange confluence of economics, politics, and chemistry. It’s not going to help an awful lot to replace that particular form of sugar with sucrose if it continues to come in pseudo-food packages of gout-inducing proportions.
The other 500-lb. gorilla in the room is exercise. Just about everything involved in the processing of sugars by the body is improved with exercise, and Americans do that less and less. When we lived in Japan a few years ago, our house was at the top of a very large hill, and we didn’t own a car. Just executing our normal life involved so much walking up and down that hill that I literally couldn’t eat enough. I lost about 30 lbs. when I lived there for a year, and I ate great, heaping helpings of stuff that’d make your average dietitian fly into a rage. I’m not advocating a diet of Crunky chocolate bars, Coolish ice cream packets, sake, and fried chicken stuffed with cheese (Mmm…), but it was pretty clear that if you stoke the fires high enough, the fuel seems to matter less and less– just keep it coming. For what it’s worth, I now drive a car and have replaced about 15 of those pounds. Haven’t had a Crunky in years.
So, the best we can hope for in a normal American life, I’d guess, is a happy medium. Try to make sure that most of your food didn’t come from a factory. Take note of the labels and anything that does have them– in particular, look out for added sweeteners, be they sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. All else being equal, take the sugar, but don’t let that lull you into feeling that you’ve really done anything good for yourself as much as something slightly less bad. The basic chemistry, if anything, teaches us that we need to tie up our sugar intake into as complex and unprocessed food wrappers as we can manage. Make your body work for that glucose. Come on, small intestines, give me 20!
Next time, I’ll talk about insulin. It’s not just something I shoot into my cat twice a day. Science is starting to find that it is potentially the key to unlocking the root causes of our various epidemics of diabetes, certainly, but also heart disease, cancer, and obesity. I’ll give you the non-biologist’s rundown on what that stuff is and how we might influence our bodies to keep it (and the corresponding intertwined cast of characters) at healthy levels.
I’ll try to keep it a little shorter. I do go on, don’t I?
By Rian, on October 9th, 2009
Beautiful day here yesterday. So nice, in fact, that we all went down to the local elementary school just to putz around on the playground for a while. As is her style, wifey brought snacks. When I showed up a few minutes after everyone else, they were all munching down shrimp crackers… my son brought me a couple. Munch, munch… mun… ch… uh oh…
Sure as hell, there on the bag, sugar. In shrimp chips?! Oh, COME ON! So, there you go, I have failed. I’m sorry.
Nah, not really. Actually, I don’t care that much. Let’s not get all weird about this.
It nicely reinforces the idea, though, that the only way I’m safe is by just avoiding packaged food altogether. I’ve definitely been eating a whole lot better since this started. Normally, I bake something sweet a couple of times a week– cookies, brownies, muffins, etc.– and snack on that for the next couple of days. I’ve already described my TJ’s snack habit. And it’s not just “sweet” stuff. I keep getting reminded that nearly everything packaged is sweetened. So, I’ve also dropped all sorts of things like shrimp chips (now), pita chips, and cereal (almost all sweetened). Even my coffee habit’s been affected since I normally add a teaspoon of honey. I’m surprised how easily I’ve adapted to most of it.
People keep asking me if I’m going into withdrawal– not as far as I can tell. In fact, the only real difficulty I’ve had is with daily patterns. I miss baking sweet, gooey stuff for my family. We all used to eat dessert before bed, and that’s sort of imploded because of me. You’d think that would violate my “not inconveniencing” rule, but it seems to have gone mostly unnoticed. Still, it’s something I enjoy(ed), so I’m having a bit of… what? mourning? remorse? Luckily, this is a 30-day deal. On November 5th, I can take a bath with my family in hot fudge if we’re so inclined.
The scary part, though, is that, as I’m learning that I can do perfectly well without that stuff, I’m starting to think I shouldn’t go back. That’s not to say that I shouldn’t ever eat sweeteners again but that there’s nothing wrong with just not eating so much of what I have. We’re pounded with the presence of all this “convenience” and “snack” food. It’s so present that people genuinely react as though I’ve gone over the edge for just saying “I don’t want any.” They look at me like I must be some kind of born-again zealot. It’s everywhere, and therefore, it must be normal. That being the case, not eating it is abnormal.
And yet, from the perspective of my impulsive and random experiment, things look a little different. It’s become obvious how frequently and mindlessly I ate sweeteners before. If not, I wouldn’t find myself standing in the kitchen so often thinking “ok, well, what can I eat then?” As a result, I do find myself there less often. And I guess my point is that I kind of like that. On the other hand, we’re on Day 4. Who knows if I’ll be sneaking yogurt raisins out of the kids’ lunch boxes in a week or two, but for now, I’m just mindlessly ransacking the kitchen for boredom snacks a lot less.
Instead, if I’m feeling a little hungry, I’ll often go out to see what’s edible in the yard… like FIGS!
 It Tastes Much Better Than It Looks I know, it’s somewhere on the pornographic, grotesque side of fruit photography, but our surprise late crop of figs is ripening, just under the wire, and, boy howdy, are they ever good. These particular martian vaginas are called ‘Oregon Prolific’ figs. I have read that these are the same as the ‘Marseilles’ fig that was reported to be Thomas Jefferson’s favorite. Why they’ve got different names is beyond me; I’d have to assume it’s a result of our old friend, marketing.
In any case, they are sweet (which comes in handy right now) like honey, soft, and relatively small as compared to our neighbor’s monstrosities. They also ripen quite late, obviously. This year, we had two ripening flushes. I’d be thrilled if she’d keep it up.
We also had a strange late crop of raspberries that we’ve mostly let drop. It’s like everyone thought “no, that’s not when raspberries show up…” and have just ignored them.
Other than that, things are looking pretty slim out there. I’ve got a few Northern Spy apples on the new tree but no others. Given that I have five apple trees, that’s a little weird, but they’re all pretty young, so I’ll try not to fret about it. Everything else– all the grapes, asian pears, peaches, plums, berries, and cherries– are all long gone. This weekend’s the apple festival at Portland Nursery. That’s always kind of fun, but it’s also a clear milepost that we’re well into fall and on our way to… w… win… w-win-win…
I just can’t.
By Rian, on October 7th, 2009
You know that feeling you get when the Internet breaks?
“Ah, DSL is down… can’t check my mail… guess I’ll go read Google News… or… no… wait… I’ll, uh… see what’s going on on Facebook… no… ok, there must be something… I know, I’ll *talk* to someone! Wonder who’s on Skype… dammit… maybe I should just check my mail…”
Well, sugar is like the Internet. Never heard that one before, have you? Sugar is like the Internet because I got stir crazy today and decided that I’d go check out some new food cart in town for lunch. I ended up, after a series of witty misadventures that I won’t go into, at the old Southeast area standby for food carts on Hawthorne Ave. They’ve got half a dozen carts or so, and so even if the vegan-tattoo-black-clothes-nosering-stoner-stereotype running the place spontaneously decides that Wednesday is now “sit outside but don’t make food day”, you’re likely to have an alternative (one of them must not know it’s Wednesday). Oops, I said I wasn’t going to go into it, didn’t I?
Continue reading MMWS: Day 3 – Damn you, crepe cart. »
|
I Have a Price 
We're just not there yet. |
Recent Comments