March 2007 Archives

There are so many great conversations happening on our message boards each day, it's hard to cover them all. Here's a sampling of what's been buzzing around iVillage this week:

-- Forget smoking bans in restaurants, what about a ban on kids? One Chicago-area restaurant takes aim at tykes behaving badly -- and the folks on the Current Debates board have a lot to say about it. Whether you've been the diner interrupted or the mom chasing down your kid at Applebee's, I'm sure you have an opinion on this one.

-- Speaking of kids, do you ever feel like your child's school is a constant drain on the old wallet? Between field trips, parties, special "days" (hot dog day? really?) and supplies, you may need to take out a second mortgage! As a matter of fact, today my daughter's school is having "Popcorn Friday" -- which is luckily only set me back a quarter, but I know it all adds up. The moms on the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Grade board are swapping stories, commiserating and offering tips for just saying "no".

-- Are you in on "The Secret"? I'm apparently not -- because this message about positive thinking, cancer and Miss Oprah Winfrey sent my "say what?" meter into overdrive.

-- Hot Topic Alert! Get out your oven mitts, because I think this one's going to get toasty. New results released from a recent study on kids and daycare suggests that children in daycare often have more behavioral problems than their non-daycare counterparts. On the flip side, those in "high-quality" child care were found to score higher on vocabulary tests. Daycare is a fact of life for many families, so what can be done to make it the best experience it can be? Or will it always fall short? Sound off with your thoughts and experiences in our new Hot Topic: New Day Care Study message board.

-- Just in case you've been living in a cave -- the cover art for the next installment in the Harry Potter series was unveiled yesterday. You can read more about it on our very own Harry Potter Fans message board and chime in with your predictions for the young wizard and friends.

-- You may be on the worst date ever if ... your date takes out his teeth at dinner. I can't make this stuff up! Read the whole wild tale. What would you do if someone set their chompers right out on the table? And what's your ultimate worst date ever?

That's it for today -- let me know what you think about any or all of the above selections and if you've got a hot conversation brewing in your favorite community, I'd love to hear about it. Until next time...

I guess I'm on a smoking kick this week, because I couldn't pass up the opportunity to highlight this great debate about smoking bans on the Politics Today board. Many areas have government-imposed smoking bans in restaurants, bars and other public areas -- and others are soon to follow suit. Whether you happen to be a smoker or not, you probably have an opinion on these bans and the effects of cigarette smoke. But what about smoking bans at work? Outlawing smoking completely? And what about banning trans fats? Foie gras? iVillager maggiep4948 dives headfirst into this hot potato of a topic, which quickly turns into a debate on the impact of tobacco vs. that of alcohol, the question of government restrictions in general and public health concerns. Take a look:

"The government bans are becoming absolutely insane. No more trans fat in restaurants. Don't you think people should be making that decision? After all, if we are going out to eat and paying for it, shouldn't it be our choice? If healthy eating is the issue, then pick something that is healthy on the menu or stay home and cook for yourself. Since everyone is so concerned about the next person and our government has strongly gone after the tobacco industry and the food industry.....what about the alcohol industry?

This kicked off a pretty intense discussion that covered a wide variety of opinions:

"Smoking is a health hazard, transfat is a health hazard? So is alcohol a health hazard to the person drinking it and to other people around them. Aren't all these bans with the assumption that it could harm you or someone else?"

"Complain all you want about not being able to smoke except outside or in your own home, tough nuggets. You choose to pollute your own lungs!"

"If YOU own an establishment, then YOU should decide what types of LEGAL activity are done within that establishment. If a patron has a problem with smelling bad... then they needn't enter."

"I don't think that you can allow public establishments the right to present an environment that presents a known health risk to patrons, even if they choose to be there. It's a situation ripe for lawsuits. "

There were more than a few replies that echoed wary sentiments such as these:

"I don't need the government protecting me from myself."

"Many of our actions inadvertently harm others. We can't ban them all."

Finally, this quote made me blink more than a few times and caused a flurry of responses:

"Smokers are drug users and addicts, period. They should be treated as such."

Yowza. I'm not even going to touch that one.

Where do you come down on this issue? Of course I think we can all agree that cigarette smoke is definitely a health hazard -- but do you feel that smoking bans go too far? Or maybe not far enough? What about other types of public health issues? Are you in favor of more government intervention for the common good? Or do you want to just smoke and eat your trans fats in peace? Let me know if your city has enacted smoking bans and how you feel about these issues.

Speaking of, uh, buzz ... the debate over the use and legalization of medical marijuana often comes up on our message boards, spanning a wide variety of communities. cl-karen292 brings up the topic on the Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue board, where the subject often takes a more personal angle:

Montel Williams was at our state capital yesterday making a pitch for the medical use of marijuana to help with pain for people having debilitating diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS and Multiple Sclerosis. Williams was DXed with MS in 1999. He related that he has tried to manage his pain through prescription medications such as OxyContin to morphine only to damage his kidneys, leaving him incapacitated for awhile and still not managing his pain.

She goes on to say:

"I am for the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but believe that it becomes a prescription medication prescribed by a doctor. I have read where they want to allow the patient to be able to grow their own. I think that is opening a can of worms."

Other iVillagers share their opinions:

"I think it's sad that some of the current methods of pain control that we currently have available are much more dangerous and addictive than marijuana."

"I heard in the past that they were trying to produce a pill form of marijuana. That would be ideal if it actually works.

I believe inhaling smoke of any kind is not healthy. I know that marijuana fries brain cells. I've seen it."

"I used to be against this until I developed FMS. I am allergic to marijuana, but if I wasn't I would definitely try it. I do think it would need to be monitored very closely."

Another member offers this interesting theory:

" I don't think marijuana will be legalized in any form. The (illegal) drug syndicates stand to lose too much money. I bet they fund lobbyists to campaign against legalization."

What do you think? Should marijuana be a legal option for those patients in need of pain relief? Should it be a prescribed and controlled substance, or should patients just be allowed to grow their own? Is this just asking for trouble? Jump in and share your thoughts and concerns on this hot button issue!

Back in college (ages ago), I collected a lot of those quirky buttons ... you know, the kind with sassy little sayings that you could pin to your backpack. One of my favorites was the one with big goofy red letters that read "LOVE IT! (love your job!)" I really appreciated the random sarcasm held in its 1 1/2 inch diameter. I was working at the bookstore just off campus and while I did love the textbook discount, I most certainly did not love my job. Then again, there's a big difference in working a part time job for party money -- I mean -- laundry money during college and working 40 some odd hours a week in your career. Sometimes, though, it can be a lo-oong 40 hours. We've all been there, no matter how great your job is ... work can be a lot of ... well, erm ... work. If you really love your job, it can ease the pinch of the workweek but should you necessarily have a hot burning passion for what you do? Or is making ends meet (and maybe then some) enough? How does this factor in when college students are selecting a field on their parents' dime -- should the parent push them towards a steady, lucrative career -- or should the kid just be allowed to follow his or her passion? These same questions sparked a flurry of responses on the Stay at Home vs. Work board when one iVillager asked, "isn't it okay for a student or employee to like, but not love, one's chosen field, and reserve his or her passion for relationships, hobbies, faith or other non-income earning activity?" Check out some of the responses:

"I don't have a passion for what I do, I have a passion for living and this job lets me do that by providing a roof over my head and food to eat."

"I am never going to be rich being a vet tech, but I LOVE the job. I could make a lot more money doing something else, and cry less too I'm sure but I could never leave it. As long as the bills are paid I can do without a lot of extras if I love what I'm doing."

"I flat out could not work at a job I just "liked" ...but that's just ME ...and the way I was raised. I love the theater even though it means I scrape by and I do without."

"I am not sure my older son will be ready for college as soon as he graduates high school, which means that I am not willing to pay for an education for somebody who isn't going to benefit from it or appreciate it."

"You can do whatever you want with your passion, but if, for example, my child has a passion for writing and he wants to pursue that as a career, I would never think of telling him that I'll only pay his tuition if he pursues a degree in business. Personally, I think life is way too short to spend it doing something you hate instead of pursuing what you love."

"The whole thing about having a passion, especially wrt college-age kids, is nothing more than a trite cliche, imo, especially when it appears to cover everything from a keen interest in collecting bottle caps to laying one's life on the line through something like Medecins Sans Frontiers. Just yuppie media hyperbole. God forbid an 18yo should say he/she wants a career in accountancy because it's a steady job."

Yowch.

What about you? Are you doing what you love? Loving what you do? Let's face it, some of us are doing good just to get to the end of the week in one piece. (Not me, of course, because I! love! my! job!! PS: My boss is reading this.) But seriously, what do you think? Should a person have a real passion for their jobs to be happy or to be good at what they do? Should this factor into a kid's college tuition deal? Tell me what you really think, and don't worry, I won't tell your boss...

Tamara wants to know -- "What's up with all of these food recalls lately? Spinach, peanut butter -- and now pet foods." I've been wondering the same thing! There have been quite a few food recalls in the past several months, which raises the question -- how safe is the food we eat? Are we doing enough to ensure the safe manufacture and sale of our daily staples? In today's health-conscious society, it's probably easier than it has ever been to be informed not only about nutrition, but also food safety. But what about the furry members of our family (and no, I don't mean Uncle Al!) ? With last week's massive pet food recall, it's hard to feel completely confident about the products we buy. As is the case with many recalls, our members were busy trying to get the word out to their communities. On the Pet Debates board, there were several conversations regarding the scope of the recall and possible affected brands. This conversation caught my eye, as developing news reports outlined the testing done by Menu Foods and outside sources did, in fact, result in several animal deaths:

"The FDA purposefully fed this food to animals knowing that it could cause death! I realize that they needed to find the problem, but OMG!!!!! If humans were dying, they certainly wouldn’t have conducted such a test on humans."

"It’s hard to know what to think. Pet food manufacturing is not regulated by any government agencies, at least here in Canada, so legally a pet food manufacturer can package and sell whatever the heck they want and call it food.

But contamination can and does happen in human food manufacturing too, so unfortunately panicking about every little thing isn’t going to do me – or my cats – any favours."

After reading several discussions across the site, I unfortunately found out that some of our members' pets were affected by the tainted food -- including, sadly, some resulting in death. Do you think this recall was handled correctly? Or is it a case of too little, too late? Check in here and let me know what you think -- and if you ended up on the wrong side of this recall.

For more information on the pet food recall, be sure to read this message, which includes a link to some footage from The Today Show. To find out more about pet care, pet health and more, visit our Complete Pet Guide.

The debate over the vaccine that guards against HPV (human papilloma virus), has been in the news for some time now since its approval last summer by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Certain strains of HPV have been linked to cervical cancer, and supporters of the vaccine see it as one way to guard young women against the deadly disease. Others fear the vaccine may come with unknown risks. The buzz surrounding the vaccine, marketed as Gardasil, remains at a constant simmer throughout the iVillage community, particularly due to legislation in Texas (and more recently in Virginia) that would require the vaccine for all sixth-grade girls. Last week the Texas legislature fought back against the strict mandate, voting to make the shots voluntary. Since this hot-button issue criss-crosses the boundaries of politics, health and parenting, our members naturally have a lot to say about it.

From the Feminism Today board:

"I think it is wrong to require girls to have this vaccine. I think it is great to have available, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I also find it ironic that men will decide what happens to women."

"I don't really understand why people wouldn't want their daughters vaccinated against this. I read in another message board a woman saying that if boys were vaccinated it would speed up the process of eliminating the problem and if so it should happen."

Meanwhile on the Vaccination Debate board, members are concerned with the possible unknown side effects down the line:

"This vaccine has been incorrectly touted as the "cervical cancer prevention" vaccine instead of HPV prevention vaccine. What gets me is this from the insert:

GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity."

"First--I need to say that I am very pro-vaccination. With that said, if I had a daughter at the age to be vaccinated for HPV I wouldn't do it at this time."

iVillage Wellness hosts a board with a wealth of information on Herpes, HPV & Other STDs and reactions were mixed to the news of Texas Governor Rick Perry signing legislation to mandate the vaccine for 6th grade girls:

"I think the governor has stepped out of bounds. This decision should be up to the parents of the girls."

"No one wants to hear about someone developing cancer or other problems, especially if available measures can counter it. This mandate is a great start to better ensure the health of the generation coming up!"

"I think the vaccination is great for girls and I do not think that it will promote sexual behavior."

More reaction comes from the regional boards, who just may be dealing with legislation of their own, members of the Tennessee board are weighing the pros and cons. One iVillager sums up her feelings, and many others seem to share the same sentiment:

"I love the fact it can help prevent cancer. What has me so worried is that it is so new, we have no idea what some of health issues or side affects that may arise from this. I believe that it needs to be out longer before anything is pushed too hard on this. I have had family members die from cancer and myself have had abnormal paps. But still even if I was in the age bracket I wouldn't get (it) without enough studies being done on it. In the past few years there has been so many new meds recalled for the health risks they pose. I would like to wait and see if any arise from this new vaccine."

What are your thoughts on the HPV vaccine and the legislation that's tied to it? Do the benefits outweigh the risks here? Or is this a case of big drug companies pushing their products through political channels? I'll admit, as the mother of a 9-year-old girl, I'm wary and undecided -- what about you?

TGIF! As we head into the weekend, I bet you all have some wild and raucous plans for St. Patrick's Day, right? But do you plan to tell your co-workers/casual acquaintances/people on the bus about your leprechaun-inspired debauchery? About how you had so many green drinks you ended up in the parking lot of the nearest White Castle doing the hokey pokey in your bathrobe? Of course not, because that would be ... TMI. You know, too much information. For some, there really is no such thing as too much information -- these folks just let it all hang out for anyone who will listen. I had to laugh when I saw this discussion from the Toxic Relationships board (which happens to have one of my favorite board titles ever! Toxic!)

"My post is inspired by having sat beside a woman at a recent dinner party who seemed to feel obligated to want to tell me some of what were the more personal and private details of her life, in full detail!

I am curious where others draw the "too much information" line..."

Good question. How much is too much? Are there certain subjects that should never come up in casual conversation? Why are some people so willing to share the most intimate details of their lives with just about darn near everyone? And more importantly is there anything we can do about this epidemic? Or are we just doomed to hear about our neighbor's boils, the Target cashier's messy divorce and our co-workers' racy spring break stories? Step right up and tell us where you draw your TMI line and what you do about the people in your life that know no boundaries. Have a great weekend ... and be sure to come back on Monday and tell me all about it! On second thought ...

Anyone else remember that Foreigner song "Head Games"? You know, from back in the 70s? No? Well I do and I've been humming it ever since CMAngela sent me a tip on the intriguing discussions happening on the new Hot Topic: Games People Play message board. I know you know exactly what they're talking about, too. Oh come on ... those little mind games we play with ourselves, our partners and the people that never even make it past the first date... ring a bell? Ever hear of the silent treatment? Of course you have. It's ok -- we all have our own little embarrassing confessions, and one iVillager gives it to us straight:

"When basic Communication does not work I will resort to the Silent Treatment or other Tactics.

In fact I call them Domestic Warfare Tactics. I have a stubborn DH, there are times that he will not listen to a word I'm saying and it is frustrating. So, then I will resort to some of my Battle Strategies; such as one word answers to his questions, or not cooking my usual meals opting for a more rudimentary fare, or neglecting to wash only HIS laundry. I do it to get his attention, and usually once that is acquired I can revert back to Basic Communication."

Oooh ... remind me not to get on her bad side!

Others just don't tolerate all these crazy games:

"Guess I'm too old for it. I used to play, but now, when someone starts trying to play me, I'm out the door.

The men I meet seem to somehow think that I'm some idiot that will tolerate their not showing up for dates, not calling, not keeping promises, etc. Well, I don't have time. Men don't get second chances with me anymore. If I can see up front that they are going to be players, I just get out."

As if relationships aren't hard enough ... do these games actually get us anywhere or do they just create more problems? Is the silent treatment a proven remedy for what's ailing you? The nature of a game is that there's a winner ... and therefore a loser, right? Step right up and name your game here and tell me what you think about the games people play. If you're not sure what to think about all this business of relationship games, I'll just leave you with the wise words of Foreigner:

It's so clear, I'm sorry to say
But if you wanna win, you gotta learn how to play
Head games

The temperatures are rising and the boards are buzzing ... this could mean spring is finally here -- either that or we're tackling two - two -TWO hot issues in one! Over the weekend, The New York Times featured an article about presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, his family woes and the larger question of the delicate intricacies of blended families. Giuliani was forced to comment on his family discord and the struggles of stepfamilies after his son Andrew, 21, disclosed he had a "little problem" with his stepmother Judith Nathan. And as we all know, "little" is the new "big". Makes you wonder just what those problems really are ... hmmm. Giuliani tactfully offered, "It’s the kind of thing that I think affects a lot of families these days." Well he's certainly no help in letting us in on the dirt!

But he does have a point. As a divorced mom preparing to blend some families of my own, I know it's never easy and often it's even more difficult than you ever imagined it could be. But do these personal issues reflect a campaign problem for Rudy? Or is it more about how the rough spots are managed, rather than the fact of a divorce itself?

On the Morality Debate board, the question nags at a few members. One mom writes:

Life happens, and lots of people are divorced. It doesn't automatically make a negative statement about them, or their ability to lead.

But, then I realized that he has had multiple divorces, and it did give me pause....

Another weighs in:

I don't know why it should affect the way I vote. Lots of people have divorces for a number of reasons.

We've already had a president who was divorced. Ronald Reagan was divorced. Of course he had already been married to his 2nd wife for quite awhile before he ran so no one noticed.

They're also tackling this issue on the Stepmom/Bio Mom Debate board ... one mom in a blended family says:

I find it interesting how this man's personal life is being completely exploited...I have to wonder what the real story is behind his supposed "abandonment" of his children.

When are they going to stick with the real campaign issues?

It's the age-old question, isn't it? Is a politician's personal life relevant to the campaign trail? Does Giuliani's marital track record make him less electable? Or, perhaps, it makes him more in tune with what is the day-to-day reality for millions of families trying to make a second (or third or fourth) marriage work at the same time as treading lightly through the mine fields of stepfamily politics. Where do you see this issue fitting in to your election decisions? How does this debate reflect your own family struggles, if at all? Lay it all out here and tell me what you think!

Now really ... When will people learn to not mess with breastfeeding moms? I mean, haven't we gone through this song and dance before? Apparently the folks over at MySpace didn't get the memo. Amanda tipped me off to this story about moms who are outraged over the removal of photos depicting nursing infants. The pictures are reportedly considered "indecent" or "sexually suggestive". This is supposedly against the social networking site's "policies". Really? Tell that to "^~2Sexy4U~^" who, along with her leather-thonged bottom, is constantly asking to be my "friend". Plenty of iVillage moms are not amused, and you know the women posting to our playgroups and breastfeeding boards have a thing or two to say about this:

"How is breastfeeding sexual??!! Um, they need to take down all the girls showing their cleavage then and the other trampy pictures I see on there all the time."

More than one mom finds the double standard unacceptable: "It just doesn't make any sense, ESPECIALLY when they allow plenty of skin when the context is clearly sexual." Another writes: "Some people are so sensitive. I'm more covered up when breast feeding in public then some teenage girls out with their families, esp. in summer. I have a right to feed my child however I choose and I always cover up, in fact I probably have more cleavage showing when NOT nursing." Good point. More reaction:

"I can't even believe that there could be a debate about this! Some of the pictures they put on there are disgusting! I've seen more boobs on that board from women and cartoon pictures than you would ever see while breastfeeding! "

Many of the moms talking on our parenting message boards are also taking part in an online petition against the photo removals. One posted the letter she wrote to MySpace in protest. Here's a portion:

"Some of them show the crudest pictures or cartoons, but yet, you have the nerve to take on nursing mothers, calling us offensive and inappropriate. Well, shame on you.

YOU are now part of the problem that us nursing mothers face everyday. YOU are now part of the reason that we have to fight for the right to feed our children the way God intended without being harassed. YOU are now part of the reason women are being asked to leave planes for trying to feed their child."

Seriously, MySpace? You want to mess with these women? Do you not realize that along with being passionate moms they are also, in many cases, sleep-deprived?

What does everyone else think about this controversy? Have we still not come to a point where breastfeeding is a common, natural, everyday non-sexual occurrence? Or, do you think moms should cover up and keep their breasts offline? Give it to me straight and let me know your thoughts!

Hold on to your hats, Hive-fans ... this one could be a bumpy ride. Yes, we're going to talk politics. You've probably all heard about the remarks made by conservative columnist Ann Coulter last Friday during her speech at the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference. Using a gay slur to refer to Democrat John Edwards, Coulter came under fire over the weekend from both the left and right. Somehow, hearing that Ann Coulter made some offensive remarks doesn't exactly come as a surprise. Still -- what purpose do these kinds of statements serve in the political arena? Of course the folks on the Politics Today board are all over this one. If it's one thing I love about the Politics Today board, it's that they waste no time in getting down to business. After debating whether or not Coulter is just plain evil (and then later in the thread, if she's really a dude ... I am not making this up), it wasn't too long before someone brought up some recent remarks from Bill Maher in reference to Vice President Dick Cheney. Oops. Maybe it’s only funny if it’s about the other guy? iVillagers weigh in...

sopal1953 comes out swinging with this assessment: "Coulter shows the heart and soul of the conservative movement in that 30 second video clip."

Ouch!

Member bethannne, however, disagrees. "Hardly! I am a conservative and I don't approve of her words. If you listen, after she said that, there were a lot of shocked people and yes, a few clapped, but hardly what I would call a raving response. I also know that Michelle Malkin and other conservative bloggers have condemned her comments, so to say that she is speaking for the heart and soul of the conservative movement is plain wrong!"

mountainlaurel2005 doesn't mince words and offers "Coulter is an idiot. Period." Regarding Bill Maher, she also adds, "I have on many occasion rolled my eyes over his comments, and so has my husband. I guess they both need to keep their traps shut." Now there's an idea!

After further discussion of bad behavior on all sides of the fence, sopal1953 comes back with this wise approach: "I think it is time for all of us to practice what we preach. All of us. The politicians have got to quit that (juxtaposition) inference that those who disagree are assisting or playing into the hands of terrorists, and that voting for one political party over another is what terrorists want. The discourse in this country is appalling." Indeed.

Member gettingahandle puts it another way: "Both Maher and Coulter strike me as being arbiters of bad taste. Titillating but not balanced, nuanced or logical. Hyperbolic. Kinda like cayenne pepper, good for a kick but definitely not something to consume in volume."

So ... have we overdosed on political hot sauce, then? At times it’s as if the polarized climate of American politics has sent everyone completely overboard, dissolving into insults and name-calling. Does the bashing on either side actually get us anywhere, or is it just part of the game? Does anyone feel like they’re being represented in any of this? Offer your take – or vent your frustration -- here, and remember … keep it above the belt.

Hello Beehivers ... I'm Caryn and I'll be taking on the role of Beehive hostess. I'll be working hard to fill Amy's very big shoes here bringing you the latest hot conversations from the iVillage community. Some of you may know me from my posts over at TV Cocktail and my other roles around iVillage. I've been involved with the iVillage community in various ways since 1998 and I'm looking forward to sharing the most interesting discussions from the message boards with you. Whether the topic is controversial or hilarious, our members are probably talking about it -- and boy do they know how to speak their minds!

On the Parenting Issues Debates board, a discussion about birthday parties caught my eye -- probably because I'm starting to think of my own daughter's birthday next month.

amythemom writes, "Do you think the whole "birthday party" thing has gotten out of control?

It wouldn't take 5 fingers to count the number of birthday parties I had while growing up, and I don't remember many friends having more than a couple.

Why is it that we are now expected to throw all-out parties for our children every year?"

Why do I feel that she's talking directly to me? Ok, I admit, I have a tendency to go a tiny bit overboard in the birthday department, but I also know that none of my daughter's birthday parties were anywhere near the extravagance I've heard about at other parties. Whether you have quiet family parties at home or rent a hall and invite the whole neighborhood, do you find that kids' parties are becoming more and more over the top? Is this a matter of "keeping up with the Joneses" or just something that a parent feels obligated to do?

ma2connor doesn't feel that way: "To be honest I don't feel pressured to throw my son a party at all. I never had felt that way, nor do I feel that it's expected that any party he does have be an all out event."

samum2007 has a whole list of complaints about birthday parties these days -- and I can't say I completely disagree. I had to laugh at item #6: "The “party pack” rule. Kids have eaten a whole bunch of sweets, are hyper and are now going to eat some messy chocolate and chips in your car on the way home!" Note to self: Include wet wipes in the party packs...

But seriously -- do you feel pressured to have a blow-out party for your little angel's birthday? Complete with magicians, petting zoo, free iPods and a designer cake? Are these parties more for the kids or the parents? Is there any harm in going all out every now and then, or is it just in good fun? Chime in here with your take on birthday parties, what you've seen in your area and how much is too much? Oh ... and save me a piece of cake, will ya?