...however, I am another one who cannot live on a vegetarian diet (not even lacto-ovo), and I nearly ruined my health trying. [Now, I can no longer eat wheat, dairy or soy.]

But (except for HFCS, which is truly bad!) the problem is less what we eat, than how we produce it. And, beef is not necessarily worse, nor are grains better. What is bad, though, is agribusiness that uses methods that are terrible for the earth. Grazing animals on land that wasn't really meant for grains, and which require more energy in resources to produce than they yield...

Read this article in Harper's... very interesting: http://harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.html

Of course, we can't really know what Vargas's situation is from the outside looking in, but under the circumstances, it seems like too much interference to be protesting something that Vargas has said is her choice.

Having a second child when you already have a toddler might really be more than doubling the childcare effort, and if Vargas has had more difficulties with this pregnancy, she might need more time to recuperate, as well as to regroup.

It's too much of a burden to put on one woman to be the standard bearer or symbol of women being able to "have it all." As far as I can tell, the jury is still out on that one. What still bears repeating, though, is the importance of each woman being able to exercise as much choice as is available to her. Vargas may have more options available to her than the rest of us, but that doesn't excuse projecting all of the insecurities of a movement onto her.

As I recall, the job originally looked like Charlie Gibson's, until the network decided to go "younger." Being "mature" myself, it was a tough choice whether to be more offended by the "agism" of bypassing Gibson or the "sexism" (implied by Vargas's needing a co-anchor). I'm just glad that I'm finally past that dilemma. ;~)

As I was mulling these things over on the weekend, I also posted something that I thought would be a far more practical reaction... ;~)

http://lyssa-strada.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-it-will-take-perhaps-more.html

While I may not always identify with the individual letter writers, I am always intrigued by Cary's answers and the way he approaches their problems with such humanity and compassion. And as much as I would love to be an advice columnist myself, I know that I could never measure up to the bar that Cary has set.

I will admit, though, that I have been reading his column less often lately, not because of any change in the column, but because it can be difficult not to read the readers' letters as well. I try, but sometimes I can't help it. And the vitriol that spews from some of them simply ruins the experience of reading the column.

Perhaps instead of distinguishing some letters with red stars (since the letters that do not get them are sometimes as interesting as those that do), an editor could simply tag the truly miserable letters that accompany Cary's column with something like: Warning! Vitriol ahead. Toxic letter. Read at your own risk. Or, if that is too simplistic, perhaps a numbered code might serve better:

1) Compassionate response from reader who has had a similar experience.

2) Interesting letter, and great response from Cary, however, my experience...

3) I don't believe this letter is true! How can you? Are you nuts or what?

4) I'm sick and tired of all these whining, sniveling people who write letters that have nothing to do with my own experience of how life is supposed to be.

5) Cary, we're all tired of hearing about your insecurities and how you've overcome them or not. This is supposed to be about the letter writer, or even better, about us, your readers, or even better than that, about ME!

...you get the idea.