(warning for the humor-impaired: satire ahead):

"Um, sure. Maybe there's a Starbucks McFarbucks clown and some bright-and-shiny Happy Deals boxes with toys in them that I overlooked? ;)"

Little do you know the true agenda of the coffee cartel! A couple of years ago my daughter put 50 cents (not the rapper) in a vending machine and got a little coffee cup with SpongeBob SquarePants on it. SpongeBob, the epitome of all that is innocent and good, on the delivery system of evil! I am sure Starbucks is behind this! OK, the cup is tiny and is useful only as a sandbox toy but I am certain it was meant as a gateway cup.

I don't need a bridge but I'll take that free coffee. But that was a pretty funny post so maybe I'll settle for buying my own.

I get that Frappucino's, etc., are not health food. I get that there is an obesity problem out there. If you want to talk about obesity and causes, that's a great topic. What I'm really taking issue with here is the emphasis on one set of products that are not a significant portion of the nation's calories. Treating Starbucks as the problem, especially in such a sensationalist way, is a non-starter. It could be a small (very small) portion of the problem, but it has assets as well. More likely the obesity culprits are fast food, convenience foods and lack of activity (as many here have noted). These in turn stem from skilled advertising and a tremendous time crunch on the part of families, with a declining interest in everyday cooking, along with increased availablity of sedentary activities such as TV and computer use, and parents who don't feel comfortable throwing their kids outside until dinnertime (like mine did). I just don't see beating up on Starbucks under these circumstances.

Second thought: I also am convinced that overall obesity does have a public health cost, although not every obese person adds to it. However, this is important primarily for public health issues, such as obtaining support for restrictions on smoking or (I wish) a ban on fast-food advertising during Saturday morning cartoons. If we gang up on every obese person for increasing "our" health costs, I see a slippery slope ahead. I better not catch you hanging out in the same room with a smoker getting secondhand smoke! I better not catch you out in the sun without sufficient sunscreen, risking skin cancer! I better not find out you've been having sex without a condom unless you can show me two negative AIDS tests! I better not catch you drinking non-organic milk! Anyway, you get the idea...if you value your own privacy and freedom, it's best to respect that of others and yes you can do that while acknowledging that the other person is taking a risk.

It seems to me that the primary responsibility for this situation lies with the doctor, if indeed LW was a poor candidate for the surgery. That's supposed to be the DOCTOR'S job; otherwise a technician could do it. While it would have been optimal had the LW learned more ahead of time, he or she reasonably expected the doctor to identify surgical risk factors. It wasn't the friend's job to screen the LW's candidacy and he probably didn't know that screening was in order. The friend may have heard from others how great the surgery is (I hear it all the time but I'm not a good candidate either) and reasonably thought that even if I can't live without glasses, I wish my friend could.

Being mad at the friend without telling him is a little passive-aggressive. The friend needs to know, if only because well, he's a friend. Also it's useful to spread the word about a bad experience so everyone else doesn't hear only glowing stories. So I agree that the LW should check out "improvement" surgeries, find out more about whether the symptoms might still subside, and pursue this with his/her doctor rather than secretly rage at the friend. And remember, the LW still sees better than Stevie Wonder.

"She's beating you up verbal-ninja style. She's ripping you to shreds with razor blades of icy sisterhood."

Uh, no, she's being a catty bitch. The stuff about jealousy and blame is true, though.

"WE" women don't do this to each other. Immature women (and men) do this to each other (anyone remember middle school?) because it gives them a sense of power. It is up to the LW to let the ex have the power or not.

I would say NO to the carpool. The LW doesn't have to prove herself to the ex or anyone else, and I am sure the BF would be happier not to hear two women exchanging tense remarks leading to veiled (or not) insults. As for putting the LW down in public, do those nearby chime in, do they grin, or do they have that "I'm not looking at that train wreck" expression? If the latter, the LW is doing all she needs to do. Otherwise, a well-placed expressionless "Whatever" or a quizzical "Why do you say that?" should put her on the spot...and in a way that makes clear she's in that spot of her own doing. The problem with coming up with bitchy retorts is that the whole situation will spiral downward and they never sound as good as they do in your brain anyway.

The ex doesn't like LW? Nowhere is it written that everyone must like you for you to be a good person. If the thought of the ex's disdain bothers the LW, she should practice following each said thought with the words, said slowly "So. Fucking. What?"