The interview itself is interesting, if brief. But was it necessary for Lauerman to denigrate both the scene and the artist? Her comments are neither accurate nor fair.

Specifically: That two-hour alternative-music showcase mostly featured a smattering of bad pre-grunge, indie-band videos -- gloomy guitar pop for college kids craving authenticity.

Fact: 120 Minutes was on from 1986-2000, and 2001-2003. When Blake Babies debuted on it, it was half a decade old. And it did not feature "bad pre-grunge" -- it featured bands such as Husker Du, the Cure, World Party, Julian Cope, the Church, Blur, New Order, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Robyn Hitchcock, Bjork, Madness, the Replacements, the Ramones, Radiohead, and more. In other words, it provided an essential introduction to a form of rock that at that time wasn't particularly prevalent on the radio, most of which had its roots in various non-mainstream movements such as punk, ska, and new wave. In B and C markets like the one I grew up in, it was the only major media outlet featuring such music. Second, it's clear that Lauerman is unfamiliar with and dismissive of the scene, but she isn't much more generous to her subject. Hatfield wasn't any more of an "it girl" than Justine Frischmann, Bjork, Courtney Love, Natalie Merchant, Liz Phair, or Tanya Donnelly -- they all made a lot of money and got a lot of recognition in the 90s, with or without cute gimmicks.

Hatfield was and is a somewhat unique and reedy female voice, who is determined to continue a left-of-mainstream career despite the challenges of doing so. Why isn't that the story we get? Instead we meet Hatfield, looking cute, playing with crayons and bubblegum and apparently wielding indie popo to take the artistically-bankrupt indie world by semi-storm. That story is an insult to both Hatfield and the environment in which her career was and is made.

Interesting article, but it greatly simplifies the reasons why one might choose to eat local. In my case, the carbon footprint is one of the last reasons I care about local. Far more compelling, to me, is:

1. Supporting local farmers. Keeping the local economy going. Helping maintain our historic farmsteads.

2. Keeping a decentralized food system viable, such that we're less vulnerable to food-safety issues that result from monocultures and streamlined supply chains.

3. Better farming practices. Better for the planet.

4. Tastier food -- a lot of foods available locally aren't going to be available long-distance because they're not meant to withstand lengthy periods of transport. Plus, ripe fruits rather than gas-"ripened" fruits. And so on.

Also, I question the author's calculations. What is "local"? My "local" comes from a farm 10 miles from my house -- and 4 households combine our weekly pickup. My eggs come from across the street.

Why, exactly, are you running this drivel?

I have a farm with a dozen horses, both mine and boarders, and some are CANTER retirees. The plight of the racing horse is a sad one, indeed. Racers are raced at a time when their bones haven't fused and when most equine athletes in other sports are either still maturing or being trained very gently so as not to compromise their growth and future performance. But the racing horse, already designed precariously, isn't mentally or physically mature, and it's being run hard. This alone would be pretty sad, because it is the root cause of the injuries.

Consider, however, the future of the racing horse. More or less all of them are retired by age 6, and they are neurotic wrecks, on average. The good news is that, physically, a horse that has raced successfully for 4 years is pretty sturdy. The bad news, however, is that almost none of them have been properly socialized or trained in a way that allows them to be directly repurposed by pleasure riders. So their chances for a second career are pretty remote, particularly when you consider that most 6 year-old horses who haven't raced are typically at their peak. So a lot of retired racers end up at slaughter.

Speaking of slaughter, a lot of horses are bred and don't ever make it to the race track at all. Those lack the right conformation, have the wrong temperament, or are merely not competitive enough, and they are sold as fillies and foals to slaughter to save their owners the cost of raising them or rehoming them responsibly.

The sport of horse racing comes at considerable cost to the animals, and most of the impacts can be addressed merely by not planning to raise disposable animals solely for spectacle. Meanwhile, this sport deserves no defense regarding the cost of doing business, which is the horses' lives.

Oh, and it's really classy to blame modern audiences for being shocked when an animal dies. I operate a farm, and I participate in a variety of equine sports, and I've never seen it myself. Which is because other equine sports aren't predicated on the deaths of their participants.

The mothers are both victims themselves and abusers. If we were talking about any individual who was known to have provided sexual access to her child, then she would be separated from her child and allowed only supervised visitation until such time as the child services system could ascertain that the children would be safe going forward. Why should it be different when there are 400 children?