You wrote:

The flip side is that raising animals in the outdoors and letting them graze would rid the world of the horrors of factory farming, (though the horrors of slaughterhouses would continue), but this would raise the price of meat to what it really ought to be if we cared about raising animals in a humane and sustainable fashion, i.e., a price which many people would not be willing to pay, which would be a good thing if that was there only alternative.

-------------------------

I agree... except that grazing animals outdoors on natural land means a helluva lot of environmental devastation. We've tried that already. Take a drive sometime through the fragile high desert landscape of eastern Oregon, southern Idaho, and much of the mountain west. Nearly every inch of what you see (unless it's in a national park) has been grazed and overgrazed by generations of beef cattle. Cows are a non-native invasive species. They destroy natural grasses, they trample streams and banks, destroying salmon and trout habitat, they're an environmental disaster on four legs. Go to any ranch town and mention "The Nature Conservancy" and watch your head get blown off by an angry rancher with a shotgun.

I agree with your premise, if we only had natural, grass-fed beef, the price would skyrocket. But be careful what you wish for. If we had natural, grass-fed, environmentally sustainable beef, that skyrocketed price would go even higher.

I wish I could remember where I read this article. Kinda the same question. Could you feed a major metropolitan area like NYC with local agriculture?

Some farm scientists decided yes, they could, but surprisingly it wasn't all vegetarian. It was (I think) a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet. Animal proteins (dairy and eggs) provide a lot of calories compared to the space required to keep the animals alive. They couldn't do it (feed NYC with NY State) on a pure vegan diet, there isn't enough space in NY State for all the grain crops they'd need. But if you add in eggs and dairy, it can be done.

Keep in mind this was all theoretical. I wish I could find the link.

I would really, really like a hybrid minivan. Carpooling saves gas, if I can co-operate with other families when schlepping kids to their proverbial soccer practice (day camp, violin lessons, Girl Scout field trips, swimming lessons, etc.). So far, the Toyota hybrid minivan is only available in Japan.

Hybrids are great. But I can't put a kid in the front seat, which only leaves space in the back for my two and one other. I don't need a Chevrolet Valdez SUV, but I do need more space. I hope that Toyota and other automakers will begin to adapt hybrid technology to other models of cars.

OK, here's my opinion... and I know everyone's got one.

I have a child who takes a psychiatric medication. Here's my take.

We tried LOTS of things first. We did family counseling. We changed schools. We eliminated sugar. We eliminated milk and lots of other common allergens. We did behavioral therapy. We did a lot of stuff. All with no effect. Finally, we decided to try the medication our pediatrician suggested, with an open mind. If it helps, great. If it doesn't, we can always quit.

It helped. Tremendously. It took some trial and error, a lot of co-operation with the teacher at school, daily monitoring for side-effects, but the effect was wonderful.

I don't often mention it to people I don't know well, because every piece of yellow journalism will tell you that Too Many Kids Are Being Medicated Today, Isn't It Awful?

No. It's not awful. For us, it's a lifesaver, for our family sanity and for our son. With his meds, he can go to school, participate in sports, have friends, go to day camp, generally have a childhood that would be very, very different without meds. He can do things like take a two-hour ski lesson and not have a meltdown, or do some ridiculous stunt and injure himself. He can walk to a friend's house in the neighborhood and not get lost and forget where he was going.

I have never met a parent who uses any psychiatric medication for their child lightly, or who didn't try everything else first. For us, now, I see my son's medication the same way I see insulin for a diabetic child, or glasses, or a hearing aid, or orthopedic shoes. It's what he needs to get along in the world.

Turn that whole medication thing around, and substitute another common solution to a problem.

"I don't believe in glasses. They're a crutch. Once you start using glasses, your eyes get even weaker, and you'll need them even more. If you wear glasses, you'll never be able to go without them. You just need to learn to deal with the world how it is, and not look for an artificial solution to the problem. Too many people are wearing glasses these days. Look at all those kids in glasses. What a shame. Kids just didn't wear glasses so much in my day."

I'm not saying that medication is the be-all end-all, or even that it's necessarily the solution to the LW's son's problems. But it could be part of a solution, and to rule it out without trying it is being narrow-minded, and possibly detrimental to the child's mental health.