Making the best of things

Vacations? What are these things you call 'vacations?'

I joke, but I've been having some discussions recently regarding traveling with kids. My son is not a good traveler and lately, as my husband and I have considered planning trips and vacations, I've been hesitant to attempt going long distances with a cranky toddler in tow.

It seems like most people's advice to me is, "Just go, they'll get used to it." And I do understand that point. But I still have reservations. Even though he's probably not, I often feel like my son is the exception to the rule. He's smart enough, but also very headstrong. If he truly doesn't like something -- like long car rides -- he does not just get used to it after a while; rather, he gets pissed. He tries to change it, and when he can't he gets frustrated, which makes him more angry. Even though he is only 19 months old, he does not just accept things he doesn't like and move on. I can relate. I'm the same way.

The thing is, I feel like I'm somehow strange for not wanting to put my child through a 12-hour road trip. It's not that I'm trying to shelter him or letting his wants rule my life. But travel is stressful, even for me, a 27-year-old adult. I guess I just don't see any point in making my son travel long distances when he's not ready for it.

There is no place I have to go to or people I have to see. Our immediate families are welcome to visit us anytime, and they do, and often. My close friends will still be friends no matter how often I see them. And finally, I don't see much point in taking a family vacation that my child won't even remember.

I think what makes me feel like an exception to the rule, though, is that I'm totally OK with this. I can wait. We'll get our time to travel. We'll get family vacations. I feel like so many people these days want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want the job, the house, the kids, the new car ... they also want the free time, the nights out, the friends, the active social life. But it doesn't always work that way, especially when you live hundreds of miles away from family and friends.

My husband and I don't have "date night." If we have days or nights out, we do it separately. We have no family and very few friends here (friendships take time to develop), so there's no free babysitting at our disposal. And for that matter, I've yet to find or hear of a sitter for hire that I would trust with my child's care. But you know what? It's all fine. I was willing to give up free time and nights out when we decided to have a child.

We have good neighbors who would watch our son in an emergency. If we want to go out to dinner once in a while, we can take our son along. Until he adjusts to traveling, we can try going to some closer-to-home parks and attractions. Or maybe try camping. When it's just the three of you, you learn to stick together and make the best of what you've got.

For now, that's enough for me.

In defense of agriculture

I recently returned from a three-day editorial meeting for the magazine I work for. Since it's an agriculture magazine, there of course was a lot of talk about what's going on in the industry these days. As someone who grew up on a farm, but is still learning much about the ag industry, I came away from the meeting with quite a few things to think about.

And, I've come to at least one conclusion: No matter what others might say, large-scale producers -- "big ag" if you will -- is a vital part of our economy and our world.

A major concern in the ag industry these days has been how consumers -- the general public -- view agriculture. There has been some media attention lately on "big ag" and the supposed evils that are associated with it: Genetically modified seeds, herbicide and fungicide use, pollution created during production, animal welfare issues and of course, the idea that big ag is merely out to overtake the family farm.

These are all legitimate concerns, and all worthy of discussion. However, the ag community is often attacked from many sides, and has a difficult time communicating what it does and defending itself. The problem isn't that farmers aren't able to defend themselves. Many could argue their side, using facts and science, until you were put straight as a ruler. The problem is that the general public -- and those doing the attacking -- has become so far removed from the farm that they usually know little, if anything, about how agriculture actually works. It's a pretty big task to not only defend yourself, but also educate your opponent from the ground up.

The situation is what it is, however, and I'm confident that ag will pull through. What bothers me most is this: These know-nothings who like to vilify big ag seem to ignore the big picture. The fact is that without big ag, people in our nation and across the world would starve. America's population alone is expected to reach 9 billion over the next few years; new acreage for raising crops is dwindling. How do we feed an expanding population under these circumstances? We can't turn the clock back on farming when there are more people demanding food.

Of course, I'm not saying that there's no place for the small farming operation. In fact, many smaller operations have managed to find niche markets that big ag just can't fulfill. There's room in our nation for all farmers. Big, small, it doesn't matter.

In order to feed the world, we need all the help we can get.