Dress your kids in whatever you want. But, when it comes to any kind of political event or protest, leave them at home. I think that any event, where there are lots of people who are passionate enough to show up, has the potential to get ugly, and kids don't need to be in the middle of that. So, whether it's an anti-abortion rally or a NOW march, leave the kids at home, wearing the appropriate t-shirt, of course.

As ambivalent as I am about Hillary, there is no denying this bit of history.

No. Acknowledgment of a pretty historic moment.

I'm sorry you're so bitter. And anonymous.

If Obama had made a reference to the oppression of people of African descent, it would have been just as compelling. And this woman would be disappointed if he were pilloried for that.

Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama. A woman and black man fighting it out to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Truly historic.

Why is that so hard to deal with?

To talk about how much he hates vaginas! (Although, admittedly, he softens the blow a bit by referring, oh so discreetly, to what's "in her pants".)

We may very well let a one-term MALE senator be president. And his name might be Barack Obama.

Apparently, women aren't allowed to talk about being women, and black men aren't allowed to talk about being black, in the old white male club that is Washington, DC. It's just pandering.

I need that, posting in here.

"Plurality of Vaginas". I really like that imagery. It would make a good band name.

I'm sure that I can read something nefarious into each one of images of the candidates that will expose Salon's hidden agenda!

Hillary: Looks like she has cheek implants, and she has stray hairs!

Obama: Not smiling enough, and you gave him big ears!

McCain: Looks like he's constipated, and one eye is smaller than the other!

Romney: All eyebrows and chin!

Huckabee: He looks like a total goober! (OK, that's what he really looks like.)

Time to come clean, Salon!

I'm glad I read the Slate article linked to in this piece. I had a laugh when the author's vet recommended a visit to the veterinary cardiologist when a heart murmur was detected, even though the author's own child has a heart murmur, and no such visits to the cardiologist are recommended.

When I had one of my cats in for a skin condition (which I am treating fairly successfully and expensively with medication), the vet told me he detected a heart murmur, and that it could be treated. I told him that I wouldn't be treating that condition, unless he could tell me that it was causing her some discomfort. I've got a heart murmur myself, and it's something that my doctor notes, and says nothing further about.

One of my other cats developed cystitis right before we had to leave town for Christmas. I couldn't treat her at home, so she stayed in the hospital while we were gone. I paid hundreds for that, and I don't regret it. She's young and hadn't had any health problems before, so I knew it was the right thing to do. I am taking steps to try and prevent it from developing again.

On the other hand, I lost my most beloved cat a few years ago to CRF. By the time they can even diagnose CRF, the great majority of a cat's kidney function is gone, and it cannot be reversed. We went through the torture (for us and the cat) of giving subQ fluids. He did not tolerate it well, and it was only a palliative measure, at best. (Plus the fact that I later found out that the fluids and needles could be purchased for astoundingly less money online than what my vet was charging me.) We ended up putting him in the hospital at the end and spending well over $1,000, only to have to have him euthanized a few days later. Knowing what I know now, I would not do that again. I'm not sure why I let them talk us into hospitalizing a terminal cat. The only one who benefited from that episode was the vet and his practice.

I guess what I'm saying is that the decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Even if you have the money, that does not mean you are required to spend it, especially if the condition is terminal.

And who can make that judgment for anyone else?

So, if you can't afford $3,000, or $5,000, or $8,000 for an emergency procedure that you can't predict will be needed, you shouldn't have a pet? If that's the case, I'm pretty sure that the shelters will be even more overburdened than they are now. I certainly wouldn't have any pets if such a standard was a requirement.

The judgmentalism around here is disheartening, but not really surprising. So many instances of, "Well, this is the way I did it, so what's wrong with you?" I'm really waiting for someone to tell our last anonymous poster that, with a sick dog, he really had a lot of nerve to get married and start a family.

I must admit to responding more to the people who have written letters about this article than to the article itself. The letters sections often tend to take on lives of their own, I think.

As far as the author comparing medical treatment to doggie sweaters, I didn't really see it like that. It seemed to me she might have been worried about being judged for spending that amount on an animal for any purpose. (And, with people like "GoBucks" writing in, it looks like that wasn't an irrational worry.) Seems like the judgment comes in from all sides.

Can someone please tell me what "afford" means in this context?