Early in the article it is said that the injured leg is suffering an inflammation -- that's inaccurate. The laminitis has occurred in the opposite rear foot. Laminitis can be crippling, but it's also manageable and horses aren't generally put down for it unless it's severe and/or chronic.

Barbaro's survival thus far is a matter of economics, as is his existence in the race world. If he were a gelding, he would already have been put down. Because there would be no value derived from an unraceable, pasture-sound gelding. But since Barbaro might be able to stand at stud, his existence is prolonged, at least for the present. However, the laminitis is an issue in particular for Barbaro because thoroughbreds must be able to "stand" at stud, meaning that they cannot inseminate via artifical means. Laminitis, combined with the original fracture, decreases the likelihood that Barbaro will be able to bear most of his 1200 pounds or so of weight on his hind legs long enough to lucratively inseminate numerous mares for the rest of 20+ years or so of life.

I hope Barbaro survives if he'll be able to have a good quality of life. However, as a horse owner, I dislike the humane aspects of racing and I think it's important to note what those aspect are.

Every year, thousands of potential racehorses are bred. Most of them don't see a pasture much at all once they reach training age, and instead spend most of their time in confinement when not racing or training. Before their bones are entirely formed and mature they are raced, which means that comparatively many of them break down. But even those who don't break down have the deck stacked against them. Each year thousands of washed up would-be racehorses are placed for sale in the private market, at disadvantage there because their training is not appropriate for the pleasure world and their handling has concentrated on speed rather than temperament -- many aren't mentally optimal. And of course many have physical issues from racing. Some significant portion of them end up going to slaughter.

As is noted in the article, this is just business for the horse racing industry. Fans should consider if they wish to support such a system.

The ideal breakdown from the perspective of an owner is a tragic one such as Go For Wand's. A short and lucrative career, a quick death, and an insurance payoff -- no expensive vet visits. Dead before the age of 4. Love has nothing to do with it.

I'm starting to think that the childfree, the childed, and the undecided will never really discover common ground, if only because there seems to be a certain segment of society which seems unable to comprehend a) why someone wouldn't have children and b) why someone would balk at being asked to subsidize other people's childbearing decisions, and c) which furthermore uses its reproductive status as a trump card over discussion of these issues.

Having worked in both service-type positions and executive-type positions, I think it's bullshit that the discussion is about children, but not about the general rights of workers and/or about how work can better accomodate worker privacy. In other words, if it's not o.k. for women at any level to have to pump in a communal bathroom, then it's also not o.k. for employees at any level to eat their dinners in outdoor slop areas which double as smoking stations or to have to leave their place of business to take a break.

Additionally, I get quite vexed by articles like this one which make hay over logistical issues which would create certain hardship for most smaller businesses if mandated and create difficulties in reusing historic resources. I'm pretty certain that the restaurant in which I toiled as an undergraduate would be hard pressed to provide me with a lactation room or even an employee bathroom. Not because they didn't want to care for their employees, but because they could not feasibly offer a premium like private space and continue to use their 200 year-old building.

And that is fundamentally why the mothers' entitlement faction will not get my support anytime soon -- because they make human rights a matter of reproductive status, rather than a matter of humanity, and at the same time disregard many of the practical implications of their desires.

There are many factors affecting the decision whether or not to have children. However, to pretend that having children is not a choice demeans the choice exercised by many women and fought for by many more. The decision, namely, to have or not have children when or when not optimal and the consequences entailed.

"The messiness of life" is a poor euphemism for failing to take personal responsibility for your actions.

Again, we all make choices. Some are constrained by circumstance, but that doesn't absolve us of responsibility nor place it onto the shoulders of others.

No Name, how about you start taking responsibility by signing your name to your post?

Q

Why not fake it? Or rather, why not enjoy it for what it is, rather than what it is not? I'd never suggest that women should never attain orgasm -- but would it really be the worst thing in the world to openly appreciate the openness, touch, sensuality, vulnerability, and more that come with a non-orgasmic sexual experience? These are all great things -- and they deserve great appreciation. This goes both ways -- the generously-minded husband is open to his wife's needs and desires, too.

As for anxiety, Weldon is right. Every time doesn't have to be perfect -- and to hold it to standards of perfection by creating a critical presence reduces the likelihood of it being so.

In other words, being generous and grateful is kind, period. And advantageous.

Damn, people, just enjoy sex with the person you're fortunate enough to share it with. Whatever it is or isn't. That's what I got from Fay Weldon's comments. How hard is that?