Now I really, really dislike PETA, but in this case I think they are correct that something is fundamentally wrong here. I don’t know if the jockey is to blame. But something has to change.

But go over to the Fox blog and you’ll see all the usual blog crap: the good old straw dog arguments (how can you care about horses when people are dying in Darfur), a real lack of respect for animals (hey, the Indians ran their horses into the ground, so this isn’t so bad), a twisted idea of ‘sport’ (they were born to run, she died because she wanted to).

IN answer to a blogger who said that 3 year old horses are plenty old to race, I actually had the unmitigated gall to post a short time line of when a horses bone plates fuse and was promptly (and probably correctly)told - hey no ones going to take the time to read that!

And that’s the problem. People are so intent at yelling at each other on these blogs and making sure their position prevails that there is no room for exchange of ideas and learning.

I’ve learned so much from this blog and Dr. K’s blog (and Itchmo and others)about animals. - but that’s why I’m here. To share ideas and learn.

That blog “jumped the shark” months ago. The Obamanuts don’t have a clue how horribly divisive THEY are, and how much they are damaging Obama himself, who deserves far better.

Anyway, to the subject at hand: the rationale “we wouldn’t have thoroughbreds if we didn’t have horseracing” is something that really doesn’t fly anymore. It’s exactly what the supporters of oldtime “dogmen” say: we wouldn’t have the great American Pit Bull Terrier breed if there hadn’t been dogfighting (and some look the other way at CURRENT dogfighting).

Horse racing can only be supported in today’s society when it no longer involves the (apparently) routine maiming and killing of the animals involved. If the powers of horseracing cant/wont change the sport, then it SHOULD go the way of dogfighting.

I agree that addressing the issues as outlined above by pushing to make them illegal creates a red herring and makes actually effecting change less likely. You are quite right. It is paralyzing and does preserve the status quo. I have some more thinking to do on the topic.

Do you feel the same way about greyhound racing as horse racing, ie, reform, not elimination? Because I don’t think that there is any real movement to ban horse racing, but there is, I believe, for dog racing. Is there a class aspect operating here, do you think? Along with the cultural history (no greyhound equivalent of Seabiscuit)and the amounts of money changing hands? Interested in your thoughts as you undoubtedly have more first hand knowledge of both than me.

By the way, this is almost the only blog that is a daily must-read for me and it’s because of the quality of writing and thought that you, Gina and the other regulars express on a topic very dear to me- animals and their humane treatment.

Eight Belles, rest in peace.

Take a situation.

Look at the upstream flow, and decide if and how it’s contributing to the problem, and if there’s an earlier point that is more rational to focus on than the one in front of you. There are many parts to that decision, including the likelihood that one point in the “flow” will be easier or harder to target, or more “PR friendly,” or whatever.

Then make a rational decision about where and how to start trying to effect change and stick to that point unless and until circumstances change (such as you’re successful and can move up or down the stream, yay!).

The question of whether reform is better than abolishment of something isn’t “one size fits all.” Some things are by their nature in need of abolishment. Others may or may not be liked by some people, but it’s completely impractical and often oppressive to try to eradicate those practices — eating meat, which is never going to be “eradicated” no matter how much radical vegans would like it to be is an example.

Do we simply not even try to pass laws mandating more humane handling of livestock because we don’t believe in eating meat? Wow, way to go! That’ll help the animals! (By the way, that’s a hypothetical “we”; I eat meat.)

On the other hand, are we simply trying to put lipstick on a pig and assuage people’s sense of guilt by passing stupid “feel good” legislation that covers up something that is still tragic and wrong? (I’m deliberately not using an example here because I can’t think of one that won’t create wank.)

These things are somewhat subjective but they’re far less subjective than we often seem to believe. This is a rational process of analysis, and zooming all the way out the question you pose — asking if we should bother trying to help race horses if there are animals suffering out of sight somewhere else in some other industry — does nothing but make us feel overwhelmed and paralyzed, or, in the case of the extremists you mentioned, ends up diverting those resources to some ridiculous and unpopular efforts that ignore the suffering on the ground in the name of some principle or worse, PR message.

I’ll allow you to decide what my example is there on your own.

When that happens, the status quo wins. Because we either do nothing, or get sidetracked by more philisophical issues that will never be resolved, and diverted from anything resembling action.

My personal evaluation is that racing is not in and of itself the problem, but the racing industry needs serious reform. Fighting to eliminate it would require the eradication of a tradition that’s very important, both personally and financially, to a lot of people, and would also eliminate a very important piece of our history. It would also be a gross infringement on people’s individual freedom, and frankly, I think it would be bad for a lot of horses.

Reform of racing, on the other hand, would preserve those things, cause some shakeups and financial hardship in the short run, and potentially save racing in the long run, and help horses.

Seems kind of like a no-brainer to me, really.

My only real hesitation at this point is that I’m not about to slide down the PETA “one generation and out” slippery slope. Which then means that the question is where the line is drawn. Pick your point.

For instance, do we outlaw horse racing to keep beautiful animals from being literally run to death while still allowing gruesome medical research on mice, dogs and chimps because it happens out of sight and there is an ostensibly overwhelming human benefit?

Just askin’.

However, I have to mention my disappointment over Senator Clinton’s choice to gamble on a race horse.

I’m having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around the horrific, almost predictable loss of another horse to the same high-stakes arena we lost Barbaro to (and many other, less publicized cases since).

The gambling fuels the sport, for sure. Without it we’d never have the chance to view these creatures run the races we love. But in light of this and other too-common deaths, it certainly raises the question:

As animal lovers, should we support the sport at all?

My answer: Not until it taks a hard, honest look at itself and makes meaningful reforms.

Mark Halperin, you jerk, do you think that’s funny? Does Time have any editors? Hello?

http://thepage.time.com/2008/0.....e-this-up/