Thank you, that's valuable to reprise 'risk vs benefit' and that animals cannot always be made to rest. You are with many others agreeing for once with PETA. Very much appreciate your expertise.

dr.e

Dr. E: From the little bit that I skimmed yesterday, I'd say I'm in agreement with what was written about the racehorse industry. In fact from just a casual reading, I think this may be one of the rare times that I completely agree with PETA. The drug and painkiller issue is a tough one because as a veterinarian we often have to weigh the benefits of such treatments against the fact that animals themselves can't understand the need to rest or restrict their own activity. And of course, when the animal's owner feels that he can ignore that advice as well, and either neglects or purposely contradicts it, then the results from the animal are disastrous. But it makes for a difficult ethical position for veterinarians- withhold pain medication, which is obviously inhumane in some cases, or know that by prescribing it you risk the animal's health and welfare as well if the owner or handler will not follow medical advice?

With regard to co-presidencies. I am not certain, but I have never seen this high a profile in the spouses of those running for office; it's not just the density of spousal appearancees; it's the pressured speech tone, the body language of the spouses, the words as well; each is clearly a perons in their own right, not a 'honey you be the star, i'll be the audience' kind of person/people/ presentation

I dont believe I'd like co-presidents, and I meant the term a little tongue in cheek, but i do see 'broad daylight' displays of the spouses speaking like, talking like , as though…. in ways that heretofore have often also gone on, but way way behind the scenes

I also know, as do you and many others, that there are all kinds of spouses of people in high office; truly shy and reitring ones, ones that have NO interest in their mate's political ambitions, ones who 'put up with it all, and try to hold a semblance of family life for small children, and are seldom seen on the road or in anything having to do with the Presidency. But also, there are those who are every bit as aimed toard having that presidency as their mate is. And sometimes, even more than their mate

I think Mrs. McCain is less so, but Mr Bill and Miss Michelle are right out there running hard. One way perhaps to weigh this, is take away Barack, take away Hillary… would their spouses still have an electorate audience? I muse, perhaps so.

dr.e

For me, it has nothing to do with wanting women to assume a subservient role; if a woman is qualified for the office, let her get elected. Same for a man whose spouse is qualified- but if he isn't the one running, he shouldn't be considered to be a policy maker in any way.

Of course there is and has always been pillow talk and always will be- but that's different. Ultimately the decisions are made by the one who was voted into office- any personal relationships may influence that (and marriage partners certainly usually do have some influence) but that's different than saying that the spouse has earned a seat at the cabinet meetings or in directly shaping policy.