![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, my weekend is going all tepid on me.
I'm such a lazy ass, really. I'm supposed to be at an event, making money. I haven't missed this event in, like, fifteen years, so I feel all guilty about not being there. Plus, the money would be nice right about now (considering I'm going to be spending six hundred bucks on a bicycle in a couple of days).
See, the weather in Western PA simply sucks this weekend (I checked on The Weather Channel). It's cold and raining and windy and generally blech...and this is a three-day outdoor thing and I just KNOW that if I'd gone this minor nagging sore throat I have now would become full-blown bronchitis. So I was a wimp and stayed home and sent some stuff off with another exhibitor who I HOPE has good luck with it.
*sigh* I'm getting old.
See, the weather in Western PA simply sucks this weekend (I checked on The Weather Channel). It's cold and raining and windy and generally blech...and this is a three-day outdoor thing and I just KNOW that if I'd gone this minor nagging sore throat I have now would become full-blown bronchitis. So I was a wimp and stayed home and sent some stuff off with another exhibitor who I HOPE has good luck with it.
*sigh* I'm getting old.
Nice thing: I went to see "The DaVinci Code" with Greg...and I really liked it! The book was so poorly written I was unable to get beyond the first few chapters. Awkward phrasing, crappy grammer, stilted contrived dialog...it's a pet peeve of mine, I just will not read badly executed novels! They hurt my brain.
BUT, as a movie, it was quite good. In fact, I can almost say I loved it. The most infuriating thing about the book was that the premise and the plot were excellent, and in the hands of a real writer it would have been an awesome novel. The movie, at least, retained the good qualities of the story and did away with all the stilted awfulness, so I enjoyed it thoroughly. Tom Hanks, by the way, was really well-cast (and he looked really good! Kinda yum.).
I suspect the lousy reviews I've been seeing/reading in the media have less to do with the actual merits of the movie and more to do with these crazy neo-con ultra religious new Dark Ages times we're living in. I think no one is willing to commit political/social suicide by giving this movie a fair review, because of the controversy.
All I know is, someone from the Times (I think) dismissed the movie because it was "too long, had too much dialog, a convoluted plot, and not enough action..." (something like that). I saw that as a ringing endorsement.
BUT, as a movie, it was quite good. In fact, I can almost say I loved it. The most infuriating thing about the book was that the premise and the plot were excellent, and in the hands of a real writer it would have been an awesome novel. The movie, at least, retained the good qualities of the story and did away with all the stilted awfulness, so I enjoyed it thoroughly. Tom Hanks, by the way, was really well-cast (and he looked really good! Kinda yum.).
I suspect the lousy reviews I've been seeing/reading in the media have less to do with the actual merits of the movie and more to do with these crazy neo-con ultra religious new Dark Ages times we're living in. I think no one is willing to commit political/social suicide by giving this movie a fair review, because of the controversy.
All I know is, someone from the Times (I think) dismissed the movie because it was "too long, had too much dialog, a convoluted plot, and not enough action..." (something like that). I saw that as a ringing endorsement.
Horribly sad thing: Barbaro in the Preakness. :-(
When I saw that horse flying away from the field in the Derby, I said to myself "that poor animal is going to be killed by the handicapper at Pimlico,". I hate it when I'm right.
That colt was unbeaten and carried 1-2 odds (HUGE favorite to win). The track hates to lose money. The handicapper's job is to even out the field. A promising, fast horse that is favored to win gets heavily weighted down (lead weights in the saddle) in an attempt to slow him. What it actually does, more often than not, is break him down.
No one has been talking about what Barbaro's handicap was for the Preakness. I'm willing to bet it was a good deal higher than what he carried in the Derby. I hope that handicapper can't sleep tonight.
The thing is, I used to LOVE watching horse races; it was something my Dad and I did together. He used to marvel at the way I could pick a winner, even when I was just a little kid. I used to read all the newspaper articles and follow the horses' stats...I knew who was fast on a wet track, who was good over long distances, and I also followed the weights. I could tell when a fast horse was done winning when its handicap got too big.
Now that I'm older, though, the cruelty of it all breaks my heart. Mature thoroughbreds are not really built for speed; they're huge horses, heavily muscled and too large to sustain a fast pace. Baby thoroughbreds, however, are still light in build and not so muscled that they're heavy, and with height and long legs. The horses that run the triple crown are all babies...young animals not quite 3 years old. Most horses aren't asked to carry an adult rider until they're about 4. Lippezanners aren't even broken until they are eight! Anyone who knows horses knows that to break and ride a horse too early is to guarantee a breakdown.
And yet these poor babies are running at breakneck speeds carrying weights equal to that of a large man (Ruffian was carrying 220 lbs, more than any other filly had, when she broke her leg)...it's no wonder the poor things break their legs.
They call horse racing "the sport of kings". I'm not surprised. Flaunting wealth is all about conspicuous consumption. Just as royalty used to wear yards and yards of expensive fabric and rare furs and gold, in a time when those things were hard to come by, so do wealthy people risk valuable animals in a public display of callous waste.
So now Barbaro joins a long list of racetrack casualties inflicted in the name of "sport". When I saw that beautiful animal falter and saw his pastern flopping loosely, it made me cry. I had to turn away. I just hope they can save him. I think his owners have some culpability; it's uncommon but owners can and do refuse to race their horses if they think the weights are too high. I'm no PETA bunny-hugger, but I swear I wish there could be some kind of penalty or fine leveled at racetracks that break down the most talented horses. It's cruel and wastful and it ought to stop. I sure as heck did not enjoy seeing that colt crippled on live TV. It ranks right up there with bull fighting, as far as I can see. Barbaric.
When I saw that horse flying away from the field in the Derby, I said to myself "that poor animal is going to be killed by the handicapper at Pimlico,". I hate it when I'm right.
That colt was unbeaten and carried 1-2 odds (HUGE favorite to win). The track hates to lose money. The handicapper's job is to even out the field. A promising, fast horse that is favored to win gets heavily weighted down (lead weights in the saddle) in an attempt to slow him. What it actually does, more often than not, is break him down.
No one has been talking about what Barbaro's handicap was for the Preakness. I'm willing to bet it was a good deal higher than what he carried in the Derby. I hope that handicapper can't sleep tonight.
The thing is, I used to LOVE watching horse races; it was something my Dad and I did together. He used to marvel at the way I could pick a winner, even when I was just a little kid. I used to read all the newspaper articles and follow the horses' stats...I knew who was fast on a wet track, who was good over long distances, and I also followed the weights. I could tell when a fast horse was done winning when its handicap got too big.
Now that I'm older, though, the cruelty of it all breaks my heart. Mature thoroughbreds are not really built for speed; they're huge horses, heavily muscled and too large to sustain a fast pace. Baby thoroughbreds, however, are still light in build and not so muscled that they're heavy, and with height and long legs. The horses that run the triple crown are all babies...young animals not quite 3 years old. Most horses aren't asked to carry an adult rider until they're about 4. Lippezanners aren't even broken until they are eight! Anyone who knows horses knows that to break and ride a horse too early is to guarantee a breakdown.
And yet these poor babies are running at breakneck speeds carrying weights equal to that of a large man (Ruffian was carrying 220 lbs, more than any other filly had, when she broke her leg)...it's no wonder the poor things break their legs.
They call horse racing "the sport of kings". I'm not surprised. Flaunting wealth is all about conspicuous consumption. Just as royalty used to wear yards and yards of expensive fabric and rare furs and gold, in a time when those things were hard to come by, so do wealthy people risk valuable animals in a public display of callous waste.
So now Barbaro joins a long list of racetrack casualties inflicted in the name of "sport". When I saw that beautiful animal falter and saw his pastern flopping loosely, it made me cry. I had to turn away. I just hope they can save him. I think his owners have some culpability; it's uncommon but owners can and do refuse to race their horses if they think the weights are too high. I'm no PETA bunny-hugger, but I swear I wish there could be some kind of penalty or fine leveled at racetracks that break down the most talented horses. It's cruel and wastful and it ought to stop. I sure as heck did not enjoy seeing that colt crippled on live TV. It ranks right up there with bull fighting, as far as I can see. Barbaric.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I don't even GET this handicapping business. So one horse is faster. Then it DESERVES TO WIN. I can understand adjusting weight due to the varying weights of the jockeys, but that's it. When PEOPLE run a race, the fastest one wins, and that is that. We don't chop an inch off his legs because they're unfairly long, or make him carry a ten pound pack because he was faster last time and needs to be slowed down to see if he can still beat everyone else even with his strength evened out. We win races BECAUSE we are stronger, or have longer legs, or train more, or whatever the heck makes things faster. What is the point in taking those advantages away? If you even everything out exactly, you're always going to have ties, it's kind of inevitable.
I'm just saying...I don't get it. If the horse is fast, it wins, and to me, that's the only thing that makes sense.
From:
no subject
Think of the racetrack as a casino, because that's what it really is. A naturally amazing, fast horse is like a poker deck stacked with aces. The handicapper is the guy who removes those aces. Except a horse is flesh and blood, not a deck of cards, so to remove his advantage he gets weights piled on. This is why we haven't seen triple crown winners at all (and when we do they're broken down by the end of their 3rd year).
The track ~hates~ a favorite, you see, because even though the odds drop (and so does the payout) it's still bad for the track/casino because ~everyone~ bets on a favorite and (if he's not slowed or broken) everyone wins. It's all about the track trying to avoid big payouts.
So the cruelty of it all has me feeling ill. It's bad enough that these are babies that shouldn't be running in the first place...but then to intentionally cripple them...! It's freaking evil.
From:
no subject
By the way, did you see the note I left you in my journal about your art and Ellen Datlow's reaction to it?
From:
no subject
AND...no! I missed your post because for some reason my LJ F-list is being obtuse (I keep getting my friends' posts from 4 days ago...maybe something's off with my clock...?).
So I will go check right now! :-)
From:
no subject
*hops off soap box*
Wow, haven't done that in awhile... :P
My friend wanted me to read the DaVinci Code, but all the hype turned me off. Everytime a book is raved about it usually sucks.
From:
no subject
I highly recommend the movie. The book was clumsy and badly written, but the plot was excellent. It's a far better movie than it is a book.
And Tom Hanks...I dunno! Something about him as a bookish professor-type with longish hair...it made me all woogy in the knees. ;-)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I still think she would have won. She was pulling away. :-(
Anyway, I came across this very interesting article from an online issue of the Cincinnati Enquirer. Dates back to 2004 but it's very timely and really something to think about.
From:
Barbaro
From:
Re: Barbaro
Ack. The older I get, the less I like seeing this kind of stupidity and greed. It makes me feel like an old fart, but I can't help getting jaded. :-/
From:
Re: Barbaro