Columnist fires back
November 27, 2007
It pains me to reply to column comments, but by so disingenuously trying to include me in his ilk of propagandists and “spinners,” John Holland (“Here to defend the indefensible,” Nov. 24, 2007) has irresponsibly disparaged my friend in southeastern Colorado, who is fighting a losing battle with lung cancer. My “pathetic” friend, who will soon no longer exist, would no doubt be jubilant to discover that his lung cancer is fictional (according to Mr. Holland), but unlike folks in Virginia, we’re forced to live with reality here in Colorado.
I’d like to debate the rest of Mr. Holland’s column, but such fraudulent accusations toward my friend lead me to believe Holland’s credibility is flimsy, if not irrational. However, I do give Holland credit for understanding the point that it might be more merciful for horses to be killed at home rather than somewhere else. Sadly, he totally missed the larger, glaring significance of my column that there needs to be viable options for horses that are no longer wanted, needed, or affordable. By beating the drum of mindless zealousness so hard, Holland precludes intelligent discussion of alternatives for the majestic beasts we all fervently love so much.