Amy Goodusky: The Horses Weigh In
I left a copy of the Law Tribune in the barn. I picked it up and looked at it idly. This was the reason: Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. Partnership had been discussed in elaborate detail in that issue. Although this column verges on dangerous anthropomorphism, here is a meditation about what the horses would say about the case. We join them over a flake of hay.
Timmy: No fair hogging the paper, Zack. Tell me about the case.
Zack: This is the issue. The Supreme Court is considering whether we, horses, that is, as a species, are inherently vicious.
Timmy: I don't understand that word, "inherently." I hate when you use words I don't know.
Zack: You should listen to Amy more closely. She uses words like inherently every day. You just hear the part when she calls you a good pony. It means they are going to decide if horses, just by nature, are vicious.
Timmy: Goddamn it, Zack, it isn't easy having you as a stallmate. Amy loves you the best … everyone thinks you're more spiritual … I get really depressed sometimes.
Zack: You're lucky you're so handsome.
Timmy: Wanker! (Lays ears back and bares teeth.)
Timmy: C'mon, tell me about the case.
Zack: The horse bit a kid. Understandable, but not forgivable. I bet I know why. They named that poor horse Scuppy.