Mustangs V

I can’t believe it’s been seven weeks, almost two months! The big questions now are “exactly how old is Cavalry?” and “when is Cody’s foal due?”

Typically, mares aren’t bred immediately after foaling, but physically it’s possible; it’s called “foaling heat,” and occurs within a week or so of a foal’s birth. The gestation period for horses is about 11 months, so two foals from the same dam could be just eleven or eleven and a half months apart in age.

A friend and I tried to “age” Cav by looking at pictures of her foals and of him. Hers are reportedly turning eight months old today, February 1st. I’m sure he’s not any younger than that; but I’m putting him at nine months based on—wait for it—his tail, of all things. Compared to her foals, his is longer and more “horsey” than a foal’s tail would be.

If he’s nine months old, then Cody could foal within two months, or around April 1st. If he’s only eight months old, then foaling time will be around May 1st.

But, here’s the thing: looking at his teeth a few weeks ago, I’m not sure if I saw the third set of baby teeth or not. For obvious reasons, it was a really quick look! But yesterday, with the aid of a very large carrot, I got a much better look, and the third set is most definitely there and looks more like a set of yearling teeth.

And that means that every morning, I count how many horses are in the pasture . . .

Now, originally, I’d pegged Cody’s due date at April 20th, then revised to May 20th based on the discussion with my friend. Cody’s size, however, makes me think it might be sooner that both those dates.

I can’t really use the size of her bag, because Cav is still nursing a couple times a day for maybe a minute at a stretch. However, other signs, like her tail taking its time to lower after she raises it and the muscles on her rump becoming looser, are there.

I think.

I may be overthinking the entire thing. Maybe.

What I really think is that I better keep counting horses every morning . . .








The Refugee Question

Yes, Trump has effectively stopped incoming refugees for the next six or four months—the timeframe is not important; other presidents have done this as well for comparable periods. The reasons for this include better vetting of those coming to America. I disagree that those who already possess visas and green cards and those who’ve already been approved and are enroute be denied entry.

I daresay it’s a good time to also take care of the refugees we already have. I’m referencing a story local to St. Louis.

St. Louis wants to be at the top of the liberal food chain, insofar as cities are concerned. Mayor Slay has been at the helm for a long time, a staunch Democrat. Now that you have that brief background, and perhaps have read the above link, let’s look at the situation.

North St. Louis is a hellhole. Did you read that story? These people are afraid. Furthermore, when it says it requires two bus rides to reach the refugee center that can help them with language, jobs, and so forth, that doesn’t mean hopping a bus for a few minutes, changing buses for a few more, and arriving. It means probably at least an hour trip, one way.

I suppose you could say that “no one else” wanted them, but that’s bullshit. The city brought them here, the city has to place them, and since there are so many vacancies in North City, for good reason, that’s where they stuck them.

From bullets flying and rampant crime in Syrian to the same damn thing in St. Louis.

Meanwhile, all these people want to bring more refugees and claim that it’s their Christian responsibility to do so. Your responsibility is to HELP them. How many of those who want to “help” are going up to North City to actually help?

Helping is not bringing them to the US and dumping them in your godawful craptastic neighborhoods. Helping them is feeding them, assisting with job placement, teaching the language and customs so they can build lives here.

Once again, people say they want to “help” the refugees, but what they really mean is that the US government should just bring them here and stick them wherever no one else wants to live—because that’s somehow better.

Sure, you could donate money or food or clothing to these people through reputable organizations, or you could actually get off your ass and do something besides wave a sign so you can feel like you’re part of a movement. THIS is not something to protest, it’s something to DO something about.

“Helping” someone resettle in a foreign country isn’t a one-time deal. Let’s see some actual assistance and assimilation before we start yelling, “Save all the refugees!” Sure, photos of dirty, sad-eyed children are real heartbreakers, much like the photo of the little boy who drowned, who, by the way, wasn’t trying to get into the US.

Look at the problems in Europe due to the refugee situation—what makes you think it’ll be better here? “Help” doesn’t only mean bring ‘em on over. They’re coming with very little, few clothes, few possessions, little money. They need a good start, and that’s not cheap; frankly, we can’t support them all—would you suggest we simply move them to cheap housing in dangerous neighborhoods and let them have at it? That’s not help—that’s stupidity falling under the guise of help, one action to make everyone “feel” better.

Except the refugees.