Science Says Horses Can Count
A fascinating tidbit for your Monday morning;

"Horses have the same ability to count as human infants, a study has shown. In tests the animals watched plastic apples being placed out of sight in buckets and then chose the one containing the larger number.
Using fake apples ensured they were not relying on their sense of smell to make the selection. Scientists said the horses showed they could keep a tally of how many apples were going into the containers, and hold the thought in their heads before deciding which bucket to investigate.

Their behaviour mirrored that seen in similar experiments involving human babies and wild rhesus macaque monkeys. In the baby study, infants watched cookies being placed in jars and crawled to the one with the most. The monkeys, in a colony on an island off Puerto Rico, went through the same routine with apples.

Horses were initially written off the list of animals with an apparent gift for maths after a horse called Clever Hans hoodwinked the scientific establishment in the late 1800s.

In the new study, Dr Claudia Uller and Jennifer Lewis from the University of Essex, conducted counting tests on 57 untrained horses belonging to local private owners and a riding school. Before the tests, the horses were allowed to nibble a small piece of real apple in order to get them interested. Then the real apples were replaced with fake ones all looking the same. In the first of a series of tests, two plastic apples were placed in one bucket and three in another. The containers were then held up at head levels so the horses could make a choice. Eleven out of 13 horses given this test selected the bucket containing three apples.

A second experiment followed the same pattern, but this time one bucket contained a single large apple and the other two smaller ones. Ten of the 12 horses tested chose the bucket holding the two apples. Dr Uller, who presented the findings at the British Psychological Society’s annual meeting in Dublin, and who rides horses, said: “The result absolutely proves that horses are more intelligent than people think.”"


Many horse people would no doubt agree with the idea that horses are more intelligent than what (most) people think. And while these results tell horse people what they probably already know, let's remember not to take it too far. A horse is still a horse and not a human. Anthropomorphising equine behavior will quickly get you into training difficulties with your horse. The intelligence level for counting described here is equivalent to a human INFANT (ie, 1 year or below). While it's fascinating to know that horses can count like (infant) humans, it's important to remember that just because we share this way of thinking in common, it does not mean that we share other ways of processing information or situations in common too.

Full article here: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhojgbaucwid/

Photo by sel

Source: horseproblems.horsetrainingsuccess.com

A Head Shy Horse Problem
A question posed on the Facebook fan page :
"My horse will not let me put a bridle on him- he accepts the bit. It is getting the bridle over his head. Any suggestions?"






















Sure.
One sound way to get a horse to overcome a fear of having his ears touched is to only allow him to eat if he allows his ears to be touched.

Hold a bucket of feed in one hand and rub his face or neck with the other. ALWAYS begin rubbing a spot he already allows you to touch. Then do a quick and light and FAST sweep over the ears and back down to an allowed spot. The speed means by the time the horse has realised you have touched his ears, you are back rubbing a place he thinks is ok, and nothing bad happened. Through much repetition, he'll get the idea that having his ears rubbed is ok too.

You can gradually slow down your movements as the horse accepts that your touching his ears doesn’t hurt. Remember to rub his ears backwards and forwards, just like a bridle would going on and off.

And if he's really not letting you near his ears, turn your back and walk away with the food. Come back in 10-30 minutes and try again. At some point (the first time will take the longest) the desire for food will win out.

And I'd like to point out that there are two ways of bridling your horse. See the pictures above and note the position of the right arm. If you're having trouble using one method, try the other.

Source: horseproblems.horsetrainingsuccess.com

Missed Out On A Valentine?
For all of you out there who missed out on Valentines Day, fear not! Did you know that there are online dating sites dedicated to horsey people? Nope, neither did I. Though I guess it's obvious that they'd exist. I mean, it makes sense to go to a place filled with like-minded people to find your perfect match. Rather than trawl through thousands of random personals at a 'general' site.

We are are unique group, us horsey people. We all strangely have no issue with horse slobber, break our backs mucking out stalls and cleaning paddocks, cheerfully fund our vet's holiday and retirement funds at the expense of our own, and are happiest spending hours around our horse, despite the extremes of mud, snow, dust or flies. And we wonder why not everyone understands?

So if you'd like to share your enthusiasm for horses with a human partner who does understand (as well as lavishing care and attention on your equine(s)), may I suggest you check out http://www.SingleWithHorse.com

It could be just what you're after.


PS - to those of you happily coupled up, perhaps you could do a good turn and pass this along to a single friend. And rest assured, there are more training tips coming along soon.

Source: horseproblems.horsetrainingsuccess.com

U.S. Supreme Court Approves Kansas' Bizarre Death Penalty Law
Kansas has a bizarre law that if "aggravating" and "mitigating" circumstances are equal, then Kansas juries should impose a death sentence. In other words, if the jury has strong doubts about a person's intention to cause harm, then the state should go ahead and kill the bastard. Of course, the Kansas Supreme Court (hardly a bastion of liberals) ruled that this law violated the Constitution's protections against cruel and unusual punishment. However, today the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, with Samuel Alito as the tie-breaker.

2 extremely disturbing thoughts:
1. It appears that the Kansas Supreme Court, right in the middle of red-state America, is more liberal than the U.S. Supreme Court.
2. Right-wing nutcase Samuel Alito is the new Sandra Day O'Connor, acting as the tie-breaker between the "liberals" and right-wing radicals. Shit.
3. The U.S. is an extreme outlier in state-sponsored executions, ranking up there with fundamentlist proto-fascist states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

Here's the story from Reuters:

A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Kansas law that requires a death sentence when the evidence for and against such a punishment appears to be equal. The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a Kansas Supreme Court ruling that declared the state's death-penalty law unconstitutional for violating protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The 1994 law says if the evidence for and against imposing a sentence of death is equal, Kansas juries must choose death instead of life in prison. [...]

Justice Samuel Alito, the court's newest member who was appointed by President George W. Bush, apparently cast the tie-breaking vote to uphold the law. [...]

Source: the-sociologist.blogspot.com

U.S. Losing Its Middle-Class Neighborhoods

As the article below describes, America's neighborhoods are becoming increasingly segregated by class. If you read the World Bank's reports on Third World countries, I believe the technical term for this is "economic miracle." You know, the kind of "miracle" that leads to higher levels of inequality, an increasingly restless underclass, and record profits for transnational corporations.

Here's the story from MSNBC:

Middle-class neighborhoods, long regarded as incubators for the American dream, are losing ground in cities across the country, shrinking at more than twice the rate of the middle class itself. In their place, poor and rich neighborhoods are both on the rise, as cities and suburbs have become increasingly segregated by income, according to a Brookings Institution study released today. It found that as a share of all urban and suburban neighborhoods, middle-income neighborhoods in the nation's 100 largest metro areas have declined from 58 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 2000. [...]

Middle-income neighborhoods -- where families earn 80 to 120 percent of the local median income -- have plunged by more than 20 percent as a share of all neighborhoods in Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. They are down 10 percent in the Washington area.

It's happening, too, in this prosperous, mostly white middle-income Midwestern city where unemployment is low and a vibrant downtown has been preserved. As poor and rich neighborhoods proliferate, the share of middle-income neighborhoods in greater Indianapolis has dropped by 21 percent since 1970.

"No city in America has gotten more integrated by income in the last 30 years, " said Alan Berube, an urban demographer at Brookings who worked on the report. "It means that if you are not living in one of the well-off areas, you are not going to have access to the same amenities -- good schools and safe environment -- that you could find 30 years ago, " he said. [...]

Source: the-sociologist.blogspot.com

Could You Stay On?
The worst horse-human combination possible is a green or young or unbroken horse and a beginner/novice rider.

The idea that the untrained horse and the new rider will 'grow together' is one of the most believed, but most dangerously wrong ideas that floats around in the horse world.

Let me break it down for you.

Green horses (horses with little training) have the least experience of humans, being ridden, and what they are expected to do. In contrast, an older, much handled, well trained horse has 'seen and done it all'. Which one is more likely to spook unexpectedly and which is likely to be the more predictable? Which one is ideal for learning to ride?

If you are still figuring out how to ride a trot and get your horse to slow down, the last thing you need thrown into the mix is a giant leap sideways and a buck or two. In short, a beginner rider is unlikely to be able to ride through something like this:

(YouTube Video of a horse freaking out and the rider doing a remarkable job of staying on. No further comment on the silly plastic bag nonsense that kicked it all off)



And to be quite frank, if you're not able to stay on like the person in that video, in my opinion you shouldn't be on a green horse. Until you're able to ride at walk, trot and canter WITHOUT stirrups, you probably don't have 'an independent seat'. In plain English that means that your balance on horseback isn't good enough (yet) to be able to not get hurt by a horse that freaks out.

While there are always exceptions to the rule, what I am trying to say is that the safest way to learn to ride is on a safe horse. Then when you can ride, move onto the greenies. I mean, why put yourself in harms way?

Source: horseproblems.horsetrainingsuccess.com

Repbulicans Pushing Tax Cuts for the Rich
If you read this blog often enough then you'll understand the basic "principles" of neo-liberal economics. One of the main "principles" of neo-liberalism is to cut taxes for the rich. Why would anyone support this, might you ask? Because neo-liberals believe your income equals your "productivity". If you're poor it's because you're unproductive, which is largely a consequence of laziness and stupidity; likewise, if you're rich it's because you're productive, which is basically a result of diligence and intelligence. Now we wouldn't want to punish the productive people by taxing them; if anything, we should reward their efforts by giving them outrageous tax breaks! Moreover, by giving them these breaks they will "invest" their hard-earned wealth into the economy (i.e., they will sink ridiculous sums of money into the global casino of financial speculation). From these "investments" wads of greenbacks will eventually "trickle down" to the general population like manna from heaven. See, are you beginning to understand how this "science" works?

Here's the story from the New York Times:

Two weeks ago, the Senate killed an effort to repeal the federal estate tax on multimillion-dollar fortunes. The "no" votes were a stand for budget sanity and basic fairness. But the pro-repeal camp doesn't want to take no for an answer.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed an estate-tax cut that is a repeal in everything but name. The so-called compromise would exempt more than 99.5 percent of estates from tax, slash the tax rates on the rest and cost at least $760 billion during its first full decade. Of that, $600 billion is the amount the government would have to borrow to make up for lost revenue from the cuts, which would benefit the heirs of America's wealthiest families, like the Marses of Mars bar and the Waltons of Wal-Mart Stores. The remaining $160 billion is the interest on that borrowing, which would be paid by all Americans.

No lawmaker who voted for the compromise gets any points for moderation. Like the earlier full repeal bill, this one is unfair and grounded in intellectual dishonesty. The goal is not to pass good legislation, but to get this top priority for big-shot constituents nailed into law before the November elections produce a legislature that's more responsible on fiscal matters.

In an attempt to rally support, House lawmakers have included in the bill another, totally unrelated, tax cut — for timber companies, worth $900 million over the next three years. The measure, based on the theory that American timber companies are at a disadvantage in the global marketplace, is essentially a special-interest giveaway that would encourage every business with international competitors to demand its own tax break. There is much to reform on the competitiveness front, but it should be done comprehensively, not on the basis of who has the senators best positioned to carve out a special deal.

The timber provision is a blatant attempt to extort "yes" votes out of four Democratic senators who have supported the timber industry in the past, but who have opposed estate-tax repeal: Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both of Washington, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. The idea is that if a few Democratic opponents can be enticed to vote for the estate-tax cuts, Republicans who have previously broken with their party over the issue might also go along, notably Senators George Voinovich of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

All this effort for a bill that would put $760 billion in new debt on the backs of Americans in the name of making a handful of extremely rich people even richer. Congressional leaders may know how to count votes, but otherwise their math is pathetic.

Source: the-sociologist.blogspot.com


Labels: