I recently saw a trivia question asking what a group of ravens is called. You may already know that a group of crows is a "murder," which is one of the most famous of the oddball animal group names. But I hadn't heard of a group of ravens before, so I had to look it up. It turns out that a group of ravens is an "unkindness," or a "conspiracy." That's certainly better than my deduction that it's a "manslaughter" of ravens.
What's interesting is that my Google search also turned up this article from the Audubon Society, arguing that it is, in fact, a "group" of crows, ravens, and whatever, since that's what people actually call them. As a birder, he's never used or heard any of the obscure group names, so you can't really say that a group of ravens is called an unkindness, since people in real life call it "a group of ravens." At most, you're just saying that people centuries ago called it by the obscure word. He goes further and asks experts on various animals if they've ever used or heard the group names, and not one had.
Most interestingly, the wombat expert pointed out that wombats don't get into groups, thus begging the question of how anyone devised that they should be a "wisdom" of wombats. I would further point out that although these group names come from the middle ages, no English-speaker set eyes on a wombat until centuries later. So someone out there is just arbitrarily coming up with more of these names, and now has slipped up by including animals that don't group together.
But back to the original idea that these names aren't real. I hadn't really thought about it before, but he's got a point. I mean, here I am, a trivia fan, and yet I've never found the groups of animals interesting, or made much headway in remembering them. I guess that's why; trivia isn't just random info, it has to have at least some importance to be interesting, say, by linking to some other facts. I can remember that the Baltimore Ravens football club is named after the poem because it was written by local boy Edgar Allan Poe. But I'm never going to remember an unkindness of Ravens, even after writing this blog entry about it.
On a similar note, can we lay off the phobia name trivia? I hate it when people ask, "What is 'flentaphobia' a fear of?" I think what you mean is, theoretically, what would it be a fear of if it actually existed. Yes, that's what it theoretically would be called, but just because you can put some Latin roots together, doesn't mean it's an actual thing. I could just say that I have inaniaephobia, the fear of inanity.
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Friday, December 22, 2017
Mr. Pop-Culture's Penguins
I'm not sure how we got to the point where two different Canadian companies are using penguins in their ads. But here we are watching CIBC and People's Jewellers alternately sending flightless avians to sell goods and services.
The CIBC penguin began with an ad that seemed like a one-off, using that flightlessness to sell its flight rewards program. That was cute, so they wrote in an entire family for him, and now the penguin is selling all kinds of banking services that don't seem to have any connection to his species.
Here's a fun fact: the female penguin has pink around her eyes, which you might assume is an outdated way of indicating her gender without stuffing her into a dress. But these are Magellanic Penguins, and they do have a pink spot around the eyes where there are no feathers. That's apparently not related to gender, but at least the ads are more accurate than you would think.
People's (or Kay in the states) is taking a different approach, showing penguins in a more natural habitat, and making reference to the fact that male penguins sometimes impress a mate by offering a pebble. This really shows how advertisers are quite different from other people. Most of us hear about that beautifully simple practice among a beloved animal, and find it heartwarming to feel a connection with a living thing so different and far away. Ad makers say, hey, let's make fun of those silly birds.
It doesn't help that it has a cheesy english accent narrator. You'd think they would have had a Morgan Freeman impersonator to reference March of the Penguins. Maybe they were trying for a David Attenborough sound; if so, it didn't really work. It just sounds like the generic slightly silly pompous english accent used to indicate stuffy authority.
Sadly - though not surprisingly - the pebble story is not really true. Male penguins do present pebbles to their mates, but it's not a proposal; it's just to help build the nest, which is made of pebbles. There's no attempt to impress the mate with a particularly nice pebble. And that leads to the ultimate irony of the ad: We're supposed to look down on these uncivilized animals for trying to get a mate with a particularly nice rock. And the ad is using this to sell diamonds, which themselves are just really shiny rocks. That's silly to begin with, but it turns out that unlike us, the penguins' rocks have a purpose, while we've created a huge global infrastructure just to get at the shiniest rocks on the planet.
The CIBC penguin began with an ad that seemed like a one-off, using that flightlessness to sell its flight rewards program. That was cute, so they wrote in an entire family for him, and now the penguin is selling all kinds of banking services that don't seem to have any connection to his species.
Here's a fun fact: the female penguin has pink around her eyes, which you might assume is an outdated way of indicating her gender without stuffing her into a dress. But these are Magellanic Penguins, and they do have a pink spot around the eyes where there are no feathers. That's apparently not related to gender, but at least the ads are more accurate than you would think.
People's (or Kay in the states) is taking a different approach, showing penguins in a more natural habitat, and making reference to the fact that male penguins sometimes impress a mate by offering a pebble. This really shows how advertisers are quite different from other people. Most of us hear about that beautifully simple practice among a beloved animal, and find it heartwarming to feel a connection with a living thing so different and far away. Ad makers say, hey, let's make fun of those silly birds.
It doesn't help that it has a cheesy english accent narrator. You'd think they would have had a Morgan Freeman impersonator to reference March of the Penguins. Maybe they were trying for a David Attenborough sound; if so, it didn't really work. It just sounds like the generic slightly silly pompous english accent used to indicate stuffy authority.
Sadly - though not surprisingly - the pebble story is not really true. Male penguins do present pebbles to their mates, but it's not a proposal; it's just to help build the nest, which is made of pebbles. There's no attempt to impress the mate with a particularly nice pebble. And that leads to the ultimate irony of the ad: We're supposed to look down on these uncivilized animals for trying to get a mate with a particularly nice rock. And the ad is using this to sell diamonds, which themselves are just really shiny rocks. That's silly to begin with, but it turns out that unlike us, the penguins' rocks have a purpose, while we've created a huge global infrastructure just to get at the shiniest rocks on the planet.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Must Love Dogs
There's been a big controversy over the movie A Dog's Purpose, after footage leaked of a dog being abused on the set. That's frustrating, since it happened with a movie that's all about the love of dogs, and there are supposed to be checks on animal abuse in movies. And you'd think that a hugely pro-dog movie would be particularly conscious of the need to treat their dogs well.
As an animal lover who isn't a dog person, I guess I have an outsider's view of the issue, and I'm amazed at how this film has gone from one extreme of dog lovers' passion to the other. If the ads were any indication, it was relying on dog-loving schmaltz and little else. It seems to be that kind of uplifting movie that I hate: rather than help you to see the world in a better light, it creates a mythology that tells you what you want to hear, like a second-rate new age religion.
Now, that dog spirituality has all been reversed, and you've got to think this whole movie is going to be a financial albatross to the studio; the one constituency that you were relying on now hates you.
My apologies to albatross lovers who may have been offended there.
So I have to wonder if dog lovers feel used. I'm not saying their hurt feelings compare to the injustice done to the dog, but this was a blatant manipulation of their emotions. When it turned out that some on the set were not so committed to the animals after all, that only underlined how people's feelings were just being used for profit.
As an animal lover who isn't a dog person, I guess I have an outsider's view of the issue, and I'm amazed at how this film has gone from one extreme of dog lovers' passion to the other. If the ads were any indication, it was relying on dog-loving schmaltz and little else. It seems to be that kind of uplifting movie that I hate: rather than help you to see the world in a better light, it creates a mythology that tells you what you want to hear, like a second-rate new age religion.
Now, that dog spirituality has all been reversed, and you've got to think this whole movie is going to be a financial albatross to the studio; the one constituency that you were relying on now hates you.
My apologies to albatross lovers who may have been offended there.
So I have to wonder if dog lovers feel used. I'm not saying their hurt feelings compare to the injustice done to the dog, but this was a blatant manipulation of their emotions. When it turned out that some on the set were not so committed to the animals after all, that only underlined how people's feelings were just being used for profit.
Friday, March 18, 2016
That's The End Of The Killerwhaletank
SeaWorld has announced that they will end orca breeding. I found that pretty surprising: yes, it's been getting them very bad publicity, lately, but their identity is quite tied to the performing orcas.
What I'm getting at is, this is about the biggest win I've ever seen activists get. As such, it's interesting to see how people are reacting. The stereotype of activists is that they never give anything but bad news. Environmentalists were traditionally the worst, but in recent years they seem to have realized that this is turning people off. Even David Suzuki seems to understand the benefit of mixing in some positivity.
Animal Rights had never been a cause I was particularly close to, so I'm not really knowledgeable on their reaction. But from what I have seen, as individuals they are quite positive, celebrating this as the win that it is.
On the other hand, PETA put out the protestors' traditional this-isn't-enough reaction. Yes, it's clear that PETA has never really cared about having a positive public perception. But still, you have to wonder: if this doesn't get a positive reaction out of them, what will?
I've always figured that the nothing-is-good-enough attitude from activists comes from their relatively rare motivation pattern: they tend to be spurred to action by the badness of the situation, so they see relentless negativity as a motivator. Unfortunately, for most people downplaying any and all positivity just Leafs to hopelessness, which leads to inaction.
So it might pay to emphasize this victory. Like I say, PETA had positioned itself as an organization for more dedicated, uncompromising people. It's the 70's Greenpeace of Animal Rights. That might mean that the all-negative attitude will work for it.
What I'm getting at is, this is about the biggest win I've ever seen activists get. As such, it's interesting to see how people are reacting. The stereotype of activists is that they never give anything but bad news. Environmentalists were traditionally the worst, but in recent years they seem to have realized that this is turning people off. Even David Suzuki seems to understand the benefit of mixing in some positivity.
Animal Rights had never been a cause I was particularly close to, so I'm not really knowledgeable on their reaction. But from what I have seen, as individuals they are quite positive, celebrating this as the win that it is.
On the other hand, PETA put out the protestors' traditional this-isn't-enough reaction. Yes, it's clear that PETA has never really cared about having a positive public perception. But still, you have to wonder: if this doesn't get a positive reaction out of them, what will?
I've always figured that the nothing-is-good-enough attitude from activists comes from their relatively rare motivation pattern: they tend to be spurred to action by the badness of the situation, so they see relentless negativity as a motivator. Unfortunately, for most people downplaying any and all positivity just Leafs to hopelessness, which leads to inaction.
So it might pay to emphasize this victory. Like I say, PETA had positioned itself as an organization for more dedicated, uncompromising people. It's the 70's Greenpeace of Animal Rights. That might mean that the all-negative attitude will work for it.
Monday, August 3, 2015
Hunting For Answers
I'm still not sure what what to feel about the killing of Cecil the lion. Like many people, I'm not happy about it. But I can't pretend to be a great friend of animals, as a non-vegetarian. That's a debate a lot of people have been having online: vegetarians questioning the integrity of those concerning the death of an animal. I don't have a real good answer for that. I guess it comes down to hunting itself.
I generally don't like the idea of killing animals, but have justified meat-eating to myself on the grounds that it's killing animals for something important and unavoidable: food. I acknowledge that this reasoning is flimsy, since a human can survive without eating meat, even if that's not the natural lifestyle for homo sapiens.
On the other hand, consider activities that are common targets of the animal rights movement: hunting, fur, and cosmetic experimentation. Those are trading animal lives for less-integral, more easily-replaced things. In the issue at hand - hunting - you're trading an animal's life for your own entertainment. That's a proposition I've always had difficulty buying.
In this case, at least some of the anger is that this was a particular lion. People had an attachment to it, so there's extra emotion. But that also begs the question of why we both allow hunting, but also pick out a specific animal as untouchable. After all, it’s hard to say, go ahead and kill any of these animals, just not that one over there.
It's weird how public opinion has turned here. If you watch politics, you see how sometimes a determined minority can hold sway in society. The most obvious example of this is the American gun "debate" (I put it in quotes because really there in no debate) where the enthusiastic and well-organized gun lobby always gets its way, even when it is on the less-popular side of an issue. But it seems like now we could be seeing two of those determined minorities face off: There's a wave of opinion against hunting at the same time, and in the same place, that politicians regularly make a show of going hunting as a way of proving their qualifications.
But a big part of the anger is clearly about the hunter himself. A lot of the coverage of the incident emphasizes that he's a dentist. Some of the anger is, I'm sure, due to widespread hatred of dentists. But I think more of it is the incongruity of a big-game-hunting dentist, and the transparent desperation for masculinity. That just accents the difficulty accepting hunting I mentioned above. This lion appears to have been sacrificed not just for entertainment, but to prove a man's virility. Or, to put it another way, everything we say about the Chinese when they drive an animal to the edge of extinction because they've decided one of its body parts is an aphrodisiac, all applies here too.
Another thing that’s happened recently perhaps explains the anger over Cecil, and that is the demise of Hitchbot, the hitchhiking robot. In a story that reaffirmed everyone’s national stereotypes, the helpless and immobile robot successfully hitchhiked across Canada and Europe, then got destroyed after only a tenth of its journey across the United States. No, I’m not claiming that the loss of a not-even-close-to-sentient robot is the equivalent of a living thing. But it’s the same sort of equation: one person decides that the enjoyment they get out of destroying something outweighs the enjoyment many may get from its continued existence. And that’s where the frustration comes from: it’s a pattern we’ve all seen throughout our lives, and feel unable to prevent.
I generally don't like the idea of killing animals, but have justified meat-eating to myself on the grounds that it's killing animals for something important and unavoidable: food. I acknowledge that this reasoning is flimsy, since a human can survive without eating meat, even if that's not the natural lifestyle for homo sapiens.
On the other hand, consider activities that are common targets of the animal rights movement: hunting, fur, and cosmetic experimentation. Those are trading animal lives for less-integral, more easily-replaced things. In the issue at hand - hunting - you're trading an animal's life for your own entertainment. That's a proposition I've always had difficulty buying.
In this case, at least some of the anger is that this was a particular lion. People had an attachment to it, so there's extra emotion. But that also begs the question of why we both allow hunting, but also pick out a specific animal as untouchable. After all, it’s hard to say, go ahead and kill any of these animals, just not that one over there.
It's weird how public opinion has turned here. If you watch politics, you see how sometimes a determined minority can hold sway in society. The most obvious example of this is the American gun "debate" (I put it in quotes because really there in no debate) where the enthusiastic and well-organized gun lobby always gets its way, even when it is on the less-popular side of an issue. But it seems like now we could be seeing two of those determined minorities face off: There's a wave of opinion against hunting at the same time, and in the same place, that politicians regularly make a show of going hunting as a way of proving their qualifications.
But a big part of the anger is clearly about the hunter himself. A lot of the coverage of the incident emphasizes that he's a dentist. Some of the anger is, I'm sure, due to widespread hatred of dentists. But I think more of it is the incongruity of a big-game-hunting dentist, and the transparent desperation for masculinity. That just accents the difficulty accepting hunting I mentioned above. This lion appears to have been sacrificed not just for entertainment, but to prove a man's virility. Or, to put it another way, everything we say about the Chinese when they drive an animal to the edge of extinction because they've decided one of its body parts is an aphrodisiac, all applies here too.
Another thing that’s happened recently perhaps explains the anger over Cecil, and that is the demise of Hitchbot, the hitchhiking robot. In a story that reaffirmed everyone’s national stereotypes, the helpless and immobile robot successfully hitchhiked across Canada and Europe, then got destroyed after only a tenth of its journey across the United States. No, I’m not claiming that the loss of a not-even-close-to-sentient robot is the equivalent of a living thing. But it’s the same sort of equation: one person decides that the enjoyment they get out of destroying something outweighs the enjoyment many may get from its continued existence. And that’s where the frustration comes from: it’s a pattern we’ve all seen throughout our lives, and feel unable to prevent.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
The Soul Of A New Machine
Kia has a new commercial for the Soul, again featuring hamsters (this is an extended version):
- I'm confused by the hamster in the ball. It seems to be an ordinary hamster among all these anthropomorphic hamsters. You're just not allowed to do that. Either the animals are normal or they're a stand-in for people. Disney tried to do that with Goofy as a humanoid dog and Pluto as a pet dog, and that confused generations of kids.
- So either the hamster in the ball is a child that will one day grow into one of the big hamsters, or the big hamsters are mutants, and they keep a normal one around for some reason.
- Or this is supposed to take place in an alternate universe where hamsters evolved sentience instead of primates. In that case, the hamster in the ball is the equivalent of a monkey to them. That makes more sense
- Would hamsters consider a thin female in skin-tight clothing attractive? Surely they'd prefer a plump and furry female.
- How come these hamsters have better taste in music than what we've seen from the species in the past?
- For all the ad's other flaws, I have to say that nerdy hamsters are adorable. In the previous hamster ad, if you look closely at the scene where they're in the salon, one of them is reading a copy of Wired with a hamster on the cover. So apparently they have a gift for technology. But you don't have to tell me that...
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Hold That Tiger (Still For A Second)
Tiger selfies have been declared illegal in the state of New York. See, there's supposedly a trend for men to take pictures of themselves with dangerous animals as an eye-catching profile picture on dating sites. I don't know; I don't browse men's dating site profiles, so I can't confirm the existence of this trend. I can only hear about it, and say, yep, that sounds like humanity. But it's no longer legal in New York.
I don't think the law was a good move. Sure, I like to protect vulnerable animal populations as much as anyone. But a tiger is hardly threatened by a dudebro with a phone. It makes sense to protect animals when they can't protect themselves, such as against poachers or pollution. But when animals can protect themselves, the law doesn't need to get involved.
But what's particularly great about tiger selfies is the circumstances. Like many others, I've often cynically wished that people doing stupid things would just remove themselves from the gene pool. But the problem with that idea is that many people risking their own lives have already reproduced. Thus their offspring will ensure that stupidity survives for another generation. But tiger selfies are being used to get an impressive picture for dating sites. That works out perfectly! People are risking their lives in the attempt to procreate. Now we just need to encourage the women to have risky dating photos too. What animal would be stereotypically feminine but still dangerous? Perhaps cuddle up, teddy bear style, with an actual bear?
I don't think the law was a good move. Sure, I like to protect vulnerable animal populations as much as anyone. But a tiger is hardly threatened by a dudebro with a phone. It makes sense to protect animals when they can't protect themselves, such as against poachers or pollution. But when animals can protect themselves, the law doesn't need to get involved.
But what's particularly great about tiger selfies is the circumstances. Like many others, I've often cynically wished that people doing stupid things would just remove themselves from the gene pool. But the problem with that idea is that many people risking their own lives have already reproduced. Thus their offspring will ensure that stupidity survives for another generation. But tiger selfies are being used to get an impressive picture for dating sites. That works out perfectly! People are risking their lives in the attempt to procreate. Now we just need to encourage the women to have risky dating photos too. What animal would be stereotypically feminine but still dangerous? Perhaps cuddle up, teddy bear style, with an actual bear?
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Domesticated Animals
I wonder: if a fly enters a house, does that increases its chances of survival? On the one hand, it will have access to food, and protection from the elements. But on the other, it is now locked in an enclosed space with one or more large mammals that will try to kill it.
I'm wondering this because we could be breeding them one way or the other. I've heard evolutionary biologists say that if a mutation helps a living thing survive even one in a thousand times, that will be enough for the mutation to become standard throughout the population. So given the short life-cycle of insects, you'd think that by now, we would have caused them to evolve either an aversion or attraction to our houses.
It's disappointing that humanity has caused so little evolution in animals. You'd think that:
I'm wondering this because we could be breeding them one way or the other. I've heard evolutionary biologists say that if a mutation helps a living thing survive even one in a thousand times, that will be enough for the mutation to become standard throughout the population. So given the short life-cycle of insects, you'd think that by now, we would have caused them to evolve either an aversion or attraction to our houses.
It's disappointing that humanity has caused so little evolution in animals. You'd think that:
- Squirrels would be more decisive, either running across the road or staying away, instead of going into the road and then becoming uncertain.
- Insects and spiders would become cuter, so we'd be less likely to squash them. Though it occurs to me that this could go the other way: the scarier they look, the more likely we are to run out of the room and hope they go away on their own.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Bearing Up
I'm sick right now, so I don't have much to say. Instead, I'll leave you with this thought:
- Many flavours of Halls cough drops contain eucalyptus oil.
- Koalas' diet consists mostly of eucalyptus leaves.
- Therefore, koalas taste like Halls.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Hello Squirrel
Have you seen the ads for this new movie The Nut Job which is about to be dumped into the motion picture no-man's-land that is January released? It's a computer-animated movie about squirrels trying to steal nuts or something.
I'm left thinking, shouldn't squirrels be cuter than that? Squirrels are thought of as inherently cute animals, loveable to anyone who doesn't have a bird feeder. To put it another way, rats are seen as squirrels' uncute cousins. They're squirrels without the PR of a big bushy tail. And yet Pixar managed to make them more likeable in Ratatouille.
It seems like animated movies are trying so hard to make in-your-face goofy characters that they don't make something that looks good on the screen. It's been all downhill since that little...whatever it was... in The Lion King. Look, the world doesn't need more aggressive manic characters. Especially with Kevin Hart starting up his movie career.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
No Sir, I Don't Like It
Here's a local business with a curious choice of name:
Seems nice enough, but I'll comparison shop at over Stimpy's Pet World.
Seems nice enough, but I'll comparison shop at over Stimpy's Pet World.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
The Truth About Cats And Dogs
I've never been a cat person or a dog person. It seems like most people are one or the other, but I'm neither. It comes down to their personalities. Dogs are in-your-face, cats are cold and remote. So most people find something in one or the other. Me, I don't like people with those personalities, so I'm definitely not going to buy animals like that.
What's annoying about this is that we created dogs and cats. Yes, we the humans domesticated dogs and cats out of wolves and wildcats. So why couldn't we make them a little more pleasant to be around. Or more importantly, with all the dog breeds and their huge variation, why have they concentrated so much on appearance, while the behaviour is limited to vague claims of "loyalty." Couldn't they have bred at least one for politeness, or respect for personal space. You would think that they would have thought of that before they thought of dachshunds.
Two different pet personalities is clearly not enough for all of humanity. So let's domesticate a new animal. Do what we did before: take a carnivorous mammal and breed it into a cuddly companion. I'm sure Jared Diamond will have some explanation why this can't be done, but hey: this is humanity dealing with nature. Why start limiting ourselves to what's "possible?"
I think we should start with bears. They always seemed relatively laid-back for giant meat-eaters, and everyone loves teddy bears. So let's start the selective breading now, and in a few millennia, our descendants will be able to have a cuddly little pet that's friendly but not too pushy.
What's annoying about this is that we created dogs and cats. Yes, we the humans domesticated dogs and cats out of wolves and wildcats. So why couldn't we make them a little more pleasant to be around. Or more importantly, with all the dog breeds and their huge variation, why have they concentrated so much on appearance, while the behaviour is limited to vague claims of "loyalty." Couldn't they have bred at least one for politeness, or respect for personal space. You would think that they would have thought of that before they thought of dachshunds.
Two different pet personalities is clearly not enough for all of humanity. So let's domesticate a new animal. Do what we did before: take a carnivorous mammal and breed it into a cuddly companion. I'm sure Jared Diamond will have some explanation why this can't be done, but hey: this is humanity dealing with nature. Why start limiting ourselves to what's "possible?"
I think we should start with bears. They always seemed relatively laid-back for giant meat-eaters, and everyone loves teddy bears. So let's start the selective breading now, and in a few millennia, our descendants will be able to have a cuddly little pet that's friendly but not too pushy.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
A Horse On The Force Is A Horse, Of Course
The local police force has a couple of horses, and today they showed up on a street I was walking down. I didn't see the horses themselves, but - how to put this delicately - I saw evidence that a horse had recently been there. Or a large and unwell dog; I hope it was a horse.
This isn't even the first time I've seen the unpleasant remnants of the police horses' presence. And it has me asking, isn't there a law against allowing a large mammal to take a dump on a public street? I mean, we have stoop-and-scoop laws.
See, it was a little controversial when they first got the horses a few years ago. Yes, there are some areas where horses are very useful, such as crowd control. But we don't have a lot of use for them here, and there are of course some start-up costs associated with getting your first police horses, like getting a stable. Thus, many suspected it was just because someone at the police department wanted a horse.
So I have to ask, how many crimes do you suppose the horses have prevented, and does it exceed the number of "crimes" the horses have deposited on the streets?
This isn't even the first time I've seen the unpleasant remnants of the police horses' presence. And it has me asking, isn't there a law against allowing a large mammal to take a dump on a public street? I mean, we have stoop-and-scoop laws.
See, it was a little controversial when they first got the horses a few years ago. Yes, there are some areas where horses are very useful, such as crowd control. But we don't have a lot of use for them here, and there are of course some start-up costs associated with getting your first police horses, like getting a stable. Thus, many suspected it was just because someone at the police department wanted a horse.
So I have to ask, how many crimes do you suppose the horses have prevented, and does it exceed the number of "crimes" the horses have deposited on the streets?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)