Just six months ago my 14 year old son was a struggling student who liked football. When asked what he wanted to do when he "grew up", his answer was vague and ill-defined. As a parent, this didn't bother me much. He will likely change his mind a hundred times between now and his first job. What bothered me was that he had very little enthusiasm for the next five years. When I spoke of college, he just looked at me as though I was pushing him to become President by age 20.
Five months ago, he asked me how to play in the NFL without going to college. Without fully understanding the true meaning of the question, I just laughed. I told him it wasn't done. I couldn't have popped his bubble worse if I had taken away his cell phone.
Four months ago we attended a seminar at the local Texas high school featuring Randy Rodgers. The seminar was put together by the new football coach at the high school. All current and (potential) future players were invited. My son was only interested for two reasons: first, he would get some face time with the new coach and second, Randy had coached at his favored University of Texas.
Randy is now a recruiting consultant. For a fee, he will come into your home and advise you on the best practices for getting noticed by colleges. He is also hired by college coaches to provide portfolios on prospects. As a middle man, he has it figured out.
His story carries impact and instant credibility with young kids dreaming of playing college football. As mentioned, he has coached in Division I. He also has two sons who played college football and are now coaches in the NFL. My son sat up straight when he told their stories.
During the hour and a half seminar, Randy reviewed the criteria for getting into college as a football player. He reviewed the optimal timeline for contacting schools, taking tests, applying, etc. He noted that eighth graders (like my son) were entering a four year period of opportunity during which to prove themselves not only academically, but personally. He illustrated how grades made as a freshman were equally weighted to those made as a senior. Basically, he drew the kids a roadmap and made it clear and simple.
As a parent, I was most impressed when he declared that while most kids do not play Division I football, if a kid wants to play there is a place for him. It may be as a non-scholarship Div. III player, but the opportunity existed.
At the conclusion of the seminar, I asked my son what he thought. His answer told me volumes,"I thought college was harder to get into than that."
"How so?" I asked.
"I thought you had to have straight As to get in, so I figured I never would." His tone was even and resolute.
That is the moment that I realized I had nearly failed as a parent. I was always a good student and, as such, never thought of college as being out of reach. Now I realized that much of the attitude my son had toward school was that he saw the entire effort as fruitless. Sometimes you have to remember that your kids do not have the same insight to things that you do. Sounds obvious, but this mistake is made all of the time by well-meaning parents.
My son just got his progress report heading toward final exams. For the first time in his career as a student, he has an A in math (during his previous seven grades he averaged maybe 75). On average all of his grades have increased at least 10 percentage points. I have not noticed any change in his study habits. I have not hounded him at all to "buck up". The only reason I can cite for the remarkable improvement is that now he has what we all need: hope. He has a goal and has been shown the steps required to attain it. And, most importantly, the goal no longer seems out of reach.
Sometimes your best moments as a parent require you simply to chauffeur your kid to the right place at the right time. Does this mean that he will be the starting line-backer for the University of Texas within the next six years? Not necessarily, but at least he has a purpose for the next four that will bear fruit for the rest of his life regardless of what he chooses to do.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Parvovirus and Your Dog
Until yesterday, I had never heard of Parvo
I am nearly 35 years old and have had a dog in the family since I was at least 2. Currently, my family has two wonderful dogs: Girl, the black-lab/dobie mix and Jasmine, the white rescued American Staffordshire Terrier.
Until yesterday, I had never heard the word Parvo. I had to consult Google just to learn how it was spelled. I learned of it as a result of my wife's efforts to assist in finding a home for a rescued pit bull puppy. The preferred recipient could not adopt the wanting lad because their home was infected with the Parvovirus. "The what?" I asked.
All of our family animals have always had their shots up to date. Never has a vet illustrated the need for caution in relation to the Parvovirus. Heatworm? Sure. Rabies? Less likely, but worth the shot. I must say, it sounds scary. And it is not nearly as rare as I would think considering that I had never heard of it.
The Parvovirus is a highly contagious disease that transmits primarily via fecal matter although it can continue as a contagion on virtually anything the infected dog contacts. And it is hardy. The virus can survive for nine months or longer and is not eradicated by most household disinfectants. Most resources I have found recommend a heavy dose of chlorine bleach to any area suspected of contamination. If you have ever stepped in doggy doo and, despite a good cleaning, wore those shoes into your house at any time over the next nine months, you have created quite an opportunity for the virus to contaminate. How exactly do you bleach your coach, your carpet, your rugs? If you've ever tried to rid your home of fleas, you may just be able to understand a smidgen of the difficulty you would face in ridding your house of this virus.
The Parvovirus affects puppies more aggressively than older dogs although any dog is susceptible. The virus attacks the digestive system of the dog. In younger dogs, the virus can attack the heart and lead to what is described as "sudden death." Any death sounds bad, but "sudden death" would be particularly difficult to describe to my six year old son.
And THERE IS NO CURE.
Are you ready for some good news? Professionals estimate that 80% of puppies infected will survive if treated within the first day that the illness presents itself. However, they are left simply with the task of keeping the puppy alive while they fight off the virus themselves.
There is a vaccine, but it must be given when the puppy is very young. The vaccine requires multiple shots every three weeks from age 6 weeks to age 20 weeks. Since our animals are almost always adopted as a result of a rescue, this is not often feasible. Jasmine was over a year old when we adopted her.
The Parvovirus is specific to dogs. Humans, cats, fish, and other common household pets are not susceptible.
So what to do? If you're like me, you're going to stop by the vet with a few questions.
I am nearly 35 years old and have had a dog in the family since I was at least 2. Currently, my family has two wonderful dogs: Girl, the black-lab/dobie mix and Jasmine, the white rescued American Staffordshire Terrier.
Until yesterday, I had never heard the word Parvo. I had to consult Google just to learn how it was spelled. I learned of it as a result of my wife's efforts to assist in finding a home for a rescued pit bull puppy. The preferred recipient could not adopt the wanting lad because their home was infected with the Parvovirus. "The what?" I asked.
All of our family animals have always had their shots up to date. Never has a vet illustrated the need for caution in relation to the Parvovirus. Heatworm? Sure. Rabies? Less likely, but worth the shot. I must say, it sounds scary. And it is not nearly as rare as I would think considering that I had never heard of it.
The Parvovirus is a highly contagious disease that transmits primarily via fecal matter although it can continue as a contagion on virtually anything the infected dog contacts. And it is hardy. The virus can survive for nine months or longer and is not eradicated by most household disinfectants. Most resources I have found recommend a heavy dose of chlorine bleach to any area suspected of contamination. If you have ever stepped in doggy doo and, despite a good cleaning, wore those shoes into your house at any time over the next nine months, you have created quite an opportunity for the virus to contaminate. How exactly do you bleach your coach, your carpet, your rugs? If you've ever tried to rid your home of fleas, you may just be able to understand a smidgen of the difficulty you would face in ridding your house of this virus.
The Parvovirus affects puppies more aggressively than older dogs although any dog is susceptible. The virus attacks the digestive system of the dog. In younger dogs, the virus can attack the heart and lead to what is described as "sudden death." Any death sounds bad, but "sudden death" would be particularly difficult to describe to my six year old son.
And THERE IS NO CURE.
Are you ready for some good news? Professionals estimate that 80% of puppies infected will survive if treated within the first day that the illness presents itself. However, they are left simply with the task of keeping the puppy alive while they fight off the virus themselves.
There is a vaccine, but it must be given when the puppy is very young. The vaccine requires multiple shots every three weeks from age 6 weeks to age 20 weeks. Since our animals are almost always adopted as a result of a rescue, this is not often feasible. Jasmine was over a year old when we adopted her.
The Parvovirus is specific to dogs. Humans, cats, fish, and other common household pets are not susceptible.
So what to do? If you're like me, you're going to stop by the vet with a few questions.
Have Google Adwords Ads Become Transparent?
Advertising is quite literally everywhere. The average magazine places its content after 10 pages of ads. A 30-minute sitcom is actually only 22 minutes long because of commercials. Tiger Woods wears Nike gear by contract in Gatorade commercials. You cannot browse the web for more than 5 minutes without encountering a Google Adwords ad.
Obviously, the key to success in advertising in this cacophonous world of advertising is to stand out. Viral marketing is a term that did not exist ten years ago. The DVR has threatened to kill television advertising revenue. Google discovered the largest cash cow since the discovery of a use for petroleum by providing economical, scalable and simple to use advertising venues for anyone with a website.
But Google's success, and subsequent omnipresence begs a question: Have Google ads become as transparent as the hum of a fluorescent light or a speed limit sign? We all know they are there, but we rarely take notice.
Take your experience while reading this article. What did you notice first? Second? Not until I pointed it out?
Google Adwords has created a cottage industry of individuals trying to make money online. I'm just as guilty as the next guy. I have an e-commerce website with Adwords. I have a blog with Adwords. I have this profile on Hubpages with Adwords. In theory, I should be laying the groundwork for an infinite flow of cash as my online identity grows. With any luck, my children will never have to work so long as they inherit my ID.
There are success stories of course, but most are from individuals trying to sell you their unique "system" for making money using Adwords.
The operating principal behind Adwords is solid. Place no cost (unless clicked) ads on a site in the hope that visitors might stick around long enough to explore similar (but not identical) sites. It is akin to opening a specialty store in the mall next to RadioShack. You know visitors are coming in to buy batteries at RadioShack, and with a little luck some of them will be curious enough to stop in your shop.
But have Google Adwords ads become more akin to the wedding apparel store that is the first store you pass as you enter the mall? You know it is there but you stroll right past it because not only do you not need what they have, but their store has blended into the background. If they had a neon sign advertising a wedding lingerie model show, you might at least glance at it as you head for Sears.
Obviously, by writing this article I have not completely given up hope that the process might just work, but the question is worth pondering.
What do you think?
Obviously, the key to success in advertising in this cacophonous world of advertising is to stand out. Viral marketing is a term that did not exist ten years ago. The DVR has threatened to kill television advertising revenue. Google discovered the largest cash cow since the discovery of a use for petroleum by providing economical, scalable and simple to use advertising venues for anyone with a website.
But Google's success, and subsequent omnipresence begs a question: Have Google ads become as transparent as the hum of a fluorescent light or a speed limit sign? We all know they are there, but we rarely take notice.
Take your experience while reading this article. What did you notice first? Second? Not until I pointed it out?
Google Adwords has created a cottage industry of individuals trying to make money online. I'm just as guilty as the next guy. I have an e-commerce website with Adwords. I have a blog with Adwords. I have this profile on Hubpages with Adwords. In theory, I should be laying the groundwork for an infinite flow of cash as my online identity grows. With any luck, my children will never have to work so long as they inherit my ID.
There are success stories of course, but most are from individuals trying to sell you their unique "system" for making money using Adwords.
The operating principal behind Adwords is solid. Place no cost (unless clicked) ads on a site in the hope that visitors might stick around long enough to explore similar (but not identical) sites. It is akin to opening a specialty store in the mall next to RadioShack. You know visitors are coming in to buy batteries at RadioShack, and with a little luck some of them will be curious enough to stop in your shop.
But have Google Adwords ads become more akin to the wedding apparel store that is the first store you pass as you enter the mall? You know it is there but you stroll right past it because not only do you not need what they have, but their store has blended into the background. If they had a neon sign advertising a wedding lingerie model show, you might at least glance at it as you head for Sears.
Obviously, by writing this article I have not completely given up hope that the process might just work, but the question is worth pondering.
What do you think?
Ever Lost Everything Due to a Hard Disk Crash?
The Advantages of Flash Memory Drives Over Traditional Hard Disk Drives
Have you ever had a hard drive crash resulting in the loss of all of your pictures, music, financial statements, etc.? Try using the new mini-laptops utilizing flash memory combined with an external hard drive for media storage. If you are still nervous, use a second external hard drive for monthly back-up. Why?
Solid state flash memory has been around since first invented in 1980 by scientists at Toshiba. Its use has continually expanded as its price has diminished. In the late 1990s, flash memory became the storage media of choice for the exploding digital camera market. Apple's iPod turned flash memory into a commodity.
Gigabyte for Gigabyte, flash memory remains infinitely more expensive than traditional disk drive media, but we are rapidly approaching a threshold where functional advantages surpass capacity differences. You need look no further than the introduction of the world's first flash-based personal computer designed for mass markets as proof.
So, what is the main advantage of flash memory versus traditional hard disk drives? It is quite simple: no moving parts. Traditional HDDs contain a platter than spins at very high speeds as it reads and writes data utilizing a specific process of magnetization. As any automotive mechanic will tell you, moving parts ultmately lead to failure. It may take two years or twenty minutes, but failure is inevitable. Flash memory contains no moving parts as data is read and written utilizing exclusively an electrical process. Almost without exception, the electronics around the flash memory will fail before the memory will.
Over the last five years, I realized the full potential of flash market as developer of digital signage appliances for use in North American retailers. Companies like Fisher Price, DirecTV and Sony found it challenging to maintain video-based displays throughout retailers like Wal-Mart because they typically utilized DVD players. DVDs, like HDDs, spin continuously as data is read. Since the technology typically ran 18 hours a day, if not continuously, the typical DVD player failed almost every six weeks. Replacing the DVD player with a video player with data stored on flash memory led to over 200,000 displays that could run continuously for years rather than weeks. At the time, the process was more expensive on the front-end, but did not require weekly monitoring and substantial downtime or equipment maintenance.
So what does this have to do with the title's question? Until recently, every home computer in the world utilized a hard disk drive. Familys store digital pictures, music, tax files...the entirety of their digital existence on the home PC. My family is no exception. At least twice in the last ten years we have lost everything due to a hard disk crash. The typical techie will cry foul because of the notion that we should all back-up everything. This sounds great in a computer magazine, but in practicality the average person backs up their data about as often as they see their dentist. The process can be time consuming and intimidating for the typical novice. Fact is, a hard disk crash is inevitable and never happens the minute after a back-up.
A personal computer with a flash-based drive will never suffer a hard disk crash. But, since the current PCs feature only 16GB drives, you will eventually run out of space as your music collection grows. To solve this problem, utilize an external hard drive. Yes, it has a traditional hard disk drives, but since the operating system does not run on the external drive it is only used when reading or writing your data and its life is immeasurably extended. Still worried about an external hard disk crash? Get a second for back-up. A hard disk drive accessed only during your annual back-ups will last longer than it takes to fill a terabyte with i-Tunes.
Have you ever had a hard drive crash resulting in the loss of all of your pictures, music, financial statements, etc.? Try using the new mini-laptops utilizing flash memory combined with an external hard drive for media storage. If you are still nervous, use a second external hard drive for monthly back-up. Why?
Solid state flash memory has been around since first invented in 1980 by scientists at Toshiba. Its use has continually expanded as its price has diminished. In the late 1990s, flash memory became the storage media of choice for the exploding digital camera market. Apple's iPod turned flash memory into a commodity.
Gigabyte for Gigabyte, flash memory remains infinitely more expensive than traditional disk drive media, but we are rapidly approaching a threshold where functional advantages surpass capacity differences. You need look no further than the introduction of the world's first flash-based personal computer designed for mass markets as proof.
So, what is the main advantage of flash memory versus traditional hard disk drives? It is quite simple: no moving parts. Traditional HDDs contain a platter than spins at very high speeds as it reads and writes data utilizing a specific process of magnetization. As any automotive mechanic will tell you, moving parts ultmately lead to failure. It may take two years or twenty minutes, but failure is inevitable. Flash memory contains no moving parts as data is read and written utilizing exclusively an electrical process. Almost without exception, the electronics around the flash memory will fail before the memory will.
Over the last five years, I realized the full potential of flash market as developer of digital signage appliances for use in North American retailers. Companies like Fisher Price, DirecTV and Sony found it challenging to maintain video-based displays throughout retailers like Wal-Mart because they typically utilized DVD players. DVDs, like HDDs, spin continuously as data is read. Since the technology typically ran 18 hours a day, if not continuously, the typical DVD player failed almost every six weeks. Replacing the DVD player with a video player with data stored on flash memory led to over 200,000 displays that could run continuously for years rather than weeks. At the time, the process was more expensive on the front-end, but did not require weekly monitoring and substantial downtime or equipment maintenance.
So what does this have to do with the title's question? Until recently, every home computer in the world utilized a hard disk drive. Familys store digital pictures, music, tax files...the entirety of their digital existence on the home PC. My family is no exception. At least twice in the last ten years we have lost everything due to a hard disk crash. The typical techie will cry foul because of the notion that we should all back-up everything. This sounds great in a computer magazine, but in practicality the average person backs up their data about as often as they see their dentist. The process can be time consuming and intimidating for the typical novice. Fact is, a hard disk crash is inevitable and never happens the minute after a back-up.
A personal computer with a flash-based drive will never suffer a hard disk crash. But, since the current PCs feature only 16GB drives, you will eventually run out of space as your music collection grows. To solve this problem, utilize an external hard drive. Yes, it has a traditional hard disk drives, but since the operating system does not run on the external drive it is only used when reading or writing your data and its life is immeasurably extended. Still worried about an external hard disk crash? Get a second for back-up. A hard disk drive accessed only during your annual back-ups will last longer than it takes to fill a terabyte with i-Tunes.
Did Your Dog Just Eat Something Potentially Dangerous? Emergency How-To
If you've ever had a dog, you know of their uncanny proclivity for satisfying their curiosity using the sense of taste. Basically, some dogs will eat just about anything given the opportunity. Usually, this trait is relatively harmless aside from the occasional shoe casualty. But in some instances, this behavior will trigger panic in the doting dog owner.
I know this panic-inducing eventuality first-hand. A few years ago one of our two dogs managed to ingest a few vials of asthma medication designed for use in a nebulizer. The problems were two-fold. First, it was after mid-night and most veterinarians keep banker's hours. Second, we didn't know which dog had done it. Expecting the worst and fearing the morning conversation with my sons, we headed across town, dogs in tow, to the only 24-hour emergency vet clinic within a 50 mile radius.
And then true frustration set in. The vet on duty didn't know what the medication would do to the dog. Apparently there was a reason he was given the graveyard shift. He couldn't reach his colleague for advise and hesitated to treat the animals without more information. He choose to simply monitor the animals...for the next six hours. Finally, we got the answer and the bill. Turns out the medication is actually used in some instances to treat dogs with a specific condition. It also turns out that this vet apparently charged by the hour and per dog. In the end, it cost us about $400 to find out that our animals were never in danger in the first place.
Despite how it turned out, I must admit that in similar circumstances I would likely follow the same course of action again. However, I have subsequently learned of another course of action that would have allowed me to make going to the vet at midnight plan B.
Recently a friend discovered that his dachshund has ingested at least 50 capsules of fish oil after chewing the cap off. While my friend admits that he knew the fish oil wouldn't kill the dog, he immediately had nightmarish visions of days spent carpet cleaning, disinfecting and air freshening as the fish oil did its work. Like any responsible dog owner operating during the day, he called his vet. The vet recommended a simple, readily available home remedy.
My friend quickly cordoned the dog into a bathroom sans rugs and administered a teaspoon of hydrogen peroxide in not-so-eager anticipation for what was to come. Within five minutes, the dog was losing his lunch as though he had just hit the discount seafood buffet. Thirty minutes later, the presumedly dehydrated animal was none-the-worse for wear and all was well.
I have since researched this home remedy and have learned of a few things:
First, always call your vet first. In the two examples of random dog ingestion illustrated here, this remedy is suitable, but obviously your particular situation may be unique.
Second, if your dog is large, double the dose.
Finally, stand back for a few minutes and make sure that whatever triggered the need initially is now outside the dog.
And the next time your dog feels the need to chew on something, give him a flip-flop.
Your comments and personal experiences are welcomed.
I know this panic-inducing eventuality first-hand. A few years ago one of our two dogs managed to ingest a few vials of asthma medication designed for use in a nebulizer. The problems were two-fold. First, it was after mid-night and most veterinarians keep banker's hours. Second, we didn't know which dog had done it. Expecting the worst and fearing the morning conversation with my sons, we headed across town, dogs in tow, to the only 24-hour emergency vet clinic within a 50 mile radius.
And then true frustration set in. The vet on duty didn't know what the medication would do to the dog. Apparently there was a reason he was given the graveyard shift. He couldn't reach his colleague for advise and hesitated to treat the animals without more information. He choose to simply monitor the animals...for the next six hours. Finally, we got the answer and the bill. Turns out the medication is actually used in some instances to treat dogs with a specific condition. It also turns out that this vet apparently charged by the hour and per dog. In the end, it cost us about $400 to find out that our animals were never in danger in the first place.
Despite how it turned out, I must admit that in similar circumstances I would likely follow the same course of action again. However, I have subsequently learned of another course of action that would have allowed me to make going to the vet at midnight plan B.
Recently a friend discovered that his dachshund has ingested at least 50 capsules of fish oil after chewing the cap off. While my friend admits that he knew the fish oil wouldn't kill the dog, he immediately had nightmarish visions of days spent carpet cleaning, disinfecting and air freshening as the fish oil did its work. Like any responsible dog owner operating during the day, he called his vet. The vet recommended a simple, readily available home remedy.
My friend quickly cordoned the dog into a bathroom sans rugs and administered a teaspoon of hydrogen peroxide in not-so-eager anticipation for what was to come. Within five minutes, the dog was losing his lunch as though he had just hit the discount seafood buffet. Thirty minutes later, the presumedly dehydrated animal was none-the-worse for wear and all was well.
I have since researched this home remedy and have learned of a few things:
First, always call your vet first. In the two examples of random dog ingestion illustrated here, this remedy is suitable, but obviously your particular situation may be unique.
Second, if your dog is large, double the dose.
Finally, stand back for a few minutes and make sure that whatever triggered the need initially is now outside the dog.
And the next time your dog feels the need to chew on something, give him a flip-flop.
Your comments and personal experiences are welcomed.
What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with gun control? Montana gets it right.
The Legislature in Montana is taking center stage in a 218 year old debate about gun control. Ironically, the bill passed in Montana and the intent behind it is the first instance in my lifetime where the argument actually makes sense. Finally, someone is arguing the 2nd Amendment.
For years, both sides of the gun control debate have pointed to the 2nd Amendment as a part of the argument despite the fact that the United States Constitution never directly or indirectly addresses the issue of gun control. Read it again, if you do not believe me.
But, but, but...Yes. Leave your comments now stating how ignorant I am - or continue reading and perhaps maybe, just maybe, articulate your thoughts based on something other than John Hinckley, Jr. diatribes or an NRA commercial.
Allow me to simplify the issue a bit. Here is the complete text of the 2nd Amendment:
Amendment - Right to Bear Arms.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Please note that the description of the amendment is one continuous phrase separated by commas. The purpose of a comma is to combine phrases that are deemed by the author to be relevant or dependent upon one another and should be read as a sum of all parts. The Gun Control debate all too often extracts "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as though it were punctuated with a period. It is not.
Also, as you review the United States Constitution, note the deliberate distinction between the use of "the people" and "persons". When an individual's right is addressed throughout the text, the individual is referred to as "person". "The people" is used in direct juxtaposition to the "Government". The text reads as an "Us vs. Them" doctrine - which should not be surprising considering the new "Government" had just earned independence from the ultimate "Them".
Therefore, the 2nd Amendment could just as easily have stated:
When necessary to the security of a free State, a State may form and arm a militia comprised of its citizens.
Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution outlines the President's role as Commander in Chief and clearly states that the President has the power to call into duty the militia of the states. Hmm.
So what does all of this have to do with Montana? Basically, by passing a law stating that citizens of Montana may purchase guns manufactured in Montana for use exclusively in Montana without adhering to ATF and other Federal regulations, the state of Montana is essentially establishing a militia as protected by the 2nd Amendment.
I am surprised that this debate can even exist without citing the 10th Amendment:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It only stands to reason that since an individual's ability to purchase a gun is neither protected nor prohibited by the United States Constitution, then the 10th Amendment defers the issue to the States. Unless a specific State addresses the issue, it stands to reason that the ability to purchase and own a gun rests solely with the individual in that State.
I am neither for nor against gun control. However, it is frustrating to witness otherwise intelligent and logical thinkers base an argument on something that does not exist. Montana's new bill will likely be challenged and may ultimately find an audience before the United States Supreme Court. I truly hope any subsequent judgements do not reference the 2nd Amendment. That might very well cause me to lose all faith in the ability of those running our country to do so in accordance with their original oath:
I, Paul Dumas, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Blogger under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.
AMEN.
For years, both sides of the gun control debate have pointed to the 2nd Amendment as a part of the argument despite the fact that the United States Constitution never directly or indirectly addresses the issue of gun control. Read it again, if you do not believe me.
But, but, but...Yes. Leave your comments now stating how ignorant I am - or continue reading and perhaps maybe, just maybe, articulate your thoughts based on something other than John Hinckley, Jr. diatribes or an NRA commercial.
Allow me to simplify the issue a bit. Here is the complete text of the 2nd Amendment:
Amendment - Right to Bear Arms.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Please note that the description of the amendment is one continuous phrase separated by commas. The purpose of a comma is to combine phrases that are deemed by the author to be relevant or dependent upon one another and should be read as a sum of all parts. The Gun Control debate all too often extracts "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as though it were punctuated with a period. It is not.
Also, as you review the United States Constitution, note the deliberate distinction between the use of "the people" and "persons". When an individual's right is addressed throughout the text, the individual is referred to as "person". "The people" is used in direct juxtaposition to the "Government". The text reads as an "Us vs. Them" doctrine - which should not be surprising considering the new "Government" had just earned independence from the ultimate "Them".
Therefore, the 2nd Amendment could just as easily have stated:
When necessary to the security of a free State, a State may form and arm a militia comprised of its citizens.
Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution outlines the President's role as Commander in Chief and clearly states that the President has the power to call into duty the militia of the states. Hmm.
So what does all of this have to do with Montana? Basically, by passing a law stating that citizens of Montana may purchase guns manufactured in Montana for use exclusively in Montana without adhering to ATF and other Federal regulations, the state of Montana is essentially establishing a militia as protected by the 2nd Amendment.
I am surprised that this debate can even exist without citing the 10th Amendment:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It only stands to reason that since an individual's ability to purchase a gun is neither protected nor prohibited by the United States Constitution, then the 10th Amendment defers the issue to the States. Unless a specific State addresses the issue, it stands to reason that the ability to purchase and own a gun rests solely with the individual in that State.
I am neither for nor against gun control. However, it is frustrating to witness otherwise intelligent and logical thinkers base an argument on something that does not exist. Montana's new bill will likely be challenged and may ultimately find an audience before the United States Supreme Court. I truly hope any subsequent judgements do not reference the 2nd Amendment. That might very well cause me to lose all faith in the ability of those running our country to do so in accordance with their original oath:
I, Paul Dumas, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Blogger under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.
AMEN.
How a Dog Door Made My Dogs Healthier
For years, we had a traditional sliding glass door serving as an exit to our back yard. With time, the door gradually became less functional. It was time to replace it. We questioned the value of replacing it with the same type of door due to our experience with poor insulation during the hot Texas summers. So we started over.
After much research and price comparisons, we decided on a French door with built-in doggie door. It did not cost much more than similar doors and it provided a few welcomed advantages.
First, with both my wife and I working, it was often a challenge to tend to our beloved puppy dogs and their need to go outside. Sometimes, despite their best efforts, the swatch of carpet near the back door proved to be their only option. More often, a day or evening out was cut short due to our pressing home-front obligations. No longer.
Second, we worried about the long term effects of having two dogs who must plan their bathroom breaks around our inflexable schedule. They would "hold it" as long as they could and broke for the exit the moment we returned home. You could almost here the "Ahhh" as they reached the back yard.
Something had to be done.
We debated on the perceived downsides of a doggie door. The typical home improvement store sold after-market plastic versions that required a Do-It-Yourself approach and final results appeared to vary greatly depending upon your own proclivity for such tasks. Having never installed a doggie door, I saw little hope that a DYI approach would produce professional results.
We also worried about the notion of having a 2x2 unlocked entrance into our home. After all, we have children and live in a large metropolitan area with newscasts full of home invasions and all manner of "if it bleeds, it leads" nightly ratings boosters.
Research led me to a local company that specializes in taking factory standard doors and custom building pet doors while maintaining the quality of the overall manufacturing properties. In talking to the owner, he pointed out that anyone who wished to scale an eight foot privacy fence after seeing a doggie door large enough for my American Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier deserved what he had coming.
We signed the bottom line that day.
Now almost six months later, I realize that this door has changed not only our lives but the lives of our dogs. Our social calendar now includes chunks of time longer than 8 hours and we no longer return home to two dogs crossing their legs. I have since also, in using a non-scientific method, observed that our dogs go outside no fewer than two to four times per night while we sleep. Our dogs are happier, and apparently healthier. Imagine being able to use the restroom any time you feel the urge. Oh, wait, you're also human so you don't have to imagine it.
What have we been doing to our pets all these years? It seems almost cruel.
After much research and price comparisons, we decided on a French door with built-in doggie door. It did not cost much more than similar doors and it provided a few welcomed advantages.
First, with both my wife and I working, it was often a challenge to tend to our beloved puppy dogs and their need to go outside. Sometimes, despite their best efforts, the swatch of carpet near the back door proved to be their only option. More often, a day or evening out was cut short due to our pressing home-front obligations. No longer.
Second, we worried about the long term effects of having two dogs who must plan their bathroom breaks around our inflexable schedule. They would "hold it" as long as they could and broke for the exit the moment we returned home. You could almost here the "Ahhh" as they reached the back yard.
Something had to be done.
We debated on the perceived downsides of a doggie door. The typical home improvement store sold after-market plastic versions that required a Do-It-Yourself approach and final results appeared to vary greatly depending upon your own proclivity for such tasks. Having never installed a doggie door, I saw little hope that a DYI approach would produce professional results.
We also worried about the notion of having a 2x2 unlocked entrance into our home. After all, we have children and live in a large metropolitan area with newscasts full of home invasions and all manner of "if it bleeds, it leads" nightly ratings boosters.
Research led me to a local company that specializes in taking factory standard doors and custom building pet doors while maintaining the quality of the overall manufacturing properties. In talking to the owner, he pointed out that anyone who wished to scale an eight foot privacy fence after seeing a doggie door large enough for my American Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier deserved what he had coming.
We signed the bottom line that day.
Now almost six months later, I realize that this door has changed not only our lives but the lives of our dogs. Our social calendar now includes chunks of time longer than 8 hours and we no longer return home to two dogs crossing their legs. I have since also, in using a non-scientific method, observed that our dogs go outside no fewer than two to four times per night while we sleep. Our dogs are happier, and apparently healthier. Imagine being able to use the restroom any time you feel the urge. Oh, wait, you're also human so you don't have to imagine it.
What have we been doing to our pets all these years? It seems almost cruel.
Using a GPS Saves Gas - Study Confirms the Obvious
NAVTEQ, a self-proclaimed leading provider of GPS and mapping data, recently released a study showing that use of a GPS leads to gas savings. The study was narrow in focus, but the results appear to confirm the obvious.
The study included only metropolitan drivers in two European cities and consisted of less than 500 total hours of driving. The participants had not previously used GPS in their vehicles. The data showed a few key findings:
Drivers averaged a 12% increase in fuel economy over the course of the study or the equivalent of almost 44 days annually.
Drivers experienced greater gas savings when traveling to an unknown destination.
Fuel economy increased throughout the course of the study as drivers apparently acclimated to using a GPS device.
Drivers utilizing a GPS with traffic information realized higher gas savings during rush hour than those without traffic information.
I doubt that further explanation as to the "why" behind these findings is required. Each seems quite obvious. However, the far-reaching potential benefits of these findings exceed the marketing ambitions of NAVTEQ.
As President Obama pushes to increase fuel economy standards by 2016, thus save nearly the equivalent of 86 days of US petroleum use annually, I wonder if a mandate for GPS units in all new cars shouldn't be on the docket.
The Federal Highway Administration states that based on the 2000 Census, nearly 80% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. If 80% of drivers save 44 days of fuel annually due to a GPS and an additional 86 days annually due to Obama's proposed increased fuel economy standards, the composite annual savings would be 130 days or 36%.
I am not a statistician, but I realize that extrapolating these numbers from a single narrow focus study and assuming that nearly 226 million people will all purchase new cars in 2016 is faulty logic.
But is it too much to dream that the current bail-out of the Big Three could ultimately result in every American being given a government-sponsored new car just to keep the system rolling along? If we're all going to mortgage the future of our nation, shouldn't we at least get a new Chevy Malibu for our trouble? Too bad it will likely be rusted out by the time my six year gets his driver's license.
The study included only metropolitan drivers in two European cities and consisted of less than 500 total hours of driving. The participants had not previously used GPS in their vehicles. The data showed a few key findings:
Drivers averaged a 12% increase in fuel economy over the course of the study or the equivalent of almost 44 days annually.
Drivers experienced greater gas savings when traveling to an unknown destination.
Fuel economy increased throughout the course of the study as drivers apparently acclimated to using a GPS device.
Drivers utilizing a GPS with traffic information realized higher gas savings during rush hour than those without traffic information.
I doubt that further explanation as to the "why" behind these findings is required. Each seems quite obvious. However, the far-reaching potential benefits of these findings exceed the marketing ambitions of NAVTEQ.
As President Obama pushes to increase fuel economy standards by 2016, thus save nearly the equivalent of 86 days of US petroleum use annually, I wonder if a mandate for GPS units in all new cars shouldn't be on the docket.
The Federal Highway Administration states that based on the 2000 Census, nearly 80% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. If 80% of drivers save 44 days of fuel annually due to a GPS and an additional 86 days annually due to Obama's proposed increased fuel economy standards, the composite annual savings would be 130 days or 36%.
I am not a statistician, but I realize that extrapolating these numbers from a single narrow focus study and assuming that nearly 226 million people will all purchase new cars in 2016 is faulty logic.
But is it too much to dream that the current bail-out of the Big Three could ultimately result in every American being given a government-sponsored new car just to keep the system rolling along? If we're all going to mortgage the future of our nation, shouldn't we at least get a new Chevy Malibu for our trouble? Too bad it will likely be rusted out by the time my six year gets his driver's license.
Obama Attacks Big Oil and the Big Three - Without a Fight?
Remember when gas was $4 a gallon and carmakers offered zero-percent interest to anyone with credit? Bush-43 was in office along with all of the conspiracy theories behind Exxon's record profits. The Big Three automakers were going bankrupt simply because Toyota made a better car.
Fast forward two years and Gas is $2 a gallon. The Big Three are officially on the dole because of the "economic slow-down". Exxon saw a record drop in profits (that leap off the top of the mountain can be quite a trip), but was still one of the only Fortune 500 to post an amazing profit. Bush-43 is enjoying retirement between official dinners at SMU and Texas Rangers games. His old oil buddies cashed out while the going was good.
Enter President Obama. The President became the first to openly propose aggressive changes to minimum fuel economy standards while touting "global warming" as a reason. Certainly, President Obama is not the first to increase these standards, but it is something of a relief to hear a President refer to global warming as a real concern. It took his predecessor nearly two terms to admit what the rest of the world has suspected for the last twenty years.
Now comes the interesting part.
While these changes have come at a snail's pace, it looks like it may be quickening. The new proposal would accelerate the new standards to be implemented by 2016, rather than 2020. In the past, such recommendations would have triggered a big red flare to launch over Detroit to signal that they were being attacked. Big Oil would secretly start expanding their lobbying coffers while boosting airtime of their latest commercials showing how much they are doing for the whales off Alaska.
I suspect this time will be different. There will be fight, but I suspect that it will be about as formidable as a 40 year old boxer coming out of retirement for one last fight. The old guard is either too fat and happy...or begging for their next welfare check.
Big Oil has been entirely too profitable over that last few years to use supply and demand as an argument. The Big Three simply do not have a leg to stand on. They can claim that logistics and costs make it prohibitive, but the fact of the matter is that the technology has been around for over twenty years...and they will be using our tax dollars to fund the new costs. For those that think the government is taking over the automotive industry, your argument just received another bullet point.
So what does that mean for us, the American driver? Well, 2016 is about the next time that most of us will be able to afford to finance a new car after the credit crises we're in now. I've been told that most credit right-offs take at least seven years to disappear from your credit report. If the Big Three are left by 2016, they'll surely be ready to begin the cycle again.
Fast forward two years and Gas is $2 a gallon. The Big Three are officially on the dole because of the "economic slow-down". Exxon saw a record drop in profits (that leap off the top of the mountain can be quite a trip), but was still one of the only Fortune 500 to post an amazing profit. Bush-43 is enjoying retirement between official dinners at SMU and Texas Rangers games. His old oil buddies cashed out while the going was good.
Enter President Obama. The President became the first to openly propose aggressive changes to minimum fuel economy standards while touting "global warming" as a reason. Certainly, President Obama is not the first to increase these standards, but it is something of a relief to hear a President refer to global warming as a real concern. It took his predecessor nearly two terms to admit what the rest of the world has suspected for the last twenty years.
Now comes the interesting part.
While these changes have come at a snail's pace, it looks like it may be quickening. The new proposal would accelerate the new standards to be implemented by 2016, rather than 2020. In the past, such recommendations would have triggered a big red flare to launch over Detroit to signal that they were being attacked. Big Oil would secretly start expanding their lobbying coffers while boosting airtime of their latest commercials showing how much they are doing for the whales off Alaska.
I suspect this time will be different. There will be fight, but I suspect that it will be about as formidable as a 40 year old boxer coming out of retirement for one last fight. The old guard is either too fat and happy...or begging for their next welfare check.
Big Oil has been entirely too profitable over that last few years to use supply and demand as an argument. The Big Three simply do not have a leg to stand on. They can claim that logistics and costs make it prohibitive, but the fact of the matter is that the technology has been around for over twenty years...and they will be using our tax dollars to fund the new costs. For those that think the government is taking over the automotive industry, your argument just received another bullet point.
So what does that mean for us, the American driver? Well, 2016 is about the next time that most of us will be able to afford to finance a new car after the credit crises we're in now. I've been told that most credit right-offs take at least seven years to disappear from your credit report. If the Big Three are left by 2016, they'll surely be ready to begin the cycle again.
Making Money Online, Sex, Brangelina and Making Friends With Google
Mel Gibson's girlfriend is pregnant! The most recent "Dancing with the Stars" update rests above the article about Pakistan's nuclear capability on MSNBC.com. Paris Hilton wanted to be like Princess Diana (while alive, I presume) until her infamous tape "ruined" her life ambitions. Twitter wants to make money without advertising.
I built my first website 15 years ago. It was primitive and served no more purpose than an online version of a yellow pages ad. I began my first e-commerce site over 8 years ago and made money for my boss. I started my first blog three years ago and it served no purpose other than to kill time. I started hubpages about 10 hours ago and I am combining my knack for time killing with my desire to collect nickels. The one constant over this time appears to be the internet's insatiable appetite for gossip, sex, and ideas for making money for doing virtually nothing online. Just peruse the Google ads on this post that are based on "content relevance".
Has society really come to this or has it always been this way without a suitable method for homogenizing it for the masses?
It is a shame that a provocative picture of Megan Fox would generate more traffic to this hub than an editorial articulating the obvious dichotomy between our outward projected image and our inward reality. We all want a Victoria's Secret model with limited access to wardrobe for a wife while we sit in front of our laptop watching our Adsense account accrue daily wealth for our fifteen minutes of semi-coherent ranting about the state of the world.
If we can't have that, then we'll all simply join hubpages.com and fantasize in silent frustration.
Ever seen the movie "Idiocrasy"? It is rated R for language and sex-related humor. Sounds like it should have been the most popular movie of all-time. Of course, even "Titanic" had a nude scene.
I built my first website 15 years ago. It was primitive and served no more purpose than an online version of a yellow pages ad. I began my first e-commerce site over 8 years ago and made money for my boss. I started my first blog three years ago and it served no purpose other than to kill time. I started hubpages about 10 hours ago and I am combining my knack for time killing with my desire to collect nickels. The one constant over this time appears to be the internet's insatiable appetite for gossip, sex, and ideas for making money for doing virtually nothing online. Just peruse the Google ads on this post that are based on "content relevance".
Has society really come to this or has it always been this way without a suitable method for homogenizing it for the masses?
It is a shame that a provocative picture of Megan Fox would generate more traffic to this hub than an editorial articulating the obvious dichotomy between our outward projected image and our inward reality. We all want a Victoria's Secret model with limited access to wardrobe for a wife while we sit in front of our laptop watching our Adsense account accrue daily wealth for our fifteen minutes of semi-coherent ranting about the state of the world.
If we can't have that, then we'll all simply join hubpages.com and fantasize in silent frustration.
Ever seen the movie "Idiocrasy"? It is rated R for language and sex-related humor. Sounds like it should have been the most popular movie of all-time. Of course, even "Titanic" had a nude scene.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)