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.
Monday, June 15, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)