A True Story and a Valuable Lesson

This is a true story about an amazing teacher who taught her students a wonderful lesson about things we take for granted. It is also a lesson and story we can also learn from as well.

I checked this out on Snopes and it is true!

Back in September of 2005, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock did something not to be forgotten. On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks out of her classroom.

When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks.

'Ms. Cothren, where are our desks?'

She replied, 'You can't have a desk until you tell me how you earn the right to sit at a desk.'

They thought, 'Well, maybe it's our grades.'

'No,' she said.

'Maybe it's our behavior.'

She told them, 'No, it's not even your behavior.'

And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period. Still no desks in the classroom.

By early afternoon television news crews had started gathering in Ms. Cothren's classroom to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room.

The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the floor of the desk-less classroom, Martha Cothren said, 'Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he or she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you.'

At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it.

Twenty-seven (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniforms, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and stand alongside the wall. By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started to understand, perhaps for the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned....

Martha said, 'You didn't earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you . They placed the desks here for you. Now, it's up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an education. Don't ever forget it.'

By the way, this is a true story. And this teacher was awarded Teacher of the Year for the state of Arkansas in 2006.

*Please consider passing this along so others won't forget either that the liberties and freedoms we have in this great country were earned by U. S. Veterans, past and present!*

Always remember them and the rights they have won for us.

Natura Pet Recalls Multiple Brands of Dry Dog and Cat Foods, Treats

Here we go again...another pet food recall....

Natura Pet Issues New Dog And Cat Food Recall

June 18, 2013 3:28 PM

 

: A sampling of product labels being recalled by Natura Pet Products (Credit: Steve Grzanich)

Reporting Steve Grzanich

CHICAGO (CBS) — Nebraska-based Natura Pet Products has announced a new voluntary recall of multiple brands of dry pet food and treats. The decision comes after a positive test for Salmonella on April 3.
This is the latest in a series of recalls involving the company in the past year.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, the recall involves Innova Dry dog and cat food, biscuits, bars, treats. Evo dry pets foods and treats, California Natural dry pet foods and treats, Healthwise, Karma and Mother Nature brands — all lot codes and all package sizes. The products generally have expiration dates prior to June 10, 2014.

The FDA says Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is a risk to humans if they handle the contaminated pet products. Expert say it’s important to thoroughly wash hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products.

The FDA says pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Other pets will experience decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.

According to a news release issued by the FDA, the Natura products in question were were packaged in a single production facility. The positive test for Salmonella came during routine FDA testing. So far there have been no reports of pet or human illness associated with products involved in this latest recall.

Natura says the affected products were sold at veterinary clinics, select pet specialty retailers, and online in the U.S. and Canada. No canned wet food is affected by the recall.

For more information, visit www.fda.gov and naturapet.com/recall.

Interacting with Dogs (and Cats) Can Help Human Mental Health

From the AVMA Pet Health SmartBrief-

How Pooches Can Replace Drugs

Jun 7, 2013 by Jennifer Viegas

Dogs may help to correct certain human mental health disorders by beneficially affecting brain chemistry and function, a new study suggests.

The research shows how interacting with dogs improves mood among teenagers living in residential treatment centers. In this case, the teens were in therapy for drug or alcohol abuse.

"We suggest that the dog interaction activities and/or the dog itself could potentially serve as a non-drug stimulus that may heighten the adolescents' response to naturally occurring stimuli therefore potentially helping to restore the brain's normal process," said Lindsay Ellsworth, who led the research.

Ellsworth, a doctoral candidate at Washington State University, brought dogs from the Spokane Humane Society to the Excelsior Youth Center, also in Spokane. Teen participants were all males.
During daily recreation time at Excelsior, some of the teens played pool, video games or basketball. Another group interacted with the dogs, by brushing, feeding and playing with them. Before and after the activities, the teens filled an assessment used to scale and study emotion.

Teens who spent time with dogs experienced heightened joy, improved attentiveness and serenity. Symptoms for participants being treated for ADHD, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder dramatically decreased.

Ellsworth suspects that social companionship with dogs may stimulate the release of opioids, psychoactive chemicals that can relieve pain and promote pleasurable feelings. Certain drugs -- legal and illegal -- bind to opioid receptors in the brain, but the doggy-produced high is natural with no side effects.

Repeated drug use can significantly alter opioid systems, leaving the person feeling lonely or depressed. Social companionship with dogs appears to help alleviate these negative states.

"The relationship between humans and dogs has been in existence for thousands of years," Ellsworth explained. "They actively seek out their owner’s attention and, from the human perception, they provide displays of affection.

She described how one teen at the center with behavioral problems benefited from the animals.

“During his first couple of encounters with the dogs, he had to learn how to control his behavior in order not to startle the dogs,” she said, adding that "his tone and voice eventually became quieter, his stroke softer, his moves more calculated versus spontaneous, and he appeared to become more aware of himself and how he was acting."

After sessions with the dogs, his interactions with staff improved, becoming "positive and productive."
"It could be a really novel, cost-effective and beneficial complement to traditional treatments," said animal behaviorist Ruth Newberry about using dogs to help treat substance abuse. "This could be a win-win innovation for everyone involved, including the dogs."

Jaak Panksepp, chair of Animal Well-Being Science at WSU, added, “This is wonderful research, and highlights how companion animals can promote therapy with teenagers who have emotional problems.”
Ellsworth suspects that dogs similarly benefit the mental health of adults, children and seniors too. Interaction with cats likely also stimulates opioid release, particularly for people who are already feline fanciers.

Something Frightening About Research and the Risk of Bioterrorism

From an article posted on the AVMA Pet Health SmartBrief.

Although not animal related per se this article should be brought to everyone's attention. Granted, research is essential to help determine causes and cures of diseases, but in our tumultuous, uncertain times, with the significant risk of bioterrorism, we could be at risk if certain projects are not kept secured.

A Most Dangerous Race

Posted: 05/27/2013 8:00 am

Imagine a flu season in which the disease hits a quarter of the U.S. population and kills 675,000 Americans, mostly young adults, and upward of 40 million people worldwide. That was the reality of the infamous 1918 flu pandemic. Nothing like it has been seen since, but increasing numbers of scientists are conducting research whose risks could lead to an even more devastating global pandemic, this one caused by an altered flu virus escaping from one of dozens of laboratories investigating it.

A likely culprit: the much talked about H5N1 avian flu virus, among the deadliest known in percentage of victims it kills. It has so far been spread almost entirely by direct contact of a person -- usually a poultry worker in Asia -- with infected chickens or ducks. But what if it were airborne-transmissible from person to person? Imagine the devastation if a tourist could catch it from an infected poultry worker and spread it by a cough or a sneeze among fellow travelers who would all carry it home. Such an outbreak could lead to that unimaginable pandemic.

Making the H5N1 virus transmissible from person to person is precisely the goal of such research, which could be stepped up sharply as soon as the NIH establishes rules governing such experiments for its own grantees.

But the dangerous race is already on. A lab in Germany is trying to make canine distemper virus contagious between humans. Once again the rationale is to understand how that might occur in nature. Why risk a laboratory-caused outbreak of virulent, human contagious distemper? And a lab in China reported making combination of H5N1 bird flu and human H1N1 viruses contagious in guinea pigs, again with the goal of creating human contagion. Should we try to make any and all animal viruses contagious in humans simply to learn how it can be done?

In 2009, the pandemic caused by H1N1 flu virus infected one in every four people in the world but killed very few. What if its fatality rate had been 50 percent to 60 percent -- the current death rate for workers directly infected by birds with the H5N1 virus? The 40 million dead from the 1918 virus could become hundreds of millions killed by an accidental laboratory release of such an engineered avian virus.

The CDC's own data indicate that such an outcome is likely enough to create an urgent demand to stop this kind of research. Our calculations from data the center published in its 2013 report on theft, loss and release of pathogens and toxins suggest that for two dozen labs working with human-transmissible H5N1 viruses, there would be a 50-50 chance of a release in just 30 years. However, if live SARS virus research can be taken as a guide, more than 100 labs could end up researching human-transmissible avian flu. It would then take a mere seven years for that 50-50 chance of a release by one of them.

What are the chances of a pandemic resulting from such a release? Victims infected with influenza viruses typically become contagious in one to three days. This rapid onset of contagion after becoming infected is a major reason why influenza outbreaks are difficult to control through quarantine. It is not hard to believe that as few as one in 10 to one in 100 lab releases could result in a pandemic.

That a lab release occurring in seven to 30 years could seed a pandemic with hundreds of millions of deaths is an intolerable risk, and we have been considering only accidental release. The likelihood gets worse if one also considers deliberate release by a deranged lab worker -- as occurred in the 2001 anthrax mailings -- by terrorists or by hostile nations.

In our commentary to this post, "The Human Fatality Burden of Mammalian-transmissible Bird Flu Research," we calculate that each lab developing human-contagious H5N1 bird flu could carry with it the possibility of causing 50 to 5,000 deaths per year if they are successful. To put these numbers in perspective, no Institutional Review Board tasked with assessing human-subjects research would approve a proposal with fatalities estimated at 50 to 5,000 per year.

Whatever number we are gambling with, it is clearly far too high a risk to human lives around the world -- and to do so for very little scientific return. There is no persuasive evidence that H5N1 in nature is creeping toward being contagious in humans on its own.

This research must be stopped completely. Its practical benefits range from unclear to absent, and its risk is staggeringly high.

The United States should take the lead in starting discussions toward an international agreement requiring the strictest oversight and highest biosafety level for research on other potentially highly contagious and lethal pathogens. Failure to act would offer tacit permission for the entire world to carry out such research without regard to consequences. That can only lead us ever farther down a most dangerous path and a never ending gamble with all of our lives.

Lynn C. Klotz, Ph.D, and Edward J. Sylvester are the authors of Breeding Bio Insecurity: How U.S. Biodefense is Exporting Fear, Globalizing Risk, and Making Us All Less Secure, University of Chicago Press, 2009. They post articles on biological security here and on their blog Breeding Bio Security. Klotz is Senior Science Fellow, the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation. Sylvester is a science writer and Director of the Cronkite Program in Science and Medical Writing in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.

From the AVMA Pet Health SmartBrief.......

Breed-specific regulation: Not new and not working

By Donald Cleary Guest columnist

May 24, 2013

We all want to live safely, including with dogs. With that purpose in mind, we should adopt policies that have succeeded, and avoid ones that failed.

Breed-specific regulation did not originate with pit bulls. Long Branch, N.J., banned the Spitz in 1878. Massachusetts banned bloodhounds in 1886. Australia prohibited the further importation of German Shepherd dogs in 1929.

None of these breed-specific regulations made communities safer, and all have long since been consigned to the dustbin reserved for government failures.
 
More recently, some have redirected this failed idea on the so-called pit bull. ("Pit bull" is not a breed. The definition varies, depending upon where you are.) Directing attention to a different dog has not turned a failed idea into a successful one.

Breed-specific regulation misses the mark because it is over-inclusive, penalizing dog owners who do not permit their pets to be problems; and under-inclusive, since it overlooks owners of other dogs who do. This makes it tough on some dog owners and pets, without making anyone safer.

A breed-specific clamor arises occasionally, usually in reaction to an individual serious incident. The fact remains, however, that there has never been any evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to bite or injure a human being than another kind of dog. The animal scientists and professionals who have studied dog-bite incidents and published their findings in the professional literature oppose regulating dogs on the basis of breed.

There has never been any evidence that breed regulation has reduced the incidence of dog-bite injuries, serious or otherwise.

Recognizing this, American communities, the state of Ohio and two European countries — the Netherlands and Italy — have repealed breed-specific laws, and focused instead on public education in dog safety, and on holding dog owners to higher standards of humane care, custody and control.

Florida was ahead of the curve. In 1990, Florida preempted towns and counties from regulating dogs by breed. Miami-Dade is an exception.

Neither the National Animal Control Association nor the Florida Animal Control Association endorses breed-specific regulation, of pit bulls or any other dogs. These are the professionals on the ground in our communities, charged with protecting people and animals. They know it is not good policy.

The American Veterinary Medical Association, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Humane Society of the United States, the Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA also know it is not good policy.

We certainly must punish reckless owners who have allowed their dogs to cause harm. However, if safety around dogs is our goal, we must do more than that; we must enact policies that prevent serious incidents from occurring. Prevention results when communities adopt a responsible pet-ownership model.

Both the Centers for Disease Control and the AVMA recommend community implementation of responsible pet-ownership models. The principles of such a model are straightforward:

1) License and provide permanent identification for your pets.
2) Spay or neuter your pets.
3) Provide training, socialization, proper diet and medical care for your pets.
4) Do not allow your pets to become a threat or nuisance in the community.
5) Procure your pet ethically and from a credible source.

Communities that adopt these clear principles apply them to all dog owners, whether their dogs are big or small, however many they have and whatever kind they choose to keep.

Let success be our guide, and failure serve only as a cautionary tale.

Donald Cleary is director of communications and publications for the National Canine Research Council.

Adam and Eve's Pets (A Bible "Story")

This is not my original composition....it is from an email I received, but is a fun Bible "story" that I wanted to share.

The Story of Adam & Eve's Pets

Adam and Eve said, 'Lord, when we were in the garden, You walked with us every day. Now we do not see You any more. We are lonesome here, and it is difficult for us to remember how much You love us.' 

And God said, ‘I will create a companion for you that will be with you and who will be a reflection of my love for you, so that you will love me even when you cannot see me. Regardless of how selfish or childish or unlovable you may be, this new companion will accept you as you are and will love you as I do, in spite of yourselves.' 

And God created a new animal to be a companion for Adam and Eve.

And it was a good animal and God was pleased. 

And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and Eve and he wagged his tail.

And Adam said, 'Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and I cannot think of a name for this new animal.’

And God said, 'I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you, his name will be a reflection of my own name, and you will call him DOG.' 

And Dog lived with Adam and Eve and was a companion to them and loved them. 

And they were comforted. 

And God was pleased. 

And Dog was content and wagged his tail. 

After a while, it came to pass that an angel came to the Lord and said, 'Lord, Adam and Eve have become filled with pride. They strut and preen like peacocks and they believe they are worthy of adoration. Dog has indeed taught them that they are loved, but perhaps too well.' 

And God said, I will create for them a companion who will be with them and who will see them as they are. The companion will remind them of their limitations, so they will know that they are not always worthy of adoration.' 

And God created "CAT" to be a companion to Adam and Eve. 

And Cat would not obey them. And when Adam and Eve gazed into Cat's eyes, they were reminded that they were not the supreme beings.  

 And Adam and Eve learned humility.

And they were greatly improved. 

And God was pleased.

And Dog was happy. 

And the Cat . . . 

Couldn’t care less  one way or the other.

As if drivers aren't distracted enough!

Driving with pets increases crash rates

MICHAEL VAUGHAN

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, May. 16 2013, 7:00 AM EDT

This week: more developments in the battle against distracted driving.

The Ontario Government states that distracted driving is cited as a causal factor in 30 to 50 per cent of traffic collisions and pedestrian fatalities. Distracted driving is blamed in more than 10 per cent of all U.S. highway fatalities, according to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The problem is people fussing with their phones, e-mailing or texting when they should have their eyes on the road. Well, here’s another distraction that I have personally noticed countless times, but now there’s some data that backs up my suspicion. Simply put, pets in cars increase crash rates.

 

Researchers at the University of Alabama-Birmingham claim that seniors who drive with pets in the car are twice as likely to end up in a crash. “This is the first study to evaluate the presence of pets in a vehicle as a potential internal distraction for elderly drivers,” said Gerald McGwin, senior author of the study.

According to NHTSA, drivers should never take their eyes off the road for more than two seconds at a time. A moving pet, especially in the front seat, can cause a driver to do exactly that. I recently saw a woman barrelling down our street with a small dog in her lap with its head stuck out the window. Often times, I see a large dog sitting in the front passenger seat as a car roars past.

An animal loose in the front seat should automatically result in the driver getting the $155 distracted driving fine.

If a dog or cat gets startled and moves suddenly, it stands a good chance of causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle. “Adding another distracting element, especially an active, potentially moving animal, provides more opportunity for an older driver to respond to a driving situation in a less-than-satisfactory way,” said McGwin.

There may not be laws to keep pets out of the front seat, but there are lots barring motorists from texting or using hand-held devices while driving. A number of auto makers have been adding supposedly safer voice-to-text features to their vehicles and I have tried many of them.

Sometimes the voice recognition system works fine if you tell it to turn up the heat or change the radio station, but plenty of times it doesn’t. It shouts back at you, “Invalid Command” or some such phrase and tells you to try again. Sometimes it will list a bunch of “valid” commands and tell you to choose one. Some systems display the valid commands and you take your eyes off the road to read them. Most of the time, I yell back at the damned system or start pushing buttons on the touch screen; in either case, I’m seriously distracted.

Well, now there’s a new study by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) that warns that this hands-free voice recognition technology is just as likely to leave drivers distracted and at risk of a crash as monkeying with your cellphone. Despite being billed as a safer alternative, the new study indicates that texting in any form is a dangerous distraction.

The study took 43 licensed drivers between the ages of 16 and 60 and sent them driving on a closed course four times. They were asked to drive once while focusing on the road, once while texting manually, and then once each using an iPhone voice-to-text app and an Android phone using voice-to-text.

“Results indicate that driver reaction times were nearly two times slower than the baseline condition, no matter which texting method was used,” according to TTI’s Christine Yager. It’s interesting to note that the drivers perceived the voice-operated systems to be safer, but the study showed driving performance suffered equally. In fact, in some cases, manual texting actually took less time to complete.

As I have discovered, voice-to-text technology isn’t perfect and, when you start arguing with the thing, you are taking your concentration off the road. If the dog starts barking, too, you’ve got a real problem. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has outlined an aggressive campaign to eliminate most high-tech distractions from the automobile, including not just Bluetooth systems but most on-board navigation devices.

The battle over the safety of voice-based systems is just getting started.