STOP WATCH AND LISTEN
1. STOP!
a. Find a quiet place near your pet.
b. Stop everything you are doing, and just breathe.
c. Focus on your breathing and be aware.
2. WATCH
a. Look at your pet.
b. Watch how they breathe.
c. Are you still aware of your own breath?
3. LISTEN
a. Listen to your pet...what do you hear?
b. Speak to your pet softly...how do they respond?
c. Now, think those same words in your mind.
Animals talk to us in many ways. You do not have to be psychic to communicate with your pets. The three easy steps above may help you get in touch with your pets.
Over the years I have researched and studied animals to try to understand our connection to their world. Animals talk to us through a language of pictures and emotions. You can think of it as emotional pictures. Have you ever reacted to a picture of food? More than just the picture of our favorite food (mine is ice cream with caramel sauce), we have emotional responses and physical reactions. That is how we talk with animals. We picture in our minds our pet at the same time surrounding them with feelings of love and affection. Then, just be still. Did you get a response?
It seems that I have been the Underground Railroad for stay animals. They show up at my house when they need help. The following is an example of how animals talk to me and I talk with them.
A young cat showed up at my door in fall in 1996. Two weeks before we had moved to the area, Hurricane Fran hit the Piedmont and Eastern North Carolina and decimated much of the area. Many animals and pets were lost or displaced.
While looking out of the window the day after we had moved in, I saw a small black and white cat in the yard. I was thinking how cute the cat was and the cat looked right at me and dashed into the woods. I would catch a glimpse of the cat every now and then. It was apparent the cat did not belong to anyone; perhaps it was displaced by the hurricane. The cat became thinner as the weather turned colder and the first snow fell. I knew I could not let the cat live in the elements for the winter. With care and concern, I built a shelter on the deck so the cat would have somewhere to get out of the cold. I kept a picture in my mind of the cat going into the shelter while surrounding the cat with love. Basically, I pictured the cat and the outcome in my thoughts. Sure enough one frosty evening I looked out and I saw the cat in the shelter. I was unable to touch or get close to the cat, but I knew the cat had shelter and food.
A few weeks later, I was reading in my room and heard a noise. All of a sudden, the cat jumped on the bed and startled me. The cat got scared, jumped off the bed, ran down the hall, and hid behind the washer. A few hours later, the cat came back into my room, meowed loudly, and jumped into the chair by the bed. My daughter named the cat Tuxie.
A few months later, we had to move. I was worried about how to move to the new house with a now-pregnant and somewhat domesticated stray. I knew I could not pick her up (I tried that before and she let me know she was not up for it). Tuxie vanished while all the packing and moving was going on. The very last day, after everything was out of the house, I came back with a basket with a lid that would fasten. I sat in the middle of the room and sent her a mental message that, if she wanted to go with us, she had to go in the basket. In a few minutes, she came into the room meowing, and I sent her the mental picture of her in the basket. To my surprise, she jumped into the basket; I closed down the lid, and carried her to the car and our new home. This began a long relationship of mutual respect and she became one of the most loving cats I have ever known.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Putting Friendly Drones In Civilian Skies
In the summer of 2008, when wildfires raged through northern California, the Air Force, the Navy and NASA all offered to put Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) into the air to track the fires' spread and help plan evacuations.
But in the end, instead of filling the sky with drones to brave the flames and relay data, the military and NASA were able to deploy only one UAV at a time.
UAVs - airborne vehicles that are directed remotely or through preprogrammed instructions, with no on-board pilots - have long been used in the military. Since their pilots can be thousands of miles away, UAVs can patrol hostile terrain without risking human lives. And because they don't need to carry pilots, UAVs can be smaller than traditional aircraft - sometimes downright tiny - which allows them to navigate tighter spaces and stay aloft with less fuel than manned aircraft. Yet despite these benefits, their adoption for civilian use has been excruciatingly slow.
The primary obstacle has been UAVs' still-limited capacity to detect and avoid other aircraft and objects. Remote pilots must rely on on-board sensors, which often give limited information and which can potentially malfunction. Because of this, the Federal Aviation Administration severely restricts the use of UAVs in domestic airspace. Public agencies wishing to operate UAVs inside the United States must apply for permission and are generally required to have ground observers or piloted aircraft in visual contact with a UAV whenever it is in space that is open to other air traffic.
Obviously, safety is the most important concern, but the costs of delaying the widespread use of UAVs are likely to be ultimately higher than the risks of using them.
Just this month, in Westchester County, N.Y., a month-long search for an elderly woman with Alzheimer's, who had seemingly vanished without a trace, ended when her body was found in the woods less than half a mile from her home. The area had already been checked by police officers and dogs.
In a similar situation on the other side of the country, an 8-year-old autistic boy spent more than 24 hours missing in the San Bernardino National Forest after he ran away from his elementary school. That story has a happier ending. The boy was found unharmed, but not until after he had endured a night of hard rains, lightning and cold weather.
If police had had access to UAVs with thermal imaging equipment, there is a chance that they might have been able to locate these two individuals faster.
The possible uses for UAVs in civilian life are almost endless. They could watch over lonely spans of coastline and desert, where smugglers and human traffickers now move with relative freedom. They could monitor urban traffic and flash flooding. They could watch for unauthorized intrusions near reservoirs, power plants and other sensitive sites. They could patrol remote stretches of highway for stranded motorists who might be in distress.
Of course, for some, the idea of eyes in the sky brings anything but comfort. The same qualities that make UAVs well-suited to so many public safety missions also make them the stuff of privacy advocates' nightmares. Recently, Texas law enforcement officers used a Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) to conduct an aerial sweep of a suspect's property, leading to a wave of questions about how the technology might expand the reach of the police. A great deal of talk has also been devoted to speculation that the 2012 Olympic Games in London will be monitored by security drones.
For some, the thought of drones buzzing through stadiums may conjure images from dystopian fiction. It is important to remember, however, that our personal freedom is a product of our laws and attitudes regarding civil liberties, not our access or lack of access to technology. So long as drone-led searches are subject to the same restrictions as those carried out by human beings, the advent of UAVs in civilian life alone will not carry us into an age of Big Brother-like surveillance.
But in the end, instead of filling the sky with drones to brave the flames and relay data, the military and NASA were able to deploy only one UAV at a time.
UAVs - airborne vehicles that are directed remotely or through preprogrammed instructions, with no on-board pilots - have long been used in the military. Since their pilots can be thousands of miles away, UAVs can patrol hostile terrain without risking human lives. And because they don't need to carry pilots, UAVs can be smaller than traditional aircraft - sometimes downright tiny - which allows them to navigate tighter spaces and stay aloft with less fuel than manned aircraft. Yet despite these benefits, their adoption for civilian use has been excruciatingly slow.
The primary obstacle has been UAVs' still-limited capacity to detect and avoid other aircraft and objects. Remote pilots must rely on on-board sensors, which often give limited information and which can potentially malfunction. Because of this, the Federal Aviation Administration severely restricts the use of UAVs in domestic airspace. Public agencies wishing to operate UAVs inside the United States must apply for permission and are generally required to have ground observers or piloted aircraft in visual contact with a UAV whenever it is in space that is open to other air traffic.
Obviously, safety is the most important concern, but the costs of delaying the widespread use of UAVs are likely to be ultimately higher than the risks of using them.
Just this month, in Westchester County, N.Y., a month-long search for an elderly woman with Alzheimer's, who had seemingly vanished without a trace, ended when her body was found in the woods less than half a mile from her home. The area had already been checked by police officers and dogs.
In a similar situation on the other side of the country, an 8-year-old autistic boy spent more than 24 hours missing in the San Bernardino National Forest after he ran away from his elementary school. That story has a happier ending. The boy was found unharmed, but not until after he had endured a night of hard rains, lightning and cold weather.
If police had had access to UAVs with thermal imaging equipment, there is a chance that they might have been able to locate these two individuals faster.
The possible uses for UAVs in civilian life are almost endless. They could watch over lonely spans of coastline and desert, where smugglers and human traffickers now move with relative freedom. They could monitor urban traffic and flash flooding. They could watch for unauthorized intrusions near reservoirs, power plants and other sensitive sites. They could patrol remote stretches of highway for stranded motorists who might be in distress.
Of course, for some, the idea of eyes in the sky brings anything but comfort. The same qualities that make UAVs well-suited to so many public safety missions also make them the stuff of privacy advocates' nightmares. Recently, Texas law enforcement officers used a Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) to conduct an aerial sweep of a suspect's property, leading to a wave of questions about how the technology might expand the reach of the police. A great deal of talk has also been devoted to speculation that the 2012 Olympic Games in London will be monitored by security drones.
For some, the thought of drones buzzing through stadiums may conjure images from dystopian fiction. It is important to remember, however, that our personal freedom is a product of our laws and attitudes regarding civil liberties, not our access or lack of access to technology. So long as drone-led searches are subject to the same restrictions as those carried out by human beings, the advent of UAVs in civilian life alone will not carry us into an age of Big Brother-like surveillance.
Ethics and The Supreme Court
As one of the three primary branches of government, the Supreme Court is very much the subject of ethics and compliance discussions. Consideration of financial gain is another way to evaluate if a member of the Supreme Court has violated the ethical code of conduct observed by judges in the United States.
If either the justice or a member of his or her family stands to gain financially from employment or endorsement, then the activity is often considered unethical. An example of this might be Justice Clarence Thomas' wife Virginia's employment by, and association with, conservative institutions were called into question recently. When Virginia Thomas was thought to gain financially, this was considered clearly unethical.
Justice Thomas originally neglected to disclose his wife's employment with the conservative Heritage Foundation because he did not realize he needed to do this. When he was made aware of this breach of conduct, he quickly rectified the situation and amended his filings for a thirteen year period.
It became more controversial when Mrs. Thomas became the co-founder and CEO of Liberty Central. This group publicly linked its activities to the Tea Party movement. While this association displeased some people, Nina Totenberg of NPR says, "There is nothing in the judicial Code of Conduct that would require her husband to recuse himself from cases involving the issues she has spoken so publicly about. Nor should Virginia Thomas' public opposition to matters such as the Obama health care law require Justice Thomas to recuse himself from future challenges to the law."
In other words, Supreme Court justices' family members are allowed to have political lives of their own when financial gain is not involved. Law professor Stephen Gillers says, ""A spouse of a judge can have a full political life and take positions on political issues and legal issues, even ones that come before his or her spouse."
The problem arose when it became public knowledge that Liberty Central received $550,000 from anonymous donors. Gillers says it becomes questionable "if Mrs. Thomas' [tax-exempt nonprofit] gets substantial contributions from companies or trade associations that have interests in matters that are pending at the Supreme Court or headed for the Supreme Court" (Totenberg).
Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has introduced a bill that would require making the Code of Conduct binding on the Supreme Court. However, "the Brookings Institution's Wheeler notes that the Constitution provides for 'one Supreme Court,' and if some other group of judges were designated to rule on Supreme Court ethical conflicts, he says it would 'probably violate the constitutional mandate' for one court."
According to experts, it appears that the Supreme Court has been fairly reliable in policing itself and making ethical judgments. Historically, where there have been lapses, they have been rectified quickly.
If either the justice or a member of his or her family stands to gain financially from employment or endorsement, then the activity is often considered unethical. An example of this might be Justice Clarence Thomas' wife Virginia's employment by, and association with, conservative institutions were called into question recently. When Virginia Thomas was thought to gain financially, this was considered clearly unethical.
Justice Thomas originally neglected to disclose his wife's employment with the conservative Heritage Foundation because he did not realize he needed to do this. When he was made aware of this breach of conduct, he quickly rectified the situation and amended his filings for a thirteen year period.
It became more controversial when Mrs. Thomas became the co-founder and CEO of Liberty Central. This group publicly linked its activities to the Tea Party movement. While this association displeased some people, Nina Totenberg of NPR says, "There is nothing in the judicial Code of Conduct that would require her husband to recuse himself from cases involving the issues she has spoken so publicly about. Nor should Virginia Thomas' public opposition to matters such as the Obama health care law require Justice Thomas to recuse himself from future challenges to the law."
In other words, Supreme Court justices' family members are allowed to have political lives of their own when financial gain is not involved. Law professor Stephen Gillers says, ""A spouse of a judge can have a full political life and take positions on political issues and legal issues, even ones that come before his or her spouse."
The problem arose when it became public knowledge that Liberty Central received $550,000 from anonymous donors. Gillers says it becomes questionable "if Mrs. Thomas' [tax-exempt nonprofit] gets substantial contributions from companies or trade associations that have interests in matters that are pending at the Supreme Court or headed for the Supreme Court" (Totenberg).
Rep. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has introduced a bill that would require making the Code of Conduct binding on the Supreme Court. However, "the Brookings Institution's Wheeler notes that the Constitution provides for 'one Supreme Court,' and if some other group of judges were designated to rule on Supreme Court ethical conflicts, he says it would 'probably violate the constitutional mandate' for one court."
According to experts, it appears that the Supreme Court has been fairly reliable in policing itself and making ethical judgments. Historically, where there have been lapses, they have been rectified quickly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)