And the bonus: Free wi-fi! Lol, the hospital is better than Starbucks.
I know, I know, I could be using this time productively to, oh, proof-read a paper, or work on some other results, go through emails even, so why and I here writing to you all... because I can! There's something satisfying, like a personal triumph, when one finds free wi-fi, and I, having triumphed, need to show off. :)
In other dog news, the UK is considering advanced legislation against acts by "dangerous dogs". Previously they banned four "dangerous" breeds of dogs, and gave themselves rights to sanction dangerous dog acts (for any breed) in the public sphere, and now are potentially giving the government the ability to sanction dog owners for acts in private residences.
I disagree with the assumption that some breeds are inherently dangerous and should be banned, but do agree that any dog that attacks a person or another dog should come up for a review for the public's health and safety. No, I don't think it should immediately be put to sleep, but I do think that a record should be made, and an investigation should consider what actions are appropriate given the particular offense.
Yes, larger dogs can, in general, do more damage, but, just like people, there are both genetic and environmental components to behavior. If we start damning dogs because they were unlucky enough to have a particular genetic heritage, that seems to open the doorway to charging people for being born with particular gene variants associated with aggressiveness, or considering a person with an allele associated with alcoholism as having a "pre-existing" condition even if they've never swat a fly or drank a drop, respectively.