Wednesday, January 26, 2005


Since I can think of nothing else to write about at the moment, I will write about some subjects that interest me. I received the latest JAMA in the mail today, and I will go over some of the studies that I think will also interest my readers. But first, I will start with two science jokes that I think are very funny though a bit corny.

Q: Which dissolves in water first, a bear from the arctic, or from further south?
A: The Arctic, because it’s polar!

Two hydrogen atoms are walking down the street. The first one says, "Hey! I think I lost an electron!" The second one replies, "Are you sure?" The first one then says, "Yeah, I'm POSITIVE."

I hope you enjoyed those, although my guess is that most people won’t get them. The first study that interested me was conducted by Ponsonby et al. It was a case-control study conducted in Australia that found that people who grew up with infant siblings have a lesser chance of developing multiple sclerosis than do people who have no siblings. It appears that the more siblings a person has, and the closer they are to him in age (as long as they are younger), the smaller the person’s chance of developing multiple sclerosis is. Although it is complicated, basically this appears to be the case because infants carry many infections, they transfer them to their siblings, and this boosts the siblings’ immune systems, protecting them against MS. So, unfortunately, if you are the youngest child it does not matter how many siblings you have, but if you are the oldest or middle child, the more younger siblings you have (up until you turn six), the better.

There is a lot on the news about the increasing obesity epidemic—obesity makes one more susceptible to heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, and hypertension. Now, they have just found out that it also makes one more susceptible to kidney stones. This was discovered by Taylor et al.

Lastly, the CDC just conducted a survey of “Fatal and nonfatal occupational injuries involving wood chippers” in the United States between 1992 and 2002. A total of 31 people died (all males between 20-60 years old), and a total of 2042 injuries were reported (there were probably more). 60% of the injuries were to an upper limb. Unfortunately, since there is no way to know how many people used a chipper during this time period, we do not know the risk of injury when using a chipper. The CDC suggests that users of chippers wear protective equipment, close-fitting clothing, know how to use them correctly, keep hands and feet away from the feed chute, stand to the side of the chipper in reach of the emergency off switch, and to always use a long branch to push in smaller ones.

As I think of interesting topics, I will continue to post them. Look for a sequel to Diei Stulti sometime in the future.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Diei Stulti

This post is an attempt to give my readers an in-depth study on the churning quagmire of chaos that I like to call “the liberal mind”. If you are like me, there are times when you simply cannot fathom what liberals are thinking. I am writing this post as a fictional first-person account of a day in the life of a liberal in Santa Barbara, CA. It has been gleaned from my life experience, but since I have only observed actions of liberals, the inner thoughts of which I write are only guesswork. It may help explain what they are thinking, if not why.

0630: I awaken to the gentle cooing of a recording of the spotted owl. As I turn over in bed, I can’t help but think of how horrible it must be to have one’s home destroyed by those barbaric loggers trying to make money by building houses. If only people would practice population control!

0700: I enter the kitchen after getting dressed to make wife (notice that I do not call her MY wife, since she is not property:) and son some breakfast. I do all the cooking in an effort to defy traditional gender stereotypes. Unfortunately, my efforts to break down stereotypes have not been entirely successful—son (Rainbow) has refused to gently play with the dolls wife (Moondust) and I have given him. He always rips off their heads. Moondust and I took him to a child psychiatrist to try to explore the reasons for his violent tendencies, and maybe gently help him to focus his energies in other areas, but the knuckle-dragging buffoon we went to merely laughed and said behavior such as this was perfectly normal for six-year-old boys. Moondust and I sure gave him a piece of our minds!

0730: Moondust and Rainbow come into the kitchen. I kiss the top of Moondust’s head, and as I nearly poke my eye out, I can’t help but wish she would use less gel to spike her hair. Instantly, I am ashamed of myself for this closed-minded attitude. How dare I want to suppress the expression of her personality? I love everything about her, from her bare feet to her multi-studded ears. I am mortified to admit that it took me a while to get used to the chain going from her ears to her nose-ring. Rainbow sits down, and I can’t help but notice that he seems to be pouting. I inquire about his feelings, and he asks if he can have his name changed. I am a little surprised, but tell him that if he feels that is right for him, then we will. My jaw dropped open, though, when he told us he wanted to be called John. Why is he falling for traditional stereotypic names?

0800: Moondust leaves for work. She works as a counselor at the local high school while she takes night classes for her master’s degree in psychology. I am so proud of her! I take Rainbow to school and drop him off after reminding him that I would prefer he not play dodgeball—far too violent. I am disturbed to see him roll his eyes, but I have always encouraged him to share his feelings in whatever way is right for him.

0830: I arrive at the gathering place for the “Speak Out” session of the political group I belong to. I work at home as an artist (although you will most likely not see my work as most stores refuse to carry it due to the owners’ archaic “morality”), so I am able to take part in these things on week days. We all make our own signs to carry, they are about whatever topic we feel strongly about. My sign says “Bush is dumb”, and has a picture of Bush in a chimpanzee costume. Last week a passerby came up to me and told me that my sign proved nothing and was a meaningless expression of my opinion. I told him where to get off! Why should I care about the opinion of someone who disagrees with me?! I think my sign is very witty. The other speakers (I like to call them comrades, so I can fantasize about living in a communist world) carry signs such as: “Stop the hate—torch the churches”, “Protect separation of church and state—outlaw prayer in public”, and “Abortion—prevent overpopulation”. I am so grateful to have such great and brave people around me who aren’t afraid to speak their minds!

1230: One of my comrades points out a hummer driving by—it has a bumper sticker that says “Run, Hillary, Run!” on its front bumper. My comrades have been passing these out in support of Hillary running for president. I am surprised that someone in a hummer would have one of these bumper stickers, but I wave anyway. It wasn’t until the driver waved back in a rather rude way that I realized the significance of the sticker's being on the front bumper rather than the back. I am disgusted by the sentiment, but can’t help wishing I had thought of doing that with a Bush sticker before the election. All my comrades and I had done was to take down all the Bush signs that we saw and replace them with Kerry signs. Some of my comrades had qualms about that, but I reminded them that the conservatives do not have the right to enforce their opinions on us.

1700: I return home. I had almost as much fun today as I did when I laid in the streets with my comrades to protest the war in Iraq. Boy did the traffic get mad then! I start dinner—tonight we are having tofu and organically grown vegetables. Rainbow is home already, and seems disgusted by all the bugs on the vegetables. I remind him that bugs are natural, and pesticides aren’t as I gently nudge the bugs off.

1730: Moondust gets home, and appears to have been crying. I ask what is wrong, and she starts sobbing. The principal had told her that she would have to start wearing shoes and take off her nose chain due to health and safety issues! How dare he try to impose his opinions on his subordinates? I promise to call the ACLU the next morning. She also says that one of the students who had passed her in the hall had been carrying a Bible. I am livid—why are such hate-mongering pieces of literature allowed in school? I see that I am going to have to make a list of things to tell the ACLU.

1830: I go up to my studio and work until bedtime. I am currently expressing my feelings on the current state of politics in America. So far I have spray-painted a shoe gray and glued it to a paper plate with pieces of macaroni stuck to it—quite promising if I do say so myself!

2200: I go to bed, although I can hear the TV since Rainbow is still up. Moondust and I decided that we should allow him to do whatever he wants so he can learn what is best for himself. I smile at the pictures of Lenin and Stalin that are on my bedroom wall, and shut off the lights. I have another big day tomorrow!

Friday, January 21, 2005


I was reminded this morning what tomorrow commemorates when I walked into the auditorium and was greeted by a message on the chalkboard: “Roe v Wade Anniversary—Celebrate Women’s Reproductive Choice—Cafeteria Noon Refreshments”. That was by far the most sickening thing I have read in a long time, and it took quite a while before I could concentrate on the lecture. Generally I can understand liberal arguments, even though I usually strongly disagree with them, but I am simply incapable of comprehending the mindset of a person who schedules a celebration of the court decision that has resulted in the violent deaths of more than 44 million infants in the last 32 years. What is their cheer? “Women can now live whatever lifestyle they desire, without worrying about the consequences! Get pregnant? Have that little sucker chopped up and removed in less than an hour! Let’s celebrate!” But at least they’re getting free refreshments.

Every argument for legal abortion is pure trash. Women and men have “reproductive choice”, it entails a decision of whether or not to have an intimate physical relationship with someone. Having made a decision in favor of that, the pair should be stuck with the consequences, even if that means having to go through a pregnancy. What if the woman lives in a culture or has a job in which she will be looked down upon for having a pregnancy out of wedlock? Too stinking bad, that is not the baby’s fault. She should have thought about that before she becoming pregnant. And the man is by no means free of consequences—he should be forced to support both woman and child indefinitely. Identity of the father is no longer a problem, we have DNA tests nowadays.

The whole argument that making abortions illegal will result in women getting “back-alley” abortions illegally, and possibly dying from them is hogwash as well. What pro-abortionists don’t seem to get is that the mother is not my primary focus—I am much more concerned about the baby she is trying to murder. If I see a man holding a knife to an old lady’s throat on the street am I going to try to keep mugging illegal, or to make laws protecting muggers? There is no difference between this scenario and the abortion issue except that in this case the old lady has a chance of surviving and mugging is still illegal.

Fetuses are fully human, as anyone who has looked at an ultrasound or seen stillborn fetuses should know. The killing of them, by their own mother or by anyone else is murder and should be treated as such legally. Any physician who willingly performs an abortion violates everything the medical field stands for and should be stripped of his license and tried for pre-meditated murder.

I realize that this post is somewhat more vehement than usual, seemingly contradicting the Columba part of my blog, however, this is an issue that infuriates me, and even Columbae can be angered at the murder of innocent people. I understand that pregnant women (especially teenagers) can be scared, and not know what to do, but there is help for them at pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. Adoption is always an option—in California, all a woman has to do is drop her newborn off at the emergency room, and they are legally required to take it without asking any questions. The government’s condoning of abortion does not help anyone.

There are times when I think of how barbaric other cultures have been/are, such as the burning of a living woman when her husband dies, Sodom and Gomorrah, the holocaust, and mistreatment of slaves; yet none of these (except the holocaust) resulted in even close to the brutal death of 44 million people. I can’t help but wonder, in several hundred years, when historians look back, will this nauseating practice be our identifying mark, and will we be labeled the most wicked barbarians in history? So, while a (hopefully very small) group of my classmates are celebrating this, allow me to reiterate my last post: may God have mercy on this nation.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Caudeces et Furciferes

The First Amendment of our Constitution reads thus: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is on the first clause that Michael Newdow, my physician role model (read sarcasm), decided to base his case that the words “under God” should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Apparently, he felt that it was making his little daughter feel bad to hear those awful words every day in school, so he decided to prevent the other 260 million people in America from saying them. Too bad that his daughter actually professes to be a Christian and proudly says the words “under God” with all her heart. Throw in the fact that his ex-wife who shares her daughter’s feelings is the one who has custody over the girl, and his case is pretty much gone. The judge felt that way, anyway.

Now the esteemed Dr. Newdow is at it again, this time, he wants the prayer removed from the presidential inauguration, because he believes that it also violates the First Amendment. And he’s right—the First Amendment does say that when something that the vast majority of Americans agree with offends an atheist, it should be banned so his feelings and self esteem won’t be hurt… Oh wait—no it doesn’t. Funny, I read it as “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion…” Last I checked, having someone give a prayer in public did not equate to Congress making a law establishing Christianity as America’s mandatory religion. Considering the fact that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights had Christian ministers pray at every meeting (in fact, the majority of the founding fathers had gone to a Christian seminary), somehow I don’t think that the First Amendment prevents prayer in a public event.

If anything, removing the words “under God” from the pledge, and prohibiting a prayer to be said at the inauguration is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. You see, liberals always choose to quote the first clause along with their catchy little “separation of church and state” ditty, but ignore the rest of the amendment: “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Liberals will be quick to point out in the fashion that only liberals can do and be entirely serious, “Well, what would you say if they prayed to Allah or Satan?” I will be quick to respond—when they can show me how Muslims or Satanists contributed to the founding of America, or that most Americans consider themselves to be Muslims or Satanists (actually, if the latter case were true, I would not be responding because I would have emigrated already), they will have an argument. Until then, may God give blessing and mercy to this Nation, because we badly need both.


I am taking a break from my usual intellectually advanced Latin titles to encourage my readers to consider attending an excellent conference this summer. It is called the West Coast Worldview Conference, and can be viewed at It is a week-long conference designed for the education of young reformed Christians (of college or late highschool age) on the history and beliefs of the reformed faith as well as on topics such as godly courtship and the application of one's faith in one's life. The speakers are very good (most are nationally renowned) and the entire experience is a blessing, as I discovered last summer. It is held at a Christian college in the hills of Santa Cruz, CA. While most people who attend are from CA, there are usually several students from out of state also. As long as you can get to the San Jose Airport, you are welcome. So, visit the link, and contact them for more information!

Monday, January 17, 2005

Lingua Beata

One of the disturbing trends I have noticed is the belief that the rules of proper English are unnecessary when communicating via computer. Punctuation, capitalization, sentence structure and just about everything else seem to go straight out the window nowadays. For an example, I will write this post as if I followed this trend.

hey peeps im riting my blog.i like riting cuz i kin xpress my pheelings 'n tok 'bout stuf. i hav lotsa pinions. i think lbrls r crazy sumtimes but sum peeps hoo think they r conserv. r crazy 2. 4 instunz, ahnold shwortzeneger (guv of cali) ses hes repulican but is maryd to a reely librl l8y. its phunny that he is guv since hes a moovy * but reely any1 is beter thn gray davis, lol! tokin of cali the wether thare is so crazy! it raned 4 like 3 weekss strate! & all that mud slides blokd the 3ways!! im tryin 2 think of wut i want 4 dinner 2nite. i lik peetza but it has so much fat an i want 2 loose some pnds but th' prob is that i dont lik eting helthy stuff like brokli even tho scient'sts sae it is so gud 4 u. so ill prob just git a cheezburger 2nite on my wae home from wurk. o did i menchun my job? i just startd wurking as n editor in a noospaper. my frend ones it so he hird me imedi8ly since he noes i lik to rite even tho ive never shoed him my riting. im glad he hired me, but im not sure itll wurk out coz he wuz acting reel cranky wen i left last nite, & then he called me @ home n critisized my wurk--i ges its troo, u shudnt wurk 4 some1 u noe or theyll trie 2 tek advantag of u. anywae, i need to go now. talk 2 u later!!!!!!!!!

Creare Mundus

Currently, in several states there is debate over whether or not schools should teach evolution as fact, and even whether or not they should teach the theory of intelligent design. Proponents of evolution argue that evolution is a proven scientific fact, while creation is a religious belief, therefore the First Amendment allows the teaching of evolution and prohibits the teaching of creation. This argument is severely flawed. First, evolution is simply not proven in the slightest (note: for those who are more educated in biology, natural selection is a fact. When I say “evolution”, I am referring to the belief that natural selection was able to create life as we know it from random molecules floating in a primordial goo over billions of years). For a theory to be scientifically proven, it must be tested in a controlled setting. Evolutionists are correct in pointing out that creation cannot be scientifically proven, but they fail to see that evolution is equally incapable of being proven, due to the obvious fact that to be proven someone had to have observed it, which is not the case. The only thing we can do is to look at the evidence around us, and make an intelligent decision from it on our origins.

The second problem with the evolutionists’ argument is by stating that the theory of intelligent design is somehow more “religious” than evolution. If creation is in fact true, then it is scientific, not religious, because science is what is factual. Teaching children in school that one of the theories of our origins states that the world may have been created is not forcing “religious” beliefs on them, it is giving them the facts and allowing them to make an educated decision. Those guilty of forcing their beliefs on children are the people who tell them that evolution is a scientific fact, when evolution has not ever and can never be scientifically proven.

Personally, if I ruled America, creation would be taught in the public schools. However, since that is not a possibility, the simple answer to the dilemma of what to teach children in public schools is one of the following:
1) Ignore the issue. Why do children in a science class need to study our origins? Will their knowledge of photosynthesis be affected by how it developed? Let the origin issue be discussed in philosophy class, or later in their education (college).
2) Present the theories of both intelligent design and evolution without commentary, and let the students decide which they think is correct.
3) Home school your children, or send them to a private school where being told by teachers that they evolved from single-celled slime organisms is not an issue.

Friday, January 14, 2005


Well, this is my first post, possibly of many. My intention is to write about whatever I feel like writing about, for the most part whenever I am in the mood to write about it, be it the result of total boredom, complete enthusiasm, or intense frustration (if the last, one can surmise that the topic of the post will be about liberals in America, political correctness, or some related stupidity.) Naturally, since I do not intend to provide any personal information about myself, readers who are already acquainted with me and with my viewpoint will most likely gain more from the experience of perusing my site than will those who have not met me, but I hope this will not detract the latter from visiting Anguis et Columba as I am sure they will also obtain valuable insights. I invite my readers to bookmark this site and visit often.