My dad recently sent me a link to Quantcast, a service which ranks and provides demographical information on your web site’s visitors. I checked out their details on my web site and found the following comment:

This site reaches fewer than 2000 U.S. monthly uniques. The site caters to a younger, mostly female, more educated audience.

I always knew I was popular with the ladies … I just never had any evidence to prove it. According to Quantcast, I have 139% as many female visitors as the “Internet average” and only 59% as many male. I wonder why I didn’t have a girlfriend until recently. Oh well, I’m not complaining. I’d rather wait for the right person than pursue a bunch of wrong ones. And, I prefer meeting people in “real life,” not this virtual world that the internet has created.

I like the fact that my site appeals to a more educated audience. I wonder if the papers I’ve posted attract that sort of audience. Or is it my blog? Does anyone (besides Stan and random Google searchers) read my blog? I’m not really sure.

I’ve got to look into Quantcast a little more to learn how their rating system works. I wonder how they find out those sorts of details.

A friend told me yesterday that there’s a billboard in Milwaukee that depicts a pig and makes some jab at the Medical College of Wisconsin for their use of live pigs in one of their research labs. MCW made the decision to use pigs instead of dogs after receiving complains from PETA or a similar organization. According to one source, “Pigs are highly intelligent, social animals who have been shown to be more intelligent than dogs. Animal behavior experts agree, and scientific evidence suggests, that pigs are very smart, very sensitive animals.” I don’t care how sensitive pigs are, there is nothing that makes them deserving of special treatment.

You cannot deny the fact that pigs are and have been considered by many cultures to be dirty, smelly, despicable animals. Take for example, the German language. The word for pig, schwein, is often used as a vulgar insult. We see a similar attitude toward these creatures in Biblical days. In Matthew 7:6, Jesus exclaims, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.&quot Swine are used to depict the antithesis of what is holy. If Christ is the epitome of holiness, then swine are pretty lowly.

The root of this problem lies much deeper than words. The problem is with a basic misunderstanding of the difference between mankind and animals. Animals are, well, animals. God created them, as he did mankind, and they were good, as was mankind. However, there are a few key distinctions between animals and mankind:

1. God created man in His own image. In Genesis 1:26, we hear God say, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” The creatures, on the other hand, were not made in God’s image.
2. God charged man with caring for the animals. In the second half of 1:26, we see God say, "let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." As part of having dominion over the animals, I don’t think it’s going to be the end of the world if we have to kill, experiment with, or use a few animals in laboratory testing. After all, it was God who killed the first animal for the sake of his created beings

. When God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden, "also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them&quot (Genesis 3:21). Tunics of skin could have only been through the sacrifice of (an) animal(s).

3. Christ came to die for mankind, not for animals.

Now I’m not an advocate of killing every pig that comes into sight or other aimless, pointless slaughter of these creatures. We need to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to us. However, what’s really the problem with using a few pigs in experiments aimed at improving science and medicine? If the death of a few swine allows us to save even ONE human life, thus giving that person more time to either a) hear the Gospel and receive Christ or b) having believed, share Christ with someone else, then I’m all for it.

I’d like to say a quick thanks to all who contributed to making my birthday, well, my birthday. Although I rarely talk to some of you who wished me a happy birthday on my Facebook wall, I still appreciate the 2 seconds it took you to write me a quick note. It makes me feel important, even if, in the grand scheme of things, I’m not.

Oh … and since it is now 2008, happy new year!

A couple years ago, I wrote a “shoutout” page for a bunch of my friends who I felt had been influential in my life back then. Many of those who were on that list before would also be now. But, there are also some new ones. I keep telling myself I’d like to do something similar again now, but can’t seem to find the time. So, I apologize. Just know that I don’t have to tell you you’re important for you to be important to me.

While watching Fox News channel this evening, I got to see what turned out to be a somewhat humorous interview of the actual Miss California 2008 (actual because a recount showed that the previously declared winner had not actually won). The host asked the girl whether she thought that our society emphasizes the outward appearance too much – more than what is more important, namely a person’s character. The girl seemed to think that our society doesn’t have that problem. I’m sure that’s why no women have problems with anorexia or bulimia and why no one publishes magazines that obsess over beauty and women’s physical appearance (*cough* Seventeen, Maxim, etc.).

The Bible is pretty clear that we have a tendency to judge people based on their physical appearance. Remember when Samuel anointed one of Jesse’s sons to be king? Samuel’s natural tendency was to favor Jesse’s older sons based on their appearance. But, God reminded him, “the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

Anyway … Miss California went on to comment that the girls’ appearance isn’t the only thing that matters for the competition. Rather, “you also have to have smarts.” I had to laugh … because in hearing her talk, I didn’t feel that she exuded the brilliance she considered fundamental to winning the competition. That problem was only compounded by the fact that, at one point, she was very clearly reading the teleprompter. However, I shouldn’t be too critical. After all, I don’t know this girl and I would probably do the same and speak with a stutter if I were being interviewed on TV. I have some time to get used to that, though, before Stan and I become famous as we take over the software world and build our MN/SCL Technologies complex in West Chicago.