I think this fits. If you want outdoor cats, then you'd better put up with your garden being a cat litter box. It is, after all, used as a litter box by all the other outdoor creatures there. Yes, Toxoplasmosis is often carried by feral cats, but it's also carried by the majority of farm animals, and lots of rodents and birds. How much squirrel poop do you have in your garden? Cook your meat, and wash your hands and your veggies. Just because your cats aren't using your garden as a litter box doesn't mean that your garden is sterile.

Here's a follow-up to Edna DeVore's column ~6-7 posts back : Evolution: It's Only a Theory, But One Worth Teaching By Edna DeVore Director of Education and Public Outreach posted: 03 March 2005 06:13 am ET My prior column was composed at 35,000 feet above North America as I surveyed the landscape from the air. The patterns etched by geological evolution are visible at altitude. Closer up, fossils tell the story of earlier life upon our continent. Gazing to the heavens, astronomers gather evidence of the evolution of planets, stars, galaxiesthe whole universe evolves. Natural history museums host large collections of extant and extinct life that document biological evolution. Yet, as I noted, teaching evolution remains controversial in America. A flood of email ensued. Many were supportive; some asked questions. Several negative and hostile emails were openly critical of my assertion that American schools should teach evolution in science classrooms to "leave no child behind". In addition to rejecting evolution for religious reasons, several people claimed that there was not sufficient evidence, that scientists could not all agree, or that evolution is "only a theory" which they equate with an unfounded idea. Evolution is supported by evidence. There are several thousand peer-reviewed scientific journals where the evidence is presented in article after article. Natural history museums house large collections of fossils that document the history of life. Geologists and astronomers have a massive amount of observational evidence of the long-term change in physical systems: stars, galaxies, planets, interstellar dust, asteroids, etc. Biologists observe and document the patterns of the evolution of life: for example, the fossil record, DNA, and the observation of evolution in action such as the adaptive evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that now pose a serious threat to human health. Selective breeding in agriculture generated our crops and domestic animals over thousands of years; agriculture is evolution in action. Certainly, there are continuing debates among scientists about the particulars of cosmic, planetary, and biological evolution. The nature of science requires continual questioning of ideas, evidence and theories. Theoretical scientists consider what we know, and pose new ideas and models to explain the natural world. New models and ideas generate new scientific tests of theory: observational experiments at Earth and space-based observatories, high-energy collisions of particle physics, deep-sea dives at the plate boundaries, and lab experiments in molecular biology to cite a few. Science is based upon observational and experimental evidence. Concepts that dont match observations are altered or tossed out. Its an iterative cycle. Likewise, if a scientist makes an observation or does an experiment that cannot be replicated, the results are suspect. Scientific explanations of the natural world are tested against nature, and discarded if they do not work. Consider cold fusion. Science is a self-correcting system that provides humans with powerful descriptions that allow us to understand and predict how the natural world works. Consider Johannes Kepler, a mathematician who is often cited as one of the first modern astronomers. He took observational data collected by Tycho Brahe who was a terrific observer and had mounds of measurements for Mars. Brahe challenged Kepler to make sense of these Mars data. Tycho had his own ideas, but he didnt have Keplers mathematical skills. Kepler spent months trying to fit the Mars data to the circular epicycles and deferents that explained planetary orbits in the astronomical tradition of his day. The data just didnt fit. Unlike his predecessors, Kepler took a leap toward modern science. He elected to trust the data, and abandoned the ancient model of circles upon circles for a new description of planetary motion. His ideas can be condensed into three statements which we call Keplers laws. In their simplest form, they are: planets orbit on elliptical paths with the Sun at one focus; the period of a planets orbit is proportional to its distance from the Sun; and a planets speed in orbit is proportional to its distance from the Sun (equal areas are swept out in equal time). Kepler didnt know why the planets orbited as they did, but he could describe their orbits and make accurate predictions about future positions. The next big step came with Isaac Newton who explained that why planets orbit the Sun: gravity. Only Mercury didnt behave as predicted by Newtons physics. Einstein remodeled physics once again with special and general relativity, and was able to explain Mercurys motion. The theory of gravitation is a powerful explanation of how objects interact in space-time. Its heritage goes back to Keplers description of planetary motion based upon Brahes observational data. Its funny how no one argues that gravity is "only a theory," yet many dismiss evolution as "only a theory." At a fundamental level, popular English and scientific usage are at odds here. In popular culture, a "theory" is understood to be a guess or speculation that may or may not be based upon evidence and analysis. In science, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science,National Academy of Sciences, 1998: 7). A scientific theory is the larger explanation of how the well-tested "laws" fit together to describe the natural world. Dismissing evolution as "only a theory" is, at the simplest level, a misunderstanding of the meaning of "theory" in science. But, in the current controversy, discounting evolution as "only a theory" is more than a semantic debate. Its a political statement at the heart of the attack upon teaching evolution in science classrooms in America. Science is a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, and has a dominant role in modern economics and culture. Scientific theories are at the heart of the enterprise. In the science classroom, children should learn about major scientific theories such as gravitation and evolution. Science is a way of knowing, but not the only way of knowing. There are things that science does not address. For example, music, art, emotion, and religious beliefs are all outside the domain of what science can address. I find it unfortunate that the controversy over the theory of evolution continues as science offers all humans a way to know about the natural world and how it works.

Not sure if this was mentioned above, but I would rather have a root canal than have to sit through another viewing of "Into The Woods" from a couple years ago. It had an impressive cast and I was looking forward to seeing a musical, but I kept checking my watch hoping it would soon be over. It was SO lame & it just went on & on... I love Meryl Streep, but didn't feel her performance in it warranted the nominations she received.

I partially agree with your thoughtful comments, but only partially. I think people in the general field tire of UFO questions from apparently gullible "believers" who are disappointed when the "expert" doesn't share their "beliefs". I know someone who's an astronomer and he's told me that he's lost patience dealing with people who ask him UFO or life on other planets questions. Here's something I heard once - take two boxes. Label one "Things I've learned to be true or untrue" and label the other "Beliefs I have". Write down all of your thoughts (not literally but for the purpose of this) and put them in the appropriate box. Keep everything you know or think in the box it belongs in and don't try to move things from one to the other. When you pull something out to think or talk about, remember what box it came from and expect others may keep that same item in a different box than you do. A fabulous and very interesting example of this concept in practice can be experienced by listening to a captivating 10 episode podcast (recorded during classroom presentations) entitled "The Historical Jesus", by Prof Thomas Sheehan, from Stanford University. Sheenhan explores the historiography (rigorous historical academic investigation and research concerning) Biblical accounts of Jesus and his times. With some coverage of the Old Testament. The unbiased work done in the last 150 years suggests the assumptions carried over the centuries about the source of the material in the Bible and the events described are unsupported. Not unknown, but unsupported because of convincing evidence to the contrary. It's a most interesting tale, he explains the work done, contradictions investigated, and the factual bases for the conclusions. Keep that thought in mind. Now consider that he also describes himself as a devout, practicing Catholic. A product of Catholic secondary and university institutions, up through his PhD, and a longtime professor at Catholic universities. He repeatedly apologizes to those in class, reminding them that his intent is not to criticize or persuade them to drop any religious beliefs they have but rather to inform them of facts that have been unearthed from academic investigations. He says something like - "keep your beliefs, as I do. They need not be proven if they're important to you. The study of history is a matter of scientific investigation. This is a history class, not a religion class. Don't combine the two". Available through the Apple/iTunes source for free. Very interesting and entertaining. PS - later edit to add I think there's need for a third box - things I know nothing about with certainty and don't pretend or assume otherwise