Kraft, Nestle, Pepsi, Dead Baby

What do Kraft, Pepsi, Nestle and Dead Babies have in common? Sounds like the start of a bad joke. The answer however is not a joke, it’s Synomex.

The other day while researching some Crohn’s/diet related stuff, I happened on this fascinating story about how Pepsi was using aborted fetuses to create the flavoring in their signature drink (sorry I can't link it, I cant find it now). Of course the story was a bit misleading. It implied that Pepsi used aborted fetuses in their drink. It isn’t quite that bad. But still rather creepy. Here is a more accurate story...

Synomex is a company who develops flavor ingredients. It was recently discovered that one of the components they use in the development of some of these flavors is HEK-293. HEK 293 is a cell line which was originally cloned in the 70’s from the kidney cells of an aborted fetus (The abortion occurred in the Netherlands, where abortion was legal). Cells were harvested from the fetus, placed in culture (food/fertilizer for cells), and they have been merrily dividing ever since.

This cell line is used frequently for research. It has been used in the development of Influenza vaccines. It would be difficult to determine how many other medications it has been used in.

Synomex uses this cell line in its effort to develop flavorings. As I understand it, it is not an ingredient itself, rather it is an indicator. They have tweaked the cell to emit a ‘signal’ of sorts when they achieve the precise flavor they are targeting (Think of it as the Good Nut (or Egg if you’re old school) indicator).

At any rate, some pro-life groups have launched boycotts against Pepsi, and are talking about Kraft and Nestle, and others (here is a list of alleged known offenders, Synomex has since removed information about customers from their website).

So, this raised a few questions. What do you do about this? Should anything be done? If the cells had been harvested from a spontaneous abortion, rather than an elected abortion, would that change your response? What if they had come from an adult, capable of consciously making the decision to be an organ donor? Does the fact that HEK293 is also used in life saving medicines change your response?

That last question prompts a memory of an episode from Babylon5; titled “Deathwalker”. A war criminal who tortured and murdered countless individuals is found and captured. Several governments step in to forestall justice against her, when it is discovered that she has developed an immortality serum. There is a catch. This serum requires a component that she cannot synthesize, it can only be collected from another living person, at the cost of their life. In other words, for one to gain immortality, someone else must die.

Would you be okay with that? If you are okay with the one, but not the other, where do you draw the line between the two? Where does that ethical line fall? Once that line was reached, how much further will you move it?

Utah Women and Degrees

A week ago I read an article in the local newspaper, talking about the fact that Utah trails the nation in women earning degrees, even though it is on par or ahead with respect to women entering college.

They make the observation that this was not always the case; that up until roughly 1993 Utah led the nation for degrees, both men and women.

In the article, the director of the USU center for Women and Gender offers a personal opinion that the drought of degrees is due to a 1993 Talk by Boyd K. Packer in which she claimed that Boyd K. Packer Identified the “three greatest threats to the Church as ‘the gay-lesbian movement,’ ‘the feminist movement,’ and ‘so-called scholars or intellectuals.’”

I found myself disappointed by her seeming low opinion of young women in Utah. She seems to suggest that Utah young women in general, and LDS young women in particular are so vapid as to latch onto and misinterpret Elder Packer’s comment (He did not refer to them as the greatest threats to the church, by the way,) as being a call to abandon education, while at the same time ignoring the many clear and direct messages from prophets and church leaders regarding the importance of actively pursuing education.

I would propose an alternative reason, based on my interaction with LDS young women in Utah. I think the problem is twofold: 1) LDS young women are by and large very smart and very strong, and 2) Universities are failing in their mandate.

I have had quite a few opportunities to interact with Young women in the past several years. Some through church, many more in the University setting (I went the extra long route for my College degree, so I wound up taking classes a few years ago with young women whose fathers were my age). I found them very impressive. Bright, energetic, focused, confident… They are also by and large very warm, compassionate, well-spoken… As I said, impressive.

Education interests ranged from Engineering to cosmetology. They were from many backgrounds, with many differing opinions and viewpoints. But there was one thing that most all of them seemed to have in common. Nearly all of them carried an unwavering dedication to motherhood as their primary role. In spite of the many efforts of “So called intellectuals” to convince them that ‘homemaker’ is a pitiful job title, that they should be out “with the men” pursuing fame and fortune with high power careers, these young women have quietly, courageously stood by their own personal values. 

And so they have made their choices with that in mind, either abandoning the university when it became necessary to do so, or by simply choosing an alternative career path, such as cosmetology, which could be practiced nearly anywhere, not as a career, but as a practical fallback in the event of a brief financial crisis.

And in the case of those who have left to become mothers, I say the University has failed them. It has failed to provide them the means to complete their degrees while being mothers.

I have a friend who just finished a distance education degree at USU. He spent nearly as much time on campus as I did, getting an on-campus degree. He was on campus to stand in line, to be told he was in the wrong line, to stand in another line.

He had to go to campus to take several tests, administered in a building with no nearby parking. Some required courses were not set up for distance education. That meant two to three hours of lost time each day, for the lecture, travel, and parking.

For him, these things were annoyances, for a dedicated mother, they are nearly insurmountable obstacles.

 These unnecessary inconveniences, combined with rising tuition in a troubled economy, and any self-respecting, fiscally wise individual would second guess the value of the investment.

Of course, my observations on this are my own, and purely anecdotal, failing to meet requirements for population size or sample randomness, but I do think the director of a women’s center should have a little more faith in women. I also think perhaps those within the university concerned about this should look to themselves before pointing the blame at a poor interpretation of an obscure comment in an old talk.

the RIGHT to bear arms?

I recently ran across an article by some guy talking about the gun control issue, in which he stated multiple times "you have a right to bear arms, you have a right to shoot and if necessary kill anyone who tries to infringe upon that right. If federal agents come to confiscate your firearms, you have the right to use deadly force against them...." (Yeah, he kind of went on. guessing he is probably on a watch list now...)

Then two days ago, there was an article in our local paper about how all but one of Utah's sheriffs signed a strongly worded letter to President Obama, informing him that they would defend - with deadly force if need be - the second amendment rights of Utah citizens.

This article included responses from a few of Utah's ranking politicians. Some expressed the opinion  the Sheriff's overreacted, Others thought it was a political move, still others felt it was reasonable and appropriate.

There were a couple of statements that really caught my eye and mind. The first was an assurance that all of this 2nd amendment rhetoric was unnecessary as the planned action would only restrict a small number of firearms, and would not impact hunting in any way. The second comment was that the second amendment is difficult to understand or interpret.

For your benefit, here is the 2nd amendment in it's entirety:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "


 (Note: There is noting in there about hunting. Not sure why they keep pulling that out.)

 It is one, relatively simple sentence. The first part is the justification for the second part. The justification being that, for a state to remain free it is necessary for the citizens of that state to have the means and the will to defend that freedom. I suspect the word "militia" was intentional. The men who wrote this were quite precise in their use of language. They understood the difference between an army, and a militia.

The second part is a clear and concise as you can get. Citizens living in the various states which make of the U.S. Republic are not to be prevented from obtaining and maintaining weapons of any form. If I have the means and desire to buy a tank, neither the Federal nor State government should prevent me from doing so.

Obviously, I have to use it responsibly once I have it, and if I fail to do so; if I become a threat to my neighbors, they have every right to use deadly force on me in their defense.

There is an implicit responsibility tied to this right. That I must be respectful and considerate of my neighbors. If having a tank parked in my front yard bothers my neighbors, I have a responsibility to find another place to park it. If I own a firearm, I have an inherent responsibility to learn to properly use and maintain it. I must learn the proper way to carry a firearm in public so as not to be a nuisance, or source of fear or intimidation. I must learn and follow proper procedure for identifying a threat, safely engaging said threat, and handing off control of the situation to authorities when they arrive.

But that first part is what really caught my attention, after reading the previously mentioned articles.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...". "...being necessary...".

Is it really a RIGHT to bear arms? Or is it in fact a responsibility to bear arms?

The Awful Truth About the AR-15

After my post on banning Assault Rifles, I had a few people grouch at me for listing the AR-15 as an assault rifle. I listed it because most people are familiar with it, and most people, particularly those I hope would read that article do classify it as an assault weapon.

But the more I have thought about it, I have come to realize that this was inappropriate. Just because It is an accepted fallacy does not justify my perpetuating the fallacy.

So here is a follow-up with a few facts about the AR-15 (Note, I am not a "Gun Nut"). It is possible there are mistakes here, if you see an Error, please let me know so I can correct it.


1. True or False The "AR" in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle".

False. It stands for ArmaLite Rifle. ArmaLite is a firearms manufacturer. they designed a number of guns, including the AR-5, AR-7, AR-10, and AR-15.


2. True or False, the AR-15 is a civilian remake of the military M-16

True and False. The original AR-15 system was developed by ArmaLite, driven by military research which determined that most hit in combat were at close range and random. As such, they were looking for a small caliber, high velocity  weapon which would deliver a salvo of projectiles, either all at once (Shotgun style) or in rapid succession. The AR-15 was ArmaLite offering, which was Rejected in favor of the Colt M14, a larger caliber weapon which was already in service. Some years later, ArmaLite sold the Design and Name to Colt, who then successfully marketed the Weapon to the Military as the M-16. Colt then manufactured a semi-automatic variant of the M-16 under the AR-15 moniker for sale to the civilian population.


3. True or False, the AR-15 is a "Heavy Weapon".

False. The AR-15 is considered a light rifle. This is not a reference to bullet size, but the gun itself. With respect to Bullet size, most AR-15's are designed to fire the .223 round or the 5.56 mm, which are small. There are variants of the AR-15 which fire larger rounnds (such as .50 BMG rounds).

4. True or False, the AR-15 is an automatic weapon

True and False. The original Armalite AR-15 was designed to be a selective fire weapon. This was then relabeled the M-16 by colt. Colt then created a semi-automatic version, using the original AR-15 name. Most of the time, when people are talking about an AR-15, they are referring to this reincarnation of the AR-15, which is not automatic.

5. True or False, the AR-15 is only good for killing people

False. Yeah, I was a skeptic on this one. But the AR-15 is generally rated with a maximum effective range of 600 yards. And I have read enough anecdotes from people who hunt with AR-15's (Feral Boar seems to be of particular interest, though there are plenty of Deer, Coyote etc. stories as well), that I am now a believer.



So... yeah.... There is the awful truth. Sorry for my previous error in editorial judgement.





a couple references:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/m16-m16a1-m16a2-m16a3-e.html
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=4501
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=3125
http://www.americanhunter.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1956&cid=58

Media Rant

How is it that in this day and age, with the internet, cell phones, cameras, etc... That our Media system is so hopelessly incompetent?


After a friend recently posted about an AR-15 not being used, followed by partially retracting said post, I did some looking around at various media sources, and here is what I have found:

• The shooter had two pistols and an AR-15.

• The shooter had two Pistols, and there was an AR-15 in his car.

• The shooter had two pistols and an AR-15, and there was a second AR-15 in his car.

• The shooter had two pistols and an AR-15, and there was a shotgun in his car.

• The shooter had four pistols and an AR-15

• The shooter had four Pistols, and there was an AR-15 in his car   

• There was only one shooter.

• The police arrested a second suspect in the woods nearby.

•  The police arrested two additional suspects in the woods nearby.

C'mon, did no one have a camera phone? Was there no one there capable of counting higher than two?! Do the police there not have a procedure for documenting an incident? How can so many be so incompetent for so long and still be employed?





And it isn't just that. This morning I was listening to a bit on the inauguration on the radio in which the reporter said, "There are many people here. People like <I dont'remember the name they said>  <2 second pause> an African American woman <5 second pause> and her...

Really? Did that actually serve any purpose?

Then this evening on the way home I here this bit about Sloane Stephens beating Serena Williams, and one of the reports say "It's important to note that both Sloan and Serena are AFRICAN AMERICAN <yes she emphasized it, and yes followed it up with a long pause for dramatic effect...".

Talk about racist...


Billions of dollars in information infrastructure and this is the kind of crap that I get... What happened to unbiased? informative? accurate? It is pretty bad when the weatherman is the one you trust the most.

Why Not Ban Assault Rifles?

Why not? What does it matter? After all, the assault rifle is a rather ineffective tool. Applying science and logic, there are better choices for most every situation a firearm is called for.

Hunting - For hunting, the purpose of the firearm is to achieve a quick, clean kill, with a single shot. Multiple bullets means unnecessary pain and suffering for the animal and damage to the meat. The ideal hunting weapon has very good accuracy to a reasonably large distance, with a bullet which will make a small entry hole, causing as little damage as possible to the external tissue (meat). The bullet should then expand internally, doing as much damage as possible to internal organs (specifically heart and lungs), to ensure a very quick death. Assault rifles don't have good long range accuracy, as a general rule, there is no need for an automatic, or even a semiautomatic rate of fire, as the kill should occur with a single well placed shot. Most of the best hunting rifles are bolt-action, like the Kimber model 84m or the Ruger M77RSI International.

Home Defense - An assault rifle is a horrible choice for home defense. Consider the situation; tight quarters, short distances, low response time, neighbors. Most assault rifles are too long, awkward and clumsy to be used effectively in a close quarters, in-door situation. You'll be bumping the barrel into walls and furniture. And when you do find your target, you will have less than a second to bring the  weapon to bear, and fire. Even with automatic fire, you are only like to get a few rounds off. Probability of you being able to place a lethal, or stopping round is quite low. And the rounds that miss are going to penetrate your walls and enter the neighborhood, where they have the potential to maim or kill innocents. For home defense, the best choice is a short barrel shotgun, like a Mossberg 590A1 or the Benelli M4 (yes, there is a Civilian model). With a shotgun, you don't have to be especially accurate, as you will have a spreading pattern of balls striking in the vicinity of where you aim. You have a great deal of "stopping power", and the shot will generally not penetrate your walls, keeping the lethal force contained in your home.

Mugging//Car-Jacking/Street violence -  It is pretty hard to hide an assault rifle. If a criminal wants to do you harm, and they see you packing an AR-15   (the link will take you to an editorial note explaining the change) M-16, they will just shoot you from behind. Assuming you have an MP5, or something else small enough to potentially conceal. You aren't going to be able to retrieve it fast enough to do you any good. In this situation you need something small, light and concealable. This is the situation for a hand-gun, even an itty -bitty .22 pistol can be an effective weapon in such close quarters.

Apocalypse - Suppose the country falls apart and it is every man for himself. Surely this is where the assault rifle shines, right? Wrong. Fact is you and your assault rifle will be one of the first to go. Governments tend to resist apocalyptic events, those with sufficient money and power will still have access to trained soldiers, which they will use to ensure their survival. They will have more men than you, and more bullets than you. They might drop you with a sniper round the first time they see you and your assault weapon in the open. They might approach you in a group in which case you might be lucky enough to get one or two of them before they drop you. They might just start a firefight, and let you use up your ammunition. For the apocalypse, you are going to want a good hunting/sniper rifle, and something concealable for the surprise value in a situation you can't otherwise escape. Given limited supply of ammunition, you definitely don't want anything automatic. 

Governmental Defense - What if it is necessary to take arms against your own government? To restore liberty? Such a scenario is not unrealistic. It has happened before. It is happening now, in fact, in other parts of the world. Would an assault rifle be a good choice then? Again, supply of ammunition needs to be considered. If the military stands with the newly self-appointed dictators, they are going to have an unlimited supply of ammunition, and you are not. The simple reality is that the assault weapon is more about intimidation. You hurl an ungodly amount of metal at your opponent to break his will. Maybe you will get lucky and have a round or two strike home. More likely you will keep him pinned down until you can get a sniper in place to execute a one-shot kill. In every situation, there is a specific firearm more suited to the task at hand.

Zombie Apocalypse - Okay, you might have a case there....



The assault rifle is to guns what the Lamborghini is to cars. It is sexy, noisy,  expensive, goes like mad, makes you feel "manly", and ultimately is terribly inefficient and ineffective.

So why not just go with a ban? Why fight it? Why not just capitulate and make everybody happy?

What defines an "assault weapon"? The word "Assault" in the name is not a valid metric.

You  need a practical measurement in order to effectively ban it. The ultimate goal is to prevent loss of life, right? So how do you achieve that? What, based on that objective defines an assault weapon.

Is it an assault weapon because it is automatic? semi-automatic? Have you ever seen Jerry Miculek speed shooting with a revolver?

What about magazine size? Is the threshold 30 rounds? What happens when everybody starts making 29 round magazines? 28 Round magazines? Do you know how long it takes to switch out a magazine?  Do you know how fast you can reload a revolver?


How do you design a standard for identifying and banning assault rifles, which will not run the risk of infringing on basic 2nd amendment rights? How do you ensure that responsible Americans can still defend their homes, families and lives against the unjust or the tyrannical, should the need arise?

If it is loss of life you are truly concerned about? Wouldn't it be better to start by banning alcohol, which accounts for nearly 3 times as many deaths annually? Oh, we tried that once, didn't we? WE still regulate it, yet it present a much higher body count. Why will banning assault weapons be different?

I will admit, when I listen to the pro-gun nuts talking, I begin to think a firearms ban would be a good idea, All that white-trash, red-neck, semi-literate, belligerent, chest thumping makes me nervous. On the other hand, they aren't the ones making the news for shooting people, are they?

In short, banning assault weapons will most likely be a high cost solution, with a relatively low gain. It would be much wiser to invest those resources in other ways, like encouraging and rewarding solid, nuclear families, good educators, and effective peer support programs, positive media,... things which can have a real, long-lasting impact on the way we think, and therefore act. And, banning assault weapons, even though it may seem to serve the greater good, is a dangerous step toward losing fundamental freedoms essential to the evolution of the human experience.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

        -C.S. Lewis