The Abortion Sob Story--When Doctors Promote an Agenda by Encouraging Women to Have Abortions

 By now, everyone has probably heard of at least one woman who couldn't get an abortion and needed one because her baby had a fatal condition and would die soon after earth. The problem is that the conditions these babies have are not always fatal--therefore, the doctors in states where abortion has restrictions and who deliberately tell these women their child will "probably" die are not being good doctors. Any woman who is told by a doctor that her baby has a condition that will "probably" kill it but which does not qualify for fatal condition clauses in state laws should question the doctor.

I refused genetic testing for all five of my kids. There was no medical reason to conduct it in my opinion--if something is "found," I was told at the time there was nothing they can do about it to help the baby better survive. The sole purpose of genetic testing, to the best of my knowledge, is to encourage women who may give birth to a disabled child to have an abortion. The only other thing it can do is cause pregnant women to worry more--which is not good for the pregnancy. 

This is not the only story of a woman complaining that she had to leave her home state to get an abortion when she found out her baby had the almost always fatal Trisome 18. The problem is that like other stories I have heard where mothers are told their babies will die, these are almost old wives tales doctors are passing on. This woman, for example, lived to be at least 40 years old with Trisome 18. Doctors tell people their baby will "probably" not live past the first year, but 1 in 20 do. If you have an abortion, your baby will die immediately. Trisome 13 is another "fatal" syndrome. The oldest documented man alive was 31 years old. 

Then there is the Florida ad that is being banned by DeSantis. DeSantis is right: the ad is false based on what has been leaked about "Caroline" the Tampa woman in the ad. She was purportedly 20 weeks pregnant when she found out. Once again, doctors played on this woman's emotions and told her she would die and the baby would die if she did not have an immediate abortion. The last I checked, real medical scientists would never say something like this because no one can predict medical outcomes with 100% accuracy. That is the thing that was driven in to me and my father when he was undergoing cancer treatments. He died even without being pregnant. My grandma went through her treatments and lived--and is still alive.

Surgery and radiation are the main treatments for most brain cancers. 1 in 50 people need surgery during pregnancy, so this is a doable thing--although it is recommended to wait until 12 weeks. Her doctors apparently did not advise her of this. In the 1990s--i.e. 30 years ago, there wasn't the technology to pinpoint spots on the body like the head. Now there is. Radiation for cancer can be performed while a woman is pregnant. There are even some chemotherapy treatments that can be given after 14 weeks. Why were these doctors not telling her that at 20 weeks she could begin treatment while pregnant?

Finally, this baby was 20 weeks old. Old school rules that refuse to die state that a baby is "viable" at 22-24 weeks. What that means is that each hospital or government sets an arbitrary time between 22 and 24 weeks where they will attempt to save babies who are born. If the baby is earlier than that, they won't do anything to try to save it and basically will watch it die if it was born alive. This is solely a cost measure that was established to help deal with the ethics of letting a needy baby die. Premature babies--especially this early--cost a lot of health care services. However, AIDS patients cost $32,000 per month for their AIDS medication alone and are susceptible to diseases that do not effect people without it. Are we just going to let AIDS patients die because their care is expensive? 

Doctors justify allowing premature babies to die by saying the baby probably would have died anyway. The problem is (as the study above says) that when all babies who are alive at the start of labor are given survival care after birth (as is the law in Japan), 60% survive. 

Further, because age is sometimes not accurately predicted, many hospitals instead used weight averages. The hospital where I did an internship in the 1990s set it at 900g. (Don't quote me on that exact number--its been 30 years!) So, if your baby was born at 20 weeks, and it was struggling, they would immediately put it on a scale and see if it was heavy enough. If it met the weight criteria, the doctors would work to save it and even resuscitate it if necessary. Because the weighing was done in a hurry, a few "light" babies were worked on--and survived. 

These arbitrary "viability" numbers are so wrong in our medical world today. Babies as young as 19 weeks have survived and are fine. Babies as light as 212 g have survived and are still alive and doing fine. It is crazy that our doctors tell pregnant women they should have an abortion, instead of just letting them give early birth. 

Now, if "Caroline" had been diagnosed with terminal cancer at 8 weeks instead of 20, then of course she should have been given the option--have an abortion, undergo treatment, and extend your life by possibly a few years or stall treatment, potentially die within the year (leaving your daughter and baby motherless), and have the baby (she might have had to go on life support the last trimester to continue allowing the baby to grow if the late treatment did not slow its progression). The latter would come with the extremely rare risk that the cancer could spread to the baby, but if they noticed the cancer metastasizing, they could have made the decision about inducing labor early. Instead, the doctors pushed a political agenda, telling her she would die and her baby would die no matter what if she did not get an abortion--at least this is what she says. 

Either the doctors lied to her or she is lying to us. Either way, DeSantis should stop it. I mean, I couldn't even make a post on Facebook during COVID that cited the CDC, FDA, and academic papers supporting my conclusion and was against mask mandates. This lady shouldn't be allowed to give out bad health information either. 

Yes, the Bible Specifically Mentions COVID-19 Vaccines Are Prohibited

I read today in the Atlantic that the Bible does not specifically mention a prohibitions against vaccines. According to them this leaves religious leaders scrambling to find reason for a religious exemption, and they also believe lawmakers should not grant one on religious basis. First, what a person believes the Bible says is their religion--it is not up to the Atlantic or any lawmaker to say just because they read something differently it does not qualify for religious exemption.

Second, the Atlantic, a journal I respect but which is clearly left leaning most of the time, has completely erred due to its ignorance of both the Bible and COVID-19 vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines (except for two developed in China) are not simply dead COVID-19 viruses. Covid-19 vaccines are a mixture of mRNA viruses (they won't tell us which ones) and COVID-19 virus spikes. Some are a mixture of adenoviruses and coronaviruses. If viruses were alive, they would be mixing two different species of viruses to create this. God has specifically forbidden such mixing in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 20:11. If they wish to argue that is Old Testament, Jesus specifically stated not one dot shall pass away from the law in Matthew 5:18. Further, 1 Corinthians 8:12-13 says that even if you are strong enough to eat meat forbidden by the Old Testament, if your brother is not and you eat meat forbidden in front of him, you are responsible for his fall. 

In short, no minister or Christian should be grasping for a Biblical reason to avoid COVID-19 vaccines--especially since they do not prevent anyone from getting COVID-19, do not prevent anyone from spreading COVID-19, and come with side effects. The Bible specifically warned us against creating these vaccines, just as it has warned us not to stick human genes in flies eyes among other things secular scientists do. Ministers promoting vaccination and shaming those whose conscience prevents them from doing so are the ones who will have to bring their case before God.

More Bad "Science"

 NBC reported on how many people who came down with COVID-19 and had been vaccinated then died from COVID-19. Now, sceptic that I am, I crunched the numbers in the article, and... well the case fatality from COVID-19 among the vaccinated is about 1.1%. Then, I did a quick check by crunching the numbers of cases in the US and the case fatality from COVID-19 in general (over the past two years mind you--and doctors were killing them left and right in the beginning)... its 1.6%. So, if you get the vaccine, you are "drastically" reducing your chance of dying from COVID-19 by 0.5%. 

Then I stumbled across this gem published by the CDC. Again, the title and a bunch of technical wording makes it seem as if your chance of dying from COVID-19 is lower if you are vaccinated. This is false. Crunch the numbers yourself. In the 569,000ish people who were not vaccinated and got COVID-19, 1.1% of them died. In the 45,000ish people who were vaccinated and caught COVID-19, 1.3% of them died. That's right--the fully vaccinated were MORE likely to die from getting COVID-19. I also note that while they talk about the "substantial" differences, they fail to mention "significant" differences. This is important. If the paper does not find significant results (and that word is not mentioned at all!!!!) its conclusions should not be trusted. That is the purpose of significance in a scientific study. Shame on the CDC (again) for publishing this piece of fake science. 

Now, lets think about this. Countries in the EU are no longer allowing this or that vaccine because there is an increased risk of heart failure. According to Moderna's own information submitted to the FDA, there is an increase in other major organ issues too. And most mRNA vaccines in the past have also increased your chances of blood clots. I can't tell you how many obituaries of vaccinated people I have read that talk about them dying of stroke and then saying it is "unconnected" to their recent vaccination... For those of you who don't know, a stroke is basically a blood clot in the brain. I know personally of eight people who died "suddenly" within a few days of getting vaccinated and had no previous health issues. So your chance of dying or getting serious internal organ issues after being vaccinated are real. 

Further, the vaccine will protect you from COVID-19 for less than 6 months. We have been doing mRNA vaccine research for 20 years and nothing they do has ever made it last very long. After that, your chance of getting COVID-19 doubles. I was wondering why new case numbers are climbing astronomically compared to last year despite the fact more than half the worldwide community is vaccinated. 

I mean, we are used to getting flu vaccines every year--but they have always told us it was a different flu. They are trying to do that with COVID-19, too by pushing "variants." There are thousands of variants out there, but you only hear about one or two. Ironically, the vaccines are supposed to cover all these variants, but "might not" cover any new variants... 

Are people willing to get 2 booster shots every year (or 3...or 4) for the rest of their lives when each shot puts their lives at risk? Keep in mind that unlike smallpox and polio, COVID-19 has MANY animal vectors who can get and give it: in other words, we can NEVER eradicate it. 

On the other hand, the people who get it naturally have immunity for at least a year and most research is saying they think it will be lasting. Granted, this research was not done on people who got it after being vaccinated. 

Blood Clots and Vaccine Safety

 Yes, previously when mRNA vaccines were given to animals, they developed blood clots from the vaccines. Since none of the new vaccines, including the ones with adenovirus instead of mRNA, have been tested for safety and effectiveness in a random control trial that produced significant results, no one should believe they are getting a safe vaccine. Nor should anyone believe they are getting a well-tested, effective vaccine. Effectiveness could only be determined if during the trials 30,000 people had come down with COVID-19 (vaccinated + placebo groups). Fewer than 180 came down with it. Further, trials were stopped one week after people received their second shots. Moderna specifically stated that it was going to stop all placebo groups as soon as it got FDA approval. This destroys the experiment and any data that may now come from it and is one of the worst kinds of vaccine fraud. 

So, when my friend's neighbor dies of a blood clot after getting the vaccine, my eyebrow raises. When European countries stop vaccines because of blood clots, I take notice. This fits with what we know about mRNA vaccines and it fits with a push to "get everyone vaccinated ASAP." Big guys have a lot of money invested in these vaccines, and with Facebook squelching all reports of adverse effects and VAERS - the nations data gathering system for vaccine side effects- not being talked about, it seems like they are trying to make as much as they can before the house of cards finishes collapsing.

The house of cards has already started to fall. Norway detected an unusual number of people who died from the vaccine. The EU has noted a spike in blood clots. The US noticed an uptick in allergic reactions and the FDA warned the vaccine makers about it. Still we plod on-- VACCINATE! VACCINATE! VACCINATE!

I have had a lot of vaccines in my life. I have never had my entire arm swell up nor have I had to miss a day of work because of them... granted the vaccines I have had spent decades being researched for safety and effectiveness before they were released. 

In the US, you cannot sue a vaccine maker, but you can be reimbursed for medical expenses by the US government if you have an adverse reaction to a vaccine. The problem is that the COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental." They are not FDA approved--nor have they undergone the necessary trials to become FDA approved. Why would they need to? They were given emergency use status and the companies not only have no liability for their products but also are being promoted everywhere using Nazi propaganda techniques. They will never get FDA approval because they are neither safe nor effective. If they were safe and effective they would not have stopped the trials prior to achieving significant results that would have given them FDA approval. 

It is one thing to have an experimental vaccine available for those in the population who wish to take it or participate in the experiment. It is quite another to force an experimental vaccine on everyone in the World. So far, it hasn't been forced on anyone. But the vaccination passports in development should scare us all. There are many diseases more deadly than COVID-19--why haven't we had passports for any of those? Finish testing the vaccine and have significant results. THEN countries can decide if they want to force it on people and provide them with "Vaccine passports."

Now That We Know Bill Gates' Virtual Learning Fails Can We Stop Listening to This Guy?

 Bill Gates likes to think he is a genius and has revolutionary ideas on every subject from climate control to medicine to education. For years, those the subject of his generosity have seen it as a double edged sword--money given to them but which cannot be used to make things better because it can only be used to do what Bill Gates wants. What Bill Gates wants is rarely beneficial. 

Bill Gates was raised in one of those privileged environments where his parents only accepted winning. As might be expected, this created a man who will win--even if he must cheat to do it.

So far, the media has treated Bill as if he is a genius who knows everything about everything. Bill's house of cards is collapsing, but it is doubtful that he will be the one blamed for his failures. 

Consider virtual learning. Remember, Bill had made a heavy investment in this. Despite his previous New York educational failures, Cuomo turned to him to revolutionize Virtual Learning, believing as Bill Gates preached, that in-class learning was unnecessary. 

Now, let's keep in mind that Bill Gates has never been overly fond of education and dropped out of Harvard after his second year. Bill Gates and Joe Biden also have one major thing in common--neither of them seem to care that plagiarism is illegal. Both of them have also managed to plagiarize without being panned for it. Bill Gates stole the API from CP/M to make MSDOS and Biden plagiarized his schoolwork among other things.

Well, as children have failed Bill Gates' Virtual Experiment and as he grew richer from their failure, we should immediately recognize him for the parasite he is and ignore anything else he tells us we should spend our money on--since he is not an unbiased academic but rather a person who will collect big bucks when we take his advice. However, since the news is not mentioning him in any of the articles that I have seen on the failure of his educational idea, I doubt people will make the connection that he was behind it on their own.

The COVID-19 Vaccine is neither safe nor has it been "proven" to be 95% effective after the second shot.

 The news, as it has been doing since the beginning of COVID-19, is not being held accountable for its misleading headlines. 

I have gotten many vaccinations in my lifetime. However, I have never had to miss a day of school or work because of it. Entire schools are closing down because the "mild" side-effects of the new COVID-19 vaccines are so serious that teachers must take a day or two off work. Hospitals are rotating who can get it so that an entire ward is not out of work for these "mild" side effects. 

In the trials, 1 in 10 people had serious side effects from the vaccine after receiving the second shot. These were not the standard "mild" flu-like symptoms, these were serious issues affecting major organs. The younger the person, the more likely these side effects were. 

At last check, 12,000 adverse events for the COVID-19 vaccine had been reported. For comparison, 48,000 were reported across all the vaccines given in 2017 for the entire year. In one month, the COVID-19 vaccine alone has reached 1/4 that. More disturbing, about 2,000 of these adverse events were deaths. 

Only some of these adverse effects can be traced to allergic reactions (about 175 according to this paper), but even the number of allergic reactions is greatly increased. Normally, across all vaccines, 1.31 people out of 1 million people develop an allergic reaction. 92 people per 1 million have an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines. 

Further, we have no clue if the vaccine is effective at preventing hospitalizations, serious cases of COVID-19, or death. The vaccine could even increase death rates. If it causes deaths without preventing deaths from COVID-19, it should not be used. The studies that should have been done for effectiveness, have not been done. According to the vaccine makers, this is because it would have required a study on 30,000 people. They did the study on 125 people to save time. Shame on them. 

Further, there are (at last count) 4000 variations of COVID-19 that have already been "discovered." About 1000 of these exist in the United States. Are you going to take 4000 vaccinations that cause you to miss two days of work? 

So, why does the news say it is "95%" effective? Well, because 95% of the people who receive the second dose will develop antibodies to the vaccine but this is not an antibody to COVID-19. The vaccine itself contains a man-made virus that is not COVID-19. It also contains a chemical that has never been used in shots before and is suspected of causing severe allergic reactions. 

We have no idea how long antibodies to the vaccine lasts, even if it is effective against COVID-19. If it is anything like previous mRNA vaccines, you will be covered for less than 6 months. Are you willing to take 4000 vaccines every 6 months to prevent a disease that kills less than 3% of the people who get it, when the vaccine itself kills people--especially when each vaccine can cause you to take 1-2 days off work because of their "mild" side effects? 

The vaccines are dangerous and might not be effective, just as wearing masks and closing schools and businesses is dangerous and might not be effective. The problem is that vaccines could cause deaths two years later--so we have no clue just how dangerous this one could be without proper testing. Forcing or requiring anyone to get one is immoral. 

The real questions are: How long is the news going cover for big pharma COVID-19 vaccine makers? How long are people going to to look the other way? Will the news media companies be held accountable for their lies? 

Shame on Trump for pushing for a vaccine in one year--it did not save his Presidency because the news refused to report on it prior to the election. Shame on the Dr. Fauci, for pushing everyone to get a vaccine, while acknowledging it will not protect anyone. 

If you choose to get vaccinated, that is your choice. Just make the choice understanding the vaccine has serious side effects and may not protect you or anyone else from COVID-19.

Hitler's Big Lie and the COVID-19 Pandemic

I have written a new book, filled with citations to help clear up the mystery surrounding all the COVID-19 misinformation. Here is the description:

 The misinformation surrounding COVID-19 has possibly been the largest since the propaganda created in Nazi Germany. With even the CDC first telling everyone not to wear masks and now telling everyone to wear them, it can be extremely difficult to discover just what is right and what is wrong. Who do you trust? This book, filled with more than 300 cited references, was written to help you find the truth. It is a must-read if you are confused or if you want to find out if you have been able to sort through all the lies successfully. 30% of all the profits from the sale of this book will be divided equally and donated to a local YMCA and a summer camp that have been hit hard financially because of the COVID-19 business closures.

You can find the book on Amazon at the following links:

Full color version paperback: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Big-Lie-COVID-19-Pandemic/dp/B08FP5V3JN/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1597677713&refinements=p_27%3AJennifer+J.+Reinoehl&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Jennifer+J.+Reinoehl

Color E-book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08G56JQVB

Black and white version paperback & black and white large print paperback--links to be posted within the next week or so. 

I am also going to be running some Goodreads Giveaways and will post those links as soon as they are ready. 

The fallacy of coronavirus being a bioweapon

This myth has been cycling through the Internet: "Coronavirus was a biological weapon accidentally/purposefully released by ____ nation." Then, people from the government of X nation blame the government of the nation from which the report came for spreading lies. The problem is multifold-- this is a myth and it is being released like crazy across the Internet, usually supported by some unsupported statement that someone hypothesized irresponsibly to the media. These people probably did not originally make these crazy original statements without the knowledge or support of their respective governments, but the governments are now somehow responsible for the actions of all their citizens (especially those in authority positions) in the midst of this pandemic.

The coronavirus could not be a biological weapon for these reasons:

First and foremost, we do not have the technology to modify one virus into another working virus that is vastly different from the original. We are not smart enough. We can only make very minute changes to the existing DNA of organisms and even then we have to often hide these changes from the organism or the organism will kill itself. Although viruses are simpler than metabolizing organisms, they would still require God-like knowledge to modify in such a way that would create something that both worked as a virus and killed people the way we wanted it to. Biological warfare involves releasing organisms that already exist. We can take almost any bacteria and make it antibiotic resistant, but we can not change one bacteria into a different species of bacteria. At most, we could call our modifications a "sub-species", whatever scientific value that word has.

It would be stupid to make a virus for the purposes of warfare that selectively attacks and kills only the aged and dying portion of the country's population. If anything, that would help the attacking country because they would no longer have to support this portion of their population and that money could be directed toward war. It would also give the opposing country a great moral boost in favor of the war- "They killed grandma! Let's get them!"

The coronavirus is not deadly enough. A 4% mortality rate (and the actual rate is probably closer to 1%), would simply not put a dent in the population. The fact that even those who are sick usually do not have any or very mild symptoms means that the country releasing this weapon would not even slightly impair the country they were attacking with it. Anthrax, for comparison, when inhaled, kills 80% of those infected and causes nasty symptoms in those who don't die. It has long been and remains the gold standard for biological warfare for this reason.

Are you ready to pay an annual subscription for your OS?

The rollout of Windows 10 this summer is being lauded as "free" as long as you do it within the first year. However, there are a lot of details that Microsoft isn't being very open about.

First, this is not a "free upgrade." Windows 10 is marketing and advertising. You may wonder what they are marketing and advertising- it seems they are marketing and advertising their next operating system "Windows." Windows will be a subscription service that, in effect, charges you an annual fee to use your operating system, like Office 365. Don't believe me? Type Windows 365 into a Google search and you will quickly discover that Microsoft has just trademarked this name without admitting to having a product for it.

Second, Microsoft has already installed an "important updater upgrade" on every Windows 7 and 8 user's computer. This updater seems to actually be adware that will begin encouraging you to upgrade to Windows 10.

Unlike other OS, such as Linex and Chrome, which offer mini updates as opposed to major overhauls and these updates frequently do little but enhance or improve the product, Microsoft's history has been filled with lemons- big and small. ME, Vista, Windows 8- all had serious issues that created problems. Perhaps that is because they are still using the exact same code they began with 20 years ago. However, even small updates have caused machines enough issues that users have uninstalled them. For those of us in the know, we tend to wait before installing anything that comes down the chute- even small updates. Just within the past few months I have found two small updates that completely screwed up the way my computer operated and had to be uninstalled.

With the subscription level, the sketchy information available seems to point to 3 levels. The cheapest will get all security features and updates automatically installed ASAP. No more choosing to install an update for you if you don't want to pay big bucks for junk. Also proposed costs are $7-$12 per month per non-Enterprise user. That means if you keep your machine 3 years, you will be paying them a minimum of $336 just to use it and get automatically updated with potential junk. This cost is in addition to any other software costs you acquire and to the cost of the computer itself.

Microsoft likes to blame its financial problems on users who refuse to purchase new upgrades. The fact of the matter is that users refuse to purchase cruddy upgrades. Should Microsoft actually turn out upgrades that were new and beneficial instead of screwing up old code and making a worse product, users would flock to them. Apple doesn't seem to have any problem getting people to upgrade from their iPhone 4 to 5. Why? Because iPhone generally offers more and better features with upgrades. In fact, Apple generally doesn't have the security issues with which Microsoft is plagued, either.

Despite offering Office "Starter" for free, I prefer an older version of Word. Why? Because (1) I don't have to pay for features that were included on it and would now cost a "monthly subscription fee" and (2) because I really don't like the way Office Starter works. I am familiar with both, but usually if I get a .docx file, I immediately convert it to .doc and reopen it, to work in the old version of Word. It does have a few limitations, but considering that my software is more than 10 years old, and I would rather work with those limitations as opposed to use the new item, that should tell you what I think about Starter as a program.

Running two versions of Word on the same computer is a little tricky. Running two operating systems is impossible. Think carefully before downloading your free Windows 10. Personally, I want Microsoft to spell out if they will automatically upgrade 10 to 365 and then charge in 2-3 years or if we will have an option to upgrade before I take them up on their free advertising offer.

Scary for Anyone Who Reads Revelation...

Okay, 1,500 people in the world have embedded a Bitcoin wallet in their hand...

Bitcoins, for the uninitiated, are a virtual digital currency not backed by any government. Do not let the photos of the actual coins in this article throw you off - there are a few, but Bitcoins are "mined" digitally by donating computer power to oversee encrypted transactions. Hence the reasons the "wallets" are on data chips.

Although it is 888 bits and not 666 - this is still quite scary for anyone who reads Revelation. The mark of the beast will be something in the hand or eyebrow that will allow you to carry out financial transactions in a time when the world has become a cashless society.

Right now Bitcoins are extraordinarily valuable and although they can buy normal things they are the preferred method for conducting illicit business - drugs, sex slaves, hitmen, etc. The only way you can currently get a Bitcoin is through mining (which becomes progressively difficult and has a programmed cutoff date when it will no longer be able to take place), buying a Bitcoin outright with the government currency of your choice, or selling something to someone and allowing them to pay you in Bitcoins.

Maybe now scientists will look into what I have said is the true cause of "global warming" for years.

Carbon cannot be the cause of global warming. Sorry. If you look at Venus (which is significantly hotter than it "should" be) and compare it to Mars (which is where is should be temperature wise), you will see that both have the same amount of carbon in their atmosphere. If carbon caused global warming, both planets would be overheated. (Incidentally, both planets have way more carbon than earth could every hope to have in its atmosphere.)

Now, Venus does have large amounts of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, so I am open to believing that that contributes to global warming. Scientists are divided on the matter, but sulfur dioxide does cause acid rain. Not a good thing on any level.

This brings me to Jennifer's theory on global warming. Air conditioning. Yep. It's really a simple matter of physics. We want cooler indoor temperatures, so we artificially cool the inside of our homes with air conditioning. However, the heat from our homes has to go somewhere. We put it outside. Think about your refrigerator. It cools a small area but releases heat into your home. Then your air conditioner redistributes that heat outside. I have no idea if this is a neutral exchange (the amount of cold is proportionate to the amount of heat) or if we gain heat during the process, but either way it increases the outside temperature.

However, although people are more than willing to ruin our food supply to make ethanol and supposedly lower carbon emissions (it doesn't as I pointed out in a previous post), we are probably not willing to give up the A/C...

Do we really want to eat "cultured" meat?

Okay, in people's efforts to avoid eating animals, they have really gone a little crazy. They are talking about creating a meat culturing factory. They say it will help animals and save the environment, but I have to question that. First, culturing cells requires some major cost and space and it requires a completely sterile lab. The cost of maintaining this and running it seems to me like it would cause more of an environmental problem than raising the meat.

Yes, it would be more humane, but it wouldn't be humane to humans. I am sure that cultured meat would not be as nutritious - it certainly doesn't taste the same. Also, most cells grown in culture eventually turn into cancer (at least human cells do). Finally, I would have to wonder how long before the stem cells from aborted fetuses found their way into our cultured meat supply.

If the ethics behind eating meat bother you - don't eat it. All too often I find "vegan" recipes trying to use meat substitutes that "taste" like meat. Then they dump a ton of garlic in it to cover what it really tastes like. If you miss meat that much, just get over it and eat meat.

For the record, I am a reformed vegetarian. I do force myself to eat meat, but not because I like it. I do it because I cannot afford all the vegetarian foods I would need in order to have a balanced diet. I also do it because I have a family, and it is extremely difficult to provide children with nutritious meals that are vegetarian.

Reuters - Some U.S. companies starting to feel pain from Ukraine crisis - 30 April 2014

Is it really surprising that some of our companies are starting to feel the pain of Russian sanctions. Ford might come as surprise to those who are blind enough to believe they need to "buy American" (most of its production plants are in Russia - but don't think GM is any better, they used their bailout money to help create more jobs in the rest of the world, not here)

In addition, Russia is starting to think about kicking all our brands out.

Gun companies are doing great, but I was a little surprised at the Pepsi results. Hmmm, maybe Pepsi is a key ingredient in petrol bombs? Whatever the reason, if Russia kicks American companies out, it won't feel too good over here. Pepsi and gun companies are not going to carry the American economy.

Taking a break from War.

So, China has printed a house on a 3D printer - they actually did 10 in one day. Most 3D printers around here are pretty slow, so that is impressive. The cost was also only $5000 for 650 sq ft. I would need a little more than that for my family, but $20,000 for a nice 2000+ sq. ft. 3D printed home would suit me just fine.

They also have come up with some interesting food offerings that have been printed here. The chocolate and sugar cubes are really talking to me - the meat and pizza, not so much. I wonder if they will what the will call that type of cheese? 3Djack? Che3Dar? American 3D?

3D Printing

I have been researching 3D printing a lot lately and am ready to integrate one into my daily life. However, I think this is taking it just a bit too far: http://news.discovery.com/tech/robotics/3-d-printer-tattoo-gun-terrifying-dyi-madness.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1.