Friday, 15 March 2013

The WOW Signal

The "WOW" signal indeed!

Try, for a moment, to lay aside your prejudices and presuppositions and give this a read. Bear in mind the article in question is written by secular, atheistic scientists who, none the less, find intelligent design within the genome.  This article is going to sound like a cannon blast through the scientific world.

This may rattle your cage too.

In the Planetary Science Journal Icarus, the "Wow!" Signal of Intelligent Design

Evolution News & Views March 12, 2013

Here's a new paper that can be added to the growing stack of intelligent-design articles in peer-reviewed journals. Even though the authors do not use the phrase "intelligent design," their reasoning centers on the detection of an intelligent signal embedded in the genetic code -- a mathematical and semantic message that cannot be accounted for by a natural cause, "be it Darwinian, Lamarckian," chemical affinities or energetics, or any other.

Dr. Vladimir I. shCherbak, a mathematician at the al-Farabi Kazakh National University of Kazakhstan, and Maxim A. Makukov, an astrobiologist at Kazakhstan's's Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute, gave their paper a catchy title: "The 'Wow! signal' of the terrestrial genetic code." Their paper has been accepted for publication in the prestigious planetary science journal Icarus, where it's already available online.
Their title comes from a curious SETI signal back in 1977 that looked so artificial at first, a researcher wrote "Wow!" next to it. With no follow-up examples, that signal has remained interesting but inconclusive. shCherbak and Makukov looked into "biological SETI" -- the "biological channel" of communication (e.g., DNA) and concluded "Wow!" -- the genetic code has features that defy natural explanation. The abstract states:
It has been repeatedly proposed to expand the scope for SETI, and one of the suggested alternatives to radio is the biological media. Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statisticallystrongintelligent-like "signal" in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. (Emphasis added.)
Since intelligent design theory doesn't consider the question of the identity of the designer, design by space aliens is one possible intelligent cause; however, the phrase used here, "seeded intentionally," would appear to refer to a broader class of intelligence(s).
Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10-13). The patterns display readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforwardbutabstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information.
From there, the authors explore a number of fascinating patterns they find in the genetic code itself (not necessarily in animal genomes) -- i.e., the relationship between the base pairs of DNA and the 20 amino acids. They are driven to the conclusion of design not only by what they observe, but also "by the fact that how the code came to be apparently non-random and nearly optimized remains disputable and highly speculative." This reasoning is similar to Stephen Meyer's in Signature in the Cell in which all the possible natural causes for a phenomenon were considered before inferring design.

The signal of intelligent origin, they reasoned, was strong because both arithmetic and ideographic signals are apparent, both using the same symbolic language. They predicted that a signal, if it exists, should be robust from modification. They did their best to avoid arbitrariness, considering what natural causes could be available to explain their findings. They identified two dimensionless integers -- redundancy of codons and number of nucleons in the amino acid set -- as "ostensive numerals" forming the basis of the signal, showing in detail how the patterns in those numerals satisfy the conditions for intelligent signals.

Considerations of brevity prohibit giving a complete analysis of their arguments, but let an example suffice. Of the 20 amino acids, only proline holds its side chain with two bonds, and has one less hydrogen in its block. The effect of this is to "standardize" the code to a 73 + 1 block nucleon number. Yet the distinction between block and chain is "purely formal," they argue, since there is no stage in amino acid synthesis where the block and side chain are detached. Here's their comment:
Therefore, there is no any [sic] natural reason why nucleon transfer in proline; it can be stimulated only in the mind of a recipient to achieve the array of amino acids with uniform structure. Such nucleon transfer thus appears artificial. However, exactly, this seems to be its destination: it protects the patterns from any natural explanation. Minimizing the chances for appealing to natural origin is a distinct concern of messaging of such kind, and this problem seems to be solved perfectly for the signal in the genetic code. Applied systematically without exceptions, the artificial transfer in proline enables holistic and precise order in the code. Thus, it acts as an "activation key".While nature deals with the actual proline which does not produce the signal in thecode,an intelligent recipient easily finds the key and reads messages in arithmetical language....
In addition, they find a decimal system including zero (via stop codons), and many other fascinating signs of intelligent origin. They examine possible criticisms, such as the claim that the patterns could be due to unknown natural causes:
But this criterion is equivalent to asking if it is possible at all to embed informational patterns into the code so that they could be unequivocally interpreted as an intelligent signature. The answer seems to be yes, and one way to do so is to make patterns virtual, not actual. Exactly that is observed in the genetic code. Strict balances and decimal syntax appear only with the application of the "activation key".
In effect, the proline nucleon transfer is like a decoder ring that makes the signal apparent and all the blocks balance out. Some other signs of artificiality are the fact that nucleon sums are multiples of 037; the stop codons act as zero in a decimal system, and all the three-digit decimals (111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, and 999) appear at least once in the code, "which also looks like an intentional feature."

Could these patterns be due to selection or any other natural process? Could they be mere "epiphenomena" of chemical pressures for mass equalities, or something else?
But it is hardly imaginable how a natural process can drive mass distribution in abstract representationsof the code where codons are decomposed into bases or contracted by redundancy.... no natural process can drive mass distribution to produce the balance ... amino acids and syntactic signs that make up this balance are entirely abstract since they are produced by translation of a string read across codons.
Even more convincing, no natural cause can produce semantics -- particularly the kind involving "interpretive or linguistic semantics peculiar to intelligence," they write. "Exactly the latter kind of semantics is revealed in the signal of the genetic code." Here's a summary of the patterns they conclude show design:
In total, not only the signal itself reveals intelligent-like features -- strict nucleon equalities, their distinctive decimal notation, logical transformations accompanying the equalities, the symbol of zero and semantic symmetries, but the very method of its extractioninvolves abstract operations -- consideration of idealized (free and unmodified) molecules, distinction between their blocks and chains, the activation key, contraction and decomposition of codons. We find that taken together all these aspects point at artificial nature of the patterns.
Lest anyone perceive a creationist message, they write: "Whatever the actual reason behind the decimal system in the code, it appears that it was invented outside the solar system already several billions years [sic] ago." In other words, their favored position is panspermia. (Keep in mind, though, that there are multiple versions of panspermia.)

If their thesis of "biological SETI" sounds a little like ideas floated by Paul Davies, the authors thank Davies in their Acknowledgements, along with Manfred Eigen in Germany.

How will evolutionists respond to this paper? It's hard to see how they could dismiss it. Maybe they will try to mock it as old Arabian numerology, or religiously inspired (since Kazakhstan, which funded the study, is 70% Muslim). Those would be unfair criticisms. The authors have Russian names, certified doctorates, and wrote in collaboration with leading lights in the West. Or perhaps critics could argue that the authors hail from a foreign country whose name has too many adjacent consonants in it to take them seriously.

No, it appears the only way out for Darwinists would be the "Dawkins Dodge." You may remember that one from the documentary Expelled, where Dawkins admits the possibility of panspermia for Earth, so long as the designers themselves evolved by a Darwinian process.

What's most notable about this paper is the similarity in design reasoning between the authors and the more familiar advocates of intelligent design theory. No appeals to religion or religious texts; no identifying the designer; just logical reasoning from effect to sufficient cause. The authors even applied the "design filter" by considering chance and natural law, including natural selection, before inferring design.

If Darwinists want to go on equating intelligent design with creationism, they will now have to take on the very secular journal Icarus.

Image Credit: Earth at Twilight, NASA.

Screw You, Facebook

I am not now nor have I ever been a member of Facebook. Nor will I ever become I member or user of Facebook. Frankly I am considering eliminating my Blogger page, quitting here, and all but eliminating my online presence but that is a different story.

Tonight I received an email from a friend of Tess' which came through Facebook asking me to sign up and view her page. Nor will I ever ... well, you get the idea.

But this one came with an option whereby I could "unsubscibe" from any future mailings from Facebook or its users. I clicked it. But why should I have to? Why should I have to to opt out of a service I have never used? Why should I have to click a link to keep stupid people from using my email address?

The Internet has become way too intrusive. Never mind the fact that 95% of the people that use it are dumber than a turnip, never mind that it is primarily pornography and filth, never mind that I am monitored every time I log in, never mind that most of what you read on the Internet is simply not true,
I am getting really fed up.

I am also getting fed up with the bunch of crooks that are members of the Obama administration. Look, it is quite simple. The enemy isn't on the battlefield of Iraq. They are in the White House. If you do not understand that you shouldn't be voting. If you support that man you need to educate yourself. This isn't politics. This isn't left versus right. This is criminality and treason.

Look, you have an administration that has refused to rule out the use of drones ... against you! Now they want to bring in a Secretary of Labor who supports anti-blasphemy laws that would strip you of your 1st Amendment rights and make it illegal to speak against Islam.

Oh, you say, that would never happen. Wake up, Moron. It is happening. Why don't you check you the statements of the proposed Secretary? Why don't you check out the clear facts that the Obama administration is supporting this in the U.N.?

Stupid. Facebook and Obama supporters.

Jeff Gordon Pranks a Car Salesman

Pepsi and Jeff Gordon team up to prank a car salesman. Funny stuff.

Fart Sunday

I thought someone was going to hit this guy.

Valentines Day 2010

Saturday, 9 March 2013

Song Saturday. Your Milage May Vary.

I used to be into music in a big way and had a collection of hundreds of records (vinyl) of the 60's, the "hippie" era, psychedelic music. That went a long time ago. I listen to music occasionally now, mostly classical and light jazz, but music is no longer a big part of my life. In truth I prefer the sounds of silence. No, not the Simon and Garfunkle song, just silence.

I have, however, been a long time, although on and off, fan of CCM, contemporary Christian music primarily a la Gather Homecoming style. If you are a fan of CCM you know who I mean. If not, I will introduce you at a later time.

Around Christmas this year I was introduced to the wonderful, wonderful music of Keith and Krysten Getty and looked from one end of this Province to the other for their Christmas album without success.
Last week began listening to them on Youtube and was very much impressed. Krysten Getty has one of the most beautiful voices I have ever heard.

While surfing the Gettys I discovered Stuart Townend who has, seemingly, been around forever and has produced some truly amazing CCM. More recently he has fallen in to writing songs with Keith Getty. Townend will produce an album of their songs done his way and the Getty's will release one done their way. You want to listen to them both. Beautiful.

One of Townend's songs that I ran into was From the Squalor of a Borrowed Stable which many listen to as a Christmas carol but which really is a beautiful anthem for all occasions.

This was done by Townend well over a decade ago and there are no videos of him doing this live although the this piece is from a life concert and thus the quality is lower. None the less it is a beautiful piece of song writing and a beautiful piece of music and I hope you enjoy it. The lyrics are embedded in the video.

If CCM is not for you no matter how beautiful it can be then I suggest you go here and listen to the Gentrys do Keep On Dancing.

Spring Has Sprung, the Grass Has Riz. (Photos)

The weather forecasters told us this would be an old fashioned winter. I was expecting the worst. After all, I have lived in northern Canada for over 40 years now and I remember old fashioned winters when the mercury went down to 40 and 50 degrees below zero and stayed there wor weeks. I remember snow so deep I was shoveling snow up off the garage roof.

This was not an old fashioned winter. In fact, it was hardly a winter. I have been ready to call "spring" for two weeks now. The temperatures have been remarkable. For the last two days the temperatures have been really remarkable. It feels like spring. It is warm. The snow is melting.

As much as I am enjoying it, this is not a good thing. When spring hits early like this we are in for a very dry summer with acute water shortages and massive forest fires like we had three years ago when we couldn't see across the river valley for smoke.

Perhaps we will get a rainy summer to make up for things. I am not wishing for that. Just hoping for some balance.

While the following pictures may not look like spring to you, trust me, it is. These are from today's walk. I wore a jacket that turned out to be too warm. I was in a sweat  the entire time.

The Fraser River Looking South.

The Old Fraser River Bridge Looking North.

Fraser River North.

The Cottonwood Trees Are Budding.

Looking Across the Mouth of the Quesnel River.

Quesnel River.

Quesnel River.

Across the Quesnel River.

Quesnel River.

This Is Hysterical

This is a truly brilliant and hysterical piece of writing that went viral this morning. It was first reported as being factual but it is, of course, satire but although satire it pokes a funny, but accurate, hole in Keynesian economic theory the Democrats are currently using to destroy the country.

HT Wintery Knight


From The Daily Currant
Economist and columnist Paul Krugman declared personal bankruptcy today following a failed attempt to spend his way out of debt.

In a Chapter 13 filing to the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, lawyers for Krugman listed $7,346,000 in debts versus $33,000 in assets.

The majority of his debts are related to mortgage financing on a $8.7 million apartment in lower Manhattan, but the list also includes $621,537 in credit card debt and $33,642 in store financing at famed jeweler Tiffanys and Co.

The filing says that Krugman got into credit card trouble in 2004 after racking up $84,000 in a single month on his American Express black card in pursuit of rare Portuguese wines and 19th century English cloth

Rather than tighten his belt and pay the sums back, the pseudo-Keynesian economist decided to "stimulate" his way to a personal recovery by investing in expenses he hoped would one day boost his income.
Cockroaches and Creditors
Between 2004 and 2007 Krugman splurged on expensive cars, clothes, and travel in hopes that the new lifestyle would convince his bosses at the New York Times to give him a giant raise.

"They say always dress for the job you want," Krugman explains. "So I thought maybe if I showed up in $70,000 Alexander Amosu suits they would give me ownership of part of the company. If I had only been granted a sliver of the New York Times Co., I could have paid everything back."

Even after he realized an equity stake was not going to happen, Krugman continued to spend wildly hoping his bling and media appearances would increase demand for his personal brand and lift his book sales.

His biggest mistake came in 2007, when at the height of the financial bubble he decided to invest in high-end real estate in New York City. His multi-million dollar apartment lost 40 percent of its value just months after its purchase, and has been underwater ever since.

"You'd think a Nobel Prize winning economist could recognize a housing bubble," says Herman Minsky, a retired television executive who purchased Krugman's home at a huge discount. "But hey, I'm not complaining."
Conscience of a Fraud 
Krugman, a renowned trade economist, joined the New York Times as a columnist in 2000. Since the start of the financial crisis he as used the platform to argue vociferously for what he terms Keynesian deficit spending.

However, Keynes did not advocate using debt financing to stimulate the economy. Rather, he argued that government should save in the good times and spend in the bad.

Through his lawyer, Bertil Ohlin, Krugman explains that despite his travails with spending and debt in his personal finances, he stands by his pseudo-Keynesian policies.

"I still defend my analysis that on the macroeconomic level sovereign debt crises can be fixed by increasing government borrowing to lift aggregate demand. I admit, however, that on the microeconomic level this strategy has failed spectacularly."

Are Christians the New Jews?

Over at Patheos, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein has penned an outstanding read that is worthy of our attention. While the article is long and bloggers attention spans notoriously short, I urge you to give this a few moments of your time.

The Velvet Kippah

If you are fortunate enough to possess the truth, you do not compromise or sacrifice it, even if it means that you continue on only as tiny fleck of mankind.

February 20, 2013

"If you want to understand us, study our story, learn of our pain." That is what Jews told Christians who wanted to build new bridges of respect after the Holocaust. Ironically, when Christians begin listening to the story of the Jews, they are finding reflections of themselves.

Christians who listened learned of a Jewish history written in blood from ancient to modern times. When they thought of Christian martyrdom, on the other hand, they had to turn for the most part to antiquity, to early Christianity under the thumb of Roman emperors.

That has all changed. While Jews feel threatened by the massive explosion of global anti-Semitism in the last years, coupled with Iranian and Islamist calls for the genocidal destruction of all Jews, very few Jews in 2013 are dying because of their faith or their roots. Christians, on the other hand, have become the New Jews.

As hard as it is to believe, Christians are now beginning to face the same. Open Doors, a Christian ministry devoted to assisting persecuted believers, reported recently that despite the many centuries of Christian roots in Syria, some Islamist Syrians have been telling their Christian neighbors to "go back to their own country." In their view, Christians have become the "other," foreigners in the country in which they live.

Even where Jews were tolerated, they were treated as the refuse of mankind. Voltaire, a veritable icon of enlightenment, wrote that the Jews had never offered the world anything in the areas of art, invention, philosophy, mathematics, or astronomy. "In short, we find in them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched. Still, we ought not to burn them." Today, Christians—especially those who take their faith most seriously—report that they feel like a scorned stepchild within general culture. They are mocked and derided, and treated as intellectual pygmies who have nothing to offer the better, more enlightened people around them.

Christians who listen to the Jewish saga begin to understand how Jews lived with themselves through the long centuries of persecution. Jews felt the power of conviction—of belief that if you are fortunate enough to possess the truth, you do not compromise or sacrifice it, even if it means that you continue on only as tiny fleck of mankind. Ironically, those who mocked Jews for their insignificance now consider voluntarily choosing to live with the same ethic. Pope Benedict XVI will be remembered, among other things, for his theological depth, for facing intellectual challenges head-on and refusing to water down what he considered essential truths. Writing as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in Das Salz von der Erde, he made a startling confession. "We might have to part with the notion of a popular Church. It is possible that we are on the verge of a new era in the history of the Church, under circumstances very different from those we have faced in the past, when Christianity willresemble the mustard seed [Matthew 13:31-32], that is, will continue only in the form of small and seemingly insignificant groups, which yet will oppose evil with all their strength and bring Good into this world."

Lastly, Christians are discovering their Jewish roots—how deeply dependent Christianity had been on its Jewish beginnings. As T.S. Eliot put it, "And the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time."

That place, for many Christians today, is looking more Jewish all the time.

That term used to be a theological one, telling the faithful that G-d's covenants with the Jewish people had been rewritten in favor of new beneficiaries: Christians. Today, however, it means that Christians have succeeded Jews as the numerically most persecuted people on the face of the earth. In a huge swath of territory from Nigeria east and north to Iran and Pakistan, millions of Christians live in fear of losing their property or their lives simply because they are Christians. In the Assyrian Triangle of Iraq, the campaign of church-burning, clergy-killing, and terror has all but decimated the historically oldest Christian communities. Egypt's Copts, a full 10 percent of her population, treated for decades as second-class citizens, now face an even more uncertain future as Egypt's constitution moves the country closer to Sharia.

Christians who study Jewish history learn that for close to two thousand years, even when Jews were not being killed, they were terrorized from cradle to grave. They could not speak their mind or voice opinions about political matters. Anything they said might be used against them with deathly consequences as leadership changed, or rulers changed their minds about protecting "their" Jews from expulsion or death. Moreover, on the rare occasion when they enjoyed enough protection to speak or act, they knew that they might be endangering their coreligionists elsewhere, and so learned to remain mute even in the face of horrific tragedy.

Christians today have learned to keep silent while their hearts are exploding with rage. Clergy in Muslim countries have had to turn the other cheek not for religious and moral reasons, but because speaking up against their masters would endanger too many in their own community, or in those of nearby countries. The only country in the Middle East in which Christian population is increasing and Christians enjoy complete freedom of religion is Israel. Yet many Christian clergy in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon parrot the anti-Israel invective of those who control their neighborhoods.

Christians learn that for two thousand years, Jews had no place to call home. They were at-will residents, often having to buy the right from some local ruler simply to breathe. The emergence of the State of Israel changed that, but that change is imperiled by a growing chorus of voices calling for the dismantling of the Jewish State. Amoz Oz put it best. "In the 1930s our enemies said: Jews to Palestine. Now they say: Jews out of Palestine. They don't want us to be here. They don't want us to be there. They don't want us to be."
Yitzchok Adlerstein is an Orthodox rabbi who directs interfaith affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and chairs Jewish Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. He is hopelessly addicted to the serious study of Torah texts.

Adlerstein's column, "The Velvet Kippah," is published on alternate Tuesdays on the Jewish portal. Subscribe via email or RSS.

OUTSTANDING! The Real State of the Union Address by Bill Whittle

This video needs to go viral. Please repost on your page and everywhere else you can post it.

A Bit of Good News For A Change

This little bit of good news went mainly unreported today by the lame stream media who must never, ever report any objection to Der Fuehrer's wish. While it stands little chance of passing all the way through Congress at least 50 members showed some brass today.

Republican House Members Introduce Conscience Protection Act

Three Republican members of Congress, along with 47 co-sponsors, have announced a legislative effort to protect conscience rights. House Representatives Diane Black (R-TN), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), and John Fleming, M.D. (R-LA) hosted a press conference this morning to introduce the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (NCCRA). According to a press release, the legislation is designed to protect American’s First Amendment rights and prevent the administration’s assault on religious freedom.

"We have come together to act to protect Americans' most basic rights - our rights of conscience and religious freedom," Representative Fortenberry told The Cardinal Newman Society. "The bill simply restores the basic rights in health care that were widely accepted before the implementation of the new health care law.”

The press release went on to explain:

Under the health care coverage mandate issued on August 3,2011, widely known as the HHS mandate, organizations and their managers are now facing potentially ruinous financial penalties for exercising their First Amendment rights, as protected by law. Hobby Lobby, a family business that was denied injunctive relief from the mandate and faces fines of up to $1.3 million dollars a day, unless its owners agree to fund potentially abortion-inducing drugs. If Hobby Lobby is forced to close its doors, some 25,000 jobs nationwide may disappear. The Obama Administration’s HHS mandate exemption only includes houses of worship and does not account for the thousands of religious and non-religious affiliated employers that find it a moral hazard to cover sterilization, contraception and potentially abortion-inducing drugs on their employer-based health insurance. Ultimately, the so-called “accommodation” does not protect anyone’s religious rights, because allcompanies and organizations will still be forced to provide insurance coverage that includes services which conflict with their religious convictions. The HCCRA would address this violation of our First Amendment rights by providing a full exemption for all those whose religious beliefs run counter to the Administration’s HHS mandate.

The release continued:

The HCCRA also protects institutions and individuals from forced or coerced participation in abortion. In recent years there have been several examples of nurses being told they must participate in abortions. There have also been efforts to require Catholic Hospitals to do abortions, and a Catholic social service provider was denied a grant to assist victims of human trafficking on the basis of their pro-life convictions. The HCCRA codifies and clarifies the appropriations provision known as the HydeWeldon conscience clause. This is accomplished by adding the protections for healthcare entities that refuse to provide, pay for, or refer for abortion to the section of the Public Health Service Act known as the Coats Amendment. It also adds the option of judicial recourse for victims whose rights have been violated under the HCCRA, Coats, or the conscience clauses known as the Church amendments.

In addition to the three members of the House Republican caucus, those who have been affected by the HHS mandate also appeared at the press conference. They included: Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo, a New York State Registered Nurse who filed suit after her freedom to serve patients according to her conscience was violated; Susan Elliott, director and professor at Biola University’s nursing department; and Christine Ketterhagen, co-owner and board member of Hercules Industries, Inc., who appeared with co-plaintiff Andy Newland, President of Hercules, and Bill Newland, Chairman of the Board.


Why Did the TSA Spend $1000 Per Employee On New Uniforms?

Why did the TSA spend $1000 per employee on new uniforms?

Well, jackboots are expensive, you know.

Well Said

Over on Twitter Teampyro member Dan Phillips said:
@BibChr: Celebrities who spk out shld have to say, "I'm not a person of intelligence, char and accomplishment, I only play one in the movies; but..."
I agree 100%.


Do you remember Buckwheat from the old Our Gang movie shorts that later ran on early television too?

Turns out he moved to Ireland and converted to Islam.

All Muslim converts are given new names so from now on he will be known as Kareem O'Wheat.

That is all. I now return you to your regular blogging.

Put In My Place By A Three Year Old

Grandson Silas goes to daycare but it is quite structured and there is not a lot of playtime there. After daycare he is looked after by his older sisters. Silas' family is wired to the hilt. His Dad is a computer technician and they have all the toys, tablets, iPads, iPhones, Androids, televisions everywhere. It is a geeks paradise. At three years and 4 months Silas has mastered them all and that is primarily his play.

His cousin Zephyr is the opposite. Zephyr has a childs tablet but he doesn't care too much about it and he doesn't sit still long enough to watch television. Zephyr's life is toys and the outdoors and pets and wrestling with his brother.

The other day I picked Silas up from daycare and took him home. I told him I had just seen his cousin Zephyr. Silas said, "Zephyr is my friend."

Yesterday daughter Christina stopped at Amy's for a moment and the two boys played and were delighted to see each other. When Chris went to leave Silas began to cry and so she took him for the day for a play date. Silas had a great time but when Chris brought him back home he started to cry again and begged Christina to let him spend the night.

So, Silas went back out to the farm for a sleep over. We all figured that Christina would have to make a middle of the night drive back to town when Silas got home sick as he has never spent a night away from Mom and Dad and his sisters.

He never made a peep. Played until bedtime, went to bed with his cousin, got up this morning and started to play again. He had the time of his life out on the farm and still didn't want to come home.

This evening I called down there to speak to him. His mother told him someone was on the phone for him. "Is it Zephyr?" I heard him ask. "You'll have to see," she said.

When he got on the phone I said, "Hi, Silas, this is Grandpa. Do you want to come have a sleepover with me?"

Not a word! He handed the phone back to his mother and I heard him say, "I don't want to talk to Grandpa. I want to talk to Zephyr."

Ha.That was telling me.

I doubt Zephyr is ready yet to be away from home although it shocked me Silas was. But until Zephyr reaches that maturity I suspect Christina is going to have an extra kid every weekend now.
Silas just grew up a long ways for a three year old.

Fart Sunday

With apologies to Art Sunday I present, Fart Sunday.

I know it is juvenile but it had me in tears.


Thursday, 7 March 2013

Kissed By Two Beautiful Women

A short while ago I was in the mall. I had stopped to talk with someone I know. As we were talking I was suddenly kissed on each cheek by two beautiful young women who kept on walking. Another couple of steps along they both turned, giggled, and waved and one of them said, "We love you, Grandpa."
"I love you both too. Where are you going?"

They were going clothing shopping. What else do young teens do in a mall?

Being unexpectedly kissed by two beautiful young women? Heavenly!

Song Saturday - Alison Krauss

I am a big Alison Krauss fan and I particularly love the folksy, southern renditions she does of old time songs and hymns. Here are two.

The first is Down to the River to Pray, a negro spiritual from around the 1860's. You might remember it from the movie Brother Where Art Thou.

I'll Fly Away is a little newer. It was written in the 1920's. Here it is performed by Alison Krauss and Gillian Welch

The Case Against "Equality" Parts 1 & 2

The following is one of the most cogent arguements on this subject you will see voiced in our current society of hysteria.

The Case Against "Equality" Parts 1 & 2

by Frank Turek

Pascal said, “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” So-called marriage “equality” is attractive. Who could be against equality?
But what if the word “equality” is being misused? What if that kind of equality will have the unintended consequence of hurting children, individuals and the nation? And what if everyone already has true equality?
True equality does not conflate people and behavior. People are equal but their behaviors are not. When liberals claim that certain sexual behaviors are equal – or that all outcomes must be equalized—they are misusing an important word and advocating a society that will ultimately smash itself into an unforgiving wall called reality.

Conservatives realize that for any long-term happiness to be possible, we must adjust our desired behavior to fit the unchanging laws of nature. Liberals mistakenly think we can adjust the unchanging laws of nature to fit our desired behavior.

I don’t question the motivation of liberals—in fact their intentions are often noble. But the problem lies with their definition of “equality” and the results of their policies. On the issue of marriage they want to legally equate biologically different behaviors, which ultimately will hurt everyone, especially children.

Last March I was asked by our local NPR affiliate to debate an attorney who was against the marriage amendment here in North Carolina. The debate was held at a theater in downtown Charlotte that held about 600. Despite the amendment passing comfortably a couple of months later, it seemed like 598 people in the theater that night were against me. That shows you who listens to NPR. (I still thank my Mom and Dad for showing up!)

The organizers gave me only nine minutes to make my case before the format degenerated into the Jerry Springer show. The time constraints made it impossible to cover the topic adequately. But like word constraints in a column, they force you to hone your position. This column and tomorrow’s column contain what I said that night, with a few minor edits.

Good evening. I wish I could be arguing for same sex marriage here tonight. On the surface, it’s an attractive position. I have friends who believe same sex marriage will help make them happy. In addition, I would rather not be slurred as a “hater,” a “bigot” or “intolerant” for opposing what is becoming more fashionable in our culture today. I would rather not be fired for expressing my political beliefs about marriage in a book, as I have been. I would rather not argue against powerful slogans such as “equal rights,” “don’t put discrimination in the constitution,” and “I have a right to marry the one I love.”

But I do argue against them because those slogans and slurs are based on fallacies, not truth. And as Chesterton pointed out over 100 years ago, “Fallacies do not cease being fallacies when they become fashions.”

Why are they fallacies? I’ve written an entire book on this topic. But since I only have nine minutes, I can’t touch on everything. Nevertheless, I am hopeful our discussion tonight will help us all to realize that this debate over marriage should not be reduced to slogans, slurs and sound bites. In the spirit of inclusion, diversity and tolerance, I am hopeful that we will consider one another’s diverse arguments carefully and respectfully so we can generate more light than heat on this critically important issue.

Let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. It is not about whether people with homosexual attractions are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. All human beings should be treated with equal dignity and respect. But while all people are equal, all ideas and behaviors are not. I hope to evaluate the different ideas and behaviors we are each advocating tonight by being correct, not politically correct. I mean no offense.

Here is my thesis: Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of civilized society and should be the only sexual relationship promoted by the government. That is the essence of the Marriage Protection Amendment, and its passage in no way violates anyone’s civil rights.

In order to see this, we need to ask, “For what primary purpose is the government involved in marriage at all?” It’s not because two people love one another or to make individuals “happy.” The main reason most governments promote the union of a man and woman exclusivelyis because only the committed union of a man and a woman perpetuates and stabilizes society. I’ll call this union “natural marriage” because of the natural biological compatibility of male and female bodies and to differentiate it from same-sex marriage.
Here are four ways naturalmarriage perpetuates and stabilizes society:

1. Natural Marriage procreates and provides the most stable, balanced and nurturing environment for children. While not every marriage results in children, the only marriages than can procreate are those between a man and a woman. And statistically, children and the country do best when kids are brought up in a biological two-parent home. Children from intact natural marriage homes are:

a. Seven times less likely to live in poverty

b. Six times less likely to commit suicide

c. Less than half as likely to commit crime

d. Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock

e. Develop better academically and socially

f. Are healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood

This makes sense in light of the fact that men and women are different and parent differently—each sex brings unique abilities and role modeling that aids in child development. While single parents do amazing work, every child starts with and deserves a mother and a father. If you deny this, then which parent is dispensable?

2. Natural Marriage civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits such as procreating and caring for their family. Studies invariably show that marriage reduces crime. (How many married men do you know who roam neighborhoods in street gangs?) Civilization requires civilized men, and natural marriage does that well.

3. Natural Marriage protects women from being used and abandoned by uncommitted men. Women often postpone or give up their careers to have children, and Natural Marriage protects them and their children from deadbeat dads.

4. Natural Marriage lowers social costs to government and thus taxpayers. One major reason for our soaring deficit is the breakdown of the two-parent family. When the family breaks down, government expenditures swell to deal with increased crime and poverty. Increased taxation also slows the economy. That’s one reason why you cannot bifurcate the social and financial issues. They are inescapably connected.
In short, when our natural marriages are strong, our society is strong. When they are weak, our society is weak. That means all in our society—even those who never get married—benefit immensely from government promotion of natural marriage.

But doesn’t promoting natural marriage exclusively violate the rights of people who are attracted to the same sex? That’s what I’ll address in tomorrow’s column.

by Frank Turek

In yesterday’s column, I listed some of the benefits that natural marriage provides children and society. But some claim that promoting natural marriage exclusively violates the rights of people who are attracted to the same sex. That’s not true. The three P’s will help us see why.

The government has only three options in addressing human behavior. It can prohibit a behavior, it can permit a behavior or it can promote a behavior—the three P’s.

Our laws prohibit sexual relationships such as polygamy, incest and pedophilia. They permit homosexual relationships and non-marital heterosexual relationships. And due to the immense benefits the committed union of a man and a woman brings society, our laws promote marriage between a man and woman. (Notice any two people in our society are already permitted to commit themselves to one another until death do them part. Since they don’t need the government to do that, this debate is not about tolerance. Same-sex relationships are already tolerated.)

Here’s why promoting naturalmarriage exclusively does not deny anyone equal rights.
First, everyone has the same equal right to marry a qualified person of the opposite sex. That law treats every man and woman equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. Same sex marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats them differently. One behavior perpetuates and stabilizes society, and the other doesn’t. Promoting one behavior does not deny rights to people who don’t engage in that behavior.

An analogy may help clarify this point. Like marriage, the government promotes police work by paying people to become police officers because police do much good for society. But if you can’t qualify to become a police officer, or if you choose another vocation, your rights are not being violated when the government pays other people to be police officers. All people, regardless of their vocation, experience the benefits of police, just like all people, regardless of their marriage status, experience the benefits of natural marriage.

Second, the law addresses behaviors, not persons. In other words, good laws treat all persons equally, but not necessarily what persons do equally. People may be born with certain sexual inclinations or acquire them later in life, but that’s irrelevant to what the law should be. Laws deal with actions, not attractions—with what people do, not what they feel like doing. That’s why the parallels to the civil rights struggles regarding race are fallacious. Skin color is not a behavior, but same sex relations and same-sex marriage are behaviors. You will find many former homosexuals but you will never find a former Black, Hispanic or Caucasian.

Third, everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Even most same-sex marriage proponents want to define marriage in such a way so groups cannot marry and relatives cannot marry. Are those homosexual activists bigots when they advocate that marriage not include groups, relatives or other parties? Of course not! They are not violating anyone’s rights. Likewise, conservatives who advocate that marriage not include same-sex relationships are not violating anyone’s rights either. Defining marriage in accordance with the facts of nature is not bigotry—it’s biology.

Some will ignore those biological realities and object, “But men and women are the same so there’s no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships!”

If that were true, no one would be arguing for same-sex marriage. The very fact people demand same-sex marriage is precisely because they know men and women are drastically different. If men and women were the same, no one would be spending time and energy trying to get same-sex marriage approved. They would simply marry someone of the opposite sex—which according to them is the same as someone of the same sex—and be done with it.

But why not promote both natural marriage and same sex marriage?

Several reasons, but I can only briefly mention three.

First, same-sex marriage would make the institution of marriage genderless. There would not be two forms of marriage—natural and same-sex—but marriage legally and culturally would become a genderless institution about merely coupling. In Massachusetts it’s Partner A and Partner B. In other words, same-sex marriage divorces children from marriage. The law is a great teacher, and same-sex marriage teaches that marriage is about adult desires, not the needs of children. Marriage should be more about what children need than what adults want. If marriage isn’t about the needs of children, then what institution is about children and the next generation? So homosexuality really isn’t the issue here—making marriage genderless and childless is.

Second, since natural marriage and same-sex marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes they should not be equated legally. To see this, consider two questions.

Question 1: What would be the benefits to society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? It would benefit everyone in society because it would result in a massive reduction in poverty, crime, child abuse, welfare, and government spending.

Question 2: What would be the benefits to society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? It would be the end of society itself.

Now, I am not suggesting that a law would fully achieve either, but only to point out that natural and same-sex marriage should not be legally or culturally equated. The truth is homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. We hurt everyone, especially children, by pretending otherwise.

Finally, as jurisdictions with same-sex marriage show us, people lose their freedoms of speech, association, religion and even parenting due to the imposition of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, for example, parents now have no right to even know when their kids as young as kindergarten are being taught about homosexuality, much less opt out of it; business owners must now provide benefits to same-sex couples, and they can be fined for declining to provide services at homosexual weddings; Catholic charities were forced to close and leave Massachusetts and Washington D.C. because both governments mandated that all adoption agencies had to provide children to homosexuals. So much for freedom of religion! And in Canada, same-sex marriage has led to such a chilling restriction on speech, that my speech here today could get me fined or jailed if given there.

To sum up, the government already permits homosexual relationships, but promoting them by equating them with married heterosexual relationships ignores the facts of nature, the needs of children and the health of society. While people with different sexual attractions are equal, not all behaviors are equally beneficial. True equality treats equal behaviors equally. It doesn’t demand that different behaviors be treated the same.
If all of these observations make you mad, don’t blame me—I wish I could affirm same sex marriage—but I didn’t make up the facts of nature. Conservatives like myself are simply observing that society will be better off if we conserve policies that are consistent with what we know about the facts of nature and the importance of natural marriage to civilization.

In fact, if you are mad at me it means that in an important sense you agree with me. If you don’t like the behaviors and ideas I am advocating here, you are admitting that all behaviors and ideas are not equal—that some are closer to the real objective truth than others. The objective truth is that good political laws don’t ignore objective natural laws. We can’t change the facts of nature by passing laws. Good laws attempt to conform our desired behavior to reality; they do not attempt to conform reality to our desired behavior.

The Best Prank Call Ever

Katskorner did a post this morning on telephone prank calls. It reminded me of one my friends and I would pull off when I was a kid. It was deliciously funny and we learned a slew of words we had never heard before.

This particular prank had to be done in the early hours of the morning so it could only be done during sleepovers and only when we could get to a phone without out parents knowing.

At about 2:00 in the morning call your target. When they struggle awake and answer the phone say, "Hello, is Roger there?" (Or Bill, Bob, whomever.)

Politely listen to the grumbling and hang up.

Give them a half hour to get settled in and back to sleep, say 2:30. Call and ask for Roger again. Their response should be a little sharper this time. Politely listen to the grumbling and hang up.

Give it a good half hour and do this again at 3:00. Your victim will be a little irate this time but listen and hang up without a word.

Getting back to sleep this time is going to be difficult for them so give them an hour and a half, say 4:30.
At 4:30 you make your last call, different from the rest. When they answer the phone, probably screaming into it by now, follow up with, "Hello, this is Roger. Have there been any calls for me?"

The results should be spectacular. They always were when I was a kid.

Of course now-a-days there is call display which we didn't have. Make sure to turn it off when you try this because even though you are all adults I know you are going to try this.

A Nation of Degenerates

Are you kidding me? Seriously? 110 Million Americans have an STD? You know what? If I were single in the USA I would seriously consider life long celibacy. No wonder the USA is going to hell in a hand basket. Apparently everything is about fucking. The right to fuck whomever you want, whenever you want, where ever you want. The right to indoctrinate children in the school system. Well, why not. Got to have some sex partners without an STD so lets get the kiddies.

Unbelievable. A nation or moral degenerates.

By Tiffany Owens

Drug-resistant Gonorrhea raises pandemic threat

Gonorrhea, a highly drug-resistant sexually-transmitted disease, is on the rise in the United Kingdom, causing health officials to worry it might soon explode into a global health threat.

In 2011, UK doctors diagnosed 21,000 cases of gonorrhea, a 25 percent increase. A third of the cases occurred in gay men and another third in people who had already contracted the disease before, according to a report the country’s Health Protection Agency released this week.

"We are seriously concerned about continuing high levels of gonorrhea transmission and repeat infection," said Gwenda Hughes, the HPA's head of surveillance on sexually transmitted infections. Although the increase in cases is cause for concern, the bigger fear is its resistance to previously effective forms of treatment.

In 2008, scientists found a strain of the disease that was resistant to all recommended antibiotics, according to Reuters. Health officials all over the world have now documented cases of drug-resistant gonorrhea.

In the United State, about 700,000 people have gonorrhea, which if untreated, can cause ectopic pregnancy, pelvic inflammatory disease, stillbirths, and infertility in both men and women.

The sobering reality of an untreatable disease is a reminder that the modern push for sexual freedom comes with very real consequences. Currently, 110 million Americans live with an STD, and half of them are between the ages of 15 and 24. Health experts urge an increase in awareness campaigns and for sexually-active adults to use protective measures.

Meanwhile, American abstinence-advocates continue to push for more funding and abstinence programs in schools. In the UK, the abstinence message has a much harder time gaining traction.

Last January, Conservative MP Nadien Dorries presented an abstinence-education program for school-aged girls, but eventually revoked it because of opposition. Angry feminists and pro-abortion activists protested outside Parliament the day she was to present the bill, and critics lambasted the idea as “unevidenced,” “unrealistic”, and “irresponsible.” Nothing similar has come before Parliament since.

I'm Sorry. So Sorry.

Please excuse me.

Please accept my apologies if I have not read or responded to some of your blogs lately or if I have not been around to comment and banter as much as I have in the past.

Life has been very stressful and tiring with my elderly parents both being sick and a lot of work falling on my shoulders and while both are doing much better that does not always translate into less work or stress. Mother is eating once again, is seemingly always hungry, but that often seems to just give the Alzheimer's more energy. Some days I can handle the same question being asked twenty times and some days it is beyond difficult. Particularly on days, like today, when no amount of explanation works and she becomes angry.

Then there are the regular day to day stresses and worries.

We went to the city on Sunday to see my youngest daughter and Gracey, my granddaughter. Gracey had not been feeling well and it showed and in the end we left early because she was really not feeling well.

The trip back home was an absolute nightmare. It was storming a blizzard mixed with rain and the roads were the worst I have seem them in the 40 years I have lived it. It was 75 miles of white knuckle driving punctuate by moments of sheer terror when I could not find the road. There was no place to pull over and no place to turn around and go back. It was thrilling.

This morning daughter Amy fell down the stairs and while no bones are broken she is on crutches and I will have to take young Silas to daycare and drive her to work for a few days as she cannot drive and she cannot take time off work. An employee she disciplined on Tuesday is now "sick" and needing two weeks off.
Daughter Christina is sick with some female ailment and seeing a specialist.

As for myself I either have a kidney infection, a kidney stone, or, hell, worse. Who knows. I have to get into a doctor myself. I am tired and not feeling well myself.

I was about to start dinner tonight when I said the hell with it and phoned across the street for a pizza. I hate doing that to my parents but I just did not have the energy to cook for them tonight.
I am waiting for something else to happen.

Tess won't be off until 9:30 this evening but I have left the old folks and am back at her house. I am going to lay on the couch and check my eyelids for cracks for a couple hours until she gets home.

So, I haven't given up blogging a couple of times a day and I haven't given up reading those of you I follow or given up commenting. I am just stretched a little thin right now and finding time to myself is difficult.

Obama Administration Warns of Cuts at Non-Existent Agency

Only in Washington. Only by the Obama administration.

The Obama administration has spent much of the past few weeks sounding the alarm about the impact of sequestration, but it appears it may have overreached, warning of cuts to a federal agency that no longer exists.

Though the National Drug Intelligence Center closed in June 2012, three months before the Office of Management and Budget issued its (supposedly) comprehensive report on the impact of sequestration on each federal agency, the report notes on page 121 that the NDIC would lose $2 million of its $20 million budget.

Reason’s Mike Riggs, who discovered the error, asks, “Might there be other errors in the OMB’s report?”
Below is the Department of Justice’s announcement of the NDIC’s closing.

Sunday, 3 March 2013

Obama Backers Use Fake Twitter Accounts In Gun Control Blitz

Once again I am shocked. Shocked I tell you. Is their no honesty among the crooks in Washington these days?

Republican Rep. Claims Obama Backers Use Fake Twitter Accounts In Gun Control Blitz

President Obama supporters appear to be using fake Twitter accounts to send pro gun-control messages to members of Congress, Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman and conservative bloggers who also reviewed the messages said Monday.

Bloggers first spotted the trend and said they suspected some social media funny business because the senders had sent no other tweets, had no followers and followed nobody.

In addition, blogger Stacy McCain said his review found the majority of the accounts supporting Obama’s gun-control campaign were created less than 48 hours before a member of Congress was contacted.
The tweets in question included the #WeDemandAVote hashtag – which President Obama told gun-control supporters to include in their Twitter messages to Congress.

Stockman is among 16 members of Congress who appear to have received the tweets.
On Monday, the congressman suggested “Obama’s anti-gun activists” were behind the allegedly computer-generated messages, which his office called a “scam” similar to those selling “male enhancement pills.”
Stockman also said accounts are linked directly to a former Obama staffer and called on the president to denounce the spamming.

“Obama’s anti-gun campaign is a fraud,” Stockman said in a statement. “The White House has some explaining to do. To what extent is the White House involved in this attempt to defraud Congress?”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

A review of Stockman’s Twitter account by staffers and conservative bloggers shows at least 16 identical tweets.

The Stockman staffers said 10 were computer-generated and six came from real people, though only one lives in Stockman’s southeast Texas district. Two had only one follower, former Obama digital strategist Brad Schenck.
“Schenck somehow found and followed them before they ever tweeted anything, followed anyone or followed any real people,” Stockman said.

Obama and fellow Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass tighter gun-control legislation follows a series of mass shootings, most recently in December inside a Connecticut elementary school where 20 first-graders and six adults were killed.

Of the 16 members of Congress who have received the tweets, nine are Democrats and seven are Republicans.
“It looks like (the tweets) are all being run from some uniform website,” said @defendWallSt, among the first to discover the possible irregularities, in a tweet to “My presumption is that the accounts were registered by some organizing group or someone” from Obama for America farmed out the work


Why does the Apple iPad virtual keyboard have the location bars on the home keys? It's not like you can feel them on a sheet of glass.

Do You Know How To Hop?

Do you know how to Hop? Do you know how to Lindy Hop? There may be a few of you who can but I am quite sure none of you can like this. Enjoy!

Is Obama Lying? Yes. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

I don't know about you but I am shocked, SHOCKED, that Obama is lying. Okay. I am not shocked. I am not even surprised. Neither should you be. It is par for the course for the psychopathic President.

February 23, 2013
Obama's Lies About the Origin of the Sequester
Rick Moran

President Obama has been making a big deal about blaming Congress for the sequester, even saying at one point during his debate with Romney last year, "The sequester is not something that I've proposed," Obama said. "It is something that Congress has proposed."

He either has a short memory or is a bald faced liar, as Bob Woodward points out:

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

"There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger," Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It "was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure."

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book "The Price of Politics" shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors -- probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, "We didn't actually think it would be that hard to convince them" -- Reid and the Republicans -- to adopt the sequester. "It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table."
The president's apologists like to point out that the GOP voted for it, and are therefore culpable. But no one is saying Republicans didn't support the idea of the sequester. The question is who made it up and who is responsible for pushing it?

This is the president's baby and now, he wants to run away from it by blaming it all on his opponents. Very few in the media have acknowledged the president's lies and simply don't report the fact that it was his OMB director who came up with the idea.
It's why the GOP will probably be blamed for any pain caused by the sequester

Song Saturday. This Is the End. No, Really. The End.