Who said...

Oops!

You can't judge a book by its cover.

Or rather never judge a book by its cover.

While I might apply that to my last post,

a trailer is more than a cover,

and reviews are presumed***to have done more than open the cover.

Not to mention other formats.

[ Incidentally, I cannot even link to the page that scrolled through my facebook.

See "not" "other", to mention a few. ]

*** review in draft

Label (III)

LABELS

"A flip-flop should be no handicap."

Richard Dawkins points to his own flip-flop on Amotz Zahavi's Handicap Principle [*] and how it fits in with his own theory in The Selfish Gene. The point is not that anyone has a handicap, but that those that do, must be actually more successful to survive or are selected by a mate (or voter) for that reason. However, the traslation from the math to the biology to the sociology has a handicap. The math. Most people will follow a meme whether they follow the math or the meme. Meaning they will follow a leader whether they know the meme or they are just mean. But flip-flopping on a meme, does not mean the results will be progess.

If this has not been followed I will leave it anyway. Politics is not science, science not a religion, and religion is not faith. Faith is another story.[**] But cost is a reality that can't always be calculated and takes more than economists.

[*] last article on link
[**] first article
[also see comments on Richard Dawkins to the left in first link]

BTW: flip-flop is no joke in physics, let alone other fields -- not to mention nuance

[Follow-up: Changing my religion. Roger Bingham (second-to-last article)and The Light Side of Locality (third article). Or Hubris and Humor?]

Israel Attacks Syria?... Ho Hum.

September 9th, 2007 WMD/Nuclear Program (background read)*

IAEA chastises U.S., Israel over Syrian reactorLack of information sharing, unilateral attack anger nuclear watchdog-

"The director general deplores the fact that this information was not provided to the agency in a timely manner, in accordance with the agency's responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to enable it to verify its veracity and establish the facts," the statement said.

Additionally, "the director general views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the nonproliferation regime," it said.

-

A senior diplomat linked to the IAEA said ElBaradei had already let his displeasure be known to Rood during the U.S. official's phone call over the delay between the time the information became available to the United States and when he was informed of it.

* I did read the background material and the link where I institute a new policy of noting in bold the links I have read, in contrast to those that I just visually or figuratively, cherry picked a reading from. In this case I have block quoted and will [bracket] in comments later. (square brackets indicate editing or additions) And as far as labels go, below, I will use them as categories or additional hints of commentary pun (Ex. Expelled) which in reality... Re: cycle in particular Hint: exemplified here

Happy Earth Day!

Happy WholeEday!

Here is to Ed Schultz for reminding me.
He is not what the E stands for but may be getting there, with the energy.
Neither is reuters which I will review later.

I just throw this out along with the good and look forward to more hardwork.

[While most of the links here are (nfry), they could be fodder for further dialogue, I will note that Ed Schultz will be bringing up the topic of Ethonol for a discussion this week, by so-called experts.]

Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?)

Featured DO NOT SEE!
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. *

Idol Chatter: Pre-Screaming.
Reuters: No "Intelligence" evident in Stein documentary Post comment.
Angry Astronomer reports.

An unwilling participant!
And a Willing participant?

* OK, see the trailer, which is admittedly more a mocumentary.

[Now I will add my only little discourse:

Fear Based Blame Game

Speaking of Labeling, I did not know I would go here. It is not a matter of Faith. It is a matter of evidence. Not that faith is wrong to have. But it must be based on evidence. Of course there is evidence for faith. But can you question faith? You can question evidence. But would you have faith in unquestioned evidence? Evidence can give you an answer, if you have a question. If you have faith in unquestioned evidence, can you question faith? If it is a matter of freedom, would anyone choose freedom from evidence? Would anyone choose freedom from faith?

Of course this is just a ramble. Unless one chooses to answer, whether you have faith in evidence or no evidence. Would anyone base their answers on a writer, actor, economist, lawyer? Just because a dog does not all of a sudden become a cat, does not mean that things don’t change, and not always for the better. But apparently with intelligent design, anyone can be anything, no matter their department or intelligence. There is now evidence for that.]

[[If the above ramble is hard to follow, maybe reading the following will help.
The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins -- Maybe not, but it may make it seem easier. (It may also be helpful to point out that this is only an example used by unwilling participant above.) ]]

[04-22-08: more links on Expelled - -
PZ Meyers Expelled, Gains Sainthood -
Lying for Jesus - (nfry)

It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.

Faith in doubt and inquiry -
Related video link:
'New' American Theology of Civil Submission - ]