On the Q. T.?

Rather than M-bed or Genre-Monger or work my geometrics,
here is a spin-off** from other ramblings, as BS has evolved. [FP1]

(1) Quadrilateral Thoughts.***
(2) (b.s.) "social+media": A, b, c, D, e, F, g, h. (a, d, f?)  
(3) "Boston + Strong"
(4) "Labelism" (AtF?)* A, B, C, D, E, F ( a, e, f )
*(b.s.)@(2) was A through H (ah ha?) [$HA?]
** Jabber Walkie?

***(insert)  4-29-13 Earlier Q.T.[but seriously! (O-W)]

Unspinning Charlotte!

W EB?*

* [!]



(FP1: not anti-matters)
[2-24-13 Tangent of sorts.(footnote: Rhee/Schwartz) bricks** in the web?]
**(or stones)threading giants?(not there yet)
[ Bricks and stones can build a throne or pave a path that hones.  Is this a test?]

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

New On the Radar!

The Daily Beast
See Dick Run
Wrestler Mania
The Twilight Zone
Interdimensional Therapy

This headline refers to The Daily Beast and The Examiner as sources, not necessarily their links nor potential for what is under the radar.

UNDER
[Scape - run - from - straw - running - expletive - heading]
OVER
[Old on the Radar and bottom of the box.]

Recycling Trash

Conservative Eras and Socionomics.
I'm not sure who is really talking trash, but is there a leak or a gas bag somewhere?
Methane?Carbon? Market?
There is a mind blowing or is it a bubble blowing link below?

Label (V)

LABELS

Other tracks.

Business Week and Russert and the Media.
My comment there:

Not being a regular consumer of his work, I did not have him on a pedestal, but given the nature of the business he was probably the best they could afford. And given the nature of the world, even harder to find one without more of an edge. Maybe as the comments on Kiley have shown.

My suggestion to MSNBC is to fill several pairs of shoes in memory of Russert's work. Not as in trying to fill his shoes, but to uphold his several jobs. It will still be difficult. [Maybe David Bender if not Rachel Maddow could fill one or more of those pairs, but not necessarily that they or GE* would want them to fit.]
[[[Ed Schultz would be a fit for some shoes here, but I think he enjoys the job he's got too much and could actually be in the running for the whole show. And of course Keith Olbermann would be great, if he was not so great at his present job.]]]

- - - - -

Meanwhile I have been writing in other formats, message board and email. And will get to the following (nfry), later.
- - - - -
When McCain Drops by Steve Rosenbaum
US General Accuses Bush Administration of War Crimes
Broken Laws, Broken LivesPhysicians for Human Rights
Michael Reagan Should be charged for terrorism
or they are right, our freedoms are what gives us terrorists.
How could a wrong be so right? NOT!

She talks about the real America. Will she be heard?
In no particular order:
Kucinich: Impeachment Not "Off the Table"

I hope to be back to these links, but wish that they did not tie in so well, that more will be following. But I will summarize my feeling that McCain may be just a place holder in a strategy where there is too much to loose not to give it more than he's got, and that plays into the way I see them always playing it.

Meanwhile Obama has "flip-flopped"[**] on the Public Campaign Finance System but faces it in a more honest a principled manner than the media can follow or wishes to follow. While McCain may just be a distraction for a sleeper candidate, they cannot come up with one that should not be asked what he or she would do about holding history accountable.

* GE profits are a picture that may not fit full disclosure journalism, economics or environment, but then I acknowledge I don't fit or have the full picture either. Meaning I have taken digs at them, and it does not mean that profits are above principles or question, but that it is another story.

** The Catch-22 for them not us, but we*** can't help it. "Flip-flop" is a charge that was created by those that fear nuance or the work required to do their jobs or an attempt to do too many jobs or diminish those that see your own flip-flops, which maybe is all they can see, since this has created a loop. [[I did not intend to throw the book at a term, but then we are all about the Catch-44. And then there is the actual records. Not that I want to go there, but that may be one of the reasons we are here, with McCain a candidate, not his record, but the difficulty in facing it all, and the actions/reactions that brings.]]

*** "we" does depend on a job sometimes and who "them" is, not to mention the word.(While there may be some typo's or gramatical sloppiness in this post, this line have been double and triple checked mentally, not technologically.)

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 - ]