More than meets the Eye

Despite having seen countless comic book characters (alright three to be precise) "come alive" on the big screen, not to mention Pirates of the Caribbean, I still could not help but chuckle when I saw Hasbro® on the screen. But I guess now I have seen it all, unless of course they make a major motion picture based on the Geico cave men.
Transformers, I am afraid starts with a rather unsatisfying back-story. Which leaves many questions unanswered. Is this CUBE of intelligent design? The fact that it has hieroglyphs would seem to indicate this. If so, what became of this intelligence? Has anyone ever tried to decipher the hieroglyphs? Why does Bumblebee keep transforming into that junky old camaro? And did we really need all those movie references? (I suppose the ET one was obligatory, but six? Two or three would have been quite enough.) A lack of a sound foundation regarding the principle dialectic leaves somewhat of a quandary in the body of the narrative. What reason do we have for thinking that the Autobots are "good" and the Disepticons are "bad"? Besides the rather pragmatic and even narcissistic principle that the Disepticons kill humans and the Autobots don’t. This problem might have been overlooked (this is after all a movie based on a line of toys) had not Optimums Prime decided in the middle of everything to get philosophical, borderline preachy. He tells us that all sentient beings have the right to chose, blah blah blah. Where is he getting this? Was there some Mosesatron, who climbed up Mount Siniatron and brought back these transcendent truths to them, or is Prime just making it up as he goes? And although Magatron certainly fits the typical villain profile in our post post post western culture, one has to admit that his hatred for humans is at least partly justified. One notable good thing about the movie is Starscreem. Though he does not get a lot of screen time, his character seems to have transformed from a whinny ass, ambitious lieutenant to a credible rival to Magatron. And since he seems to be the only Disepticons to escape, he should play a more significant and pivotal roll in the next film, which I'd bet my ridiculous blogger salary is coming.

Peace in Our Time

The Nobel peace prize was the brainchild of the same guy who invented TNT. The idea supposedly was that a more powerful explosive would lead to fewer wars. It is rather like the scientists who urged the development of an atomic bomb because the Germans were working on one so we needed to have one as well. I suppose we should remember that their expertise was since not geopolitics. But in the end it probably does make more since than the "Peace Prize".
After all MAD may be madness but at lest to a certain extent it worked (although it is unlikely that this tactic would work with ideologies that delight in their own death as much if not more then their enemy’s).
The "Peace Prize" is really a negotiator prize. Since "peace" in this since is really just a commodity, it can always be achieved, for the right price. If you have negotiated a good price, or in some cases simply willing to pay a high one, then you get the prize. Perhaps next William Shatner will get the award.

To Mr. McCaughan

Since Mr. Rilstone has disabled the comment feature on the particular part of his website, I decided to respond to Mr. McCaughan here.

(You can find the complete conversation at http://andrewrilstone.blogspot.com/index.html )


Gareth McCaughan said...

“I think you may be conflating two things.

1. Dawkins doesn't assume that his readers are atheists, or skeptics, or biologists, or members of any other similarly narrow group.

2. Dawkins does assume that his readers share some of his values.

There's no incompatibility between these, and (at least for me) #1 would need to be false for "preaching to the choir" to be a good description of what he's up to.”


Well of course as my old logic professor use to say, “to assume makes an ass out of you and me.” But that aside, why would Dawkins think that his readers share some of his values? More to the point, what are his values, and what are they based upon? And while we are at it we could even ask what he means by “values”?
Now any thing that I hold that I would call a “value” is based on acceptance of the God proposition. But since Dawkins clearly rejects this then I am understandably curious as to as to what he uses instead. If it is not some concise or “narrow” worldview or system of thought, then what is it? Are his “values” simply an arbitrary collection of things he happens to like or dislike? If this is the case then I do not see that any of his “values” amount to anything more then preferring blue to red for esthetic purposes.

13s are wild in Colorado!

Rockies manager Clint Hurdle wears number 13
The Rockies had to win 13 of 14 to force a tiebreak.
They won the tiebreak in the 13th inning.
Hummm….

One must feel sorry for Hoffman; after all he should not even have been in the game. Atkins HR that was called a double should have ended the game at 8 ½ innings. And for that matter the game should not have necessary at all if the correct call had been made on the HR in Philly. Well now it is back to Philly, whom should actually have been the ones playing the tiebreak, with the Mets…poor Mets.