“I have a bad feeling about this.”

That is what I was saying to my self in the theater while waiting to see the new Indiana Jones film. It is also probably what Harrison Ford said to Gorge Lucas after reading the script. The special effects are of course amazing. You almost feel as if you are in the nuclear fire ball, unfortunately the script is so bad you almost wish you were. In the 1985 documentary From 'Star Wars' to 'Jedi': The Making of a Saga, George Lucas said, “Special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story. A Special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing.”
He must have thought no one believed him, why else would he devote most of the rest of his career to proving himself right?
There is of course lots of action in Crystal Scull, and it is mostly boring. Even with The Arc* making a cameo, the opening sequence failed to impart any gravitas. 
Lucas does toss us an exposition bone every once in a while. (Exposition is the part of the script where he has to write something besides “they fight”.) But if we peace them to gather is there actually a skeleton there? Let alone any meat. It seems the basic idea is that some inter-dimensional extraterrestrials came to earth a few thousand years ago to teach some ancient Americans (of course they were not ancient at the time) how to farm and build a giant temple around their hyperspace ship. But then one day some conquistadors showed up and cut off one of the hyperspace dudes' head, and since they were one of those collective consciences things, it shut them all down. But before the conquistadors could get very far the natives caught up with them and berried them and the scull in an elaborate tomb complete with booby traps (of course what else would they do with it?) The hyperspace dudes home world apparently sent some scouts to find out what happened, but it is not clear why it took them centuries to get here, or why they apparently could not keep their ships in the air once they got here. Enter the soviets (the Nazis were unavailable) that want to capture all alien gobbledygook for their own nefarious psychobabble and what not. Does any of this make any since? Of course not. Does it matter? Not really. Because that is not what the movie is about any way. 
It is about Indy finally marrying Miriam Ravenwood, oh, and by the way they have a son. Which means Indy and Jr. have to spend thirty minutes of screen time very awkwardly “bonding” with Indy supposedly not knowing that the kid is his son, and an even more awkward “we are all going to die” scene where Miriam tells him (However, I did like the bit where Indy has to grab onto the snake to save his life). I must say Miriam looked pretty good after all this time. But this only served to make that bag of bones, DR. Jones, look all the older. I wonder if when they go out together people say, “Where did she dig up that old fossil? Yah, yah, I know, it’s not the years, it’s the mileage.

*Apparently it is kept in the same warehouse as all the area 51 stuff, and apparently security is so tight that any one with a dozen or so guys can break in loot the place.

You must remember this…

Well, after seeing The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, I must say, it was unnecessary and a bit disturbing. But upon further reflection there is definitely a mystical connection between Caspian and Susan. I mean you don’t just blow on a girl’s horn and pretend nothing has happened. What? I’m just saying Caspian had already kissed her by deputy.
Susan’s horn is probably one of the greatest under utilized mythological symbols in all of literature. “If you put it to your lips and blow, I think where ever you are help of some kind will find you.” Sounds pretty neat, almost makes the Horn of Gondor sound like tin whistle, But then you realize the only time she ever actually uses it is when a hearty scream would probably have done the same job. Father Christmas did not mention Caspian, but then it is probably one of those things like no one ever quite being able to remember exactly what Aslan said. And at least in this instance there was time for history to become legend, legend to become myth…well at least maybe history to become legend. But in any case it seems the horn is primarily a symbol for prayer. Susan seems to have a rather materialistic mindset, so it is not surprising that she was answered in kind. Caspian on the other hand had something more supernatural in mind and lo! that is what he got.

Dick in the Dock Part. 8: Moral Fortitude

In this chapter Dawkins talks about morality and how it evolved. Or rather behavior patters and social “norms”. Morality as morality is somewhat more elusive. If we were to take natural selection seriously (and it seems apparent Dawkins does not) it offers us a fairly stark morality: self-preservation and procreation, and a concentric chauvinism to one’s self, one’s clan, one’s race and one’s species. Any thing outside this is by natural selection, “immoral”.
Dawkins does attempt to demonstrate that much of what we consider to be “moral” at least at some point was connected to this principle but may now be a “misfiring”. But this is precisely what he thinks religion is aswell. Yet for some reason (or perhaps more likely no reason) he thinks that some of the misfires are good and some are bad, why? If he has an explanation, he certainly does not bother to share it with us.
Of course the very concept of a “misfiring”, assumes on some level an absolute standard. And any absolute standard in the realm of what is traditionally thought of, as “morality” must come from God. I must admit, I thought Dawkins would come up with some lame argument as to why this is not the case, but in fact he essentially capitulated. That is probably because Dawkins is not much of a fan of moral absolutes any way. He instead prefers what he calls “utilitarianism”.

Al: Mummsy, can I shoot Prof. Dawkins now?
Mummsy: No dear that would be wrong.
Al: But we can use his meat to feed these starving children.
Mummsy: Well, I guess it is all right then.

The problem of course is that utilitarianism is hogwash (that's American for “rubbish”). It is simply a shell game with ends and means. But if the end does not have an absolute backing up its validity it is no more a grounds for morality then anything else.

Dick in the Dock Part. 7: Don’t get Cocky!

In this chapter Dawkins attempts to give a Darwinian explanation for the origin of religion. This probably would have gone better if Dawkins had not demonstrated a complete ineptitude regarding biological evolution by natural selection on the first page. First he tries to tell us that every thing in the biological world is there for a "reason" because nature "selected" it for survival. But this could only be the case if evolution were "finished", which by definition it cannot be. (I bet T. Rex thought he was the last word in evolution, until that asteroid hit.) According to Darwinism, there will always be "random" mutations, and it will take nature time to cull them. But even under the reasonable presumption, that every widely disseminated characteristic within a species is useful, Dawkins analogy of peacocks and bowerbirds is ridiculous . Does Dawkins really think the peacock's tail is there to attract peahens? Maybe he is old school, and thinks females are just silly things, and there is nothing even "natural selection all mighty" can do about it*. But those of us that do not live in Dawkins fantasyland realize that if the peacock's tails served no real purpose, nature would have long ago selected the peahens that chose the more sensible less extravagant mates.
Unfortunately Dawkins “meme” theory does not go much better than his pea theory. This really is too bad, because I for one would really like a good explanation as to why people seem so universally eager to chase after superstitious nonsense. Like Saul of Tarsus, I am simply baffled, does not nature teach? Is not it manifest in the things that are made? Cannot it be accessed through simple philosophy? Yes, yes and yes, but still people seem to prefer silly lies to the simple and elegant Truth.
Dawkins proposes that children just believe every thing their parents tell them, don’t swim in crocodile infested waters, sacrifice a goat to bring the rains, it is all good to the mind of a child. I do not necessarily agree with this premise, but even if we except it, for argument sake, I still don’t see how the whole sacrifice a goat thing got started in the first place? Even if we can chalk it up to a random meme mutation, certainly this would seem to be one that nature would select against, in favor of more scientific tribes, who realize that sacrificing a goat don’t got didly to do with bringing the rains, and thus have a little extra chow on hand when the dry spell does come.

* Obviously I do not think even Dawkins is silly enough to actually think a peacock’s tail is there to attract mates, but if he is going to treat us as if we were, then turnabout is fair play.