Pet Peeves

Film & Literature
Grammar/Vocabulary/Usage
Science & Math
Political
Logic
History
The Army
Theme park etiquette
Comics
Miscellany

Film & Literature



#1

Dark & Gritty Reboots

It all started in 2004 with Battlestar Galactica.

Actually, it may have begun as far back as 1987 with Star Trek: The Next Generation. Maybe people saw that & said, “That’s cool. We should do that with other franchises.” But TNG was a sequel, not a reboot.

Or maybe it was in 1996 with Mission: Impossible & those same people again saying, “That’s cool. Let’s do that to other franchises.” But Mission: Impossible was also a sequel, not a reboot (although it was different enough that some might call it a “reboot”).

Or maybe it was in 1999 with The Phantom Menace & those same people again saying, “That’s cool. Let’s do that to other franchises.” But Phantom Menace was a prequel, not a reboot.

Sequels & prequels leave established continuity alone. They don’t mess around with the series & films that people grew up with & have loved for years.

But reboots do this. Reboots destroy everything that has come before claiming that they never occurred.

To some extent, 2001’s Smallville is a reboot, but it works, & it’s a good show. It doesn’t really tear anything down that came before. After all, no other television series or film had dealt extensively with Superman’s teen years. The only thing that comes close are the Superboy comics of the Golden, Silver, & Bronze Ages & the Superboy TV series of 1988 to 1992.

In 2004, came the All-New Battlestar Galactica, & “all-new” is right. Some of the names & places sound the same as in the 1978 original series, & some of the ships look similar, but fans of the original can see immediately that this is not the same show at all. The characters have different names, personalities, & often even the opposite gender. The Cylon attack happens in a completely different way, & the Cylons themselves are very different. The new Battlestar Galactica really is a new series that occasionally echoes the original. At any rate, the new show is very good (albeit, not as good as the original IMHO) &, since Battlestar Galactica was but a distant memory, the new show isn’t really tampering with or disrupting anything. & it is so fundamentally different that perhaps “reboot” is not adequately descriptive. Perhaps “re-imagining” better covers its exact niche.

Then, in 2005, they moved on to Batman.

Then, in 2006, they did it to James Bond.

Then, in 2009, they hit Star Trek .

I will detail my objections to these reboots on an individual basis. Suffice to say here that “newer” does not mean “better.” Just so, “darker” does not mean “better,” & neither does “grittier.”

What’s next—the darker, grittier Brady Bunch?

Now the projected list of reboots is endless. Nothing is sacred. Everything will be touched, tainted, & destroyed until nothing good remains.

#2

“I saw the movie.”

Asking someone if he’s read a certain book, and getting the above response.

#3

Frankenstein

Also called the Creature, Frankenstein’s monster is often referred to as Frankenstein.

The Bride of Frankenstein is a film about a female version of the Creature, not the wife of Frankenstein, the Creature’s creator.

#4

Hercules & Ulysses

The Greek gods & heroes had Greek names. The Romans came along and gave them Latin names (with a few exceptions, such as Apollo). Now they’re hopelessly mixed up. Some gods & heroes are better known to the general populace by their Latin names, such as Ulysses & Hercules, some are more recognizable by their Greek names, and a few are equally well known by either name. However, people are often unaware that the two names refer to the same character.

Since the Greeks invented them, I prefer the Greek names.

The Greek names of Hercules & Ulysses, by the way, are Herakles & Odysseus, respectively.

#5

Authors who intrude upon the narrative with irrelevant (and often objectionable) political or religious opinions



#6

Untrue to Source Material





Grammar/Vocabulary/Usage



#1

Number disagreement between pronoun and antecedent

“To each their own.”

The noun to which a pronoun refers is called its antecedent, and pronouns must agree with their antecedents in gender and number. For the sake of clarity, a pronoun is always assumed to refer to the last noun preceding it in a sentence.

So:

“Julie Andrews wore his brown wig for the role of Mary Poppins,” does not make sense because the antecedent “Julie Andrews” is female. Therefore, the pronoun “his” should be the feminine “her.”

Similarly, “Julie Andrews wore their brown wig for the role of Mary Poppins,” is also incorrect because the antecedent “Julie Andrews” is singular. Therefore, the pronoun “their” should be the singular feminine “her.”

In the first sentence, the noun “each” is singular; so the pronoun “their” is incorrect and should be the singular “his” or “her.”

#2

Incorrect pronoun case

“Who does this pen belong to?”

The word “who” is the object of the prepostion “to” and should, therefore, be in objective case—“whom.”

#3

Improper use of adverb/predicate adjective

“I felt really badly about correcting his grammatical errors.”

Forms of the verbs “to be,” “to become,” “to look,” “to sound,” “to seem,” and “to feel” have a function in English known as copulae or linking verbs. That is not their only grammatical function, but in the sentence above “felt” is a copulative. Linking verbs, as opposed to action verbs, rather than demonstrate an action carried out by the subject upon the object, instead show a relationship or equality between the subject and its complement. The complement of a linking verb is a predicate nominative (noun), predicate adjective, or an adverbial.

The title of the West Side Story song “I Feel Pretty” is a perfect example. “Feel” is a copula linking or equating the subject “I” with the predicate adjective “pretty.” The meaning is essentially “I am pretty.” Just as it would be incorrect to say, “I feel prettily (or beautifully),” so it is incorrect to say, “I feel badly,” if you wish to convey the sense that you (or your emotional self) is bad.

On the other hand, “feel” is also an action verb meaning to probe with one’s fingers. To say, “I feel badly,” is to say that one is not adept at the act of probing with one’s fingers, which is surely not the intention of the above sentence.

#4

Incorrect usage of comparative and superlative

“Mary-Kate is the smartest of the Olsen twins.”

When only two people or objects are compared, use the comparative form “smarter.”

#5

Incorrect usage of lay/lie

Rather confusing because “lay” has two distinct meanings depending on what tense it’s in. “Lay” in the present tense means to set down and has a slang meaning, which shall go without saying. “Lay” is also the simple past tense of “lie.” Similarly, the simple past tense of “lay” is “laid.”

Thus:

“Yesterday I lay on the couch and took a nap,” is correct.

“Yesterday I laid a blanket on the couch,” is also correct.

But:

“Yesterday I laid on the couch,” can only be understood in the slang sense of “lay.”

Similarly, while “I am lying on the couch” is fine, “I am laying on the couch,” again can only have an (presumably) unintended, slang meaning.

#6

Number disagreement between subject and verb

“Every one of them like to go to the park, jog, and show off their new, running suits.”

The subject “one” is singular, while the verb “like” is plural.

The intervening plural pronoun “them” does not change the singularity of the subject, and verbs must agree with their subjects in number.

Disagreement is bad.

#7

Incorrect usage of verbal/oral

“Verbal” and “oral” do not mean the same thing.

“Verbal,” deriving from the Latin verba, which means simply “word,” means of or pertaining to words, whereas “oral” means of or pertaining to the mouth.

Words can be either spoken or written, while many nonverbal sounds and noises may be delivered orally.

Thus, to say “both verbally and in writing” is not correct, as something “in writing” is also verbal.

#8

Incorrect usage of nauseous/nauseated

“Nauseous” means “causing nausea in others.”

Therefore, to say that something or someone is “nauseous” is to call it revolting.

“Nauseated,” conversley, means “feeling nausea.”

#9

Incorrect usage of when/whenever

“Whenever,” means “at whatever time” or “every time that” and denotes conditional occurrences that may take place many times. “Whenever” does not, however, denote one-time happenings in either past or future.

“When” has a variety of shades of meaning, one of which encompasses the sense of “whenever.”

Thus, it is sometimes acceptable to replace “whenever” with “when” and retain the same meaning, as in:

“The bats attack whenever they sense fear,” or, “The bats attack when they sense fear.”

But in:

“Do you remember when the bats attacked me at our house in Kansas ten years ago?”

and

“We’ll go to the mall when the bats begin squeaking.”

In the latter two sentences, it would not be acceptable to subsitute “whenever” for “when.”



#10

Incorrect usage of idea/ideal

An idea is a thought, concept, or plan. “Idea” does not end with an “l.”

An ideal is a conception of something in its perfect state or an epitome.

While an ideal is, in fact, an idea, the two words are not synonomous.

#11

Splitting of the word “another” into two words: “a” (or “an”) and “‘nother”

Example: “That’s a whole ‘‘nother’ sport.”

“Another” is a single word and cannot be split in this way.

#12

Incorrect simple past, present perfect, and past perfect tense formations of irregular verbs

Go, went, have gone.

Drink, drank, have drunk.

Run, ran, have run.

“I have went to the store.”

“He drunk the whole glass.”

“He has ran all the way.”

All are incorrect.

#13

Lack of parallel structure

“I enjoy long walks on the beach, sunsets, quiet nights by the fireplace, jogging, and to draw.”

This sentence lacks parallel structure. That is, each element of a list such as the above must be of the same grammatical form, i.e. noun, participle, infinitive, etc.

#14

Dangling participles

“The boy was angry walking down the path.”

Participial phrases, such as “walking down the path” must either immediately precede or follow the noun they modify.

Thus either:

“Walking down the path, the boy was angry.”

or

“The boy walking down the path was angry.”

The latter two sentences are both acceptable.

#15

“Very” unique

Adjectives, such as unique, circular, pregnant, etc., denoting absolute qualities cannot be modified by qualifiers, such as very, rather, or somewhat.

Something is either unique (one-of-a-kind), or it is not.

#16

Confusing possessive pronouns with contractions

“Your” is a possessive pronoun meaning “belonging to you.”

“You’re” is a contraction of “you are.”

Similarly, “it’s” is a contraction of “it is,” whereas “its” is a possessive pronoun connoting “belonging to it.”

#17

Singular form of certain Latinate words

“Media” is plural.

Thus, “The news media is jaded and liberal,” is not correct.

“The news media are jaded and liberal.”

The singular of “media” is “medium.”

Similarly, “criteria” is plural, while its singular form is “criterion.”

#18

Misuse of persuade/convince

“Persuade” and “convince” have different shades of meaning and take different complementary phrases.

“Persuade” implies influence to change behavior or a course of action. Because use or threat of force or other means unrelated to logical argument may be used to persuade someone to do something, the complement of “persuade” (if it has one) is always an infinitive indicating what the person was persuaded to do. Therefore, “persuade that” and “persuade of” are incorrect. “Persuade to” is correct.

Conversley, “convince” connotes changing someone’s opinion or attitude about something. Thus, “convince to” is incorrect, while “convince that” and “convince of” are both acceptable.

#19

Use of “different than”

The word “than” denotes a difference in degree or amount but not in kind.

Therefore, while “more than,” “less than,” and “rather than” are correct, “different than” is not.

“Different from” is the standard phrasing.

#20

“It is me.”

As mentioned in #3, “is” in this sentence is a copula.

It serves to link the subject “it” to its predicate nominative “me.”

Since “is” is not an action verb, it does not take a direct object.

Therefore, the predicate nominative must be in nominative case rather than objective case.

“It is I,” reflects standard usage.

#21

Use of affect/effect

“Affect” and “effect” have usages as both verb and noun.

However, unless you are a psychologist, “affect” will almost always be a verb meaning to influence or change.

On the other hand, “effect” is usually a noun denoting the result of a certain cause.

#22

Hopefully

“Hopefully, my taxi will arrive in time for me to catch my flight.”

What can possibly be “hopeful” about the manner in which a taxi arrives?

“The farmer planted and watered each seed, carefully and hopefully, in expectation of a bountiful harvest.”

This sentence reflects proper usage of “hopefully.”

When people begin a sentence “hopefully,” they usually mean to say that they are hopeful that something will occur.

The simplest way of saying this is, “I hope that my taxi arrives in time for me to catch my flight.”

#23

Like/as if

“John spends money like he is a millionaire.”

“Like” used in this fashion is an adjective and, thus, cannot modify the verb “spends.”

“John has business sense like a millionaire,” is correct, because “like” here modifies “John.”

The first sentence should be written using “as if” or “as though” instead of “like.”

#24

Aggravate & exacerbate

These words do not mean “irritate” or “annoy.”

They mean to make a bad condition worse.

#25

Ain’t

Nonstandard although it is, “ain’t” is a word & is in the dictionary. It is a contraction of “am not” & therefore cannot be used to mean any of the following:

are not, is not, have not, has not, do not, does not, did not

I.e., “I’m a doctor, but I ain’t no engineer,” is nonstandard but at least nominally correct.

But not

“He ain’t heavy; he’s my brother.”



#26

Use of “would have” when “had” is more appropriate

“Would have” as an auxiliary verb phrase usually denotes an event contrary to fact in the near past (present perfect tense).

However, “would have” should not be used within a conditional “if” clause, because the “if” itself indicates that it is contrary to fact.

I.e., “If the Red Leader’s proton torpedoes had penetrated the Death Star’s thermal exhaust port, then the Death Star would have been destroyed several minutes earlier.”

But not

“If the Red Leader’s proton torpedoes would have penetrated the Death Star’s thermal exhaust port, then the Death Star would have been destroyed several minutes earlier.”

#27

Pronuciation of “nuclear” as if it sounded like “nuke-yoo-lar”

Clearly (even to a TV anchorman or a Harvard MBA Texas oilman masquerading as President), this word lacks the literary wherewithal to purchase these phonemes.

“Nuclear” has but a single “u,” not two.





Science & Math



#1

Calling apes “monkeys”

Biologists traditionally group apes and monkeys in different taxonomic and phylogenetic categories.

Indeed, “monkey” and “ape” are informal terms, each of which presents problems from a strictly technical, scientific viewpoint.

Nevertheless, monkeys, as defined by common usage, have tails and possess arms shorter than their legs.

Apes, contrariwise, lack tails and possess arms longer than their legs.

#2

Calling whales “fish”

Whales are mammals, and fish are fish, and never the twain shall meet.

#3

Claiming that people are not animals

Biologists define animals (Kingdom Animalia) as multicellular, eukaryotic, heterotrophic organsims, which are motile at some stage in their life history.

Motile (as opposed to sessile) means capable of spontaneous and active movement. While plants can move some of their parts, as when a flower blooms, or a stoma opens to admit more carbon dioxide, they are not motile and must remain in one place.

Eukarotic means having true chromosomes and other cell structures, such as mitochondria.

Heterotrophic means not producing its own food and, thus, feeding on other organisms. On Earth, the only food-producing (autotrophic) organisms are plants and a handful of species of protists and bacteria.

Humans meet all of these criteria and are animals by definition.

Amazingly, I have met people who admitted that people are mammals and vertebrates, but denied that they are animals.

Mammalia and vertebrata are sub-groups (class and sub-phylum, respectively) within Kingdom Animalia.

It is not possible for an organism to be a member of a smaller phyletic grouping and not the higher-order taxa which contain that group (taxon).

#4

Pronunciation of “zoology”

It’s pronounced zo-ology. The first “o” is long as in “zone.”

Many pronounce it zoo-ology with the “zoo” rhyming with “moon.”

This is not correct, and, if it were, would require the word to be spelled with an additional “o”—zooology. Otherwise, there is no “o” left to get the “ol” sound in “ology.” Both “o”s in the first syllable would’ve been used up in producing the “oo” sound.

#5

Pronunciation of “potable”

The first “o” is long as in “prone.”

Pronouncing it with a short “o,” as in “shot,” would require a spelling with a double “t”—pottable.

Double consonants make the preceding vowel short.

#6

Confusing marine biologists with uniformed service members belonging to the US Marine Corps

When I was an Army recruiter, I ran into this more than once.

Young people occasionally told me they were more interested in the Marines than the Army, because they wanted to be marine biologists.

#7

Misunderstanding the scientific usage of the word “theory”

How often have you heard people say, “It’s just a theory,” as if a theory were a random guess—a shot in the dark?

People may ascribe this meaning to theory in any context, but I have heard it most frequently in relation to the biological theory of evolution, the one scientific theory that strikes terror into the hearts of some ardently religious folks.

Many people believe that scientific principles come in three flavors, from most certainly true to least certain: laws, theories, and hypotheses.

Laws have been proven, theories have been tested but not proven, and hypotheses are educated guesses that have not been tested enough to make the grade as theories.

I heard this in elementary school too, and it is sheer nonsense. This does not reflect the meanings imparted to these concepts by scientists.

People who believe that laws are facts and theories are conjecture also imagine, I suppose, that the law of gravity simply means that when you drop something, it always falls. These people may also submit the query, “If evolution is true, then why isn’t it a law?”

I have often wondered what these misguided souls would think if they encountered the terms “gravitational theory” or “atomic theory.” Would they believe that atomic theory implies that the principle that matter is composed of atoms is just a guess and not proven? Would they think that the “law of gravity” had been demoted?

The fact is a scientific law is a succinct description of how a natural process occurs. Often a law is expressed as a mathematical formula as in Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Being a law does not make it a fact. Einstein showed that Newton’s laws of motion were, in fact, a bit off and more off as the motion in question approaches the speed of light. Many other so-called laws are now known to be false. Furthermore, no formal procedure exists by which a hypothesis graduates to become a law. Scientists simply start calling this principle, that formula, or this observation a law, and the terminology catches on.

Theory is the body of concepts and principles that underlie a given area of science. The Law of Gravitation computes exactly the attractive force between bodies of a given mass, which are a given distance apart, while gravitational theory relates all of the ideas physicists have about the mechanics and nature of gravity. The law is a relation that expresses what we observe; the theory is what we think gravity is.

Biology in general and evolution in particular deal with systems that are far more complex than those studied by physicists, chemists, astronomers, and geologists. Rocks, planets, and stars are rather uniform in substance and structure, whereas living things are composed of a diversity of elements that are in turn arranged into components that are progressively more organized. The thousands of interactions occurring minute-by-minute in a single cell, to say nothing of a layer of tissue or a complete organ, dazzles and confounds the reactions taking place within a star. Therefore, although biology has its laws—such as the laws of population and Mendel’s laws of genetics, biological sciences are less amenable to description by concise statements and mathematical formulae than are physics and chemistry.

Evolution simply stated is the observation that all known species on Earth, living and extinct, have through the billions of years of their existence undergone a process of biological change. Darwin called it “descent with modification.” Evolution is not a law, nor can it ever be one. There is nothing in the definition of evolution that lends itself to expression via mathematical formulae, nor is there any one process that always occurs in precisely the same way that can be expressed as a law. Evolution is, however, a fact. An enormous body of evidence from such disparate fields of endeavor as geology, genetics, ontology, zoogeography, paleontology, ad infinitum supports the contention that evolution has in fact occurred. In science, theories generate predictions which can then be tested. These tests either verify or falsify the theory. (In the natural sciences, theories are said to be verified; only in math and logic can propositions be proven, a consequence of their abstract and artificial nature.) A complete theory is a much more useful thing to scientists than a law, which is usually simple and applicable only to specific circumstances. To date, the theory of evolution has been tested and verified to a much greater degree than atomic theory or any other scientific theory. Evolutionary theory is the framework of ideas and mechanisms that explains how and why evolution operates. Such processes as natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow are part of the theory of evolution, which describes the observationally verified fact of evolution.

#8

Use of the words “advanced” and “primitive”

In the Middle Ages, a concept popular among scholars, theologians, and the aristocracy was known as scala naturae or the Great Chain of Being.

The scala is the hierarchical organization of everything that exists from the noblest to the basest. Metaphysical beings—God and the angels—were, of course, at the top of the scale followed by the creatures of the natural world with humans at the peak and fungi at the base. Mammals were viewed as superior to birds, and birds superior to reptiles, etc. so that each occupied its appropriate position on the ladder.

Hundreds of years later, after Darwinian evolution had been accepted by the scientific community, the Great Chain of Being was adapted to evolution. Biologists now spoke of an evolutionary ladder, the loftier positions of which were occupied by the more advanced organisms. Evolution was viewed as progressive with the creatures at the bottom of the ladder continually striving toward the uppermost steps with evolution pushing them rung by rung.

Somewhere along the way, someone realized that this doesn’t make sense. All living species evolved from a common ancestor that lived some four billion years ago. So all species have been evolving for exactly the same amount of time. Some have undergone a more conservative evolution and retain more ancestral traits than others.

This idea caught on, and more and more scientists began to realize that it isn’t useful to attach judgment value to biological traits. After all, who’s to say that it is “better” to give birth to live young than it is to lay an egg? Each approach has its own costs and benefits.

However, vestiges of this old perspective remain, and you occasionally hear references to the evolutionary ladder, and you might see placental mammals called “higher” mammals from time to time. And biologists still refer to ancestral traits as “primitive” and derived traits as “advanced.” But these words have been stripped of the connotations of “simple” and “complex” or “bad” and “good.”

With the words bandied about so much, it is natural that the uninformed will take the words at their face value and mistakenly assume that one species is more advanced than another. This is no longer what the terms imply. One species may possess more advanced traits than another but that simply means that the common ancestor of the two did not have those traits. It implies nothing of the complexity, efficiency, or value of the traits themselves.

For example, humans have many traits that are more primitive than those of birds. The common ancestor of humans and birds was a reptile with a good sense of smell and four limbs, each of which had five digits. Humans and birds both have four limbs and are, therefore, primitive in this sense. (Snakes, however, are advanced with regard to this characteristic.) Humans retain the five digits on each limb, while birds have lost all of the digits on their forelimbs and possess only four on their hindlimbs. In this sense, then, humans have the more primitive features, whereas those of birds are more advanced. Similarly humans retain the olfactory sense of their reptilian ancestor, while birds have lost it completely. Again, birds have achieved the more advanced state in this area.

#9

“Good of the species”

You may encounter this phrase in older nature documentaries, older books, or the speech of laypersons.

A worker bee stings an intruder and dies for the hive.

A jay of breeding age forgoes leaving the nest to begin its own family, instead staying at its parents’ nest to help rear its younger siblings.

Wolves and lions bring their kill back to their group and share with adults who did not assist in the hunt.

Vervet monkeys make warning calls when predators are near, bringing attention to themselves in the process.

Organisms display many behaviors that, at first sight, do not appear to be adaptive for the individual but rather seem intended to help in the survival or reproduction of another individual or groups of individuals. Biologists sometimes label this phenomenon “altruism,” although they don’t always mean “altruism” as defined by Webster. At any rate, it is unselfish behavior, and at some time during the twentieth century, scientists, puzzled at this apparent violation of Darwinian selection, began to explain altruism as a product of group selection. They reasoned that a group of individuals that make sacrifices for the good of the group would be more successful than groups composed of purely selfish individuals.

In the 1960s, biologists gradually realized that this would not work. Selection acts much more quickly on individuals than it can act on groups. Therefore, a gene for altruistic behavior that reduces the fitness of its owner in favor of increasing the fitness of another individual would dwindle and eventually disappear from the gene pool. Selfish individuals would reap the benefits bestowed by altruistic individuals, reproduce more, and eventually supplant the altruists.

This is true unless other factors are operating. Indeed, since the 60s many mechanisms apart from “the good of the species” have been proposed to explain altruistic behavior. Perhaps the most straightforward and best known of these is the concept of inclusive fitness, sometimes called kin selection. This explanation rests on the simple observation that frequently the recipients of this altruism are related to the benefactor. The theory continues by conjecturing that the gene for the altruistic behavior is in fact acting selfishly by attempting to save the other copies of itself in the relatives of the altruistic individual at that individual’s expense. The more closely related these others are to the altruist, the more likely that they will possess the gene for altruism. Indeed, inclusive fitness goes further, postulating that the efforts of the altruist to increase the fitness of relatives will intensify in proportion to the degree of relatedness.

At any rate, “good of the species” arguments have long been obsolete within the biology community.

#10

Mammalian red blood cells

Occasionally, the local news broadcast when reporting on some crime will mention the use of DNA fingerprinting in an effort to solve the crime. Sometimes the reporter will attempt to elaborate on the process and often reveal his or her ignorance of biology by noting that the DNA was obtained from a blood stain found at the scene, making the additional claim that the DNA came from red blood cells (erythrocytes).

Mammals, humans included, are unique among vertebrates in possessing enucleate erythrocytes—meaning they contain no nucleus. (This is often said to be an adaptation for homeothermy [warm-bloodedness] in that red blood cells with more room can hold more oxygen and thus allow body tissue to support a higher metabolic rate. This supposition ignores the fact that birds have nucleate erythrocytes and in fact have a higher mean body temperature as well as higher metabolic rates than mammals, but I digress.) Since the nucleus of a cell is the only place that holds DNA, it follows that mammalian red blood cells have no DNA. The DNA extracted from blood for genetic fingerprinting comes from white blood cells.

Michael Crichton’s fictional geneticist, Henry Wu, states, (on page 102 of the 1990 Alfred A Knopf edition of Jurassic Park) “ ‘Actually, dinosaur DNA is somewhat easier to extract by this process than mammalian DNA. The reason is that mammalian red blood cells have no nuclei, and thus no DNA in their red cells. To clone a mammal, you must find a white cell, which is much rarer than red cells. But dinosaurs had nucleated red cells, as do modern birds. It is one of the many indications we have that dinosaurs aren’t really reptiles at all. They are big leathery birds.’ ”

In this passage, Crichton’s facts & logic are fine as long as he compares dinosaurs to mammals. It is when he irrelevantly brings birds into the discussion in order to push his dinosaur-bird agenda, that his logic careens off the track. The fact that dinosaurs are more similar to birds than they are to mammals in the arrangement of their DNA within a cell is not an “indication” that dinosaurs are more similar to birds than they are to modern reptiles. In point of fact, and much more relevant to the point, extant reptiles also have nucleate erythrocytes. Thus dinosaurs are not more like birds than living reptiles in this respect.

#11

Misunderstanding the laws of thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics (also known as the law of conservation of matter and energy), states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only converted from one form to another.

Theists often cite this law as evidence that a purely physical theory is insufficient to explain the origin of the universe. Their reasoning usually runs thusly: Since the universe had a beginning, and all of the matter in the universe came into existence at the beginning, this matter must have been created ex nihilo, because it did not exist before the universe. This creation of matter and energy violates the first law of thermodynamics and therefore requires supernatural explanation.

The most important fallacy in this argument is that, just as the phrase “outside the universe” is nonsensical, so is the phrase “before the universe.” The universe is everything; there is no outside. Time as well as space is part of the fabric of the universe; so there was no before, and if the universe ends, there will be no after. Unless the universe is cyclical, in which case the Big Bang (unless this is the first iteration) wasn’t actually the beginning of the universe but rather of the present cosmic configuration. So the proper answer to the question, “What existed before the universe?” is not “nothing.” The only possible response is, “The question is meaningless.” Although the universe had a definite start date (estimated at between 12 and 20 billion years ago) and therefore a finite age, it is also eternal because without the universe time does not exist. In this sense, the universe has always existed.

Thus the mass of the universe was not created from nothing. It all existed at the very instant that the universe itself existed.

Similarly, creationists employ the second law of thermodynamics to debunk evolution. The second law, put simply, states that a closed system cannot become more orderly. Creationists reason that evolution requires systems to become more orderly in direct violation of the second law, and therefore evolution as a purely physical explanation of organic change fails. The flaw here is even more obvious than in the preceding argument. If a species can be understood to be a thermodynamic system (a proposition of which I remain doubtful), then it is certainly not a closed system. A closed system can neither gain external matter/energy nor vent matter/energy. A closed system has no contact, no interaction, with the environment. Organisms (and the species they comprise) are not closed systems. They exchange matter and energy with the environment continually. They would die rapidly if they did not.

What are those who attempt to hoist scientists on their own petard in this way trying to say, incidentally sanctifying the laws of thermodynamics as if they were the first thing on the tablets Moses received on Mt Horeb? What are they saying apart from that they want everyone to acknowledge their 3000-year-old fairy tale as Truth? Are they saying that Darwin, Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, Wright, et cetera knew nothing of physics? Are they saying that physicists are some sort of elitist group who do not discuss their knowledge with other types of scientist?

For the sake of argument, let’s say that all of these people beating their chests and rattling their thermodynamics are right, and the first and second law do refute a material origin of the universe and the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution. What makes thermodynamics more authoritative than current understanding of biology, physics, geology, and astronomy?

#12

Misunderstanding physical processes related to temperature and freezing

A common misconception among the general populace is that hot water freezes faster than cold water.

A study of the heat of fusion formula will show this is incorrect, but let me try a common-sense approach. The melting point of water is 32 degrees F. Water must be at this temperature (or below in supercooling) to freeze. Common sense then dictates that it will take longer to cool hot water down to 32 degrees than it will take to cool down cold water.

I believe the source of this misconception is the fact that freezers in time become encrusted with ice, which acts as an insulator. When you place an ice cube tray with hot water in a freezer, the heat from the water will melt the ice covering the bottom of the freezer. The tray will then be in direct contact with the metal of the freezer thus exposing it to a lower temperature than a tray of cold water sitting atop a thick layer of ice.

A similar misconception arises about wind chill. Many people believe that wind-chill is the actual temperature and that water will freeze in the presence of a wind-chill adjusted temperature of 32 degrees or below. This also is not true. The temperature that a thermometer gives is the actual ambient temperature, and water and any other liquids will behave accordingly. Wind-chill is a measure of the effect of wind and temperature on living tissue. Living tissue through metabolism is constantly producing heat in order to maintain a body temperature above that of the ambient temperature. Wind carries this heat away by convection. Therefore, a living creature’s flesh reacts as if the ambient temperature is lower than it actually is, because its tissues are cooling faster due to the action of convection.

#13

Belief that a desirable outcome of a random event is less probable than other results

This misconception arises in a variety of contexts.

The gist is this:

In a hand of poker it is equally probable to be dealt a 2, 3, 4, 5, & 7 of all four suits as it is to be dealt a royal flush. Each combination is equally likely or unlikely.

#14

A misconception on the statistics of accidents

It is often pointed out that people are more likely to have car accidents within a three-mile radius of their homes.

Sometimes it is stated that people suffer accidental injuries more frequently in their homes than anywhere else.

Some people mistakenly attribute these facts to the belief that their homes or neighborhoods are inherently more dangerous than other areas.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

It could be stated with equal truth that you are more likely to have a remission from cancer, find a four-leaf clover, celebrate a birthday, receive a Christmas bonus, eat a good meal, or experience any event in or near your home because you spend more time there.

#15

Belief that psychologists and psychiatrists are interchangeable

They are both mental health professionals, but psychiatrists are medical doctors and, because they can prescribe medication, are more likely to employ some form of drug therapy in their treatment.

#16

Confusing psychotic with psychopath and vice versa

Widespread misuse of the term “psychotic” occurs in film, television, other media, and on the street. Misuse of “psychopath” is much less common.

People with chronic psychoses are deeply mentally ill individuals who are in some way out of touch with reality. They may be paranoid, delusional, or schizophrenic. Psychotics are rarely violent or dangerous and when they do have run-ins with the law are quite likely to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. (Insanity is a legal term—not a medical one—which means not responsible for one’s actions.) If a psychotic does something wrong, it is more than likely that he literally does not know what he is doing or at least is powerless to stop.

Psychotics are so disturbed that they are usually unable to carry out everday tasks.

Norman Bates, as depicted in the book and movie Psycho, would be classified psychotic. However, if real, Norman would be highly unusual for a psychotic because of his homicidal bent and his ability to escape notice through a facade of normality.

Psychopaths, on the other hand, are described as having a personality disorder rather than a mental disorder. Psychopaths, also known as sociopaths or antisocial or narcissistic personalities, are characterized by aggressive, violent, or criminal behavior, impulsiveness, grandiose sense of self-worth, superficial charm, need for stimulation, pathological lying, diminished levels of nervousness, and lack of both conscience and the the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Psychopaths do not respond to treatment and are ineligible for the insanity plea under most legal systems.

Hannibal Lector, as portrayed in the film Silence of the Lambs is most likely a psychopath. However, his restraint and lack of impulsiveness are out of character for the type. Similarly, Lex Luthor and most of James Bond’s enemies display traits of psychopathy, but psychopaths, by their nature are not likely to be able to bridle their urges during the planning and execution of the intricate operations undertaken by these villains.

On the other hand in A View to a Kill, Bond calls Max Zorin “psychotic.” Zorin is in no way out of touch with reality. Presumably, Bond means “psychopath,” (&, indeed, Bond calls Zorin a psychopath later in the film) as this description is more in line with the character as portrayed.

The Joker is frequently called “insane” and “psychotic” in the comics. In the 1989 film Batman, Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) calls the Joker “psychotic” also. While the Joker is surely more neurotic than Lex Luthor, he comes even closer to the classic profile of the psychopath. The Joker displays extreme impulsiveness, unlike Luthor. But the Joker is not psychotic. His grasp of reality is far too strong. Again, as a psychopath, it is unlikely the Joker would have the discipline to carry out elaborate crimes.

#17

Psychology/Anthropology as science

One of my psychology professors at Michigan State said near the beginning of her first lecture, “Psychology is a science.”

Then she paused and continued, “We’re very defensive about that!”

One of psychology’s primary methods of research is the survey. Science proceeds by experimentation not by questionaires! That’s how People magazine does business, not science. Psychologists have voted on whether to include certain conditions on the list of accepted mental disorders. Again, voting is how democracy functions, not science. Personality, cognition, and emotion cannot be empirically measured. Biologists use lab mice and rats of particular strains which have been thoroughly inbred to such an extent that members of a strain are genetically identical. Moreover, the rodents have all been raised in essentially the same environment. Therefore, when the researcher notes a difference between the experimental group and the control group, he can be almost certain that the experimental variable caused the difference and not a genetic or experiential difference between the subjects. Furthermore, it would be unethical to submit humans to rigorously controlled scientific experimentation. Some psychologists still use hypnosis as a research tool.

Psychology is woven on a tapestry of presuppositions, unproven and untestable assumptions, subjective data, and metaphysical concepts. Foremost among these is the idea of “mind.” What is a mind exactly? Of what is it composed? What is its energy source? What does it look like? You don’t have to study psychology long before you discover that psychologists distinguish brain from mind and consider mind to be invisible and intangible. Unfortunately, those two features also make it untestable and therefore not science.

Anthropology is admittedly humanist in perspective. Science must be coldly logical and objective. It cannot be based on a philosophy with presupposed viewpoints, manifestos, or agendas.

#18

“People only use 10% of their brains”

This is a widespread cliche used to support everything from educational regimens to the existence of psychic powers.

The basis of this myth is not known for certain, but four basic possibilities exist, none of which validates this belief:

(1) In the 1890s, Harvard psychologist William James raised a child in an intentionally educationally enriched & accelerated environment. The child, William Sidis, developed an intelligence quotient (see following peeve) above normal by a factor of approximately 2.5 to 3. This is a typical example of the “science” of psychology (see preceding peeve). An experiment without rigorous boundaries & an abundance of control groups verifies absolutely nothing. There is no way of knowing whether this child would have developed an extraordinary IQ anyway.

(2) Neurons (nerve cells) comprise just 10% of the brain by mass. The other 90% consists largely of glial cells. Although scientists know much of the function of glial cells, much remains unknown. At any rate, a rigorous training program will not transform glial cells to neurons.

(3) Only about 10% of the neurons in the brain are firing at any given time. Using this fact to support the 10%-brain-use myth is rather like saying that since only 10% of car owners are on the road at a given time, only 10% of car owners use their cars. If a higher portion of neurons did fire at once, brain dysfunction, rather than hyperfunction, would be the likely result. In fact, PET scans & MRIs reveal that all parts of the brain have some degree of activity at all times, despite the fact that all neurons do not fire at once.

(4) In the 1930s, psychologists may have stated that they had only mapped the functions of 10% of the brain. Every part of the brain is now known to have a discreet function.

The two best refutations of this myth follow:

(1) The brain is a physiologically demanding organ, costing the body large amounts of oxygen & glucose. If 90% were unused or unnecessary, then people with smaller, more efficient brains would have a metabolic advantage, which would lead to a selective advantage. In short, natural selection would eliminate any such large, costly, useless organ.

(2) People who experience traumatic brain injuries, although sometimes able to regain significant function in spite of severe brain damage, always undergo a loss of ability, regardless of what part of the brain is damaged. Furthermore, even small degrees of damage to certain areas of the brain often result in devastating cognitive impairment.

Finally, no credible, scientific evidence has come to light that lends support to the notion that some humans have psychic powers.

#19

Standardized tests of achievment, aptitude, and intelligence

IQ may not be an accurate measure of intelligence, but it clearly measures something useful. If test-taking ability correlates with success, then perhaps it was a measure of test-taking ability that should have been sought after in the beginning.

IQ has been around for almost 100 years. It is supposed to be standardized. All IQ tests yield a score roughly from 1 to 200. Most IQ charts agree on the range breakdowns and even the description of each IQ range. (That some workers ascribe the apellation “genius” to an IQ as low as 140, while most others attribute the quality “gifted” or “highly gifted” to this score is a source of consternation.) Why then cannot psychologists agree if the standard deviation should be 15 or 16? Why does one IQ test produce a score of 146 and a percentile of 97, while another test claims that a score of 138 is 99th percentile? (See below.) If IQ tests disagree by this margin, then it is far more useful to know your percentile than your IQ. At least, you can compare the percentile between tests. Cross-comparison is supposed to be a feature of “standardized” tests.



Lewis Terman, who developed the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, the first widely used IQ test in America, believed and attempted to prove that IQ correlates with occupational & economic success. His studies did furnish ample support for this thesis but not to the extent that Terman expected. Terman’s studies showed that each type of occupation required a certain minimum of intelligence but once that minumum was met, IQ was no longer a valid predictor of success within that job field. For example, the mean IQ of attorneys is about 125, with a minimum of around 115. Terman expected to find that attorneys whose IQs were 140 would reach higher levels within the legal system, those with IQs in the 150s higher still, and that the most successful attorneys in the country would be the most intelligent. This was not the case in the field of law or any other field (with one notable exception that will follow), but that rather once an individual had met the minimum intellectual level in a given career field other factors took over his or her achievement within that field. These factors are unknown but some have hypothesized that they may include interpersonal skill, persistence, industry, or family connections. The occupation that commanded the highest mean IQ in Terman’s studies was that of physician with a mean of 129. The one notable exception was a group of Nobel Prize winners who consented to take IQ tests and have the results documented. The one field in which extremely high intelligence was required was that of physics with Nobel winners averaging IQ 164.

Paradoxically, Terman also was a pioneer in the idea of the intelligence quotient and then almost as soon as his research had begun threw out an actual quotient as his measure while keeping the concept, terminology, & form of measurement. Intelligence quotient strictly defined is an individual’s mental age divided by his chronological age multiplied by 100. Almost every conceivable, measurable human characteristic, such as height & weight, when compared over a large sample of individuals falls into a normal distribution (or bell curve) with about 50% clustered tightly around the mean and fewer and fewer indivduals at the margins. Terman immediately found that when he computed intelligence scores as a true ratio, the expected mean was 100 but many more individuals had exceptional scores (both high & low) than predicted by the bell curve. So he normalized the scale. That is, he threw out the quotient, but retained the scale and forced it to fit the normal distribution pattern. Therefore, although having an IQ of 160 should mean that one’s mental age is greater than one’s chronological age by a factor of 1.6, it does not, in fact, mean this (the factor is a good deal higher).

#20

Causes of AIDS

When the AIDS epidemic occurred, the Health Department mobilized rapidly and bombarded the media with recommendations of safe sex for every single demographic category. They predicted a world-wide pandemic, a health crisis of apocalyptic proportions. Even in the mid-ninties, when it was apparent that the expected catastrophe was not occurring and that AIDS was essentially restricted to the gay & IV drug-using populations, the safe sex media campaign continued.

HIV is present in all body fluids in infected individuals. Although the virus is present in saliva, no one believes that the pathogen can be transmitted through kissing. All of the data now seem to indicate that HIV, although present in semen, cannot be transmitted through heterosexual, vaginal intercourse. It seems to be passed only through the blood-blood contact that occurs in anal intercourse and needle sharing.

The health professionals who maintain that HIV can be transmitted by vaginal sex, depend on the testimony of a small percentage of the infected who, when interviewed, claimed that they neither engaged in anal sex nor IV drug use. What these officials seem to neglect is the possibility that, since these two behaviors are frowned upon in some social circles, the individuals may have felt the need to lie to their interviewers.



#21

Confusing China with Japan

China is a very large nation on the Asian mainland with the highest population in the world.

Japan is an island nation, about the size of California, directly off the coast of the Korean Peninsula, with a population of about half that of the United States.

Over the millennia, China has exercised great cultural influence over Japan (as China has with most of Asia).

Despite this heavy influence, Japan nevertheless retains a distinct culture & language & is easily distinguished from China.



#22

Confusing gravity & centrifugal force

Many people believe that if the Earth were to cease in its rotational motion about its axis, that gravity would also cease and that everything not bolted down would suddenly fly into space.

Centrifugal force (actually nothing more than a case of inertia) is the force that pushes or pulls you around in a vehicle travelling in an arc and that keeps you in your seat in an inverted rollercoaster. Many SF films have proposed that large spacecraft or space stations might one day have large rotating sections that would simulate gravity for their occupants.

However, centrifugal force is not what keeps Earthlings earthbound. Gravity is the force that holds Earth together and keeps the atmosphere from dissipating into space. The only factors relevant to gravitational attraction (according to Newton’s famous law) are the two masses & the distance separating them. The Earth’s rotational motion has nothing to do with gravity.



#23

Belief that shaving hair from the head or body causes the hair to grow back coarser and/or darker

This one is actually true in part.

Hair has a naturally tapered end. Cutting hair gives it a straight edge. This causes hair that regrows after shaving to be coarser. Furthermore, the newly-regrown hair, never having been exposed to the sun, also tends to be darker.

However, when people speak of this phenomenon, they usually imply or state explicitly that this is a permanent condition. That is, that hair that regrows after shaving is fundamentally different from unshaven hair. This is not so. The new hair will eventually acquire its smooth taper, &, after some UV exposure, its lighter hue.



#24

Belief that lemmings dive off cliffs en masse during migration

This misconception is due to the 1958 Disney film White Wilderness, which was staged & shot in an area of Canada to which lemmings are not indigenous. Biologists have failed to verify the myth several times over the intervening years.



#25

Belief that bats are blind

As do most species of mammals, bats rely mostly on their senses of hearing & smell to survive. The vision of bats is limited & black & white. Many species of bat use echolocation to perceive their environment. However, all bats have eyes and are capable of sight.



#26

Belief that earthworms become two worms when cut in half

An earthworm can survive being bisected, but only the front half of the worm, which has the mouth can survive, while the other half will die. Flatworms, however, can & do become two worms after this procedure.



#27

Belief that the daddy longlegs is the most venomous arthropod/spider in the world

In the first place, no less than three disparate species are identified by laypersons as daddy longlegs: Pholcus phalangioides (a spider), Harvestmen (order Opiliones, which are arachnids but not spiders), & crane flies, which are insects. Of these, only Pholcus phalangioides is at all venomous (as is every species of spider). However, its venom is far from the most potent of the spider world.



#28

Belief that the ability of bumblebees to fly is “mathematically,” “aerodynamically,”or, worst of all, “scientifically” impossible

This is one of those grand statements that makes you wonder if people really listen to what they are saying. If a scientist, after years of patient research, were really to issue such a statement, then we must conclude that the disillusioned wretch has now abandoned science & is no longer a credible witness.

Furthermore, wouldn’t a scientist claiming that a phenomenon known to occur is impossible by the precepts he holds dear be akin to a Catholic priest saying that the oneness of the Trinity is theologically impossible? Or the existence of Heaven? Or the virginity of Mary? Et cetera, et cetera...

The origin of this belief is not known, but it is false. The most that can possibly said is that the flight of insects is sufficiently different from the flight of fixed-wing aircraft, that special considerations or exceptions must be made.

I have also heard people say that all bees & even helicopters should not be able to fly. These assertions are equally false.





Political



#1

Gun Control



#2

The death penalty



#3

Choice



#4

Drugs & DUI



#5

Applying the Bill of Rights



#6

Prayer in school



#7

Line-item veto



#8

Congressional term limits



#9

Characterizations of liberals as “tax & spend,” pro-regulation, anti-military, less patriotic, & tree-huggers



#10

The resignation of high governmental officials without the resignation of the chief executive

The resignations of Spiro Agnew in 1973 & Donald Rumsfeld in 2006 leap to mind.

I mean who’s in charge? Does “the buck stops here” ring a bell?

At least Nixon had the decency to resign in 1974.

#11

Forms of address

People & the media frequently refer to kings & queens as “Your Highness.” The correct form of address for a monarch is “Your Majesty.”

A member of the United States House of Representatives is correctly addressed as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” not as “Representative,” while a United States Senator is addressed as “Senator,” not “Congressman.”





Logic



#1

Non sequitur

A special case of the non sequitur fallacy is correlation vs causation.

A positive correlation between two events, variables, or circumstances does not necessarily mean that one causes the other.

For example, noting that in a particular region the sales of ice cream vendors increases as the crime rate increases does not prove that ice cream causes crime. In this and all similar cases, a third unknown variable may cause both events.



#2

Irrelevant conclusion (red herring)

An argument that diverts discussion from the issue under debate. Types include:



#3

Burden of proof

In most logical discourse, the law of parsimony reigns regarding burden of proof. That is, the simplest explanation will be accepted unless sufficient evidence (proof) is supplied to justify a more complex explanation. Additionally, the proponent of the simpler explanation has no obligation to disprove the more complex position. This does not mean that the parsimonious proposal is true. It merely means that additional features must be justified.

This has proven to be a powerful approach in science. Only when a fact arises to contradict the presently accepted theory are alternative theories explored. This is often called Occam’s Razor.

#4

Logic, emotion, & Star Trek

Star Trek pet peeves



History



#1

The Declaration of Independence

It is absolutely shocking how many Americans are unaware of the date, the year, or both on which the Declaration was signed, to say nothing of who wrote it or what its historical importance was.

#2

The United States is not a true democracy

The United States is a true democracy, which is rather like saying very unique.

The United States is not a direct democracy, at least at the federal level.

#3

Slavery caused the US Civil War

The Civil War had a variety of causes stemming from the very inception of the nation. These issues involved the federal system, states’ rights, tariffs, and the proportionate voice in Congress of slave states. Although slavery was a factor in the cause of the war, it was not the central reason either for the secession of the Confederate states or for the North’s reaction to the perceived rebellion.

For purely political reasons, after two years of war, the Lincoln Administration issued the Emancipation Proclamation and thereby changed the war’s basic purpose from the preservation of the Union to the abolition of slavery.

#4

The first Emperor of Rome

Not Julius Caesar.

The Roman Emperors form an unbroken line of hereditary succession from Augustus Caesar to Romulus Augustulus.

The Second Triumvirate (Mark Antony, Octavian, & Lepidus) intervened between the rule of Julius Caesar & Augustus (Octavian).



The Army



#1

Recruiting

Don’t get me started.

I shall expand & elucidate at a later time...

#2

Saluting

A lot of Soldiers walk around looking at the ground and thus fail to recognize the officers they pass and render the appropriate courtesy. Moreover, along with the hand salute, the passing Soldier is supposed to give the greeting of the day or the unit motto. This is helpful as it lets the officer know that he is being saluted and should return the salute. When the Soldier says nothing, as frequently occurs, the officer may not notice the flicker of the hand in the periphery of his vision.

On the other hand, there are officers who seem to go out of their way to avoid returning the salute.

#3

Army rank nicknames

“L” “T” is a frequent nickname for lieutenants in the military. When superior officers use the term it is slightly derogative, rather like the use of “private” to address lower enlisted personnel. When enlisted personnel use the nickname, it also smacks of disrespect, as it is an easy alternative to the form of address “sir” or “ma’am”.

Perry White’s most famous line, “Don’t call me chief!”

Army warrant officers are frequently called “chief” as a sort of shorthand or nickname. This is somewhat appropriate as the name of the rank for most is “Chief Warrant Officer” followed by a number indicating their exact pay-grade. However, it is highly informal, and warrant officers should be addressed as “Mr” or “Ms” or “sir,” in the case of enlisted Soldiers.

The apellation “chief” is completely inappropriate for the rank of Warrant Officer-1 (WO1), because “chief” is not in the title. But people do it anyway.

First Sergeants are often called “top,” a reference to their position as “top sergeant” of a company. This, too, is highly informal and frowned upon by some.

#4

Military in the media

Hollywood usually doesn’t get it right.

Star Trek pet peeves Watching Star Trek in both its TOS & TNG incarnations, you’d think it was perfectly natural that the chief of engineering, a Lieutenant Commander, is the one who fixes everything.

In a fifth-season episode of The A-Team—Trial by Fire—the heroes undergo a court-martial, in which, of course, they wear class-A uniforms, on which their awards & decorations (ribbons) are displayed. Face (Dirk Benedict), whose rank is Lieutenant (O2), has significantly more ribbons than BA (Mr T), whose rank is Sergeant First Class (E7). Although not impossible, this is unlikely.

#5

Army Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program)

Paragraph 1-5a states the primary goals of the Army weight control program are, “to insure that all personnel are able to meet the physical demands of their duties under combat conditions” & “present a trim military appearance at all times.”

The regulation proceeds to describe a procedure in which various body measurements are used to compute a Soldier’s body fat content, purportedly the percentage of the body which is fat. This process is informally called the “tape test.”

What does this number have to to with the stated goals of meeting physical demands and presenting a “trim appearance?”

The Army has a physical training (PT) program that includes administering the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) at least semiannually.

Soldiers frequently are able to pass and even excel on the APFT while failing the body fat content test.

Similarly, what does this number tell you about appearance? If you think a Soldier looks overweight, tape him, and discover that he is within Army body fat standards, does that mean your eyes deceived you?

#6

Army Physical Fitness Test scales

The APFT consists of two minutes of push-ups, two minutes of sit-ups, & the two-mile run.

Upon completion, a Soldier’s raw score (push-up & sit-up iterations or run time) is then converted to a scaled score. The scales vary based on age & sex.

Although I understand the reason why scores are scaled based on these qualities, I have never agreed with the underlying logic.

In having the PT test in the first place, the Army is proposing that there are certain job demands that require a certain level of fitness. However, the physical demands of a particular job in the Army do not strongly correlate with sex or age. Granted that women are banned from combat arms, and combat arms specialties are often more physically demanding than other Army occupations. But women do hold positions in fields such as military police that also may require high levels of fitness.

The amount of physical labor required in any given Army job is more nearly a function of the type of occupation & rank.

For example, consider two male, infantry Soldiers. One is 20 years old, the other 35. Both are privates. Where is the logic in requiring fewer push-ups, sit-ups, and a slower run time of the 35-year-old? He is in precisely the same position and will have the same performance expectations.

#7

General Orders

This will seem like arcane military stuff to some, but...

The United States Army has three basic instructions, called the three General Orders, which refer to guard (sentry or watch) duty, & which are learned verbatim during Basic Combat Training:

1) I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.
2) I will obey my special orders and perform all my duties in a military manner.
3) I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions to the commander of the relief.

Someone who actually assumes guard duty (per Field Manual 22-6) will also have a number of Special Orders with specific instructions pertaining to the particular post. Thus, the general orders apply to all guards, while the special orders pertain to guards of a certain post.

There is, however, an entirely different type of general order, which refers to an order issued by a general officer, i.e a general. The best-known is “General Order #1,” which is an order that all troops awaiting or on deployment to a theater of war are bound to obey & which includes prohibitions against consumption of alcohol, sexual intercourse, possession of pornography, claiming war trophies, & other activities which are either damaging to the image of the United States of America or prejudicial to the good order & discipline of the troops.

Soldiers, hearing the similarities between the terms, often confuse the two.





Theme park etiquette



#1

Line cutting



#2

People stopping in front of you

This is difficult to explain, but if you’ve spent much time at a park of comparable size & popularity to the Magic Kingdom at WDW, you know what I’m talking about.

Although the walkways are wide in most places, they are still jammed with people walking not only in the two directions of the path itself but also across it. Add this to the fact that many people are pushing strollers, riding in wheelchairs, and towing small children, and what you get is pure chaos. When you come upon an obstacle, a line or some structure jutting into the walkway, and suddenly the path narrows, and one of the walking lanes vanishes. This is a recipe for collision.

But the worst thing is that, amidst this anarchy, people who are walking in front of you constantly come to abrupt halts. It is maddening.

#3

People not understanding that people are going to stop in front of you

You’re at a theme park, for Pete’s sake! You’re not there to walk aimlessly for hours & hours in the hot (fill in state here) sun. You’re there to ride the rides, see the shows, greet the characters, and stop to rest, eat, & drink.

Of course, you have to stop to do any of these things. You also have to stop occasionally to check the park map, entertainment schedule, or ensure that the other members of your party are still with you.

But everywhere you go there are people walking, jogging, wheeling, and running behind you. When you stop, it invariably makes some of them angry (see Pet Peeve #2).

#4

Interposing during photography

Oh, yes...and people stop to take pictures.

The people walking behind them usually continue walking blithely along their way, often moving between the photographer & subject.



#5

Character autographs

This is the most ridiculous, inconvenient, time-wasting, self-promoting idea that a theme park has yet conceived.

It makes the character lines take about three times as long as they should, & it is not as if these characters are really whom they appear to be!



#6

Attitude of many park guests

First, let me say, I get it. The sun, the walking, the lines, the inconsideration of other park guests, the misbehavior of your children, the expense, the lack of cooperation from your own party—all conspire to make it a bad experience. When I feel this way, I remind myself that I am at Disney World, Disneyland, or (fill in park name here), & I am here because I love this place, & I have spent a lot of money to have a good time, &, darn it, I will!



#7

Disney World versus Disneyland

Disney World (more properly, Walt Disney World or WDW) is located in Orlando, FL, while Disneyland is in Anaheim, CA. They are distinct parks, & their names are not interchangeable.



#8

Ignorance of guests

Little disturbs me more than to stand in a character line (see Peeve #5), only to discover that the people in front of me do not know what character it is. Come on now! I am in that line for a very specific reason. Apparently these other people just have nothing better to do with thier time.... On top of that, they are wasting my time by getting the autograph of a cast member who is a) not a real celebrity & b) not someone even known to them...!

I once stood in line to ride Pirates of the Caribbean at WDW & overheard the chatter of the guest in front of me, who was assuring the person with her that the attraction was based on the 2003 Johnny Depp film. The original attraction, in fact, opened at Disneyland in 1967, & was not only the most complex Disney ride to date but the last theme park attraction to open during Walt Disney’s life. The ride began operation fully 36 years before the beginning of the Johnny Depp film franchise.





Comics



#1

Idolizing Marvel super-heroes and derogating DC super-heroes



#2

Pronunciation of Mxyzptlk



#3

Confusing Shazam with Captain Marvel



#4

Thor & Hercules as super-heroes



#5

Comics as junk literature





Miscellany



#1

Rudeness



#2

Lack of temper control



#3

Ugly Americans



#4

Notion that one is knowledgeable only in one’s degree field



#5

Notion that intelligent people lack “common sense”



#6

Rap

Euphemistically called “music.”

I wonder how the music industry ever got along and how people made it through the day having to listen to music that expressed love & sexuality with subtlety & metaphor.

#7

Snobbish preference for the University of Michigan over Michigan State



#8

Fans of a particular team when they do not hail from that state nor were alumni of the school

Although, I know the teams themselves thrive on this type of fandom, it makes me cringe, particularly when I hear someone proclaim himself a Cowboy fan who is not even from the South or the Southwest...





Top
Home