Avoiding presidential term limits

Two-term American Presidents are disqualified from being president again. Some suggest the (non-existent) 'VP loophole' sidesteps these constitutional conditions. 

Whilst this isn't the case, there is a way to avoid them and all other qualifications for the presidency. How? By becoming Speaker of the House.

Speaker Loophole Theory

How does it work? 

A two-term President could be elected to the House of Representatives. Following this, they'd need to get elected as Speaker of the House.

The Speaker is second in the presidential line of succession (following the VP).

There is no consitutional requirement for the Speaker to fit the presidential qualifications. 

So if the President and VP both leave office, then the now-Speaker, ex-two-term President would now become President for the third time.

Speaker Loophole Problems

But perhaps this isn't so. 

Maybe in this situation, the Speaker would be skipped and the next in line of succession would be chosen instead to be President. 

Because whilst not ineligible to be Speaker, they are after all still ineligible to be President

Also, planning and using the Speaker loophole doesn't seem practical. 

Would people go through all the effort of primaries and elections to become President/VP, just for both to resign for the Speaker to become President again? 

(And this is if the ex-President wins both an election to the House and the election to the speakership.)

Not impossible, but so statistically unlikely that it might as well be.

Further Successors

Other positions further down the line of succession, such as the Secretary of State, could also make use of this loophole. It works the same.

The problems are also the same. Well, the same but enhanced. Let's, for example, say a two-term President uses this loophole does so by first becoming Secretary of State, or of Defence. 

The further down they are in the line of succession, the more people would have to resign for this loophole to work. Therefore the more improbable it would be to work.

Conclusion

So, the presidential requirements in the constitution can be avoided. 

(If we ignore the whole 'maybe they'll just be skipped over to the next in line of succession' factor, going to someone who is constitutionally eligible to be President.)

Plus this avoidance requires the person to become President after succeeding the elected Vice-President first. This is all very unlikely to happen but it is nonetheless a possibility. 

No VP loophole

American Presidents cannot serve more than two terms. 

The 'VP loophole' is to avoid this constitutional restriction: become Vice-President, have the President resign, and then the VP becomes the President for the third time.

Unworkable

To serve as VP, the consititution requires that person to be qualified for the office of President. 
      
Having done two terms disqualifies a person from being President again. 
      
So serving two terms as President likewise disqualifies a person from serving as VP. 

As they can't be VP, then there is no 'VP Loophole' to become President with.

So can this 'loophole' even be called a loophole if it cannot fulfil its express purpose? 

Origins

A President removed from office (resignation, death, impeachment) is succeeded by their Vice-President.

This does not count as a presidential term for the now-President because they are serving out the term of the elected President. (As long as it's less than two years, according to the Twenty-second Ammendment.)

So a successor President who's not won a presidential election is still eligible to win, and hence serve, two more presidential terms. (Or win and serve one more if they've done one already.) 

Nonexistence

A two-term President isn't viable for the office of President again, meaning they are also unqualified for VP. 

As such an individual can't be VP, they can't use the 'Loophole' for a third term. 

But the 'Loophole' is specifically to give someone a third term: as it cannot give a third term, it doesn't exist!

Finding Dory: Critique 3/3

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Clever

 

Word choice was utilised so effectively.

Dory’s dad calls her ‘kelpcake’. Not only is this a nice twist on the popular endearment ‘cupcake’ but it makes it relevant to the underwater environment.

A fish couple finds a lost baby Dory. They ask her where her parents are. Dory answers, “I can’t remember.” However, Dory has only ever said, “I don’t remember.” To say she ‘can’t’ means she’s tried to remember, reflecting the seriousness of the situation. ‘Can’t’ also has more finality than ‘don’t’.

Hank exclaims, “Holy carp!” instead of ‘holy crap’. Not only does it sound the same and have the exact same letters, but its aquatic theme matches the film’s aquatic theme.

Dory says to Hank, “For someone with three hearts, you’re not very nice.”

 

There were many positives dotted throughout the film, meaning the entire film kept the audience appreciative.

The singing of the migrating rays is very loud compared to the film’s volume. Yet this is a good thing! Hundreds of individuals singing together is going to be louder than one person talking, so I’m glad this realism was taken into account.

When Dory finally reunites with her parents, she keeps saying sorry. Her mum says, “No, don’t you dare be sorry.” No-one should ever apologise for their health issues. You go, Mum!

Dory sees a map of the park and says, “There’s so many attractions. How can you do everything in one day?” Says anyone who’s ever been to a park.

Dory and Destiny used to talk through the pipes in what they call ‘speaking whale’. This means Dory has always remembered how to do it and what it was called, but not why it was done: people with memory issues often only partially memorise events, so it was good to see it reflected here. It’s funny she used it to speak whale to whales when it’s actually from a shark.

 

Dory’s memory creates many instances worthy of note.

Dory sees shells in the sand and remembers her parents laying a trail for Dory to follow if she were ever lost. Dory sees this memory as a ghost superimposed in the present time. Usually, the past and the present are shown separately, so to have this one instance have them together was very impactful.

The fish couple that talks to lost baby Dory ask if any of the fish around are her parents. Dory does a complete circle and, when her eyes get back to the fish couple, she says, “Hi, I’m Dory. Can you please help me?”

Mr Ray warns them to be careful of the undertow. Dory starts to look like she’s remembering something. Mr Ray says that migration is an instinct, “Something deep inside you that feels so familiar that you have to listen to it.” This perfectly describes Dory’s current remembering.

Dory is caught in the undertow, seeing the class through a tunnel of rays. Then she has flashbacks of this happening as a baby (her parents through a tunnel of rock and coral). In both cases, loved ones call her name.

 

 

Animation

 

The animation is faithful to Finding Nemo whilst still showing the improvements of up-to-date advancements in animation.

 

Two of my favourite visual moments:

Dory’s inside a beaker which drops and shatters, leaving Dory to slide with the water into the ocean-leading drain. All this happens from the viewpoint of Dory’s eyes. It made it feel more consuming and frightening, rather than the audience just watching it happen. Watching the world slide by rather than Dory slide by.

As the fish-containing truck flies off the cliff, it’s done in slow mo. The fish fly out at different speeds and angles. The water sloshes around, some of it breaking apart and some joining together. The attention to detail was stunning; the slow motion lets the audience really appreciate these intricate details.

 

Hank is an octopus and octopus have great camouflage. The animators played with this effectively.

There’s a cat poster on the wall. Then it seems like its cat is melting as the colours and shape drip down. But then we see an undisturbed cat on the wall and Hank the octopus beneath it. The animation for this was spectacular.

When Dory’s being carried away in a bucket, Hank swings from the pipes near the ceiling. He looks like Tarzan. Completely unexpected!

Dory and Hank end up in an exhibit for kids to touch ocean animals. We see the terror from the perspective of the animals: the surprise prodding from hands, the rough handling, the clouds of sand obscuring their vision. This was very well done.

In the credits, Hank is shown camouflaged throughout the Jewel. Pretty soon, the audience starts to guess where Hank is hidden because he’s hidden well. Each one was animated so well, such as Hank being the blue skin in the giant clam’s mouth, or a tree branch.

 

The blue tangs (Dory’s species) presented good opportunities for animation skills.

The face of Dory’s dad looks like the face of many typical human dads: a bald guy. For the animators to make a hairless creature look like it should have hair but lacks it, and a fish face look like a human face, shows incredible talent.

As a baby, Dory was bright blue. Plus, her massive, vibrant eyes were beyond cute. Never in my life have I seen a fish and thought it was cute!

Dory’s front top teeth are always on show. The other blue tang’s teeth aren’t like this. Such a simple way to differentiate them.

 

There’s a giant squid and it was a visual success.

The giant squid has jerky movements. This replicates the stop-and-start motions of squid in real life.

Dory and co are followed by the giant squid. Just before this, it swims right at the screen, surprising the audience.

Dory and co swim through the open side of a shipping container and out the almost-closed doors on the other side. The squid follows but gets stuck. Its tentacles can fit through, whipping around blindly in a scary manner. Then its beak snaps at Nemo, the beak extended then pulling back with each bite, like an arm that keeps reaching forward. Just imagine if that was a human mouth, extending away from its stationary face. Bloody terrifying.

 

 

Call Backs and False Alarms

 

Call Backs to Finding Nemo were few and far between. This meant the film wasn’t overwhelmed, keeping its own identity whilst paying tribute to the first film.

The family do some roleplay. Dory’s dad says to Dory, “I’m not Dad. I’m a friendly fish.” She then says, “Okay, Dad!” This is reminiscent of the moment in ‘Finding Nemo’ where Dory asks Nemo whose dad they’re looking for. Even though that wasn’t for Dory’s dad, she stills calls, “Dad!” when she shouldn’t.

As Dory grows up in the open ocean, she says, “Just keep swimming.”

The giant squid glows up all over. This is reminiscent of the anglerfish doing just that in ‘Finding Nemo’.

Dory finds out she needs to go to the Open Ocean exhibit. But she keeps forgetting it as ‘soap and lotion’ and ‘the locomotion’. Dory misremembers Jewel with ‘gem’ and ‘broach’. She also thinks ‘Baltic’ or ‘Atlantic’ for California. This is similar to how she kept forgetting Nemo’s name in Finding Nemo.

The way the sealions yell, “Off! Off!” repeatedly and in chorus is like how the gulls yelled, “Mine!” in ‘Finding Nemo’.

 

False alarms seemed problematic at first but were okay on further thought.

Nemo and Marlin meet a giant clam. The seam in its shell is along its side and it can shut its mouth. However, giant clams in real life have the seam along its top and their mouths cannot be shut. (If that happens, the photosynthesising microorganisms living in their mouth can’t make food. Considering clams get most of their energy from these microorganisms, closing their mouths isn’t feasible.) However, this presumes that the phrase ‘giant clam’ in its entirety is a noun. The ‘giant’ could just be an adjective to describe the noun ‘clam’, i.e. this is a clam that happens to be really big.

Dory doesn’t remember her childhood friend Destiny, yet she remembers that echolocation is ‘the strongest pair of glasses’. Mind you, she remembers how to read, plus she never saw Destiny before, only talked through the pipes. So not recognising Destony can’t come as a surprise.

For the number of fish in the Open Ocean exhibit, it’s a very small tank. The sand area at the bottom of the Open Ocean exhibit is far larger than that’s bottom should’ve been. However, the exhibit it propping out from the wall, meaning that behind the walls the exhibit could be extended.

Some people complain about Dory keeps on remembering things, even those that happen from a long time ago. Memories have connections with other memories. So the more memories someone has about something, the more additional memories they’re going to remember off the back of one memory.

Marlin says that Becky is eating a cup. First, I wondered how Marlin knew what a cup was. But loads of cups end up in the oceans as plastic pollution: why wouldn’t fish have a word for cup?

Mr Ray says the undertow was caused by the flaps of the rays. But when Dory was young, there were very few fish and all were tiny. How could they have formed an undertow? Undertows are currents that flow in opposite direction from currents above them, a process that doesn’t require the movements of animals. Hence there’s no reason why these two undertows in the film had to be formed in the same way, so they aren’t contradictory.

 

 

Conclusion

 

I always wanted a sequel to ‘Finding Nemo’. I almost didn’t believe it when it was announced.

When I looked forward to something, when I positively brimming with anticipation, I’m usually heavily disappointed. Sometimes the sequel doesn’t have what made the first film special. Yet that wasn’t the case here. This film lived up to my expectations.

Whilst at the time it was one of my favourite films, this has downgraded. Making out the sealion Gerald to be stupid and disabled really put a damper on the film’s quality (something that was overridden by my sheer excitement the first few times I saw the film).

Still, the long wait was definitely worth it: I’d rather wait a long time for a great product than wait a short time for an alright product.

Finding Dory: Critique 2/3

 

                                                *****SPOILERS*****

 

Emotional
 
Marlin and Bailey are both characters that have nervous tendencies. So their character development, i.e. their willingness to overcome their fear for the benefit of their loved ones, is wonderful.
    The film repeatedly says that echolocation is the world’s most powerful pair of glasses; Bailey, a beluga, keeps on saying he can’t echolocate. Destiny’s scared to go in the ocean because she’s partially blind. Bailey says he has the world’s most powerful pair of glasses, so he can be her eyes. This would be adorable in any situation, but the fact Bailey’s spends most the film saying he can’t echolocate? What a caring friend.
    At the Drop Off, Marlin says, “It really is quite the view.” The Drop Off is where his wife and unhatched kids were all murdered, except for Nemo who was permanently disabled. So for Marlin to appreciate something about the Drop Off when it’s resulted in so much pain? That shows character growth.
 
Dory’s lack memory was utilised for pulling at the heart strings.
    Baby Dory asks, “What if I forget you? Would you ever forget me?” That was heartbreaking.
        The whole time Dory grows up to adulthood, she’s looking for her family. Overtime, she forgets who she’s looking for. She eventually forgets she’s looking for anyone altogether.
        After Nemo is hurt, Marlin tells Dory, “Go over there and forget. That’s what you’re best at.” That’s so mean! Also, Nemo isn’t hurt because of Dory’s memory so it hardly seems appropriate for the situation. However, parents often get snappy and mean to others when their child is engendered. When people feel like this (no matter the situation), they often say the most hurtful thing they can think of.
        Dory has a memory of her mum crying about Dory’s memory issues. So Dory goes to get her mum a purple shell (which she loved). She got carried away by the undertow whilst doing this. So Dory realises that going missing was all her fault.
 
Dory’s memory improves in this film. That was satisfying, especially the way it was done.
        Dory finally remembers her family. Being loved and supported is something that helps memory; being with Marlin and Nemo for a year provided a lot of love and support. Sure, the undertow and Mr Ray’s talk about instinct triggered the memory of Dory’s parents, but something can’t be triggered if it doesn’t get prepped first.
        Back at the reef, everyone’s playing hide-and-seek. Dory forgets she’s counting, barely reaching four (just like she did as a child at the start of the film). She sees that everyone’s left, but because she was covering her face she reasons out that they were playing, so she counts the rest of the numbers and looks for people. She’s no longer beholden to her memory issues because she has the confidence to figure things out rather than panic.
 
Dory asks Marlin the same question at the start and end of the film. Even though Marlin’s answer is the same both times, the feeling is vastly different.
        Dory says about her family, “I miss them. Do you know what that feels like?” Marlin looks at Nemo, remembering when he missed him. Probably reminiscing about his partner Coral and all the children they lost.
        Dory says they’re family. She asks Marlin, “Do you know what that feels like?” Marlin happily says, “Yes.” This mimics their conversation at the start of the film, yet turning the negative into a positive.

Humour: Interactions
 
The interactions between Dory and Marlin were hilarious in the previous film. This carries on into this one.
        Dory swims into an anemone and it shocks her. This makes her jiggle side-to-side in quick succession. Dory keeps forgetting so she keeps repeating this process. Eventually Marlin just decides they’re all awake, like a parent whose toddler isn’t cooperating.
        Dory tells Marlin, “I remembered something important!” He asks what it is but Dory says, “I can’t remember.”
        When riding Crush, Marlin says, “Totally sick.” The audience thinks he’s getting down with the turtle lingo. But then he says, “I’m going to be totally sick.” So this is word play with ‘sick’, even though playing with this word turns it to its original meaning.
        Marlin tells Dory she’ll call attention to something dangerous. Dory says, “Like one big eye, tentacles, and a snappy thing?” Marlin replies, “Well that’s very specific, but yeah.” Meanwhile, a giant squid fitting all Dory’s categories rises up behind Marlin
 
Hank does a lot that isn’t funny but gets a funny reaction.
        Dory has a tag that will let her stay in captivity. Hank doesn’t have a tag but doesn’t want to go back to the wild, so he tries to trick Dory into giving him her tag. Then Dory forgets what they were talking about. So Hank says, “You were gonna give me your tag.”
        Members of security are talking about Hank. One looks right at Hank’s plant pot disguise and says, “Well, of course I haven’t seen him.” When he’s literally seeing him right then! Funny.
        When Hank un-disguises himself from a plant pot, Dory says, “There you are!”
        When Hank is disguised as a tree branch, Becky comes in to land. But then he withdraws the leg, making Becky fall to the ground.
 
Mr Ray was a minor character in the first film. In this film, he’s utilised for laughs.
            Mr Ray doesn’t want Dory on the field trip. Marlin decides to tell Dory it’s because Mr Ray already has too many fish to look after (the implication being that also having Dory would be too much for Mr Ray). Yet Dory decides this means Mr Ray needs another set of eyes to help. So funny that backfired.
           Mr Ray starts a song in his traditional manner: a long, “OOOOOOOOOOH!” It’s always been funny precisely because of its length. But this time this goes on for a very, very long time, longer than it ever has before. As the vowels increased, so did the laughter.
            Mr Ray asks, “A migration is about going back to?” A child answers, “Bed.” Dory says, “Yes!” Mr Ray corrects, “No.” So Dory says, “No,” in a confused tone.
        Dory misinterprets a conversation, meaning she starts to give the kids ‘the talk’. A panicked Mr Ray quickly interrupts.
        A child asks of Dory, “Is she dead?” When Mr Ray says, “No,” the class moans in disappointment.
 
 
Humour: Dory
 
Just like any young child, anything Dory does is adorable and funny.
        Baby Dory says she suffers from ‘short-term rememory loss’. So. Cute.
       Dory’s dad says, “If we see the undertow, we say?” Dory shouts, “Let’s go!” The answer is meant to be, “Heck, no!”
        Baby Dory’s gasps are so cute. Expressive and no holding back.
 
There’s a pool where human children can touch sea life at the aquarium.
       One sea cucumber in the children’s area pushes Dory out of its hiding spot, only to have made itself visible and touchable to the children. Well, that backfired!
        A sea cucumber in the touching area warns, “Hands!” Dory says, “No, Hank, with a K.”
 
Dory’s way with words is entertaining.
        In the Open Ocean exhibit, Dory keeps asking fish questions. One was, “Have you seen a mum and dad without me?” Another was about how her parents were “old, like you.” Hilarious! If that wasn’t enough, Dory added, “Older, even,” as if being older than the couple she was speaking to was difficult to believe.
        Dory says, “I can’t go to ‘the Cleveland’.”
        When Dory is in the pipes, Destiny speaks to her with ‘whale talk’. At one point, Destiny talks whilst Dory’s in the middle of a conversation with Nemo and Marlin. So Dory says, “Sorry, I have to take this,” before speaking to Destiny. Like it’s a phone call. Brilliant.
 
 
Humour: Mammals
 
As Dory goes through the pipes, Bailey keeps an eye on her, telling Destiny where to tell Dory where to go.
        Bailey the beluga doing echolocation. “OO! Lightheaded! OO!
       He sees something large coming towards Dory. Then it connects with Dory. Bailey cries, “It’s consuming her! It’s eaten her alive.” But was just a reunion with Nemo and Marlin.
 
The scientists ‘rescuing’ sea life from the bay is entertaining.
        Dory gets stuck in the ring of a beer sixpack. Scientists take her from the water and mutter, “No respect for ocean life.” Says the person who just abducted some ocean life! (Yes, a fish in that situation should be rescued, but taking a sentient being without permission is not respectful. Even if the humans don’t know Dory’s sentient. Also, free her from the beer ring then just put her straight back.)
        When the tank gang come by, the workers at the Jewel scoop them up. All that effort to escape captivity only to end up in captivity again? That’s deeply unfortunate. (At least the Jewel’s mantra is, ‘Rescue, rehabilitate, release’.)
 
The sealions provide gentle humour.
          An unnamed sealion moves, making another one roll off the rock and fall into the water.
        The sealion Gerald carries a pail (‘bucket’ if you use words normally). Gerald gives it to Marlin in exchange for the sealions letting him on the rock. The sealions even gently persuade Gerald to get on the rock. As soon as Gerald settles, the sealions yell, “Off!” All that effort and encouragement, only to kick poor Gerald off!
        Gerald is shown slowly reaching towards the rock, the other sealions asleep. But as soon as he touches it, they wake and shout at him. Then his head rises up behind the rock and he snickers. He looks like an evil Wallace and Gromit character, something emphasised by the way the screen slowly closes in on his face.

Finding Dory: Critique 1/3

Nemo and Marlin join Dory as she goes looking for her parents at ‘the Jewel of Mirror Bay, California’.

First film: look for child. This film: look for parents. Possible next film: look for self (like a gap year ‘to find myself’).
        If there is a next film, it would have to be ‘Finding Marlin’ so that all the three main characters get their time in the spotlight.
 
 
                                                            *****SPOILERS*****
 

I loved this film so we’ll start with the problems to get them out the way.
 
 
The Worst Problems
 
There were two factual inaccuracies.
        The tank gang turn up in California, still in their fish bags. How did they survive a year without food or oxygenated water? By now they should’ve died from a lack of these vital resources. Plus, the carbon dioxide build up would have made the water in the bags acidic and thus deadly. Yes, suspension of disbelief is required for fiction, but that doesn’t mean facts can be ignored without them being made believable.
        Baby Dory says that the ‘sand is squishy’. This is a throwback to my favourite bit in Finding Nemo (Dory calling a jellyfish squishy). However, sand isn’t squishy. If the filmmakers are going to do a call back, it needs to be relevant to the current situation, too.
 
As Hank only has seven arms, Dory decides to call him a ‘septopus’ (‘sept’ being seven and ‘pus’ being foot) rather than an octopus (‘oct’ being eight). The writers made Dory be pedantic for humour. They tried to be clever but it fell flat.
            Are the upcoming complains pedantic? Yes. But considering the whole ‘septopus’ thing is based on being pedantic, being pedantic about something pedantic is entirely appropriate.
It’s pedantic because ‘octopus’ doesn’t match Hank. But if Hank can’t be an octopus because he only has seven arms, then no octopus can be an octopus because they don’t even have one foot, let alone eight! So, being pedantic, Hank’s species name would have to be ‘septobrach’ (‘brach’ for arm).
        People might not know this so perhaps Dory could say something like, “You’re not an octopus, you’re a septopus. Although you don’t have feet, either.” That way the writers could have their joke whilst maintaining sensibility. (And the joke would be far funnier!)
     Also, a species name doesn’t change just because the individual no longer fits the description. After all, dumb humans are still called Homo sapiens even though sapiens means ‘wise’ and, being dumb, these humans aren’t wise.
        Plus, even if a species name did change to suit the individual, octopus lose their arms all the time, so much so that they’ve evolved regrow them. Thus ‘octopus’ would be such a common misnomer that it would have to be abandoned altogether.
 
Other things were senseless.
            One character was presented in unfavourable ways that give unfavourable impressions of vulnerable people. Gerald is portrayed as ‘slow’ and he’s used for comedic effect. There are plenty of ways to portray a stupid character without relying on the stereotype and trope that disabled people are stupid. Plus, to design humour around laughing at someone because they’re challenged is a bad look. This whole mistake is terribly upsetting.
           Nemo and Marlin’s colouration is different from the first film. Their orange is currently more yellow-toned than before. Plus, their T-zone and cheek bones are now orange-toned yellow. It’s not so drastic that it’s a distraction, yet it was noticeable enough to pester me the entire time. The yellow tones of the clownfish are also there in the darkness of the pipes, meaning their colour change is not due to the sun. (This would have been an acceptable explanation for being more yellow.)
           The sealions that talk have orange tags and are in the wild. Yet the fish with orange tags are the ones to remain in captivity. Having the same sort of tag in opposite situations is bonkers. That would just confuse the workers, leading to mistakes. Releasing animals not suitable for the wild is a death sentence: surely people would want to prevent deadly mistakes that need never happen?
 
 
Other Problems
 
Hank was the cause of some negativity.
        Hank carries Dory in a coffee pot. To hide from the humans, Hank becomes green to mimic leaves and the coffee pot becomes the plant pot. But Hank’s body within the pot is the same shade as the leaves. Plant pots are rarely green and are never the same shade as the leaves. As seen earlier with the cat poster, Hank pays great attention to detail. So if Hank had seen a plant pot in order to use it as a disguise, he should know that pot-leaf matching colours would be unlikely and thus suspicious. Suspicious disguises are the worst disguises.
        Sitting in the sink, Hank presses a switch on the wall. We hear a vibration and that he’s not impressed, so I can assume it’s the weird American waste disposal. But why would Hank press a switch there in the first place? He must know the taps are the ones for water so why would he go near any buttons?
 
Instances of sleep didn’t make sense.
        Marlin asks, “Do you like a monument?” Saying ‘would’ instead of ‘do’ would have been a more appropriate word choice. Yes, some people sometimes mix their words up when they’re scared. But Marlin has never done this before: as Marlin is scared of everything, if he were the kind of person to mix up his words when scared, we would have heard it by now.
        One scientist snaps their tongs, pretending the utensil can talk. The other scientist uses a disapproving tone as she says, “You’re a scientist. Cut it out.” Anyone who knows scientists knows that they muck around and have fun. When you do serious, precise work, you need to let loose. Plus, most scientists are quirky, meaning they’re more likely to do quirky things like make utensils talk.
        Baby Dory tries to lift a shell and she says, “There’s no other way.” That phrase does not fit the situation. “I can’t do it” or “It’s impossible” would be appropriate.

Doctors aren't smarter than vets

People claim that doctors are cleverer than vets. There are several issues at play: specialisation vs generalisation; the source of the misconception; and anthropocentric biases.

Specialisation vs Generalisation

The key concept is the specialisation-generalisation divide.

      Doctors only have one species to worry about: humans. Consequently, doctors have a singularly specialised knowledge.

      Vets, on the other paw, have to know about every other animal species. This is an inordinant amount of variation. Vets thus have a generalised breadth of information.

      People (incorrectly) think specialism requires more intelligence than generalism. So naturally people (incorrectly) think doctors are smarter than vets.

Specialising in knowledge gives you more depth and understanding of that one thing. 

      As such, a deeper understanding usually does indicate a higher intelligence. But that's only applicable when two people are being compared on the same subject. 

      If they're compared on different subjects, such an evaluation cannot be useful. If the 'tests' are different, how can any results be analogous? 

      Thus a comparison between doctors and vets is likewise not useful in terms of their intelligence.

Generalising in knowledge gives you more breadth and transferability across multiple topics. 

      It too can suggest smartness. (Just think of amazing quiz geniuses.) Consider this: if someone understands the rules of all sports, they could easily be considered smarter than someone who only understands the rules of rugby. 

      So generalising can be used to indicate intelligence. (Thus removing the automatic assumption that vets as generalists aren't smarter than doctors.)

Source of Misconception

More research is done about humans than any other animal.* 

      It means doctors have far more info backing their knowledge than vets do. More research means more understanding, hence more accurate, effective treatments can be offered. 

      So yes, doctors may seem like they know what's going on better than vets. But that's only because other people (i.e. researchers) have done lots of work on their behalf.

*(Sure, most research has animal test subjects. 

      However, this research has often been anthropocentric: done to understand human health conditions, not animal conditions. Or it's been generic research, like work done on flat worms/fruit flies to understand the basics of genetics. 

      In these situations, the research isn't done to understand animal health specifically. As such, this doesn't count as 'animal research' in this context of doctors vs vets.) 

Anthrocentric Biases

Also, people (incorrectly) think humans are better, more complicated and more advanced/evolved than other lifeforms. 

      So as doctors deal with humans, people view doctors are dealing with something more complicated than non-human animals. Like vets do. 

      Understanding something complicated does indicates higher inteligence. Therefore, people conclude that doctors must be more intelligent than vets. 

      Basically, people's anthrocentric biases make them believe assumptions over facts.

Conclusion

Between more subjects to research and less research done per subject, this makes being a vet harder than being a doctor. The fact that vets still perform well despite this knowledge gap is admirable. 

Thus justifying 'doctors are smarter than vets' using this knowledge gap, using the fact that vets are generalists and not specialists, isn't rational. 

Surely doing more with less cannot prove a lack of intelligence? 

So no: doctors are not smarter than vets.

Why toilet bans protect no-one

If someone is willing to do something awful, they'd be willing to do something that's just socially unacceptable.
      
Hence if someone is prepared to rape someone, they'd be prepared to ignore a toilet ban.
      
So someone being banned from the women's toilets wouldn't stop them from raping women. (Whether the rapist is a man or a trans-women, this logic applies equally to both.)
      
Thus banning transwomen from women's toilets cannot protect women from rape/sexual crimes. 
      
All it does is discriminate against (and thus harm) trans-women. 
      
How can you protect women by causing them harm? You can't. That's why toilet bans protect no-one.

Ancient trade routes prove protoceratops didn't inspire the griffin

People cite fossils as inspiring mythical creatures. Often, they are convincing (therapod dinosaur fossils inspired dragons across the world, for example). 

Since the 1970s, people thought griffins were inspired by the fossils of protoceratops. 
      A historian pinpointed the origin of 2500 year-old Greek griffin stories to Central Asia, in areas rich with both gold and fossils. 
      This created griffin stories, the theory goes. The historian continues to say that these griffin stories were brought to Greece along trade routes.

However, a 2024 study debunked this. 
      Griffins were popular in Greece before it traded with Central Asia. This meant griffin stories simply couldn't have originated from Central Asia. 
      Also, the gold site mentioned in the ancient texts? The 2024 study claims this is nowhere near the location of the protoceratops fossils. So conflating the metal with the dinosaur was a falsity.
      
Thus it's clear to see that all the details of this story are suspect. The protoceratops fossils and griffin stories clearly couldn't have originated from the same location or at the same time. Hence protoceratops couldn't have inspired griffins.

Why would protoceratops be interpreted as a lion-eagle combo?

There are plenty of similarities between protoceratops and griffins. But does that mean those dinosaur fossils inspired these mythical creatures? 

Why bird and mammal?

First, there are very clear links to birds.  
      Both protoceratops and griffins have a beak and massive, bird-like eyes. These features don't match any modern-day mammals or reptiles. 
      So the ancients could have easily perceived the protoceratops to be avian.

Both protoceratops and griffins have legs that resemble mammal ones, not those of birds or reptiles. 
      The four terrestrial limbs are under the body, like those of mammals. Whereas all modern reptiles have their legs on the side of their bodies. Plus birds only have two legs (half the protoceratops number).
      So it would be easy for the ancients to see the protoceratops fossil and think it was mammalian.

Combined, you get a bird-headed mammal. An unusual combination, sure, but chimeric, composite creatures were considered normal to the ancient Greeks.

Why eagle and lion?

If the fossil were to inspire a made-up creature, why would the constituent parts be an eagle and a lion? Why not any other combination?
      The beak and the eyes are both raptor-like. Eagles are the best know and well-liked raptors. So the constituent bird being thought of as an eagle isn't surprising.
      Also, lions are the king of the beasts and eagles are the king of the birds. Gold is associated with both royalty and griffins. So an eagle-lion combo was perfect for the golden imagery associated with the griffin. 
      (Although this latter point only works if protoceratops were found in gold-rich areas. Which they weren't. So if gold isn't part of the myth, there'd be no reason for lions as kings of the beasts to become part of the story.)

Bodily Problems

The body parts are, on the surface, persuasive. But deeper? Unconvincing.
      Whilst the protoceratops legs do resemble mammalian legs, these dinosaurs lack the claws that felines possess. Plus the tail is vastly different. So the lion interpretation isn't a convincing one.
      Protoceratops lack wings. Modern theories, suggesting the one small protoceratops frill inspired two large griffin wings, are insufficient for believability.

Another point of contention is that the sizes of lions and protoceratops are completely off.
      After all, a protoceratops is between 1.8m and 2.5m long. This only partially overlaps with the upper end of a lion's length (between 1.6m and 2.1m).
      Their heights are quite different, too: 0.6m for the protoceratops and between 0.9m and 1.2m for lions. Yes, the protoceratops height would overlap with a lion cub height, although the length would be far too long for a cub.
      Clearly, the sizes and proportions between lions and protoceratops aren't plausible. Thus interpreting protoceratops as leonine is likewise not plausible.

Conclusion

So, why would protoceratops be interpreted as a lion-eagle combo, of all possible combinations?
      Some find it a convincing suggestion due to the superficial similarities between griffins and protoceratops. Under scrutiny, however, protoceratops don't physically resemble lions or eagles. 
      Thus the ancients wouldn't have interpreted this dinosaur fossil as a lion-eagle hybrid.

Could protoceratops frills be griffin wings?

A 2024 study disproved the notion (present since the 1970s) that griffins were inspired by the fossils of protoceratops. 

My biggest problem with the theory? Griffins lack frills and protoceratops lack wings. Some claim that these are the same feature: frills were deformed/damaged by geological processes, making them look like wings. But no protoceratops frill looks like a wing, so this idea lacks credence.

Besides, the ancients butchered animals and thus would've seen the bone structure of bird wings. It's utterly different from the bone structure of protoceratops frills. So the idea that the ancients mistook the frills for wings is nonsense. 

Plus, a griffin would need large wings. Even two the size of a protoceratops frill would be far too small to support something the size of the rest of the fossil. Yet they only have one frill each. Therefore the frill-to-wings theory is untenable.

The shape, the bones and the numerical differences between the frill and the wings: none of it matches. Sure, frill and wings could share a similar outline, but that's hardly enough to conclude that the frills were wings. 

It's clear: the frill clearly did not inspire griffin wings.

The Witcher Series Four Critique 3/3

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Questions

A storyteller and Nimue are reading about Geralt, Ciri and Yennifer’s journeys from a book, events that the storyteller says happened one hundred years ago.

Then Nimue points to a picture that she thinks is her, speaking of it as if it’s the future. Yet as these events are in the past, surely she’d remember them happening? How can a future event be in the path?

However, we must remember the monoliths, the stone towers that allow portals to exist. People talk about monoliths in terms of space and time. So if portals can teleport people in space, perhaps they can teleport people through time, too?

That means Nimue’s future could indeed lie in the world’s past.

 

Intriguing queries.

            After we find out Milva’s pregnant, Regis gives her silphium. A plant known to cause abortions. Later, Milva miscarries. It could be due to the stress of the journey. Or it could be caused by the silphium. At the moment, there’s no way to know.

            At the very end, Emyhr gives an unknown creature the scent of Geralt. We only see a shadow of its head and neck. It suggests a dragon or a wyvern.

 

These two things were problematic, but only if my recollection of the events is accurate. (I was hardly going to rewatch seven hours of programme to answer two questions that aren’t all that important to the greater scheme of things.)

At the start of the second episode, Jaskier wears what looks like to be a leopard-print waistcoat. Yet in future and previous scenes, this doesn’t seem to be the case. He isn’t carrying enough luggage to suggest he has a change of clothes, so if he wore the leopard-print at one time, he’d also have to be wearing it at all other times, too.

The leader of the Rats is called ‘Giz’. It’s usually said how it’s spelt. Yet I’m pretty sure it was said as ‘jizz’ at some point. This would be funny, if inconsistent.

 

 

Problems

 

A few things didn’t make sense.

Geralt and co always slept on bedrolls. But this convenient tent appears in the forest for when Yennifer gets there? That isn’t sensible. Besides, the couple clearly teleport to a different location to spend the night. They had a tub and candles, things that the group didn’t carry with them; they also had a bed bigger than the tent they’d originally entered. Not to mention we could see the street outside with buildings (which the forest lacked). So the forest tent was completely unnecessary! All they had to do was show Yen taking Geralt through a portal.

Rusalka are water creatures. Yet these rusalka are not only made out of vines but can control them, too. Sure, rusalka haunt the waterways where they die, and these waterways are covered in vines, but that doesn’t translate into plant-controlling water monsters.

 

There were a few instances where the behaviour of the characters didn’t make sense.

We see a memory of Yennifer and Geralt. She accuses him of only thinking of himself because he left her at the inn for two days. But Geralt was explaining that he couldn’t get there because he was busy fighting monsters. You know, so that people don’t die. Yen is smart enough to put two and two together. Thus Yennifer’s criticism didn’t make sense.

Mistle stops Kayleigh (for some reason, a guy has this name) from forcing himself on Ciri. Yet Mistle thinks it’s an appropriate time to make a pass at Ciri. Come on! Repeating a situation that’s just been negative isn’t on.

In Episode Two, Geralt said, “Hmm” too many times. It was excessive to the extreme.

Milva leaves the company. Yet within a few minutes of the group being under attack, she saves the day. For her absence to be this short made little sense. The only explanation was that the show makers removed her in order to give the situation some jeopardy. But that’s an explanation of why the writers made that decision, not why the character made that decision. Without justification for the latter, Milva’s behaviour simply wasn’t believable.

 

Other things were problematic.

All the sorceresses that Yen recruited fit perfectly around the table. How convenient that they just had the exact perfect table available! The desire for a perfect shot shouldn’t interfere with a realistic, probable portrayal.

Regis speaks with an English accent. But for some reason, he says ‘herbs’ like an American. That isn’t consistent.

The storyline of the Rats was so bloody boring. It just felt like they were filler scenes because they lacked substance.

Ximer, a female dwarf, had a beard. However, it wasn’t applied convincingly: it was obviously fake. If men can have fake beards added that look convincing, those same techniques can be applied to women, too.

 

Finally, the way Ciri rode a horse was ridiculous.

She was all shoulders and elbows, the movements way too accentuated. She looks like she’s never ridden a horse before and, for the heir of a royal house, there’s no way Ciri wouldn’t be able to ride.

Yes, Ciri’s actor might not be comfortable on the horse, but that’s literally what stunt doubles are for. Besides, most shots of Ciri on a horse are from behind or from the air: this means there’d be zero chance of people realising it’s a stunt double.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Like I said before, this is my second favourite series of the Witcher.

None of the mistakes affected the plot. Ciri’s actor really blossomed in this series: she’s always been a good actor but her confidence really shone through. The humour was delivered well and clever details were peppered throughout.

What a roaring success!

 

 

The Witcher Series Four Critique 2/3

 

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Emiel Regis

 

In a graveyard, Geralt and co meet Emiel Regis. He says he’s the most fearsome thing in the graveyard. They’d just encountered a deadly wraith so, if taking Regis at his word, he is very powerful. The show gives plenty of hints as to what.

Regis keeps Geralt’s soiled bandage and later sniffing it. So, he likes blood. Combine this with being the most fearsome thing in the graveyard, he’s a fearsome, undead, blood-loving creature. Witcher is based on Slavic mythology so there’s one major candidates: vampire.

Later, there’s a trial of ordeal: someone needs to pick up a red-hot horseshoe without coming to harm. Regis manages this, showing he’s impervious/resistant to damage. Like a vampire.

After this, Regis demonstrates his speed and also his strength (ripping the chains of Geralt and Jaskier). Again, like a vampire.

The final clue is that Regis put guards to sleep with nothing more than a touch. This isn’t a direct reference to folklore. However, vampires could mind-control their victims, and mind-control can be used to put people to sleep, so Regis sending people to sleep is a more subtle hint than the previous ones.

A few people think Regis is a mage for having done this stuff. But once Regis saves Geralt and Jaskier, Geralt doesn’t like Regis and says they shouldn’t meet again. As Regis has only done nice things for Geralt and co, the only reason Geralt could dislike Regis is if he were a monster.

Then yes, he confirms he’s a vampire.

Plot

 

The recap at the start of this series was really good and thorough. For a show like the Witcher that has such a long gap between each series, a good recap is essential.

 

Many interesting details of plot emerged this series, too.

            Yennifer asks Fringilla to join her against Vilberfortz (the bad side) because Fringilla can’t hide anymore. She even looked convinced. Then the next scene with Fringilla is her joining Vilberfortz! So Yen convinced her of the danger, but not of which side to join. Fringilla joining the winning/bad side is hardly a surprise. But then it turns out Fringilla is a spy for Yennifer, turning expectations on their head.

Everyone is after Ciri. Emhyr wants to get her pregnant (his own daughter) to fulfil a prophecy. The elves want her because she’s the long-awaited descendent of a powerful elf, allowing Ciri to take the elves to their celestial paradise. Then there’re Geralt, Yennifer and their allies, all who want Ciri back with her family.

The emperor’s spy tells Leo to find the Rats, with Falka being especially important to the emperor. Leo assumes the spy wants them alive. The spy tells Leo to instead kill them all. Earlier, the spy was plotting with other nobles against the emperor. Getting Leo to frustrate the emperor’s plans let us see the spy’s plans in action.

When Milva tells the boys that she’s pregnant, everyone else starts discussing how they can manage her safety and nutrition. Then Milva shouts, “I did not ask for opinions!” The men just took Milva’s control and agency over the issue. The men most likely thought they were being helpful but, unless help is asked for, it’s just interference and not respecting boundaries.

The Queen of Rivia knights Geralt as ‘Sir Geralt of Rivia’. Which, minus the ‘sir’, has always been the title he’s been known by. It’s come full circle.

 

 

Humour

 

The most consistent source of humour came from Jaskier.

            My favourite line from Jaskier is: “I hope you like the taste of leather because you’re going to have his boot so far up your arses that you’ll be biting buckles.” Wowza.

            During the musical scene, Jaskier is looking at a portrait of himself and blows it a kiss. I love how even Jaskier’s story about himself plays up on the full-of-himself theme.

The dwarves ask Geralt, Jaskier and Milva questions. Each time, Jaskier starts to answer truthfully, but Geralt always interrupts with something like, ‘Nothing’. The bard then repeats it with a question mark, like he’s been scolded or chastised like a naughty child.

Someone mentions they can smell a cow. Jaskier says, “You can’t possibly smell a cow from…” then a cow moos. So Jaskier says, “Oh, look, a cow.” He went from derision to wonderment in a moment.

Zoltan asks if the whole story will be a song, clearly exasperated. Jaskier looks at Zoltan and, with a straight face, says, “Yes, bitch.”

Jaskier encourages Geralt to take his time walking away. But when the screaming starts behind them, Jaskier whisper-shouts, “Limp faster!”

Geralt and co keep saying no when the dwarves ask them to join. But as soon as the dwarves mention they have food, Jaskier declares, “We’re in!”

 

The dwarves are another source of amusement.

            Yarpen declares, “Boil my balls and call it tea.”

           A priest had tried to burn two girls for witchcraft. He even had a trial by ordeal planned (pick up a burning horseshoe). Once the girls are saved, two dwarves hold this priest down and Zoltan moves the burning horseshoe to between the priest’s legs. One end would touch his groin and the other his arse. A creative punishment.

        One dwarf says, “And leeches. I hate blood suckers,” with disgust. Regis the vampire coughs and the dwarf adds, “Sorry.”

 

Leo, the Witcher-killer, has three hilarious moments due to his lack of a filter.

            He says of the emperor’s spy, “You’re far from the emperor’s cunt.” I’ve never heard ‘never far from their side’ said so creatively before.

            Leo says to a grieving widow, “Let’s see if he’s still alive.” Then cheerfully adds, “Oh, no, he’s dead.”

            Asse, a large member of the Rats, tells Leo, “You’ll have to go through me first.” Leo responds with, “That’s a lot to get through.”

 

The women have funny moments. For characters with more serious plotlines, the humour was managed so as not to diminish the tone.

            Whilst battering an enemy with a levitating weapon, Assire (in the tone of a school mistress telling off naughty children) says, “You are not nice!”

            “You did not put the Elf Queen in your cleavage,” a sorceress says as Yennifer indeed pulls Francesca (as a figurine) out of her clevage.

            The Rats are robing a noblewoman. Ciri opens the door and asks in the most polite voice possible, “Apologies, milady, but can you step out of the carriage,” before yanking the noblewoman out. Ciri’s voice matched neither the situation nor the actions.

             

Men provided other funny moments.

Regis informs the ferryman that he’s a vampire. The ferryman calmly says, “Oh,” before leaping into the river.

Milva punches a guy in the face. Later at the witch trial, this man calls Milva a witch and asks, “Can we burn her first?”

Just before the group start to eat, someone asks, “Any words?” Jaskier, a bard who loves words, says, “Fuck, no, let’s eat.” So that by itself is funny. But then Regis adding, “Your best poem yet”? Burn.

Jaskier hears a bunch of soldiers insulting each other. One of the common themes was calling each other ‘seed-waste’, literally ‘you’re so bad that the sperm used to make you was wasted’. Never heard anything like that before.

 

New Geralt

 

Geralt had a new actor. This transition was handled well (even with me who didn’t know about it in advance).

            In this series, Geralt is introduced from behind, the side, at boot-level. In other words, his face wasn’t shown for a good amount of time. So, it allowed the audience to know it was Geralt without confusing them with the new face. A great way to ease in the character’s new actor.

         The new Geralt looked scarily like the original actor. Sure, a few angles of the face accentuated the new actor’s longer face. But for the most part, the face caused no hiccoughs.

          When this new actor talks, he sounds just like the old Geralt. He perfected the all-important ‘hmm’. However, when he shouts, he is clearly a different person. But as most of the lines are spoken, not shouted, the new actor focusing on talking was the sensible decision.

            Finally, Geralt has a persistent leg injury that affects life and fights. This means that a new face isn’t the only thing different about Geralt. This had the benefit of drawing attention away from the new face.

            Clearly, there were few instances where the new actor for Geralt was noticeable. Hence this transition was handled perfectly.