Western Civilization and the University

So my boss sent me the proposed changes to the general requirements curriculum. This is largely because eh wants me to go to the hearing/planning meeting tomorrow and fight for keeping the 8 hours of science as being 4 hours each in two separate categories, to prevent students from just taking 8 hours of biology and skipping chemistry, physics, earth science, and physical sciences (all of which are in our department) altogether. FWIW, I think we should require 12 hours, with a sequence of 8 and then one more out of that sequence, but that's just me (and many other universities), but the next best option is to have two separate 4 hour sequences.

The biology department seems to have a desire to outright require a two-hour sequence.  This would virtually eliminate the chemistry/physics cashcows of physical science (and to a lesser extent, earth sciences) since neither class currently exists as a two-semester sequence, and most students would prefer the relatively easy intro biology courses to the relatively more difficult chemistry, physics, or even physical science counterparts. Such is inter-departmental politics.

Moving on, I noticed that among proposed changes was this gem: "3. Removal of Western Civilization as a history option in the required slot for General Studies Program; move Western Civilization to the elective area." As I understand it, this makes Western Civ an optional history class as opposed to a required one, albeit one which does still fill a requirement There is, after all, the requirement of "Any 1000-2000 level courses from the following Social Science disciplines: Anthropology, Economics, Geography, History, Leadership, Interdisciplinary Studies, Political Science, Psychology, Religion, Sociology or other Social Science areas: 9 hours" with  6 of those 9 hours being either a six-hour sequence in literature or a 6-hour sequence in history. US or World history is its own 3 hour category.

Under different circumstances, I would consider protesting this change. I think that the single most important course in history for a student to take is that of Western Civ, which is not generally covered in much depth once one enters post-secondary school. American History, or the History of the US, and World History are probably next, but the former at least has been covered (in theory) by the high schools. To banish Western Civ. to the lost realm of "electives,' even "elective which fulfill a requirement," is to deprive a great many students of their cultural heritage.

With that said, I know a number of the newer history profs and lecturers: one specialized in race relations in the south, and another in Middle Eastern History*. The former currently teaches Western Civ and frequently remarks that she is having to learn it all over again, having not really studied it much in the course of gaining a doctorate in history focusing on the history of the United States. Such is not an uncommon occurrence in history or really any field. Based on her conversations with me, she is doing a reasonably good job of trying to teach the material objectively, but then again she has mostly covered Egypt, Greece, and (pre-Constantine) Rome to this point. I can only hope that the attempts at a fair presentation continue through the medieval period. The Middle Eastern History specialist remarked to me that he did not even bother to apply to any school whose mascot was "the crusaders" or "the knights" or "the templars" or (gasp) "the saints," because they would obviously have a wrongheaded approach to teaching history in general and Middle Eastern, Islamic history in particular. This latter man is actually Jewish, but decidedly un-Western, perhaps even anti-Western** (though I suppose that any course he teaches about world history outside of the west is probably a thing of beauty, as he does put lots of effort into the preparation).

Being as I am at a state (read: secular) university, and being as these are the kinds of professors who largely work here, we may be doing the poor students a favor by sparing them a cynically taught version of Western Civ. Utter ignorance of one's cultural heritage is probably preferable to complete disdain of that heritage, especially if it is manufactured disdain.


-----
*A third one is actually a convert to Catholicism, and wrote his dissertation on anti-Catholicism in the US, particularly during the mid 19th century ("Know Nothings" featured prominently). He would probably do a nice job of teaching Western Civ.

**But still a colleague and perhaps a friend no less.

One Real Cause of Rape Culture

First, it's worth stating that "rape culture" is a bit overblown in the numbers. I'm fairly confident that the number of women who experience an actual rape in college does not approach 20% (1 in 5). But, with that prefatory caveat aside, even 2% or 0.2% is still not a good thing. I should note that while I find date rape to be vile and frankly intolerable, I do not equate it with rape*.

With those caveats aside, I can believe that both are much higher than they should be, and I can even believe that both are on the rise as compared with decades past. There is a compelling article posted on the Aletiea website explaining one of the root causes of why this might be so:

The issue of “rape culture” on college campuses swept into public consciousness through the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, which states that nearly 20% of college women in its survey experienced rape or attempted rape.   

Whether that high a percentage of young women are being victimized is much debated. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute, using a standard rule of thumb for reported versus actual cases (12%), ran the numbers for Ohio State.  He came up with the far lower percentage of 2.9%. 

Still, a serious problem exists.... 

Every examination of this issue has noted the close relationship of “hookup culture” with violent sexual assaults. Over the last four decades, dating and romance have gradually vanished from college social life, replaced by parties where college men and women meet, drink heavily, and then, in Lady Gaga’s words (from “Do What U Want”), “get naughty.”   

Universities countenance, and—in their non-judgmental way—even affirm the desirability of casual sex. A women’s counselor at Dartmouth, for example, explains that what’s important about a hookup is that “each person gets something out of it. If it's to get off, then that's great. . . . If it's to work some issue out—like sexual assault—then that's great. It's basically to get pleasure and enjoyment out of it . . . the hookup culture is good for experimentation, and what someone does for experimentation is up to them." The counselor does admit, however, that she never got much out of her own hookups.

Feminists in particular are quick to look for an institutional cause of the "rape culture" which can be blamed and then "fixed." It's always about what they can make other people do (a strange irony when looking for a means of fighting against a "rape" culture), and especially what that can force men to do in the name of fighting rape. To be fair, the guys are about half of the problem here. But all the "rape awareness campaigns" and marches and so on are just technical attempts at alleviating a very obvious moral problem--while at the same time institutionalizing one of the very causes of that problem.


---
* On the other hand, there are different levels of "date rape," some of which might be arguable worse than violent/"forcible" rape. Violence is very bad, but treachery can be worse.

Newton's Third Law and Causes Prior to Effects

Newton's Third Law is often paraphrased that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. A more thorough stating of this law is that if object 1 applies a force on object 2, then this will simultaneously cause object 2 to apply a force of equal magnitude but on the opposite direction back on object 1. Thus, if I push on my desk with my hand, it might be said (and rightly) that I am causing there to be a force exerted from my hand onto the desk, and that this pushing also causes a second force to be exerted from the desk back on my hand.

However, the two forces spring into existence simultaneously, and then begin once I begin to push on the desk. Therefore, a cause does not necessarily precede an effect in time. It is therefore to be concluded that logical priority does not imply temporal priority.

Tolerance and Judgment

I've already linked Prof. J. Budziszewski once this week, but he also participated in the Intercollegiate Review's featured interview, IR Office Hours, the first question of which was about tolerance and diversity. Here is the Question and the answer, to get us started:

Tolerance and diversity are words usually used by the Left in academia to squash freedom of speech, especially among conservatives. How would you define the true role of tolerance?—Luciana E. Milano, Harvard University 

J. Budziszewski: The liberal rationale for toleration grounds it on an incoherency: supposedly we put up with some bad and false things because we suspend moral judgment about the good and true. But if we really suspended judgment, it would be hard to see why anything should be tolerated—or why anything shouldn’t be tolerated, or, if we are going to be tolerant, which things should be tolerated and which things shouldn’t be. Actually, the nonjudgmentalist wants only his opponents to suspend judgment. He rams through his own moral judgments by pretending that they aren’t moral judgments. 

By contrast, the classical rationale for toleration grounds it on a paradox: we put up with some bad and false things because the nature of the good and true demands it. For example, we don’t coerce faith, because as St. Hilary of Poitiers said, God does not desire unwilling obedience; we don’t repress the expression of false opinions, because debate helps us find our way to the truth. Notice, then, what true toleration requires: not suspending judgment but judging more adequately.

Meanwhile, Marcel LeJeune has a good post up for the Aggie Catholics blog about judging--that was the subject of the readings this last Sunday, after all.

A Few Good Links (vol. 15)

I have a few tabs to clear.

1. An old point which bears repeating: there never was nor will be on this side of heaven a true "golden age," that is, an age in which men are all virtuous and wise and happy.
2. Michael Flynn writes a fanciful tale about the separation of Church and State, and about the supposed improvement of men's intellectual condition since the medieval times. "Ho Ho. We have learned our history at the hands of Monty Python. They are confusing the Spanish Inquisition with the secret police and SWAT teams of the modern scientific state."
3. Speaking of anti-intellectualism, I've mostly been following the whole Neil DeGrasse Tyson quote manufacturing thing with mild at most interest, but the longer it drags on the worse he and his followers are beginning to look. He is not nearly as vitriolic as, say, Richard Dawkins, though he seems to have embraced the same philosophical philistinism as Dawkins--or Lawrence Krauss, for that matter. My respect for him tanked considerably after he did the whole Cosmos reboot, which at times felt like it was more about bashing religion (by which is always meant Christianity and especially Catholicism). That said, the part where he manufactured a quote might have been forgivable, but the fact that he repeats and has been utterly unapologetic for repeating not one but many quotes and anecdotes which he fabricated is getting a bit ridiculous, as is his frankly philistine scientism.
4. Speaking of scientism, Matt Briggs has done a nice job of debunking a scientistic argument against the existence of a Creator God. This one starts with the philosophical equivalent of the Drake equation, then attempts to use statistics and probabilities to justify it.
5. "Sex positive" is a phrase which I have seen popping up here and there around the internet. It's usually meant as a way of denigrating Christians in particular. And, so long as we make only secular arguments for the Traditional Christian sexual morality, we will sound a bit "negative" in our approach. The thing is, the "sex positive" view of the world--secularism bolstering hedonism--is wrong, because it ignores evidence which if admitted is crucial.

As Prof. J. Budziszewski notes, "We don’t often stop believing in God, then start looking for new sins to commit. We become attached to sins we don’t want to give up, then start looking for reasons not to believe in God."

Lithium and Technical Solutions

David Warren's excellent anti-blog has a post of sorts about the question of finding a good technical solution to the age-old moral problem of happiness--well, self-satisfaction, at least:

Today, after the discovery of how useful lithium can be in helping to settle “bipolar” and similar psychiatric cases, the proposal to add it methodically to the water supply, along with fluoride, is coming into vogue. It may soon be a “progressive” cause, such that no one will be asked to vote on it. What better way to deal with a general population which, thanks to the success of other progressive causes, is now going insane?... 

There is, of course, a little problem with lithium as a catch-all cure for ambient mental illness, for while the “don’t worry be happy” response to increased lithium doses is a commonplace of current psychiatric medicine, it does not have the same effect on all customers. Some, reasonably tame before, flip right out upon receiving it. Others are inspired to feel better about themselves while committing major crimes. Yet the prevailing statistical utilitarianism continues to insist on “the greatest good for the greatest number,” and it is the presumption of modern technology that exceptional cases may be overlooked.

And therein lies a limit of sorts to the usefulness of science as a solution to all the world's problems.

Casual Fridays?

Nah. Give three-piece a chance:


Actually, three-pieces are kind of overkill too. I like wearing them--and they do suit me nicely--when the weather turns cool, but there's something to be said for the semi-casual, semi-dressy ensemble of slacks, a (bow) tie, short-sleeve button-down, and vest. Or for that matter the nice hole-free jeans and button-down with a blazer or sports jacket. It would make me plenty happy to see men dressing in that general style for class, for work, and especially for Mass.

Equality Implies Difference

My friend and somewhat intellectual mentor, Prof. J. Budziszewski, has a short post on his blog quoting Michael Novak. Since it is a quoted excerpt, I will reproduce it here in its entirety:

"For it was Christian faith that first taught the male warrior a code of courtesy, compassion, and charity, whose first expression was Christian chivalry, whose later expression was the ideal of the Christian gentleman, and whose underlying ideal has been the equality of women and men in baptism, in faith, and in the promises of God.  The Christian ideal of equality before God not only did not erase sexual differentiation, but, on the contrary, rested upon that reality as its foundation."

This is getting at something which I have been mulling myself for some time: namely, that equality not only  doesn't precludes differences, but actually presupposes them.

This is something which we can see logically, as for example in a math (or physics) class. As a simple example, we can consider the force of friction working on an object (say a block) which is sliding down an inclined plane:

The force of friction is in general determined by the coefficient of friction multiplied by the normal force:
(1) Ff = ck FN
On the other hand, the sum of the forces must be equal to zero if the block is sliding down the incline with a constant velocity, as per Newton's First Law:
(2) Fg + Ff + FN = 0
--> (3) Fgx - Ff = 0 and (4) FN - Fgy = 0; NB bolded quantities are vectors, plain type are scalars.
Thus, we can states that the coefficient of friction ck is in this case equal to the ratio of the magnitude of force of the x-component of gravity to the magnitude of the normal force; of in other words that it is equal to the tangent of the angle A subtending the incline and the ground:
(5) ck = Fgx/FN = tan A

But we should not in so stating forget or even imply that there is no difference between a coefficient of friction and the tangent of an angle. Indeed, the equality between the two is actually conditional, in this, conditional on choosing the exact angel at which the block slides down the ramp at constant velocity. It would be an erroneous statement to identify the coefficient of friction with the tangent of any arbitrary angle, or even with any angle A subtending an inclined plane.

For that matter, it would be an error to identify friction as "the force which is equal to the opposite of the x-component of gravity"-- a restatement of equation (3). There can, after all, exist a nonzero force of friction on a surface which is not inclined, though in this case the x-component of gravity is typically zero. For that matter, there could be some force of friction, and indeed a significant force of friction, in a region in which there is little (virtually none) gravity. Yet, this is an assertion which follows in this case from the premise that equality is the same thing as identity or interchangeability.

Why So Scarce?

In case you are wondering why my posting has become so scare, there are actually several reasons:

1. Life adjustments: I just went through a major move across several states. Further, I did this in two stages, once alone and then again with the rest of my family. I've been busy steeling after that.
2. Life adjustments pt. 2: I had assumed that I would be less busy in my new job than at my old one. I am now a professor at a small college, and though I will eventually (as in, later this year) have to get back into doing research, there is a bit of a lul on that front so that I can focus on teaching classes. This semester, I am only teaching two different classes (a lecture and a lab), though with several sections of each. It is taking a lot of my time to prepare for these each week. Since next semester I will actually have more of these classes, I am also scrambling to work out all the other little things that I think I should do over the course of the year--these I am trying to do now while my course load is relatively light.
3. Life adjustments part 3: I spend less time at work now than before, but a lot more focused time, and then lots of time with little tasks. I therefore get home by 7 each evening (plus or minus one hour), but I am usually very tired when that happens. My wife is similarly tired at that point, and wants me to watch our daughter (to give the wife a break, and also to let her make dinner un-interrupted).
4. No internet access at home. This will soon be remedied, but most of my down time is at home, away from the internet.
5. I am still contributing occasional posts elsewhere, but this is maybe one post per week on average, if that.
6. Internet access from my laptop is spotty even while I am at work (and on break, of course). I think our network doesn't like my laptop for some reason. I can apparently receive emails but not send them from my email client, for example.

That covers most of it. My hope is to at least get back to one solid post here a week, and maybe get to where I can post stuff elsewhere over the weekends. We'll see--my wife has definitely filled a lot of weekend space with planned (read: compulsory) activities such as a garage sale to get rid of some of our unused and frankly unwanted stuff (most of which is perfectly good stuff, just not useful to us).

A Few Good Links (vol. 14)

In follow-up to my last post--about having a lot less free time to write than I'd like--I have had a little free time for some browsing. I've collected a few interesting links, and as always wish I could actually write more thoughts about them. Instead, it's links dump time!

1. Apparently, student evaluations have been toned down a little bit in recent years:
   

   Cassian, on the other hand, according to the hymn of Prudentius (cf. Peristephanon, Hymn IX), was a teacher at Forum Cornelii (named after the dictator L. Cornelius Sulla – modern Imola). He was handed over (c. 300 according to 2001 MartRom) to his pupils who tortured him to death using their writing styluses (traditus est calamis ad mortem torquendus), made of iron, reeds or other pointy hard materials with which they would draw on wax tablets, etc. The MartRom adds a note that Cassian was given to his students to be killed because, “the weaker the hand, the more painful was the sentence of martyrdom.” Today, students torture their teachers to death with PDA styluses, laptop computers and MP3 players, not to mention execrable English – but I digress.

2. Why radical feminists are all insane--and are not the friends of women anywhere--is beyond me. But there is plenty of evidence for this thesis. Here is the latest round: a group of men in college have rendered bar-hopping women everywhere an invaluable service: they have created a nail polish which can be used to detect date rape roofie drugs. Naturally, those who hate the so-called rape culture  (and we should loath those who use date-rape drugs to have their way with unsuspecting women) are singing these young mens' praises from the rooftops. The feminist reaction to this is enthusiastic support right? Men taking some semblance of responsibility to help women to fight one particularly pernicious form of rape--that's what feminists have been urging men to do for a decade or more now, right? Apparently, not so much. The feminist line is apparently that this nail polish actually helps to contribute to rape culture. And they wonder why most men don't take their silly slut walks seriously.
   
3. Speaking of insanity, apparently the police in Philadelphia have started using a little known law to begin seizing the property (including homes) of people who have never been charged, let alone convicted, of any crimes:
   

   Under civil forfeiture, property owners do not have to be convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, to permanently lose their property. Instead, the government can forfeit a property if it’s found to “facilitate” a crime, no matter how tenuous the connection. So rather than sue the owner, in civil forfeiture proceedings, the government sues the property itself, leading to surreal case names like Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. The Real Property and Improvements Known as 2544 N. Colorado St. 

   In other words, thanks to civil forfeiture, the government punishes innocent people for the crimes other people might have committed.

   
   
4. A recent poll suggests that most Americans are insane in a different way:
   

   A whopping 68 percent of Americans think there should be a law that prohibits kids 9 and under from playing at the park unsupervised, despite the fact that most of them no doubt grew up doing just that. 

   What's more: 43 percent feel the same way about 12-year-olds. They would like to criminalize all pre-teenagers playing outside on their own (and, I guess, arrest their no-good parents).

5. My friend and former editor Dr. Trasancos has an interesting little post about Adler, Bohr, Padre Pio, and angels. Refreshing after the last three links, I hope.
   
6. I came across an interesting analysis of "pink" vs "blue" science fiction via John C. Wright. It's also a chance to read a short story by one of the living greats, Gene Wolfe, albeit not necessarily his greatest story.

That's it for now.

TMM: A Few Thoughts On Research at the Small College Level

I thought  would have more time to write now that I am finished with graduate school. Not a lot more, mind you, but at least a little more. It turns out that being a new professor is a lot of work, even when your main responsibilities are just teaching classes. Or maybe I put a little too much effort into preparing my lecture notes: I seem to be the only one who regularly stays here until 7, 8, or even 9 at night (and I am usually here before 8 in it morning): everybody else goes home by 5. Of course, "everybody else" has tenure.

I look forward to that day, if it comes. I have a plan and a path to get there, but no assurance that it will ultimately work out. And they demand research, a minimum of three peer-reviewed publications (a bit of a challenge in my experience). This will ultimately require that I switch fields at least a little, because they don't have anything like enough money to buy the laser and other equipment I would need to stay in my own field. Ouch.

Many of the member of the tenure and promotion committee are people who did not themselves every have this research requirement (though many of them did do research). They got tenure, they got promoted, then they changed the rules to make those things more difficult to get. These are not necessarily complaints, only observations--I actually am really enjoying my job so far.

The nearest to a complaint that I have to offer is that this seems to be a national trend. I specifically targeted smaller "liberal arts"-type colleges because I did not want research to be a requirement of the job--and I am not alone in this desire to leave rigorous research behind. Not everybody wants to do the whole publish-or-perish thing: I'd wager that if not an outright majority, then at least a large minority do not want to have that hanging over their heads. There are quite a few people coming out of the big R1 universities who want to go to a smaller college without graduate students because they want to focus on teaching and teaching well, with research as a sort of side-gig or hobby. Research without pressure to publish immediately won't likely lead to cutting edge results. It may well lead to a return to "doing good science," that is, being more thorough and systematic in obtaining results.

It may be that soon there will be no such teaching positions available, outside of the community colleges and adjunct positions. And on a related note, "publish or perish" has been steadily pushing the scientific field to look for "flashy results" and not necessarily good science. Often the one can lead to the other, though much of the "good science" which comes in the wake of the "flashy results" never really makes it to publication. And at the other extreme, often the flashy results are not good science at all, are not the beginnings of good science--but they get published, so the more cynical scientists will pass them off as "good science" for as long as they can wring publications out of them. That truly is a tragedy.

Review of Michael Bay's Ninja Turtles Movie

I am a somewhat casual fan of Mystery Science Theater, so I have seen some fairly awful movies over the years. Most of these are technically poorly done, meaning some combination of bad camera angles, poorly synched music/mood and or timing/stunts, odd premises, large plot holes, and bad acting with even worse dialogue-writing. Most of these movies at least have the excuse of being made by C-list teams (actors, directors, writers, etc.) with low budgets: they are the type of films for which being called "B-list" is an aspiration, and to become a cult classic is the upper limit of their intended potential.

For reasons which I cannot fathom, Michael Bay is not a B-list director. Nor is Megan Fox a B-list actress, for reasons which I can fathom. And while the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie which these two have made might be billed as a summer blockbuster, it rightly belongs with the awful movies which once made Mystery Science Theater's lineup.

Normally, I would warn my readers of spoilers here, but

1. I am writing this review a little late to warn off the opening weekend crowd.
2. I am mostly inclined to warn people not to go see it.
3. There are so many plot holes that I do't think I can ruin it by revealing anything.

I won't get too much into technical details: the movie was bad enough that I will focus mostly on the plot holes and similar comments. I will say that the soundtrack is forgettable (which is true to the 1990s' movies, which really were B-list). As with those movies, there is one scene in which the turtles showcase their "musical talents"—this time it's beat-boxing in the elevator, a scene which Stephen Greydanus calls the high point of thefilm, and not inaccurately. And I suppose that I should here also acknowledge the critique that others' have had about the design of the turtles: they are too big, and their faces are wrong (they really do need snouts).

Before getting to the worst, I might as well mention some of the best parts. There are a couple of scenes which are reasonably well-done as tributes. When the turtles are returning to the sewers after taking on the Foot Clan as a group for the first time, they leap from a low rooftop into the open manhole in a scenic homage to the opening title of the 1990's cartoon. Elsewhere, Leonardo slices a pizza with his katana, serving the slices to each of his brothers and ending with a single slice landing upon Splinter's head. Also, the decision to make each of the 4 turtles unique in form was a good artist choice, in my opinion: Raphael is the large and bulky bruiser of the bunch, Donatello the lanky awkward nerd, Michaelangelo the laid back surfer dude, Leonardo the athletic team captain.

So, what are the plot holes from which this spectacle suffers?

The mutants turtles and rat turn out to be a science experiment created by April O'Neil's father, who was working on a mutagen which could regenerate cells as use in an anti-dote. It turns out that the father's boss, Sacks (derivative of Kreng from the cartoons?) is planning to use this antidote (along with a poison) to hold New York hostage. He has placed the poison in a large container in an antennae tower on top of his building, with plans to release it into the city, followed by providing the cure at high cost. This plan is scrapped when the lab creating the mutagen is set on fire, and O'Neil's father is killed. The incident is blamed on the Foot Clan.

There are many plot holes here already. First, the turtles and Splinter are saved from this fire by April O'Neil as a little girl. She releases them into the sewer, where they will be "safe". Yet, April's father supposedly dies in this fire, to her knowledge? A little girl is able to enter the burning lab and get the turtles and the rat out, but a grown man is unable to make his escape? And for that matter, she never actually seems to notice that her father is in the burning lab. She is a young journalist with a knack for asking questions, yet she never really questions any of this part of the narrative?

It later turns out that her father actually started the fire because he had discovered his boss' plans for the mutagen. Sacks discovers this and shoots and kills him, presumably in the fire. He then fails to rescue the turtles or Splinter, despite the premise that in their blood is the last remnant of the mutagen, a remnant which is apparently duplicated by the turtles as they grow and which is apparently so stable that he is willing to capture them to drain their blood and extract the mutagen? And he fails to notice young April when she enters the burning lab and rescues the turtles, just as she fails to notice him?

Sacks spends the next 15 years trying to reproduce the mutagen, without success. And apparently, he has decided to keep the container of deadly toxins on top of his building ready to use without an existing antidote for the entire period of 15 years, thus endangering himself and the city for nothing. I know, he's the villain, he doesn't care about the safety of the city. But doesn't he at least care for his own safety, to say nothing of the soundness of a plan which requires sudden dispersal of the toxins which could potentially begin to leak out? Granted, the toxin has to be vaporized first, but under a liquid form it would still release some vapors which would presumably place everyone in the building at risk, not to mention that it places his grand plan at risk for being discovered when his employees start turning up dead with mysterious lesions all over their bodies.

So much for holes in the main premise. Now let's looks at some of the bizarre lapses of judgment throughout the movie. The Sacks and his mentor, the Shredder*, discover that the turtles are alive and well and thus deduce that the mutagen-antidote is still to be found in their blood. The therefore determine to capture the turtles and to drain their blood, and then to extract the mutagen from this blood. This, I suppose, makes some sense as a possibility, but in the movie it is treated as an absolute certainty, and treated moreover as if it is expected that the turtles themselves are producing more of the mutagen—the initial draining seems to ear out this assumption, since they obtain about a liter or so of mutagen from the three captured turtles.

Then comes the first inexplicable error: Sacks decides to drain all of the turtles' blood instantly, rather than keeping them captive for a period and thus being able to extract a larger quantity of antidote. He has no other sure method for replicating the mutagen**, of which somewhat more than a few liters would be necessary if he is to carry ouf his plan of providing it as an antidote for the city. Which brings up the second related bizarre lapse of judgement: after capturing Leonardo, Donatello, and Michaelangelo, the Shredder leaves Splinter for dead (can the mutagen not also be extracted from Splinter's blood?), and does not even bother to bring Raphael's supposed corpse along to be similarly drained of blood/mutagen.

Raphael then goes to rescue his brothers from Sacks, with the aide of April O'Neil and her erstwhile partner, driver, and cameraman, Vernon Fenwick. He thus comes face-to-face with the Shredder, who promptly mops the floor with him, pointing to the four cells containing three turtles, and stating that the fourth cell is for Raphael. Then, inexplicably, he abandons his fight with Raphael and leaves him for a second time, actually leaves the premises to go carry out his and Sacks' evil plans. Oh, and he does this without bothering to wait for his Foot Clan thugs to arrive on the scene to cage Raphael.

In the meantime, April and Vernon free the other turtles. These other three are weak from being drained of so much blood—but a quick injection of adrenaline solves that problem, and with no crash later! Thereafter, the turtles experience no ill effects from blood loss—a side effect of the mutagen, perhaps?

They then make their getaway, in pursuit of the Shredder and Sacks. Having the pick of a jeep and several hummers, and knowing that they will be largely going off-road in ice and snow down a mountain side, they pick... a semi-truck and trailer***. And, during the ensuing chase scene, Vernon takes a breakform driving tocheck out April's butt, which result in his plowing the truck through a snowbank. There are no words.

Next up is a rooftop fight between the turtles and Shredder, who is easily more than a match for them [4]. They then team up and play a version of their childhood game (bucky-buck or something like that), which inexplicably allows them to beat him and knock him off of the building. Donatello is able to stop the toxin's release, but the Shredder has meantime made it back onto the roof and cuts the supports holding up the tower with his magic claw-knife/remote-controlled projectiles. The turtles then support the entire antennae—all 5 tons of it—on their backs, while Leonardo tells them not to move. Given that the only other person on the roof at the time is the Shredder, so it seems unlikely that they will be relieved of this burden anytime soon.

And here is the last inexplicable plot-hole (of sorts) which I will note. Inexplicably, the turtles are able to stand still while the Shredder in his robo-armor attacks them. This is the same Shredder-in-robot-armor who was previously mopping the floor with them as a group (let alone one-on-one). Also, his missile-claws have apparently stopped working, because here he only punches and kicks at Leonardo for a few moments before April arrives with the container of mutagen to simultaneously save the day and become the damsel in distress.

The previews for this movie suggested that it wasn't going to be great. Heck, it's the ninja turtles, for crying out loud. I went in to it not expecting much, thinking that it didn't show much promise. It still managed to disappoint; and if the PG-13 rating isn't enough to warn parents that this is not a movie to bring the small ones too, then my say-so probably doesn't mean much, but this is definitely not a movie for small children. Actually, one wonders what audience this movie is meant for. I can think of few for which it is suitable, save possibly prison inmates whose sentences seem a little too light.

*By my best guess, the Shredder must be about 80 years old in this movie. Sacks is born at a military base in Okinawa, and then loses his father in Vietnam. The Shredder becomes his mentor/sensei/father replacement at this time. It is strongly implied that this is the early parts of the war, and that the Shredder is already a well-trained martial artist. Assuming that he was 25 years old at this point, and thus on the young side of being able to fill this role for the young Sacks, and assuming that all of this occurred in the first few years of the war, that would make the Shredder 75 now. For that matter, one wonders how it is that Splinter knows this backstory.

**For that matter, they never really bother to test it on human subjects to see how it works there. Apparently, litigation is not an issue in this world. Come to think of it, I don't think they ever test it in any way to see whether it actually cures the toxins at all.

***The trailer is empty, and the reason for the truck's presence at all is kind of vague.

[4] After all, Splinter learns ninjitsu from a thin book on the subject, and they learn it from him. Shredder, on the other hand, is an accomplished master ninja wearing a complete set of robotic body armor complete with remote-controlled magic knife blades.