Something needs to happen with our policy on illegal drugs. Consider the evidence:
The Problem of Definition
Criteria for determining what constitutes an illegal drug (as defined by the Controlled Substances Act):
1. Has a high potential for abuse,
and meets one of the following two requirements:
2. Has no currently accepted medical use and a lack of accepted safety,
or,
3. Has accepted medical use, but abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependency.
Well, fair enough, but why then are alcohol and tabacco excluded from the list of illegal substances? Do they not meet requirements 1 and 2? Basically, the answer to this question is that alcohol and tobacco are grandfathered in because they are are substances that have a long tradition of recreational use in Western European culture. Had the China or India colonized America, perhaps opium have been excluded from the list, or maybe peyote would be legal if Native American tribes had retained cultural control of the continent. Basically, it's subjective and hypocritical to set a coherent definition, like the one above, and then allow other substances that fall under the definitions to be exempted because our ancestors were in the habit of openly consuming said substances.
So, what should happen?
There are two solutions, as I see it:
1. Remove all exceptions from the rules,
or,
2. Rewrite the rules to relax the definition of and illegal substance
Let's take a look at each of these options.
Option 1: Prohibition, take 2
So what would happen if we applied the current rules fairly to all substances? Here is a point-by-point look at the consequences.
Cons
• Alcohol and tobacco become illegal. This is very bad for various sectors of the economy: bars, liquor stores, various agricultural companies, liquor and cigarette companies. Many jobs are lost
• While alcohol and tobacco consumption are reduced, a major blackmarket is opened up. The quality of the products are unregulated and therefore have the potential to cause health problems.
• The government is unable to tax the money spent on the blackmarket, and loses a lot of money in tax income that it received from taxes on tobacco and cigarette sales.
• People generally become more resentful towards the government.
• The secession of Kentucky (or is this a pro? Kidding, of course).
• Billions more dollars for the enforcement, prosecution, and dentention of offenders.
Pros
• The standing law is applied fairly, and does not place a particular culture's substance of choice above any other's.
• Addiction to tobacco and alcohol do not disappear, but are reduced
• Less deaths caused by drunk driving, other intoxication-related crimes
• A major financial foot-on-the-throat of the working class, addiction to cigarretees, is at least partially lifted.
• Less disease from second-hand smoke; cleaner dining establishments
• Billions of dollars in health care saved
• Millions of acres that are now taken up growing tobacco could be put to use growing grains to help supply food to the world and fuel to our engines
Option 2: Bong hits for all
I won't advocate that the Controlled Substance laws be removed entirely; I do believe that some protection from extremely potent psychoactive drugs is neccesary. However, perhaps criteria 2 and 3 could be redacted to read just:
2. Abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependency,
The legal defnition of "severe psychological or pysical dependency" would have to be explained as "causing a level of incapacity to as to prevent the user from performing such and such an activity", or maybe be defined in scientific terms as "a psychoactive negatively altering normal brain function to such and such a standard." This would create a clearly defined, no-exceptions definition that would legalize tobacco, alcohol, marjuana, peyote, and other mild substances while continuing to prohibit more dangerous drugs. A look at the benefits and drawbacks of this plan:
Cons
• Moral wrong? Some perceive marijuana to be on a different moral plane than alcohol or tobacco.
• More crime? This depends on how it's enforced. Crime related to drug dealing should go down, but it is possible that crime related to being under the influence would go up. This depends on the system for ensuring that the substances were sold in a manner that prevented them from being consumed in a dangerous way (ie, making sure there was a limited for potency), or if the system did not have an effective strategy to discourage the substance usage before operating a car, for example.
• Drug dealers out of work may need to turn to more violent sources of income
• More people using substances. This probably would not increase dramatically, but it would certainly go up some.
Pros
• Billions of government dollars saved in cost to enforce, prosecute, and detain minor drug offenders. Consequently, millions of people out of jail and able to help feed their family and bolster the work force, which would help the economy and decrease the need for welfare for the families who have a member incarcerated
• Less crime? See the discussion in the cons section.
• Billions of dollars made on taxing transactions that previously occured on the blackmarket.
• Regulation of currently-controlled substances lead to better standards of sanitation for the products--reduction in health problems from tainted or drugs
• The money that is currently flowing out of the country to fund various militias and cartels will be cut off.
So there it is. In summary: the system as it stands is hypocritical, and to ameliorate that problem would require adopting one of the two methods detailed above.
Showing posts with label observations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label observations. Show all posts
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Porcelain Predicament
I find this happens to me a lot:
I am in an unfamiliar place, and I severely need to visit the restroom. I head off in a random direction until I see white-tiled flooring through a crack in a door. I charge inside, and begin to relieve myself. But suddenly, my satisfaction is abruptly interrupted by the thought:
Am I in a women's bathroom? I can't remember seeing the sign on the door...
I stand there terrified, until I realize that it's very unlikely that the women's labortory has urinals. Relieved in more ways than one, I proceed about my business.
Is this experience exclusive to me, or does any one else find themselves frequently going through this routine?
I am in an unfamiliar place, and I severely need to visit the restroom. I head off in a random direction until I see white-tiled flooring through a crack in a door. I charge inside, and begin to relieve myself. But suddenly, my satisfaction is abruptly interrupted by the thought:
Am I in a women's bathroom? I can't remember seeing the sign on the door...
I stand there terrified, until I realize that it's very unlikely that the women's labortory has urinals. Relieved in more ways than one, I proceed about my business.
Is this experience exclusive to me, or does any one else find themselves frequently going through this routine?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Education: it's all about history
The Theory
I stumbled across a realization the other day: every educational discipline is in some sense, history. The different subjects we study are simply gradually increasing orders of magnitude in their observation of our history. Each subject can fit neatly inside the next like Russian dolls. Maybe you've already come across this idea, but I am currently excited about it, so I am going to expostulate on it for a bit.
A metaphor: consider education a microscope, and the history of the universe a slide. Observing that slide on the lowest magnification might be the discipline of physics, taking into account how the whole is put together, how it behaves and interacts. Click up to the next magnification, and you have chemistry, a slightly more detailed look at how elements interact on the molecular level. The next magnification yields biology, another order of complexity greater than chemistry. As you keep looking closer and closer eventually you pass anthropology, sociology, eventually arriving at literature.
So, here is my personal ranking of educational disciplines in terms of complexity (sorry if some of my explanations do not suit your views on what the discipline concerns itself with).
The Hierarchy, from microscopic to macroscopic
1. Literature
Literature concerns itself with the exposition of feeling and thought. It focuses on what people believed and felt during a very small span time. A literary period often explains the feelings of a particular group of persons at a particular point in time, often less than a decade. It describes the tensions and outlooks of that moment, providing a very refined, microscopic exploration of a microfraction of human history.
2. History
History concerns itself with the recorded details of human activity. It is usually limited to the last 3,000-5,000 years, and chronicles how different societies have arisen, evolved, and fallen.
3. Sociology
Sociology explains how humans interact with one another. It reaches back before recorded events (History) to describe the dynamics of humanity in groups and tribes.
4. Anthropology
Anthropology spans the period of human history. It seeks to explain the rise and development of homo sapiens.
5. Biology
Biology explains the form and function of organic matter. It looks back to the beginning of life to investigate the origins and developments of organisms.
6. Geology
Geology concerns itself with the study of the Earth. This discipline examines what the planet was like even before life began.
7. Chemistry
Chemistry is a generalized study of particles. It investiagtes specific laws governing these particles, and can be applied to explaining how stars, planets, and life are created and develop.
8. Physics
Physics is a generalized science that takes an even more cosmic view than chemistry. Physics explores how mass, energy, and time behave, describing a series of laws that explain the origin on the universe and the changes it has undergone since.
9. Mathematics
Theoretical applications that exist even without a universe to apply them in (the only discipline that can cliam this). Explains the methods that physics uses.
What's been left out
There are several notable ommisions from this theory. These subjects were left out because I was not sure enough about their place in the hierarchy to confidently include them. Here they are, along with some thoughts about where they might go:
Psychology: The social sciences, with the exceptions of Sociology and Anthropolgy, are hard to place, and may overlap. Psychology, since it deals with human feelings, may be so specific that it comes even before literature, but it may also descibe the laws that govern sociology, so you could place it there as well.
Economics:Certainly fits inside of history, perhaps even literature?
Political Science: Again, difficult to say whether it would fit above or below literature. Perhaps it should be joined with economics to fit in between literature and history? Or included as part of sociology?
Philosophy: Also difficult, because it can be applied to describe very specific periods, or to explain the evolution of sociology.
I stumbled across a realization the other day: every educational discipline is in some sense, history. The different subjects we study are simply gradually increasing orders of magnitude in their observation of our history. Each subject can fit neatly inside the next like Russian dolls. Maybe you've already come across this idea, but I am currently excited about it, so I am going to expostulate on it for a bit.
A metaphor: consider education a microscope, and the history of the universe a slide. Observing that slide on the lowest magnification might be the discipline of physics, taking into account how the whole is put together, how it behaves and interacts. Click up to the next magnification, and you have chemistry, a slightly more detailed look at how elements interact on the molecular level. The next magnification yields biology, another order of complexity greater than chemistry. As you keep looking closer and closer eventually you pass anthropology, sociology, eventually arriving at literature.
So, here is my personal ranking of educational disciplines in terms of complexity (sorry if some of my explanations do not suit your views on what the discipline concerns itself with).
The Hierarchy, from microscopic to macroscopic
1. Literature
Literature concerns itself with the exposition of feeling and thought. It focuses on what people believed and felt during a very small span time. A literary period often explains the feelings of a particular group of persons at a particular point in time, often less than a decade. It describes the tensions and outlooks of that moment, providing a very refined, microscopic exploration of a microfraction of human history.
2. History
History concerns itself with the recorded details of human activity. It is usually limited to the last 3,000-5,000 years, and chronicles how different societies have arisen, evolved, and fallen.
3. Sociology
Sociology explains how humans interact with one another. It reaches back before recorded events (History) to describe the dynamics of humanity in groups and tribes.
4. Anthropology
Anthropology spans the period of human history. It seeks to explain the rise and development of homo sapiens.
5. Biology
Biology explains the form and function of organic matter. It looks back to the beginning of life to investigate the origins and developments of organisms.
6. Geology
Geology concerns itself with the study of the Earth. This discipline examines what the planet was like even before life began.
7. Chemistry
Chemistry is a generalized study of particles. It investiagtes specific laws governing these particles, and can be applied to explaining how stars, planets, and life are created and develop.
8. Physics
Physics is a generalized science that takes an even more cosmic view than chemistry. Physics explores how mass, energy, and time behave, describing a series of laws that explain the origin on the universe and the changes it has undergone since.
9. Mathematics
Theoretical applications that exist even without a universe to apply them in (the only discipline that can cliam this). Explains the methods that physics uses.
What's been left out
There are several notable ommisions from this theory. These subjects were left out because I was not sure enough about their place in the hierarchy to confidently include them. Here they are, along with some thoughts about where they might go:
Psychology: The social sciences, with the exceptions of Sociology and Anthropolgy, are hard to place, and may overlap. Psychology, since it deals with human feelings, may be so specific that it comes even before literature, but it may also descibe the laws that govern sociology, so you could place it there as well.
Economics:Certainly fits inside of history, perhaps even literature?
Political Science: Again, difficult to say whether it would fit above or below literature. Perhaps it should be joined with economics to fit in between literature and history? Or included as part of sociology?
Philosophy: Also difficult, because it can be applied to describe very specific periods, or to explain the evolution of sociology.
Friday, March 9, 2007
I have seen the enemy, and he is complexity
Introduction
One of the biggest challenges a modern American government faces is explaining complex political ideas in ways that they can be easily understood. In many cases, political parties take short cuts through simplifying the idea. Often that over-simplification takes on the form of a moral maxim.
Example:
Each party is right now trying to boil their ideas on Iraq down to this simplification: BLANK is the best way to support our troops.
If you're a Republican, insert "Staying the course".
If you're a Democrat, insert "Bringing them home."
In each case, the argument is much more complex, but in a word of sound bites and 30-second attention spans any argument that can't be conveyed in 10 words or less is worthless.
Oversimplification and Climate Change
My pet issue of climate change is a major battlefield in the war of over-simplification. Being a largely scietific debate, it is easy to take numbers out of context in order to argue for or against it. In this debate, scientists produce data, and then politicians sift through that data to find information that will support their side.
The following are a number examples out-of-context information that global warming deniers roll out in defense of their argument:
The Arguments and Reality
1. The world has gone through climate cycles in the part, this is just part of nature
Reality: The world does go through cycles, but very gradually. The reality is that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have shot upwards much, much, much faster than ever before. There is no precedent for this big a change this quickly, except for catastrophic events like astroid strikes.
2. Scientists have been wrong about climate in the past so we shouldn't believe them now.
Reality: This is akin to arguing that we shouldn't believe in computers becase some scientists once believed in alchemy. The fact of the matter is that in the last half century the data that we have on the climate has grown exponentially, as have computer modeling programs. Citing scientific blunders in the past is an avoidance of arguing the facts.
3. The temperature is only projected to increase a few degrees. What's the big deal?
Reality: "A few degrees" may not sound like much, but consider the fact that the last time glaciers covered as far south as Ohio it was only 9 degrees Farenhieght different than the temperature today. Seemingly minor shifts have big effects, and worse: once the counter balances are overwhelmed, the increase will continue to grow unabated.
4. There isn't complete consensus within the scientific community. Why jump to conclusions if they don't know what's going on?
The news media has become so sensitive to being accused of having a bias that they have to make sure that all their articles are "balance". What "balanced" means is that you have to give equal treatment to each side. This apparantly remains true even if one side represents 95% of the scientific comunity. If you want useful information, read journals like "Science", and "Nature". These magazines are peer-reviewed, meaning any article that they publish is subject to scrutiny, and must meet fairly rigorous standards in order to make it in. And you will never see an article by a global warming skeptic make it into one of these journals.
One of the biggest challenges a modern American government faces is explaining complex political ideas in ways that they can be easily understood. In many cases, political parties take short cuts through simplifying the idea. Often that over-simplification takes on the form of a moral maxim.
Example:
Each party is right now trying to boil their ideas on Iraq down to this simplification: BLANK is the best way to support our troops.
If you're a Republican, insert "Staying the course".
If you're a Democrat, insert "Bringing them home."
In each case, the argument is much more complex, but in a word of sound bites and 30-second attention spans any argument that can't be conveyed in 10 words or less is worthless.
Oversimplification and Climate Change
My pet issue of climate change is a major battlefield in the war of over-simplification. Being a largely scietific debate, it is easy to take numbers out of context in order to argue for or against it. In this debate, scientists produce data, and then politicians sift through that data to find information that will support their side.
The following are a number examples out-of-context information that global warming deniers roll out in defense of their argument:
The Arguments and Reality
1. The world has gone through climate cycles in the part, this is just part of nature
Reality: The world does go through cycles, but very gradually. The reality is that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have shot upwards much, much, much faster than ever before. There is no precedent for this big a change this quickly, except for catastrophic events like astroid strikes.
2. Scientists have been wrong about climate in the past so we shouldn't believe them now.
Reality: This is akin to arguing that we shouldn't believe in computers becase some scientists once believed in alchemy. The fact of the matter is that in the last half century the data that we have on the climate has grown exponentially, as have computer modeling programs. Citing scientific blunders in the past is an avoidance of arguing the facts.
3. The temperature is only projected to increase a few degrees. What's the big deal?
Reality: "A few degrees" may not sound like much, but consider the fact that the last time glaciers covered as far south as Ohio it was only 9 degrees Farenhieght different than the temperature today. Seemingly minor shifts have big effects, and worse: once the counter balances are overwhelmed, the increase will continue to grow unabated.
4. There isn't complete consensus within the scientific community. Why jump to conclusions if they don't know what's going on?
The news media has become so sensitive to being accused of having a bias that they have to make sure that all their articles are "balance". What "balanced" means is that you have to give equal treatment to each side. This apparantly remains true even if one side represents 95% of the scientific comunity. If you want useful information, read journals like "Science", and "Nature". These magazines are peer-reviewed, meaning any article that they publish is subject to scrutiny, and must meet fairly rigorous standards in order to make it in. And you will never see an article by a global warming skeptic make it into one of these journals.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Ultimately flawed
Introduction
Utlimate frisbee is a sport still in its formative years. It is growing in popularity and immensely fun to play, but I believe that a fatal flaw is holding it back from becoming a great spectator sport.
Analysis of what makes ultimate spectator-unfriendly
As it stands, ultimate in an offense-dominated game. It is expected and probable that an offense will score. Most games are decided by which offense screws up more. This creates an incentive to be careful and to not take chances, not a good recipe for a spectator sport.
Incentives in sports:
Baseball players have to take a chance and swing or strike out. Football teams must take a chance to maintain possesion. Basketball teams, likewise, must take a chance or the shot clock will run out.
Soccer is another example of another sport without an incentive to take a chance. Though I love soccer, it has trouble competing in America because it has relatively less action than the major sports here. Soccer's problem is also one of incentives: teams have little motivation to attack and lose possesion, especially if they're ahead. Hence, much of the game is passed with one team playing it safe, shots on goal and fast breaks are infrequent, and ties are common.
This phenomenon is certainly present in ultimate, both by the UPA (games played to a certain number of points) and MLU (timed games) rules. In the case of the UPA, teams are rewarded for efficient, high percentage throws and punished for taking chances. With the MLU rules, teams that are ahead will quickly hit on the idea to have everyone but 2 or 3 players go sit in the endzone, while those couple players bleed out the clock playing keep-away.
The stall count as a failed incentive:
When ultimate was conceived, the stall count was implemented to provide the impetus to keep the game moving, but players have gotten good enough to keep the disc alive by making short passes without a significant risk. Thus, the stall count no longer serves its intended purpose, and elite-level ultimate features teams moving cautiously down the field until they have a high percentage chance.
Furthermore, a team coming from behind in ultimate has no real incentive to start taking risks. Games are played until a team has scored a certain number of points, so if you fall behind there is no incentive, as there is in any other major field-sport, to attack quickly before time runs out. Even in tournament play, where games can be capped by time, you aren't beat until the other team scores, so the incentive again is to be cautious and not take risks.
Next time, on Eclexia:
Stay tuned for the next post, which will outline a strategy for getting ultimate back on track as an exciting spectator sport.
Utlimate frisbee is a sport still in its formative years. It is growing in popularity and immensely fun to play, but I believe that a fatal flaw is holding it back from becoming a great spectator sport.
Analysis of what makes ultimate spectator-unfriendly
As it stands, ultimate in an offense-dominated game. It is expected and probable that an offense will score. Most games are decided by which offense screws up more. This creates an incentive to be careful and to not take chances, not a good recipe for a spectator sport.
Incentives in sports:
Baseball players have to take a chance and swing or strike out. Football teams must take a chance to maintain possesion. Basketball teams, likewise, must take a chance or the shot clock will run out.
Soccer is another example of another sport without an incentive to take a chance. Though I love soccer, it has trouble competing in America because it has relatively less action than the major sports here. Soccer's problem is also one of incentives: teams have little motivation to attack and lose possesion, especially if they're ahead. Hence, much of the game is passed with one team playing it safe, shots on goal and fast breaks are infrequent, and ties are common.
This phenomenon is certainly present in ultimate, both by the UPA (games played to a certain number of points) and MLU (timed games) rules. In the case of the UPA, teams are rewarded for efficient, high percentage throws and punished for taking chances. With the MLU rules, teams that are ahead will quickly hit on the idea to have everyone but 2 or 3 players go sit in the endzone, while those couple players bleed out the clock playing keep-away.
The stall count as a failed incentive:
When ultimate was conceived, the stall count was implemented to provide the impetus to keep the game moving, but players have gotten good enough to keep the disc alive by making short passes without a significant risk. Thus, the stall count no longer serves its intended purpose, and elite-level ultimate features teams moving cautiously down the field until they have a high percentage chance.
Furthermore, a team coming from behind in ultimate has no real incentive to start taking risks. Games are played until a team has scored a certain number of points, so if you fall behind there is no incentive, as there is in any other major field-sport, to attack quickly before time runs out. Even in tournament play, where games can be capped by time, you aren't beat until the other team scores, so the incentive again is to be cautious and not take risks.
Next time, on Eclexia:
Stay tuned for the next post, which will outline a strategy for getting ultimate back on track as an exciting spectator sport.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Swapping screens
The formula
Here is the formula movie studios employ when considering whether or not to make a sequal"
(Cost of making a movie) -(Money that movie makes) = X
If X is positive, make a sequel. Repeat equation until X < 0.
Silver Screen to Soaps
Sooner or later, every studio will have found several movie series that makes money every time. They will never again make original movies, just pay screenwriters to keep coming up with sequels. Theater will become exactly like television, except the shows will come out bi-annually instead of weekly. You will say to your friends, "Do you guys want to go see Pirates of the Carribean 83 or Shrek 91?" Finally, the studios will just stop numbering the movies all together. Theaters will invest in permanent, unchanging signs.
...And vice versa
Ironically, even as movies are becoming TV shows, TV shows are becoming less stale and predictable. In essence, they are becoming less like TV shows and more like movies. What is behind this sudden transformation? TiVo.
TiVo means that we actually have a choice about what to watch. Television networks assumed for years that people liked melodramatic, formulaic, half-hours of canned laughter, so each one provided three hours of such shows nightly. Their evidence for this assumption: people watch three hours of melodramatic, formulaic, half-hours of canned laughter every night. This circular logic continued for years until finally TiVo came along. Suddenly, we people got to chose what to watch, and, to everyone's surprise, it turned out to be something other than melodramatic, formulaic, half-hours of canned laughter. Almost immediately, people discovered that there were a few good shows out there. These shows became big hits, and the networks suddenly realized there was a market for out there for thoughtful television. As a result, (I would argue) there are more good television shows out there than ever before, and the number continues to grow. It turned out that all that was needed was a little competition to produce a quality product.
Here is the formula movie studios employ when considering whether or not to make a sequal"
(Cost of making a movie) -(Money that movie makes) = X
If X is positive, make a sequel. Repeat equation until X < 0.
Silver Screen to Soaps
Sooner or later, every studio will have found several movie series that makes money every time. They will never again make original movies, just pay screenwriters to keep coming up with sequels. Theater will become exactly like television, except the shows will come out bi-annually instead of weekly. You will say to your friends, "Do you guys want to go see Pirates of the Carribean 83 or Shrek 91?" Finally, the studios will just stop numbering the movies all together. Theaters will invest in permanent, unchanging signs.
...And vice versa
Ironically, even as movies are becoming TV shows, TV shows are becoming less stale and predictable. In essence, they are becoming less like TV shows and more like movies. What is behind this sudden transformation? TiVo.
TiVo means that we actually have a choice about what to watch. Television networks assumed for years that people liked melodramatic, formulaic, half-hours of canned laughter, so each one provided three hours of such shows nightly. Their evidence for this assumption: people watch three hours of melodramatic, formulaic, half-hours of canned laughter every night. This circular logic continued for years until finally TiVo came along. Suddenly, we people got to chose what to watch, and, to everyone's surprise, it turned out to be something other than melodramatic, formulaic, half-hours of canned laughter. Almost immediately, people discovered that there were a few good shows out there. These shows became big hits, and the networks suddenly realized there was a market for out there for thoughtful television. As a result, (I would argue) there are more good television shows out there than ever before, and the number continues to grow. It turned out that all that was needed was a little competition to produce a quality product.
Monday, February 26, 2007
How not to survive a movie: 2007 edition
According to conventional wisdom, the highest rate of movie mortality occurs among African American horror movie characters. In fact, killing off the black guy has become so universal that it has given rise to a counter-cliched. At this point, you're much safer walking into a rickety abandoned insane asylum if you're an African American character, simply because writers predictably avoid what conventional wisdom says is the predictable ending.
So, in light of this trend we must step back and find a new class of characters with the highest probability of not making it back for the sequel. After extensive research, we have a winner. Without further ado, the 2007 edition Most-likely-to-die superlative goes to:
The protagonist's gangsta friend in any dance movie.
The scenario
Enter the male protagonist and his homey break-dancing their way through life. Miles away, a rich, way-too-old-for-the-part girl sits waiting to have her white bread-world rocked by said protagonist.
The dilemma
How do we get the love interests together and simultaneously create melodramma, conflict, and sympathy for the male protagonist?
The solution
Kill off the homey friend in a gang-killing. This is the only possible way to write the guy and girl together. If there was another way, surely some dance movie screen writer would have thought of it by now. Right?
Incidentally: If you discover that you're in a movie and that your best friend and fellow gansta/rug-cutter is suprisingly clean and good-looking for the ghetto, you should probably be concerned. However, take solace in the fact that the only (if very large) threat to your life is gang violence. You may tease sharks, contract terrible diseases, and make any other traditionally fatal cinema mistake you please. These deaths do not provide enough impetus to get your good-looking friend sufficiently depressed and repentent about his errent ways. But the minute that rusty, ground-hugging Impala rolls around the corner, you might as well accept that plaintive violin eulogies and slow motion convulsing are in your immediate future.
So, in light of this trend we must step back and find a new class of characters with the highest probability of not making it back for the sequel. After extensive research, we have a winner. Without further ado, the 2007 edition Most-likely-to-die superlative goes to:
The protagonist's gangsta friend in any dance movie.
The scenario
Enter the male protagonist and his homey break-dancing their way through life. Miles away, a rich, way-too-old-for-the-part girl sits waiting to have her white bread-world rocked by said protagonist.
The dilemma
How do we get the love interests together and simultaneously create melodramma, conflict, and sympathy for the male protagonist?
The solution
Kill off the homey friend in a gang-killing. This is the only possible way to write the guy and girl together. If there was another way, surely some dance movie screen writer would have thought of it by now. Right?
Incidentally: If you discover that you're in a movie and that your best friend and fellow gansta/rug-cutter is suprisingly clean and good-looking for the ghetto, you should probably be concerned. However, take solace in the fact that the only (if very large) threat to your life is gang violence. You may tease sharks, contract terrible diseases, and make any other traditionally fatal cinema mistake you please. These deaths do not provide enough impetus to get your good-looking friend sufficiently depressed and repentent about his errent ways. But the minute that rusty, ground-hugging Impala rolls around the corner, you might as well accept that plaintive violin eulogies and slow motion convulsing are in your immediate future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)