Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts

Monday, October 26, 2015

Stuff I Learned From Watching the Democratic-Socialist "Debate"

This is a list of quotes and buzzwords from the old CNN Democrat mutual-agreement-session that don’t relate to the national debt and fiscal solvency, i.e. basically all of them.  The reason it took us so long to upload this is because our sanity had to divide the program into chapters so as to avoid total mental collapse.


Comprehensive gun safety legislation
Common sense gun legislation
Common sense gun safety measures
Foreign policy is about “holding accountable” tyrants.
Scientific community
Habitable
Institutional racism
Oligarchy and democracy
People at the dinner table
Communities/people of color
Undervalue lives of black lives
Creating millions of jobs
Good jobs
Living wage
Casino speculative mega-bank gambling
Too big to fail (speaking exclusively of banks)
Climate change
Millionaire and billionaire friends
Donald Trump and his billionaire friends
Wall Street
Tax cuts that favor the wealthy
Less than 1%
I want them to get their costs down...
Enhance benefits
People who need it the most
Comprehensive immigration reform
Pathway towards citizenship
Undocumented immigrants
Undocumented children
We’re in this together.
Civil liberties
We’ve got to stop these wars.
Corporate America
Themiddleclass
Political revolution
Handful of billionaires
Voter turnout
Raise public consciousness
Come togetha in a way that does not exist now
Big money interest
The kind of change we need
Solar and wind
One of the most sustainable cities
Citing Pope Francis, i.e. religion, to justify state policy on climate change
Commitments to fight climate change
Rest of the advanced world
Not spending governmental money on Planned Parenthood is big government.
International embarrassment to not mandate paid leave.
CEOs on Wall Street walk free while marijuana smokers go to jail.
Totally obstructionist
Millions of young people will have to demand free tuition and make Republicans an offer they can’t refuse.
The coal lobby
The pharmaceutical industry
The soldier who threw a grenade at me
I’ve served at many levels.
I did it.
Working through complicated issues to find solutions
Cavalcade of financial irregularities
Denigrate women
Racist comments about immigrants
Standing on the threshold of new American progress
Connected, generous, compassionate place
Millions of people standing up to the billionaire class
Super PACs
Old-fashioned way
Averaging $30 a piece

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Everything wrong with the GOP debate

Scattered thoughts on Republicans walking right into Rupert Murdoch’s trap.


Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Samus and the Super Smash Bros: Feminist Masterpiece or Misogynist Male Fantasy?

Cross-applied is a weekly feature in the Beatissima Garbage that takes the most infamous elements of the college paper’s editorial page and doubles them through a point-otherpoint, high school debate-style format.  Two “sensitive” culture critics argue about something no one else is arguing about and try to ascertain whether it’s detrimental to or supportive of equality, diversity, justice, whatever.  If you want to contribute your ideas to a future issue of Cross-applied exclusively for The Author’s Files, please pitch your grievance or stance to theauthorsfiles@gmail.com and we’ll consider whether it’s worth duking out.

Gareth Paltrey: Zero Suit Fights Rapists With Girl Power


2015 is a great year to be a feminist.  For decades there’s been a stigma in our society against feminism, largely because the vast majority of society don’t understand what feminism means, but thanks to the outspokenness of A-list celebrities and actions of concerned corporations, the social attitude towards feminism is finally starting to sway.

In September of last year, the beautiful, talented Teen Choice Award-winning actress Emma Watson used her influence among remaining Harry Potter fans to make a powerful and deeply inspiring defense of gender equality.  Shortly thereafter, Taylor Swift met Lena Dunham and came out of the feminist closet, giving hundreds of 15-year-olds the courage to take a stand and identify themselves as feminist.  Then Hillary Clinton stepped forward despite unprecedented GOP resistance and declared her 2016 candidacy for the U.S. president, making her the first woman who counts to run for president since Hillary Clinton in 2008. Finally, we saw a wave of openly feminist, progressive movies receive widespread critical and financial success, including “Edge of Tomorrow”, the new “Mad Max,” the new “Pitch Perfect,” the new “Avengers,” and the new “Terminator” movie starring Khaleesi as Sarah Connor.

But possibly the greatest victory for women’s equality was in video gaming, an arena which has long been controlled by patriarchy and misogynistic developers.  Feminist bloggers like Anita Sarkeesian brought attention to the blatant sexist stereotyping of women in the industry’s best-selling games, and the hateful underbelly of Gamergate’s defenders rose to the forefront of the public’s discussion.  While some developers continued to churn out the same ugly, male-dominated entertainment they did before (see the horrible “The Witcher 3” for the epitome of disgusting sexist representations in video gaming), Nintendo heard the public’s call for change and answered it with flying colors, giving us one of the best and most diverse games in years.  I’m talking of course about “Super Smash Bros. for Wii U.”

Nintendo’s always been a leader when it comes to creating strong and independent female characters, starting with the original Metroid on the NES and culminating in the dorm room phenomenon known as Super Smash Bros.  They’ve had their stumbles here and there with characters like Princess Peach who exist solely to be rescued by male plumbers, but they’ve always been open to the desires of fans and quickly rectified situations deemed offensive.  When female Super Mario and Donkey Kong fans protested the weak and two-dimensional portrayals of hapless damsels in those games, Nintendo turned the tables on traditional gender roles with games like “Super Princess Peach” and “Ocarina of Time”, the latter of which is often considered the best video game for Nintendo console owners of all time.

Through three installments on the N64, Gamecube, and Wii, Super Smash Bros. added to the company’s roster of tough female characters and proved once and for all that women can kick just as much, if not more ass than men.  As everybody knows, the series’ toughest competitor is actually a woman, the agile and ridiculously OP Princess Zelda, but Zero Suit Samus is a close runner-up.  Zero Suit might look and sound like a cheap porno star to ignorants, but she’s actually the most important and feminist creation of Nintendo.

Zero Suit Samus’ redesign for “Super Smash Bros. for Wii U” reduces her to the skimpiest apparel we’ve ever seen her slip into, but she remains just as powerful and intimidating as she does in past games, impressively holding her own against Luigi, Marth, and Daaaaark Purple Pit.  In my dorm at Beatissima, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that she’s incredibly hot, but all the guys want to play as her because she’s strong on top of being fricking gorgeous.  Zero Suit embraces her sexuality but doesn’t enslave herself to it, using her stunning beauty for self-empowerment rather than exploitation.  In an ironic twist on conventional male leadership in sexual relationships, she even lashes out at opponents with a laser whip, showing who’s the real dominant partner.  Samus Aran is a rare ravishing blonde in video games who isn’t defined as a simple accessory to men and exceeds all three rules of the Bechdel Test.



A lot of conservative, middle-aged mothers have complained (not on the internet, of course; there are no girls on the internet) about her revealing skins, dubbing her combat bra and short shorts “space undies” or “stripper clothes.”  As it turns out, this incendiary backlash is exactly the reason why characters like Samus are a social necessity in modern gaming.  With the risk of making the same mistakes and ignorant generalizations they all make, I don’t want to lump all of Zero Suit’s detractors together.  Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and we should be able to have a civil discussion without namecalling and personal attacks.

With that said, the resistance to Zero Suit’s depiction in Super Smash Bros. is rooted in the same archaic, patriarchal Puritanism that misogynists used to oppress women up until the Voting Rights Act, and I mean that in the most non-personal way.  The Supreme Court has declared free speech to be a civil right, so conservatives are free to say whatever they want about Samus, but that doesn’t mean there’s any excuse for slut-shaming.  It’s 2015.  Isn’t it about time we stop criticizing and humiliating women for the makeup they put on, the food they eat, the clothes they do or don’t wear, and just love each other as fellow fetuses?

Like Katniss Everdeen, Lara Croft, and Rita Virtoshi, Zero Suit Samus provides an inspiring role model for young girls and fills a void in a gaming culture that’s often hostile to female nerds.  With more feminist characters who are comfortable in their sexuality and able to compete with men, gender inequality and rape culture will be seen for what they are, a thing of the past that’s just as outdated as racism and bullying.


Jess Dewon: Hey Nintendo, Michael Bay Wants His Supermodel Stereotype Back


Almost thirty years ago, Nintendo shocked the world with an inspiring and empowering heroine, a female Bobafett of the video gaming world.  Samus Iran made her kick-ass debut in the Metroid franchise in 1986, blasting her way through parasitic aliens and ruthless space pirates.  Samus became instantly beloved by gamers everywhere and went on to empower women all over the globe.  Samus showed us all that a woman can hold her own, even in a dark and dangerous world like Metroid’s, and can be more than just a mere object.

However, Nintendo in several releases for the Wii and Wii U, let everyone down with the release of Samus’ racy “Zero Suit”, an embarrassing tight bodysuit that serves no other purpose than to pointlessly objectify the series’ protagonist.  Nintendo’s continued use of the zero suit is an unfortunate reflection of the current state of women in all current gaming.  Whether Trip needs a leg up in “Enslaved” or Cortana decides to let it all hang in “Halo 4, women are constantly portrayed as nothing more than either sex symbols or helpless damsels in distress respectively.  Playing Super Smash Bros. is an exercise in chauvinism just as much as any Michael Bay movie or HBO original show (except for Lena Dunham’s “Girls”, which is amazing and very progressive).

But Samus’ skin-tight get-up is hardly Nintendo’s only step back from feminism and sexual equality.  For decades, Mario has had to rescue Princess Peach from the evil Bowser, and Nintendo’s games have forever been flooded with heroic male protagonists, be it Donkey Kong, or the genius Professor Layton. Nintendo has also recently acquired the racy Bayonetta series.  These poor decisions just reinforce the sadly accurate mindset that the video game industry is nothing but a giant, exclusionary sausage fest.

Samus’ zero suit shows that Nintendo can’t see past a woman’s body to create a strong, female lead in a video game without overly sexualizing that character.  When Samus wore an armored exo-suit in the previous Metroid games, she could be seen as a serious protagonist and an intimidating warrior.  Just as Microsoft would never deign to show Master Chief in a skimpy pair of boxers, Nintendo should not deign to take away Samus’ armor.  Stripping Samus Iran of her armor is equivalent of stripping her of her power and gravitas.  Its undeniable that Nintendo’s apparent objectification of Samus is nothing but disappointing and is a huge let down to the whole gaming community.  Far too many games in today’s culture push back against feminism, and to lose one of the industry’s most empowering figures is an enormous step backwards.

Still worse, Zero Suit Samus has brought out the worst in the very gamers playing, leading to racy mods, “sexy freeze-frame” compilations, sexist internet memes, and disgusting fan art on social sharing websites like “Deviant Art”.  While every woman, especially a driven character like Samus, should have the right to embrace or reject their sexuality as they desire, the zero suit feels like nothing more than a ploy to weaken Samus’ image.

Nintendo’s zero suit doesn’t further Samus’ character in any way.  It doesn’t even go so far as to show her emotional vulnerability, an admittedly necessary trait in any hero, male or female, cis or trans.  Needless to say, I find Nintendo’s choices both disappointing and distressing, and I can only hope the gaming industry chooses to reform its current ways and show a little more open-mindedness.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Supplementary Hater Debater’s Manifesto

* I hate that x-debater feels an obligation to dictate what y-debater on the opposing team can or can’t say in y-debater’s own speech.  Why can’t x-debater focus on defending his case as best as he is able and leave the defense of y-debater’s to the one who actually wrote and believes in it?  Winning by censorship isn’t really winning.  Just speak and let speak.

* I hate arguments over criterions that merely underline each team’s affirmative or negative position and never really advance the debate.  Criteria.  Because criteri-ON is the singular form of criteri-A.

* I may just hate criteria, period, having wasted in retrospect a good twenty seconds or so of all my constructives lecturing the judge that my case’s advantages are weightier than any conceivable disadvantages.  In an ideal universe, argument impacts ought to be continually compared and evaluated on an individual basis throughout the round, particularly in the final rebuttals, not fitted into a rigid, constraining box that’s decided at the outset of the first speech.

* I hate rebuttals that consist entirely of reiterating old, since refuted contentions instead of, you know, countering the opponents’ arguments with new ones.  I hate it when debaters say rebuttals aren’t an appropriate place for new arguments.  If so, how the devil are you going to rebut anything?

* I hate it when debaters phrase their tags as complete sentences, and long ones at that.

* I hate it when debaters phrase their tags as “no” or “not logical” or some other pithy, exceedingly flowable interjection that doesn’t express a complete idea.

* I hate it when debaters double-tag the latter kind, then tag it again when they actually get into the statement itself.  “My response is, ‘Wrong.’  Wrong.  Judge, the affirmative team is wrong because they’re quoting a lobbyist.”

* I hate ballot comments like this (emphasis added):  “While you are all extremely well spoken, articulate and logical you must provide evidence from outside sources, experts, to support your points.  Logical inferences are not enough… while The plan Advocate does not need to spell out the 1AC it should support Aff. plan in some of its specific points.”

* And this: “I am surprised you didn’t introduce DA’s that talk about the dangers of a Nuclear Iran.  I’m not sure I’m convinced that Iran is a threat.  Read a piece that would (indiscernible) this doubt with more ‘mph’.” (commenting on a round in which the negative team honed just one disadvantage over and over proving that Iran is, in point of fact, a radical jihadist nation, a sponsor of terrorism, an imminent nuclear power, and “a threat”)

* And this: “Interesting case, and you seem to know it well.  The pamphlet mandate seems fishy… not sure how you’re going to keep that a (secret?).”

* And especially this: “Good 1AR.  Ice cream… clear.  Kill shot – I like that metaphor.”

* I hate metaphors in debate 99% of the time.  Look at it this way: if I was a cashier operator in Hong Kong and someone was to hand me a one-dollar bill, I’d have to give him 99 cents back and ask for another bill because only a hundredth of that American dollar is any good, which means he’d have to give me a hundred-dollar bill in order to get change that doesn’t weigh his pants down.  It’s just like debate metaphors.  They wrongly make complex and erratic systems out to appear as predictable or as controllable as any everyday activity, ignoring the real issues of the policy at stake and pretending to answer contrary arguments while doing nothing more in effect than painting a pretty picture for the judge’s amusement.

* I hate hearing the words ‘import’ and ‘export’ being used interchangeably, as in “Thailand is a major importer of shrimp to the United States”.

* I hate listening to debaters ‘discredit’ evidence biased towards a certain philosophy by pointing out that said evidence is, indeed, biased towards a certain philosophy, or that it’s written by a “lobbyist”, which essentially refers to anyone who lobbies for anything that the debater is not lobbying for, as lobbyist is not so much a rigidly defined, scientifically grounded term for one participating in a “lobby” as it is a meaningless and completely subjective ad hominem word.

* I hate cases whose entire solvency and expediency is predicated solely on the fact that the case exists, i.e. where the existence of the plan text justifies the plan text and where debaters assume they need no logical or evidential proof to warrant the plan other than that some political hack beside themselves recommended it in the same form.  I hate cases that are drawn exclusively and unabridged from 100+ page “detailed” “mathematical” “studies” which never get read in whole or in part for the duration of the round (or even outside of it) but which affirmative debaters relentless pimp as an infallible, one-size-fits-all rebuttal to negative arguments just on the basis that somebody committed an obscene amount of time and misdirected energy to write up said “studies”.  I really, really, superlatively hate those cases when the purported “experts” who conceived the team’s plan have no credibility whatsoever in the area of study.  More than anything else, I hate the arrogant assumption of so many debaters that, like theirs, all other cases must be cleanly adapted from a “study” by “experts” in order to qualify as legitimate topic for discussion, as if common citizens are too obtuse and logically challenged to propose policies of their own making based on evidence and knowledge they’ve gathered of their independent initiative.

* I hate it when judges, subsequent to hearing debaters pimp their studies without actually reading them for an hour and a half, ask to “see the study”.

* I hate that someone has to read the judges’ backgrounds and/or credentials to finalists in a prepared speech category.

* While we’re on it, I think I just generally hate the inclusion of multiple judges in outrounds, at least in debate events, which are supposed to have objective winners and losers as decided by the flow of arguments and by their standing in basic debate theory.  Speech events are already subjective by nature, but increasing the size of the judging panels for debate rounds arguably exerts an inverse effect on the accuracy of results.  Quite simply, far from mitigating the possibilities for subjective verdicts and faulty reasoning in fateful ballots, the practice of soliciting additional human judgment or lack thereof in finals exponentially increases the odds of error, as demonstrated by the unacceptable 4-3 and 5-4 decisions that customarily round off tournaments.

* I hate that finalists get an extra 20 seconds or so free of charge to present a ‘roadmap’, which they rarely abide by afterwards and which the judge really does not need to know in order to flow, just because they’re finalists and that puts them in an elite class.  If you’re really the best of the best of the best within the league, you needn’t be allotted any special privileges over the rest in order to speak with clarity and order for the judge.

* I hate tournaments that split finalists into two brackets.  If the semi-finalists are so good, why can’t they debate the octo-finalists?

* I hate it when speakers try to pass off their completely secular, purely comedic interpretations as veiled religiously themed message stories.  If you’re going to perform a Christian interp, choose a Christian story or write your own.

* I hate that broadcasting has no real-world value and affords essentially no room for artistic license or creative presentation.  Everyone reads the same stories in the same tenor, with the same inflection, assuming the same insipidly “unbiased” or “impartial” outlook on the issue, and reporting the same content.  What could have been an exciting quest for the next Limbaugh, the next Noory, the next O’ Reilly, heck, even the next Stefano Pallas is thus reduced to a dreadfully boring and unprofitable quest for the next local weatherman, and not the kind that Steve Martin showed us in L.A. Story.

* I hate that broadcasting sexually discriminates against male anchors. Approximately 87% of the finalists in the category usually turn out to be young women, which just proves that judges much prefer to watch girls reading the news over guys reading it.  Send that on over to TIME magazine pronto: “Scientific study concludes women more appealing than men when saying same things.”

* I’m just kidding.  I really don’t mind that seven of the eight broadcasting finalists are girls.

* But I really do hate broadcasting.  Seriously – it’s all a contest for whose voice the judge likes listening to the most.

* I hate it when two friends are immersed in a private conversation and a third person absent-mindedly interjects himself literally mid-sentence, ignoring the presence of the one and striking up a separate conversation with the other as if he weren’t otherwise occupied.  I also hate it when two friends are seemingly having a conversation but one of them is really looking for an opportunity to socialize elsewhere, yet instead of saying so up-front and respectfully parting ways until another time, he just waits for another pal to cross their path, then promptly ditches his first friend without a word to hang out with this one.

* I hate the Chinese fortune cookie I ate two days ago which assured me I’d make a plentiful “catch” if I went “fishing”.  Who wants to catch a fish that’s plentiful?  Any old man at sea can do that.  The only fish I’m casting for is a one-of-a-kind.  Screw you, cookie-writing astrologist.  Why don’t you stop watching the stars align and get a real job that doesn’t involve trying to dampen the spirits of unsuspecting Pick Up Stix customers?

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Socialist Public School Alcohol Education, Lying, and Living By Crises

In which I argue a point that nobody else will argue, make lessons in sobriety look decidedly nonsober, and once again malign the idea of combating a problem by raising awareness about it.

Anyway, if you’re reading this expecting me to bash something for being socialistic, psych.  I’ve been meaning to write another of those critiques ever since somebody really close to my heart* requested more, but this, this is not that day.  That title is but an arresting lure to engage you in an issue of public interest that, like most issues of public interest, is utterly dull and idiotically conceived by social engineers who consider government a vital force to shield people from making their own decisions.  In contrast to EV tax credits, the Game of LIFE, hotel newspapers, your morning cup of Starbucks Joe, and many popular songs, the Every 15 Minutes scam can hardly be spun as a component of the vast left-wing conspiracy.  At an estimated $7-10k cost per participating school, what difference, at this point, could it make?  Socialistic power grab, this is not.  It is, however, an incredibly stupid waste of young Americans’ time, so stupid that you’d virtually have to be a socialist in order to imagine and implement it.  Incidentally, the policy did originate in Canada before being imported to the United States along with some other expensive and counterproductive policies, so the author of the E15M more likely than not was invested with socialistic leanings.  Still, there are far better reasons to abolish this annual tradition than the mere circumstances of its genesis, specifically that it’s a theatrical fraud and a solution without a harm, an indulgent vanity project for elitists and attention whores.  Like the notoriously pathetic administration of the DMV which introduces most teenagers to the defects of big government, it is the epitome of bureaucratic inefficacy, perfectly symbolizing every phoney statist answer to a phoney problem that ultimately spawns many more problems of its own.

In case you are among the uninitiated (and you probably are, as my web stats indicate that the Files’ readership is largely insulated from the lunacy of government schools), allow to me explain the basic premise of the Every 15 Minutes program.  According to the website of the organization that helps schools coordinate the events, “Life’s lessons are best learned through experience.  Unfortunately, when the target audience is teens and the topic is drinking and texting while driving, experience is not the teacher of choice. The Every 15 Minutes Program offers real-life experience without the real-life risks.”  The one overarching problem with this claim, aside from the wholly unsupported and airy points about “learning through experience”** and accompanying equation of sober driving habits to something far grander-sounding like “life’s lessons”, is that nothing about Every 15 Minutes can be construed as “real-life” by even the loosest definition of the word.  E15M is about as “real-life” as Santa Claus or the bogey-man whom so many exasperated parents threaten to sic upon their disobedient darlings, with the key differentiation that this bogey-man is aimed squarely at grown 16-18 year-olds instead of toddlers, making him all the more embarrassing a fantasy.

This fantasy, this laughable attempt to scare legally underage kids out of drinking, this false reply to a false crisis engineered by a revenue-hungry industry dependent on falsities to stay above water, is usually conducted over a period of two days and rests on several planks that will vary slightly from school to school.  The first of these is to transform the high-school classroom into a gothic send-up of zombie flicks and Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey; in accordance with the event’s title, an actor made-up and adorned as the fake Grim Reaper of pop culture intrudes upon the students’ learning every quarter-hour to yank a pre-selected student from the assembly and escort him away to be coated in white face-paint.   After the departure of the fake drunk driving victim, a real, taxpayer-funded police officer enters the room and reads a fake obituary reiterating that the student did indeed die in a fake “alcohol-related” vehicle collision.  The fake deceased will soon return as one of “the living dead” but must refrain from acknowledging his peers until the next day, at which time he will be resurrected from the fake grave and called upon to recite fake letters to and from his parents at an inspirational school gathering convened to share fake stories about fake people who suffered indescribably fake pain in consequence for their fake actions.

As if that deception wasn’t already intricate enough, students are also provided the opportunity to observe a fake car crash on campus around the middle of the day, complete with comically unrealistic quantities of fake blood and fake broken bones courtesy of a professional make-up team that watches too many slasher D-movies.  However, it’s worth noting that all the police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency vehicles wheeled on scene to assist the fake injured parties and arrest the fake drunk teenager are anything but fake, are mostly paid for by you, and are irresponsibly shirking their duty to prevent or answer real accidents in the process of attending to a fake one.  For every law enforcement officer who sullies his badge to appear in this heavy-handed stage production, society has one less officer monitoring the streets for incapacitated drivers who might wreak severe injuries on themselves and on others.  For this reason alone, Every 15 Minutes has probably done more to exacerbate the United States’ fake drunk driving epidemic than to alleviate it.

In any case, the point of bringing all these real emergency responders to answer a fake emergency is ostensibly to make the fake situation portrayed look as realistic as possible.  In fact, the California Highway Patrol cites “realism” as one of the E15M’s most important goals, describing at great length how to make the scene look as credible as possible.  Among other things, its 120-page manual on the subject recommends that organizers:


* “Wash the vehicle.” (so as to more effectively contrast the drunk’s violent disorder with his sober vehicle’s relative cleanliness… or something like that.)
* “Remove layers of dust and dirt.” (again, because cars involved in accidents are never dirty; this is rather like correcting the make-up of an actress playing a dying character in a movie.  A glamorous dead corpse is no less a dead corpse than a plain one.)
* “Vacuum any glass from seats to avoid unforeseen injury.” (as important as realism is, it’s a secondary priority to safety in this lame excuse for a “simulation”.)
* “[ensure that] each major action, i.e., extrication, DUI investigation, helicopter landing etc., take ‘center stage’.  Center stage should be an area where the view is not blocked by personnel, equipment, or vehicles.  Make sure the crash is close enough… if students are too far away, they will lose interest and may become disruptive.” (in order to more fully witness our stunning realism, students must be provided an unrealistically clear view of everything that proceeds.)
* “Provide ample audio equipment.  You will need at least four large speakers.  Stage the crash so personnel are not talking over one another.  Students should hear conversation between officers, victims, rescuers, dispatchers, etc.” (again, to appreciate the realism of our display, students must temporarily be endowed with unrealistically acute hearing and have an unrealistically near proximity to the events as they play out.)
* “Do not plan the crash during lunch.” (someone is purported to die every 15 minutes by this program’s doctrine, but hey, even drunk drivers have to take lunch breaks. Perhaps we should revise the moniker to “Every 15 Minutes Except ‘During Lunch’”.)


Regardless of all its proponents’ vain and contradictory measures to dress up a patently unrealistic scene as something that merely resembles reality, there’s nothing remotely realistic about Every 15 Minutes, and the make-believe doesn’t even stay at school, as the student actors are eventually whisked away to real hospitals and jails where they’ll be treated or detained according to whatever fake pre-existing conditions brought them there.  Meanwhile, budding high-school filmmakers will have documented the whole fake catastrophe as it plays out, often prefacing shots of the actual wreck with fake footage of a fake rowdy party where good kids succumb to that well-known monstrosity called peer pressure and drink fake alcoholic beverages, subsequently faking their own drunkenness and careering headlong into a fake collision.  In a way, this conceited, “awareness-raising” festivity is exactly like an amateurish, teenage-produced message movie, embodying a shallow fiction and a sham, but its faults go far beyond even that lowly form of community organizing.  Unlike all the obviously scripted short films that are produced in association with it, Every 15 Minutes presents itself as an accurate recreation of reality and deliberately uses tactics of shock and awe to manipulate and misinform teenagers.  The whole program, in principle and execution, is a sickening lie, however extravagant, sensory, and entertaining it may be to pull together.

Disregarding the total dishonesty of all the imaginary proceedings, it uses statistics that are either entirely false or flagrantly misleading.  Its title is an archaic construct, harkening back to a time several decades past in which studies erroneously showed that someone died in an “alcohol-related” accident every 15 minutes – and not even that, as Wikipedia states that the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration had approximated the rate at one fatality every 30 minutes back in 1996, when E15M was first being rolled out.  In the most recent data available for the year 2012, the NHTSA sets the same empty number at approximately one death over 51 minutes, more than thrice the value touted by the institution, and so we see that the overseers of this charade are intentionally feeding students outdated and factually incorrect numbers for dramatic effect, twisting reality in order to garner a more emotional response.

Advocates of E15M might dismiss this ‘little lie’ with the claim that 50 minutes is still far too frequent a period and that their minor distension of reality is true ‘in spirit’, but where do they draw the distinction between an acceptable falsehood and a wrongful one?  When does lying infact cease to be justified with delusions of planting a deeper knowledge inspirit?  What is the brightline?  Or has speaking honestly and supporting your statements with hard, verifiable evidence fallen out of fashion?  Heaven forbid that public policy makers should be permitted to spew whatever ideological BS they want and never be held accountable to the truth.  And yet that’s exactly what the NHTSA and, by extension, E15M champions do out of practice, for even the 1 fatality/50 min statistic is a poor reflector of the actual death rate due to drunk driving. 

On the one hand, the NHTSafety Administration – one of way too many – used to assess the quantity of “alcohol-related” deaths by counting any collision in which a driver or non-driver had any measurable alcohol in his bloodstream, whether or not the ability of the driver involved in the accident was at all compromised or whether the dosage was substantial enough to constitute drunkenness.  The institution once said that it “defines a fatal crash as alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-motorist had a measurable or estimated BAC of 0.01 g/dl or above.”  According to a member of the National Motorists Association (which doesn’t mean anything, but he makes sense), “For their own reasons, NHTSA has chosen to define an alcohol-related crash as an accident in which a driver, passenger, bicyclist or pedestrian had any measurable alcohol in their system… cause, fault or circumstance are not considered.  For example, a winter chain reaction crash on black ice on I91 involving 10 cars and three deaths would be considered alcohol-related if one of the drivers had taken some cough syrup medication that morning… refer back to the May 5 OLR study that uses the same example.”  Wikipedia elaborates on this premise by explaining, “If a person who has consumed alcohol and has stopped for a red light is rear-ended by a completely sober but inattentive driver, the accident is listed as alcohol-related, although alcohol had nothing to do with causing the accident.  Furthermore, if a sober motorist hits a drunk pedestrian, the accident is also listed as alcohol-related.”

In other words, for the purposes of gauging how large a factor alcohol plays in traffic casualties, the NHTSA’s non-discriminating, all-inclusive methodology was essentially worthless, signifying absolutely nothing, but the Every 15 Minutes executives long persisted in deferring to it as if it reliably modeled fatalities due to intoxicated driving.  The NHTSA appears to have thankfully abandoned this approach in recent years, shifting to a more concentrated and illuminating model of “alcohol-impaired crashes”, which it defines as “any crash involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher… The term ‘driver’ refers to the operator of any motor vehicle, including a motorcycle.”  Even this method, being based on an arbitrary legal statute that doesn’t intrinsically prove drunkenness and ridiculously presumes all human bodies react similarly to the same stimuli and substances, is imperfect by the administration’s own admission that, “The term ‘alcohol-impaired’ does not indicate that a crash or a fatality was caused by alcohol impairment.”

The already exaggerated data look even more insignificant and contrived when one notes that only 758 or 18% of the 10,322 “alcohol-impaired drivers” fell under the 16-20 age bracket, which should in theory be the object of the high school program’s discussion.  To cite the larger, scarier number of driving fatalities instead of the more specified and relevant one is roughly the same tactic that Democrats employed to ram Obamacare through Congress, when they continually peddled the completely unfounded assertion that 48 million Americans or however many hadn’t purchased health insurance, an unspeakably deceiving calculation which entailed among other things hordes who weren’t permanent or legal residents of the States, the young and physically stalwart who had no need or want of insurance, and any high-earning people who had decided they would be more financially secure without making such an expense.  Cranking out the numbers for teenage casualties alone, we arrive at a rate of one death for every 693 minutes, which is only 4620% of the rate at which students are yanked out of their classrooms to play zombie dress-up in this solemn and deeply moving funeral rite organized for since departed people who most certainly will never rise from the grave.

Willfully and unapologetically the sponsors of E15M lie to the youth of America so as to trap them in a state of fear and ignorance.  Don’t misread my argument here as an endorsement of hedonism and debauchery; far be it from the duty of public educators to encourage drunken stupors among their protégés.  Schools should no more deny the risks and moral shortfalls of imbibing alcohol to excess than they should deny the same of committing adultery or of poisoning one’s minds with drugs or of doing anything that might lead one astray from the righteous path.  Nor should schools teach students to justify lying under pretenses of protecting the vulnerable or conditioning the young for virtue, for virtue cannot be instilled by example of vice and well-meaning deceits are the favored tool of tyrants.

This – more than the $10,000 cost to local taxpayers (which is itself a low estimate postulated by some random internet person, discounting expenditures for the wages of teachers and public workers who effectively take a day or two off), more than the negligible increase it might precipitate in traffic injuries, more than the 13-some hours lost to students who must undergo this lunacy, more than the repulsive theatricality of the whole affair, more than any other factor – is why we should commission Grim Reaper to escort the E15 Minutes theater away to the inferno of ideas which is its lot.  A fanciful tragedy masquerading as an actual one, it belittles the losses of real drunk driving victims, making their stories look like Hollywood melodrama and desensitizing onlookers to true disasters of the past and future.  An invention of overprotective liberal nannies dressed up as an educational experience, it propagates data that’s both grossly exaggerated and scientifically baseless, inciting teenagers to dread specter dangers while imbuing them with false senses of awareness.  Like any visually flashy mainstream propaganda film that emphasizes messaging over storytelling, be it Avatar, The Day The Earth Stood Still, White House Down, etc., it’s a fiction on at least two accounts, firstly because it’s a made-up scenario controlled by a director and secondly because its premise is a total crock.

To be fair, the advocates of Every 15 Minutes probably have the noblest of intentions and sincerely believe they’re taking necessary steps to resolve a genuine crisis.  Every generation wants to feel that it’s leaving an indelible mark on history, that it’s changing the world for the better.  Humans naturally long to be remembered, more so perhaps than they long to live, for death eventually claims us all, but time, the masses think, only claims those who stood by idly when evils reared their ugly head.  Hence we revel in manufacturing false crises and ethical battles, applauding ourselves for electing a (half-)black president in an unjust and racist country, taking immense and poorly considered strides to repair the nation’s “broken health care/immigration system”, begging our wise and compassionate rulers to relieve our neighbors of deadly, military-style assault weapons that altogether comprise less than 2% of all murders by firearms, assuming in paranoia that terrorists roam all about us and that every citizen poses an equal threat to the public peace, and framing the agenda to legalize homosexual marriage as a “civil rights” movement, comparable in gravity to that led by Martin Luther King Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and other figures in the middle of the 20th century. It’s petty and narcissistic and fatuous, lessening the accomplishments of real heroes and blinding people to the presence of real travesties elsewhere in the world, where people are more likely to be run over by an armored tank than a rebellious young adult.


Now that I’ve finished the 150th page of this 150th or thereabouts post for the Files, I must return to writing a fake screen story about fake teenagers wrestling with the realization of their fake existence and braving first love in a fake dystopian society that feeds the populace fake drugs to ensure that everyone is basically fake.  I really should be honing it more than this blog since my friends and I could actually make some money on it, whereas anyone can read this mattress for FREEEEE.


* Closer to me than anybody else, actually.  As in me, though I earnestly wish it was somebody else.
** Should young adults try to learn the value of maintaining their purity by engaging in impure acts?  Should high-schoolers learn the dangers of gang association by joining a gang?  Should we give communism a chance and learn of its fiscal and moral costs the hard way, through ‘experience’, before using our brains and studying history to arrive at the same conclusions?  Should… ach, the stupidity!