As many of you know, I had the honor of meeting Douglas Adams a month before he suddenly died. He spoke at my university, and I thoroughly embarassed Princess Blogonoke (whom had joined me at the event) because Douglas Adams kept calling for questions, and so I kept raising my hand. This ultimately led to the greatest pickup line I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing. I asked him how tall he was, because the man was tall... We're talking taller than a Zappo here... and he said, "Six foot five and worth the climb." The auditorium errupted in laughter and my dear, sweet friend Princess Blogonoke hid her face in shame (and I think pride, just a little bit, it's not often your friend gets hit on by a best-selling author in front of an entire university). But seriously, it wasn't a real come on or anything, Douglas Adams was a classy guy--not to mention hilarious, even more so in person.

And so, in memory of one of the funniest writers of the modern era, and in memory of one of the best memories I'll probably ever have in my entire life, I have instituted the Babelfish on my website. I noticed that I have been visited by many countries, most of which are not entirely English-speaking. So, for my international friends from Japan, Germany, Italy, India, Poland, Israel, Argentina, Norway, Ghana, and Sweden (not to mention the English speaking countries of Canda, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom), I have decided to include the Babelfish, as first popularized in Douglas Adams's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

As a sidenote to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Princess Blogonoke can attest to this since she was there when Douglas Adams spoke about the possible movie venture, if the cinematic counterpart to the wonderful novel is really and truly sadistically bad: Don't blame Douglas Adams. He didn't want the film made because the script was not ready. Plus, none of the actors he wanted to play the roles were signed. For instance, he wanted Colin Firth since Colin is 1) great actor and 2) originally was Arthur Dent in the British television series. He thought no actor would be able to bring the same kind of humanity and humor to the role as Colin could have done. But what happened 3 months within Douglas's death? The movie was greenlighted. I remember the day I read that news I felt extremely sad, because a potentially great movie was not going to be made. Instead, a mediocre one was going to take its place.

So if you've written a scifi series of books yourself and were afraid that should they get turned into movies someday they may turn out like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (should it be a poor film), don't let that dissuade you from continuing to write or continuing to dream. You know who you are.

( 1comments )

at May 2, 2005 8:49 PM  Princess Blogonoke said...

Oh my gosh! I don't even remember how we got those tickets, but they were right in the middle of the theatre in the most awesome seats ever.

I was proud...and embarassed. Proud because my friend is brave enough to ask a famous writer a question in front of 1500 people (or however many can fit in that auditorium) and still have a cheery and delightful demeanor (as if she were talking to a guy who was right in front of her in a park and not fifteen feet away on a stage) and embarassed because I knew everyone who was looking at her could see me and probably a lot of people knew I fell asleep.

Wanna know something else embarassing? I fell asleep during his lecture. Why? It was a LECTURE! I can't stay awake during lectures! It's amazing I even made it through classes!

But anyway, yeah :-) That was one of my most fondest memories of college. Thanks.

 

I was watching Penn & Teller: Bullshit on Monday, and the topic under the knife (hyuck hyuck) was circumcision. Essentially it dealt with the medical, historical, ethical and religious reasons for circumcising baby boys. For anyone who is not entirely sure what circumcising entails, it means: cutting off the foreskin of the penis.

This began as a wholly religious symbol practiced by Jews, as a convenent with God that acts as a symbol for His chosen people, a symbol of purity. For Roman Catholics and the Anglican Church, Circumcision is actually a feast celebrating the circumcision of Jesus on January 1st. And since we all know JC was a Jew, and Jews are circumcised 8 days after their birth, then we now know why New Year's is so groovy, right?

But seriously, is circumcision genital mutilation? Today it is common practice now as a "sanitary measure" in modern surgery. But I think it is genital mutilation and here's why:

So circumcision began with the Jews as a symbol of purity. And as we all know, religion really likes to make sex an act of filthy animalistic desire. So I think it safe to assume that removing the foreskin of a penis is a way to remove the male's sexual desire. So there must be something to having a foreskin... now I am intrigued.

I researched foreskin, what it really is and its function in the male anatomy. I mean, I'm a married woman who's only ever had one sexual partner (my husband), and he's circumcised. I've never seen an "intact penis" until that episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

So here's a list of the foreskin's function:

• Erogenuous Sensitivity: Apparently the foreskin is as sensitive as lips or fingertips, and it contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptions than any part of the penis.
  
• Protection: According to NoHarmm.org, the foreskin maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness.
  
• Immunity: Eyelids are self-cleansing, right? Well, so is the foreskin. Glands in the foreskin produce an antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, as well as antibodies that defend against infection. However, this is not to suggest that males should not properly cleanse themselves in the shower. Heh.
  
• Sexual Function During Intercourse: pH balanced for a man, but made for a woman. One of the little known secrets about the foreskin is that it makes the shaft of the penis thicker and longer. So, when a boy is circumcised as a baby, as an adult he has lost a full 15 square inches of penile skin--which means the enjoyment of sex is significantly diminished when that amount of skin (with thousands of tiny nerve endings) is removed.
  

According to Penn & Teller circumcising became popular in the 1800s as a measure against masturbation and sexual activity. Now it's such a common practice that most Americans don't know what an intact penis looks like. So here's the most famous uncircumcised modern man that I could think of:


Click on the image to make it bigger. This is a picture of John Lennon & Yoko Ono on the album cover of Two Virgins. I don't think you can tell, but he is intact. There is an anecdote I read about this album cover, "'I am old enough to remember when Two Virgins hit record stores. I was surprised by the cover and exclaimed, "John Lennon is uncircumcused!' to which the female record employee replied, 'Oh, so that's what's wrong with it.'" I think that illustrates the popular asethetic opinion of the male penis. It's so common now to circumcise that most Americans don't even know what an uncircumcised penis with an intact foreskn looks like, and so it's "ugly" and so we keep cutting them off.

The most informative, and highly researched, website I found on the topic is called, "Antonin's Anti-Circumcision Page" written by a mother who opted not to cut her child. Here are the two most provocactive arguments against some the most common reasons for circumcision (all of which are found on the webpage):

1. God commands it in the Christian Bible:
If you read the Bible, you'll notice that circumcision is mentioned five times. The first four times are all in Genesis. They are all pro-circumcision. The last time it is mentioned is in the book of Galatians, chapter five verse two "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." In the Christian religion, Jesus is considered the final sacrifice to erase all humankind's sin. Therefore, there is no reason why any Christian baby should be circumcised for religious reasons.

2. It's dirty:
Most people unfamiliar with the intact penis love to argue, "but circumcising makes it cleaner and easier to care for!" This fallacy doesn't hold water, and here's why. First, the foreskin itself is the primary barrier against dirt and bacteria entering into the penis. When a baby is circumcised not only does he lose his natural protection, he has a raw wound that is constantly in contact with the urine and feces in his diaper. Second, an intact infant needs no special care. Trust me, I've been changing Antonin's diapers since day one. You do not retract his foreskin. If you are told to do so then the person telling you is in error. Remember that the person who tells you to do so does not want to hurt your son. Chances are good they really care about your child and are just unaware that an infants' foreskin is not yet ready to slide back like an adult.

In addition to the arguments against removing the foreskin, here are 5 common myths about circumcision (also conveniently listed on the previous website--as a sidenote, she has links to all of the claims as footnotes from her sources which I did not include here):

1. Circumcision prevents penile cancer.
Twelve studies have shown this to be untrue. According to the American Cancer Society, circumcision is not a preventative for penile cancer. It is one of the rarest cancers, occurring in 1-2 out of every 100,000 men in the United States. A person has the same chance of dying from a snake bite or bee sting as he does of suffering from penile cancer. The chance of actually dying from penile cancer is even smaller. The ACS estimates that 270 American men will die from penile cancer in 2005. Men actually have a greater chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer than penile cancer. It was also once believed that smegma was the cause of penile cancer. Researchers now know this to be untrue; studies have clearly shown there is nothing carcinogenic about smegma.

2. Circumcising your son will prevent UTIs (Urinary tract infections).
This misinformation is based on a flawed 1986 study performed by a pro-circumcision Army doctor. Dr. Wiswell conducted research on 400,000 infants, including girls. His study found that uncircumcised babies have a 1% chance of acquiring a UTI compared to the under 1% of circumcised. However his study was flawed in that he instructed parents to retract their sons' foreskins, taking away its protection and letting potentially harmful bacteria enter the meatus. Another thing worth noting is that newborns are more likely to have a UTI from bacteria that are already present in the bloodstream if enough of those bacteria happens to filter through the kidneys.

3. Circumcision is painless.
This is another case of doctors turning a blind eye and deaf ear toward what is clearly suffering. Babies undergoing circumcision scream, their blood pressure and heart rates increase. Some go into severe shock, and lapse into a semi-comatose state. It is also becoming better known that not only do newborns feel pain, they feel it more intensely and quickly than adults. Even light touches can register as pain for the newborn, whose nervous system isn't fully developed.

4. Babies do not remember the surgery.
It has been documented that infants circumcised without anesthesia experience more pain when they later have their inoculations. There is no doubt circumcision is extremely painful; why shouldn't the infant learn to associate extreme pain with other medical procedures?

5. It is a risk free procedure.
Besides the loss of functioning tissue and lifelong scarring there are many other complications that can arise from circumcisions. Cases of newborns losing their entire penis and being forced to undergo intensive drug therapy to live as girls is one example. Boys have also died from related infections.


More facts I found:

American Academy of Pediatrics states, "There is no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."

It popularly believed that removing the foreskin helps prevent STDs, HIV and AIDS. But that's not true. The World Health Organization published an article stating that unsafe sex is the primary mode of transmission of HIV.

So, I think circumcising is just another way to punish human sexuality, which should be a beautiful thing. (Nothing against Jewish folks because that's a religion and a culture where one of their main symbols as a people is circumcision, and that should be regarded as sacred.) However, blindly circumcising baby boys in today's society just does not make sense in the face of all the evidence. I mean, most people would not undergo cosmetic surgery themselves, and yet most males born in America during the last half of the century have had cosmetic surgery forced upon them by uninformed parents. What's worse: some of the parents didn't even have a choice, as circumcision used to be an automatic procedure in hospitals.

Most people are disgusted about female genital mutilation, but circumcision is so common now in the United States that it's not usually thought of as male genital mutilation. Luckily, we can say no and we can stop blindly following societal trends.


Resources I Consulted:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics statments on circumcision
   
2. Antonin's Anti-Circumcision Page
   
3. Foreskin by Wikipedia
   
4. Male Sexual Anatomy by Paul Russo
   
5. Prevalence of Urinary Tract Infection in Febrile Young Children in the Emergency Department
   
6. The Foreskin is Necessary by NoHarmm
   
7. World Health Organization: Expert group stresses that unsafe sex is primary mode of transmission of HIV in Africa
   

( 5comments )

at April 29, 2005 4:01 AM  Lady Calliah said...

Amen! My son was not, 1) because his dad isn't and 2) there was no WAY I was doing that to an unanesthetised baby! I can't believe people still do it (including my closest family members UGH), and I apppreciate you taking the time to edcate yourself and then others! Nice job!!

 

at April 29, 2005 10:51 PM  Ish said...

Excellent article, Sam.

Its too late for me, alas, but its definitely something I wanted to look into if I ever had a son.

 

at May 1, 2005 2:41 AM  Nicoli Ivanovich said...

As for the cleanliness issue. Uncircumsized boys have a tendancy not to clean their foreskin. Which results in that funky odor you most commonly smell on foreign exchange students.

As for it removing 15 square inches...I don't think foreskin is that large in square area. It also wouldn't have anything to do with length. But gurth it would affect.

I myself am circumsized. And raised in the Christian faith. I believe that it is not neccessary. But does improve ones hygene.

Sheman

 

at May 1, 2005 11:59 AM  Samantha said...

That's precisely it: if uncircumcised men have the tendancy to not properly clean themselves, then that's their own fault. Or perhaps their parents' fault since they never taught their sons proper hygiene.

 

at July 26, 2005 8:45 PM  Reneé said...

I saw you used my anti-circ website, http://www.huluhae.com/antonin&anticirc.html That's cool, I don't mind, just glad you gave me credit by linking to it.

I'm updating it with new information, and would appreciate your updating this as well when that's done. I don't want people reading misinformation if I can help it.

~Nay

 

So I finally did it. I went and made over the entire process for I'm A Nerdslut (The Clique). This new way is in no way related to RingSurf--that web service, although free, is a pain in the neck. If you wanted to join the web ring before, you had to sign up and get an email with a password, and then login and add yourself, then add the code to your webpage, and then they'd be in a queue, and then I'd have to move them out of it at RingSurf. It was a pain.

This way is so much easier because it's basically just signing a guestbook. Nothing flashy. You stick the code on your website as a badge of pride, and you're good to go.

At times like these, I like me.

( 1comments )

at April 27, 2005 8:07 AM  friday said...

i just really miss all those clever nerdslut e-cards...*sigh*...

 

It is official.

I am being paid to stay at home for being ugly.

I bet I'm the only person in the entire country this is happening to.

God, I hope it is. Otherwise, that is entirely depressing to think this is happening to other people as well.

The unemployment office called me to confirm the reason why I was "laid off," apparently "fired" means you did something wrong, whereas "laid off" means your services were no longer required. And the company confirmed that it was because I wasn't pretty enough for the front desk.

If I wanted this kind of judgment, I would have become a model or an actress or something where my level of attractiveness actually matters.

The horrible thing is... I don't have many weaknesses. I have worked very hard to build up a shell where no one will be able to hurt me. The one weakness I have, and it stems from a fucked up childhood where my dad would actually punch me in the face and make me repeat how ugly and unlovable and unlikeable I was, is my appearance. And I thought that I don't generally care what other people think about the way I look. But turns out I do care. And when I look in the mirror, or at my brothers, I'm always reminded of how ugly I am on the outside.

It's the one weakness I know I have, other than perhaps my family, and chicken mozzarella supreme doesn't count because ever since Wendy's put them back on the menu (for a limited time, of course) I've only had 3 (and I spend a majority of my time without chicken mozzarella supreme, so there).

So back to what I was saying, the horrible thing is that this is the one weakness that hurts me to the core and is deeply ingrained into my being, and the guys who run the company were able to somehow figure this out and take my job away over it. The way I look is not supposed to matter unless you're in front of a lens. And like I said to Jon, look is not really the right word. Because it wasn't about the way I dressed or about my clothes. It was about my face. Something I can't change.

It's not that I care if they thought I was unattractive. I care that I lost my job over it. It's not fair. And what's even worse is that I feel powerless about it.

So combine my weakness with the fact that I feel powerless to do anything about it, and it turns into a very toxic situation.

I think I'm going to write a story about this and try to expose the company for the bastards they really are.

( 3comments )

at April 21, 2005 7:42 AM  Ish said...

Definitely a mindfuck. Definitely not fair. But I'm sure you've learned that lesson by now.

Of course, you don't need to hear that from me. Despite this recent (and culturally cyclical I think) "metrosexual" craze, ultimately being a guy means its OK to be ugly. Nice luck for me. And I don't think a guy would have been fired from the job.

But then, I think a guy would likely have to be gay to get a front desk job. Not saying it to be mean, but I think the typical mindset is to hire someone "nonthreatening" who you can have power over to work the front desk. Someone you can beat up when you have a bad day. You've seen "The Player" of course? We're talking about the type of people who get mad at their boss and take it out on their waitress. I'm not saying gay men and pretty women are "nonthreatening", I'm saying that its how the minds of these fucks perceive them.

And that's not you. I think in a job like that you'd never be respected for your many talents, you'd always be a face at the desk, to look at or yell at or do lots of other things at. But you're able to do a lot more than catch things that are thrown at you.

Not that my opinion matters all that much, but I think you're better off. Being better off doesn't pay the bills, and maybe it doesn't do much for your self-respect *right now*, but I think its worth it in the long run. Which is a hard thing to convince yourself of as you sit at home.

Also: I'd recommend you write the story, it would probably help you understand it and might help someone else too. But I wouldn't hold my breath expecting "them" to have any satisfying reaction. Shame is too much to ask. They're barely human.

 

at April 21, 2005 9:54 AM  Nicoli Ivanovich said...

It's a shame that only a few people in the world can see how beautiful your 'soul' is. You have wonderful eyes. Looking into them and into your soul is comforting. I think this is your most beautiful quality.

That's what I miss most about you. Something about talking to you into the wee hours of the morning and looking into your eyes makes me think that somehow...Everything is going to be alright.

You are loved, and you love back. This is the most important feeling in life, and you make your friends know that they are loved.

 

at April 23, 2005 1:21 AM  Power_Overwhelming said...

The entire debacle was rather insane, but people get a thrill from belittling other people, however they see fit to do it. I know you can't just get over the thing by being told that you're not even close to being ugly in any way, shape or form, but hell...maybe after you're told that a few million more times it'll start to sink in.

I know what you mean about thinking something doesn't bother you and it turns out it does. I had something similar happen to be at work over a span of months, but I think we're all beyond that now. It happens. It's just a matter of pushing away the people that offended you in the first place and embracing those that you care for and vice versa. You're a tough cookie though...you've been through a lot and survived. And if you want to talk about it anymore, you've got a throng of people who will be more than happy to help you.

 

I just signed up with Associated Content, it's a place where you can submit articles (or blog entries, or heck, probably even old papers from college) and get paid for it. I highly suggest making money on stuff you've already written.

( 1comments )

at April 17, 2005 7:39 PM  Lorie said...

Constant Content is another place where you can sell such things. (I was about to tell you about it last night when we started talking about Associated Content, but then the site was down.) Except the way Constant Content works is that you have to put your articles up for sale, and then they're available for anyone who wants web content to come and buy them. I haven't sold anything through them, but I've just got a couple of things posted and I've never written in response to any of the requested topics. Just another place to consider.

 

I have been giving my site the complete overhaul since noon yesterday. It's now 6:03 AM, and it's all thankfully done. I didn't even skimp on portfolio or resume information. I did it all. Okay, well, the articles from two summers ago are not formatted to fit the design--but whatever. Everything else is congruent.

It took me 4 hours to get this blog design together. Mostly it took a long time to put my favorite scene from Kill Bill in O-Ren Ishii's silhouette over there. I had to keep turning the text at certain degrees. Plus, I'm using a caveman version of PhotoShop (5.5--bleech), but at least it got done.

I'm so proud of the design. I mean, Jon Stewart was good to me. But I think O-Ren fits me better.

( 2comments )

at April 15, 2005 10:24 AM  Nicoli Ivanovich said...

Lucy Liu is Yummy!!!

 

at April 19, 2005 4:33 PM  Princess Blogonoke said...

The site looks awesome! Nice job :-)

 

I made crub stuffed portabella mushrooms with roasted tomato basil pasta, with chocolate mousse for dessert.

It was so delicious.

It's a wonder I didn't fall asleep afterwards.

Sadly, no theme ingredient. But I'm sure the judges would have loved it all the same.

( 1comments )

at April 17, 2005 8:42 PM  Princess Blogonoke said...

Masahiko Kobe would be proud :-)

 

Not me. Oh god no.

But Michelle Branch and Britney Spears are.

Why is motherhood suddenly trendy? Okay, well, it isn't sudden. I've been noticing a distinct heightened awareness of all things maternal ever since Rachel got knocked up on Friends, which happened to be the same year Piper got impregnated on Charmed.

I blame September 11th.

Okay. Well, I don't. But I do blame the Republican propaganda that glorifies 1950s ideals of hearth and home. I think September 11th ultimately has turned out to be yet another avenue in which Americans are indoctrinated to not think outside the designated box, which now contains:

• Marriage (As per the improved tax break which penalizes the single.)
  
• Kids (Have a kid: it won't be left behind, we promise!)
  
• And a house (no capital gains if you own a property for 2 years--and a double bonus if you own the property with somone--like a husband, wink wink nudge nudge--you get to keep up to $500,000 of appreciated value on your property instead of the usual $250,000 allotment.)
  

All this coming from a girl who got married in 2002. I guess I have no room to talk, but at least I was proposed to in the year 2000, and the date was in place waaaay before I even knew what a terrorist was.

But anyway... with all those "perks" of being married around, no wonder matrimony is suddenly the trendiest accessory around. According to Wikipedia's List of Hollywood Celebrities Who Have (Un)Tied the Knot, I then researched the status of said relationships on IMDB. Here is a comprehensive, chronological list of stars who have married and/or divorced since 9/11/2001 (in the event that the famous married the un-famous, I omitted their name because I'm lazy):

1. Andre Agassi & Steffi Graff, October 2001
   
2. Nicolas Cage & Lisa Marie, 2002
   
3. Benjamin Bratt, 2002
   
4. Charmisma Carpenter, 2002
   
5. Shannen Doherty, 2002
   
6. Julia Roberts, 2002*
   
7. Elizabeth Shannon & Joseph Reitman, 2002
   
8. Sarah Michelle Gellar & Freddie Prinze Jr., 2002
   
9. Denise Richards & Charlie Sheen, 2002*
   
10. Jessica Simpson & Nick Lachey, 2002
    
11. Kenneth Branagh, 2003
    
12. Ed Burns & Christy Turlington, 2003
    
13. Jules Asner & Steven Soderbergh, 2003
    
14. Matt LeBlanc & Melissa McKnight, 2003*
    
15. Russell Crowe, 2003*
    
16. Carmen Electra, 2003
    
17. Kate Winslet & Sam Mendes, 2003*
    
18. Liv Tyler, 2003*
    
19. Danny Elfman & Bridget Fonda, 2003
    
20. Gwenyth Paltrow & Chris Martin, 2003*
    
21. Melissa Joan Hart, 2003
    
22. Holly Marie Combs (real life Piper above), 2004
    
23. Kate Beckinsale, 2004
    
24. Nicolas Cage & a sushi waitress, 2004
    
25. Michelle Branch & Teddy Landau (who happens to be twice her age), 2004*
    
26. Britney Spears to that weirdo childhood friend, 2004
    
27. Britney Spears & Kevin Federline, 2004*
    

A list of celebrities that have divorced since 9/11:

1. Drew Barrymore & Tom Green, 2002
   
2. Alec Baldwin & Kim Basinger, 2002
   
3. Brandy, July 2003
   
4. Shannen Doherty, annulled February 2003
   
5. Angelina Jolie & Billy Bob, 2003
   
6. Harrison Ford, 2004
   
7. Nicolas Cage & Lisa Marie, 2004
   
8. Jennifer Garner & Scott Foley, 2004
   
9. Uma Thurman & Ethan Hawke, 2004
   
10. Britney Spears annulled to that weirdo childhood friend, 2004
    
11. Halle Berry & Eric Benet, 2005
    
12. Jennifer Aniston & Brad Pitt, filed for divorce 2005
    
13. Denise Richards & Charlie Sheen, filed for divorce 2005
    

As you can see, the list for marriages doubles the list of divorces, even though some of those marriages ended up divorced anyway. I spent 3 hours researching all of that, so it is in no way representative of every famous couple.

Hollywood is the beacon of fantasy, entertainment, and in a post 9/11 world, morality? If Sandra Bullock donates $1 million to a tsunami relief fund, then the nation considers her a doll. If a (married) Britney Spears gives birth, then will young women see motherhood as a sexy thing to do? I wonder if the government approached certain actors and actresses with the proposition that should they get married, they would receive some sort of bonus, monetary or otherwise. And if these couples produced offspring as a result of their unions, then, who knows, the possibilities are endless.

I mean look at the list of marriages again--see the asterisks? Those are the couples that had (or are in the process of having) a baby. And that list is not comprehensive of the women in the public eye who had children, for instance I didn't really research women in music or sports (aside from Michelle & Britney), also Reese Witherspoon and Catherine Zeta-Jones both had children, but they both got married before September 11th.

There's an uncanny baby boom in Hollywood. Is it all part of some grander indoctrination scheme?

( 0comments )

Does anyone know what a medium is?

I just thought I'd ask before I got into a whole schpiel about mediumship. Essentially, a medium is someone who claims they can talk to the dead, or spirits. Physical mediumship is when a person can physically manifest tangible phenomena, like ectoplasm (totally serious) or levitation. Usually mediums claim it is the spirits who are controlling the activity and that they (the medium) is simply, uh, the medium through which the spirits can operate.

My new favorite show right now is Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Confession: I've harbored a crush on Penn Jillette since I first saw their magical act on TV at a friend's house when I was eleven years old. But it's not cool to have a thing for a guy who's about 6'6", wears glasses, and plays the upright bass. (All which could describe my husband, no? Except he's more like 6'3".)

Anyway. Being a new fan of the show, I started reading through the Community Q&As and I found this quote by Teller intriguing, "Over the last thirty years I have been studying the history of "mediums" who have claimed to speak with the dead. The practice of mediumship as we know it is about a century and a half old. It was demonstrable bunk when it was started (by two prank-playing sisters) and it remains so today."

I took a course at college a couple years ago called The Philosophy of Parapsychology with the head of the philosophy department in which we learned about mediumship, random number generators, apparitions, tester influence, séances and psychology among lots of philosophical implications. It was a fascinating class, and I was pleased to see that in the Bullshit! episode on mediums, they stayed true to the truth: that these people nowadays, like John Edward, are performance artists (a great term coined by P&T) and the specialization is not psi functioning but psychology, simply telling people what they want to hear.

But what about the demonstrable, um, un-bunk? There have been some documented cases that are harder to explain. Cases whose subjects had no disclosure clauses, no contracts, nothing really to gain or lose. So, I was wondering what Penn and Teller's opinions are on mediums such as Daniel Dunglas Home (commonly known as D.D. Home, pronounced 'hume,' 1833-1886) or Eusapia Palladino (1854-1918)? I thought since Teller has been studying mediums, he might have heard of these cases, and so I was particularly interested to know his thoughts on these people. And when (if) I get a response to my inquiry from the infamous duo, I'll let post it.

But in the meantime, what do you think?

Because even though these two people were examined time and time again, they were never proven to be fraudulent--okay, so Eusapia tried to con the scientists a couple times, she was a poverty stricken fortune-teller trying to make a living, but they caught her, and when taken to a controlled testing environment, she still levitated tables and musical instruments--D.D. Home on the other hand, was never proven to be a fraud. His feats were even more fantastic than Eusapia. He not only could levitate an accordian, he could have it play music. There is a documented instance of him placing a live burning log on a woman's head, still aflame, and her hair did not catch fire--wasn't even warm the log was taken away.

The methods by which D.D. Home & Eusapia's cases were investigated are antiquated, sure--but I don't think they should be dismissed simply because the investigations took place over a hundred years ago. The investigators were scientists, and skeptics, and the case studies (mostly by The Society for Psychical Research) are interesting to read because these scientists are baffled: they restrained this woman (Eusapia), had her by the ankles and wrists, and were even sitting on her, and the chair still rose off the ground.

The problem is, well, the experiments did take place over a hundred years ago, and so now, those scientific reports are largely regarded as anecdotal evidence--which have been proven time and time again, isn't really evidence at all--but they were scientists of their time. So it seems like a vicious cycle of Hamlet-like confusion: do you believe, that is the question.

Is it easier not to believe because we haven’t had any demonstrable evidence of physical mediumship for over a hundred years? Is it easier to dismiss the cases as bunk because we have nothing in our modern world with which to compare the reports?

What if it’s not all bullshit?

If anyone wants more information on D.D. Home or Eusapia Palladino, or even the cases of ectoplasm, I'd be more than happy to share. But I figure, why bore you right off the bat....

( 1comments )

at April 10, 2005 9:55 PM  Gungy said...

You know I want more info!