Do You Believe In Magic? Well, You Probably Shouldn't
I like magic. The close-up kind, Vegas-style overblown illusions, even the "street" variety... In fact, I have a magician buddy who I constantly harass, begging him to bring a few "tricks" out at night with him. All so that I can sit, eyes-glazed in some dimly-lit bar, drunkenly "whoa-ing" as he makes a matchstick flit around on his palm.
I don't like people actually claiming to be magic/psychic/able to control dragons.
NBC ANNOUNCES DEAL WITH WORLD-RENOWNED MYSTIFIER CRISS ANGEL AND FAMED MENTALIST URI GELLER FOR 'PHENOMENON,' CONTROVERSIAL NEW LIVE COMPETITION SERIES THAT WILL LEAD SEARCH FOR THE NEXT GREAT MENTALIST
Are you allowed to use the word "controversial" to describe your own show... before any actual controversy has developed? Isn't that like telling people you're "crazy" and then deliberately "acting crazy" until someone notices you? What they're saying is, "we'd very much like to be considered controversial." How bad have things gotten that you can just use that word in a press release without someone calling you on it?
Does anyone believe either of these simpletons has the abilty to conjure anything other than digust in a viewer? And yet I'm sure the whole show will revolve around them holding court, spouting off about the magical, spirit realm in hokey, hushed whispers. Their supernatural supremacy, never for a moment questioned.
Criss Angel? A guy who looked at David Blaine's schtick and decided what the act needed was half the talent and double the androgyny. I don't have a set of guidelines for magicians but if I did Rule One would be "Put on a shirt," followed by "button the shirt" and finally "Please, stop bugging your eyes out."
Uri Geller? A relic from the '70s, debunked many times, most notably on NBC's own "The Tonight Show."
BURBANK - July 16, 2007 - NBC has signed a series deal with mystifier/artist Criss Angel ("Criss Angel Mindfreak"
and famed mentalist Uri Geller for "Phenomenon" (working title) -- a mysterious live competition series in which both men will conduct an intensive search for the next great mentalist.
Uhh, where's the "first great mentalist?" Aren't we still waiting for him? Is he off working for NASA?
And now you're claiming the competition itself is "mysterious"? That sounds problematic, maybe you should get the kinks worked out before you debut the show. I'm not sure "mysterious" is the best way to attract advertisers. Advertisers other than "wolfsbane" manufacturers.
"The match-up of two world-famous personalities, Uri Geller and Criss Angel -- who have demonstrated astounding skills -- makes for a riveting series format," said Silverman. "Factor in the mystery of the genre, the live competitive angle as the contestants attempt to follow in Criss and Uri's footsteps, and incredible interactive applications, and we think viewers will have many compelling reasons to watch."
The series, based on a successful Israeli version judged and monitored by Geller which achieved a historical record-breaking viewing audience, tests 10 hopeful mentalists who must compete each week to demonstrate a wide spectrum of mystifying talents on a panel of weekly celebrity guests who participate along with a studio audience. Geller and Angel will assess the contestants and offer their unfiltered opinions. Ultimately, the winner's fate will be determined by the viewers at home.
I too have an announcement. I've decided to appoint a champion from off the street to challenge their so-called winner. Either my mailman, neighbor's kid or ficus plant will move to the finals... And have a 50/50 shot at beating the "Phenomenon" champion.
The visually arresting Angel is the creator, director and star of his self-titled, alternative cable series, "Criss Angel MINDFREAK" which is currently wrapping post production on its third remarkable and critically acclaimed season.
Visually arresting = Acts "weird" in public. Which, honestly, may be his most impressive stunt. It's gotta be hard to stare wide-eyed into the abyss, gesturing furiously... when you just want to take a leak or eat a sandwich or do whatever it was that was interrupted by some dim-witted "fan."
Geller soared to international fame by claiming extreme mind-over-matter abilities that aroused much controversy to this day in his hundreds of TV shows across the globe -- particularly the ability to bend spoons, among others. He was instrumental in creating the first interactive TV show worldwide when mysteriously objects bent in people's homes and broken watches came alive.
Hahahaha. Indeed. Soared to fame by "claiming" abilities. Not proving, claiming. That really says it all. I'm surprised that didn't warrant a "mystifyingly claiming" to spruce it up.
They should've given the show to The Amazing Randi. You remember him, right? He's the guy that exposed Uri Geller... How do you not love a self-proclaimed magician-hunter? A man traveling the globe exposing psychics and scammers, that's the show they should make. At the very least, you should have him vet your own mentalists before giving them a show. "Right this way, gents, before we get started we'd like you to meet our head of human resources... James Randi."
In the '70s he put down a million dollar bounty for anyone proving actual supernatural ability. It has yet to be claimed. Sounds like easy money. Criss? Uri?
I'm sure they've just been busy.
TheCoolerKing was all set to call this article "The Wizard of Ahhhs" until Gerry_D beat him to the wizard title of the day.
International Drug Company Caught in a Lie
File this under 'don't believe everything you read,' and also 'little people CAN make a difference.'
The international pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline is paying damages in New Zealand after a science experiment carried out by two 14-year-old high school students proved that the company's soft drink Ribena, which was advertised as containing a full day's rations of vitamin C, actually contained no detectable traces of the vitamin.
As the news article in the International Herald-Tribune reports:
"The multinational company admitted to 15 charges of misleading advertising between 2002 and 2006 in a suit filed by the Commerce Commission, a consumer watchdog, after a 2004 school science project exposed the false claims.
Ribena has long been sold as a healthy drink based on advertisements that black currant juice has more vitamin C than orange juice. Its New Zealand advertisements claimed Ready to Drink Ribena had 7 milligrams of vitamin C per 100 milliliters ( 0.25 ounce per 3.4 fluid ounces).
But high school students Anna Devathasan and Jenny Suo, then 14, found it contained almost no trace of vitamin C after testing the children's syrup-based drink as part of a science project in 2004."
GlaxoSmithKline will pay $217,000 New Zealand dollars, or about US $156,000, in fineswhich is doubtless the tiniest of drops in the bucket, but still.
Caveat emptor, and three cheers for the power of finding out the answer to a question for yourself.
Who Wrote Frankenstein?
Fittingly, the story behind the creation of the novel Frankenstein is almost as famous as that of the monster itself.
Mary Shelley, only nineteen at the time, spent the cold summer of 1816 with her future husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley; Lord Byron; and Byrons doctor, John William Polidori. Due to the subnormal temperatures, the group was forced to stay indoors where they entertained each other by reading from a book of German ghost stories. When Lord Byron challenged the group to write their own stories, Mary Shelley came up with the first spark that would become the classic Frankenstein. Remarkably, Polidori was also inspired by Byron that night and later wrote what is considered to be the first modern vampire story, The Vampyre . Two horror greats were born that night. It don't get any more goth than that, people.
Now, however, one scholar is claiming that the story might not be true, at least when it comes to Mary Shelley and her monster. How did a marginally-educated nineteen-year old come up with what is now thought of as one of the first science-fiction novels, and why didn't she ever write anything of merit again? Perhaps she wasnt the author at all, according to John Lauritsen, who claims that Percy Bysshe Shelley actually wrote the novel.
Lauritsen, a Harvard-educated "independent scholar" who has spent seven years in its libraries comparing the texts of Shelley's great works such as Ozymandias with his wife's subsequent books, says Frankenstein was too profound to have been created by an "ill-educated 19-year-old whose later writings were just ordinary".
He says some of the language, with lines such as "I will glut the maw of death", were pure Shelley, and that the young aristocrat wrote a handful of fashionable horror tales that echo the later tone of Frankenstein. Lauritsen said Shelley had many reasons to disguise his authorship, including hints of "free love" that had already driven him out of England and an undertone of "Romantic, but I would not say gay, male love".
Lauritsen also points out that the first edition of Frankenstein was published with no author credited and was roundly panned by the critics of the time. Obviously, a book like this is going to cause some controversy, but at least one critic, Camille Paglia, writing in Salon sees the novel as not only an important investigation, but a shot fired across the bow of academia as well.
Lauritsen's book is important not only for its audacious theme but for the devastating portrait it draws of the insularity and turgidity of the current academy. As an independent scholar, Lauritsen is beholden to no one. As a consequence, he can fight openly with myopic professors and, without fear of retribution, condemn them for their inability to read and reason.
Will a village of angry scholars armed with pitchforks and torches be coming for Lauritsen when his book, The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein comes out next month? Only time will tell.
Nader Fined for Election Fraud
Ralph Nader and the Green Party are back into politics this season with another potential spoiler candidate in the Pennsylvania senate race. Carl Romanelli was, until very recently, a little known third party candidate who was just hoping to get on the ballot and generate some press for his party. That is, until Democrats got their panties in a bunch at the thought of a Green party candidate coming into the race and siphoning off votes from snooze inducing Democrat (but still infinitely preferable to the Republican alternative[/URL[) Bob Casey jr. The plot thickened when it came to light that Republicans subscribed to this theory as well and were taking advantage of it by bankrolling Romanelli's effort to get on the Pennsylvania ballot. Democrats protested, and now courts are agreeing, efforts by Nader and the Green party to get Romanelli into the race have been highly fraudulent - questioning the very legitimacy of Romanelli's candidacy, and incurring large fines on Nader and the party to defray court costs.
...the state Commonwealth Court found wide-ranging improprieties among Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo's petition signatures and disqualified nearly two-thirds of the 51,000 signatures they submitted.
The Commonwealth Court opinion described the Nader-Camejo petitions as the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court.
Signatures were filed for Mickey Mouse and Fred Flintstone, and thousands of names were created at random, the lower court found.
Five state Supreme Court justices said Mr. Nader, a native of Winsted, Conn., and Mr. Camejo must pay the plaintiffs' transcription and stenography costs and handwriting expert fees.
Given the magnitude of the fraud and deception implicated in (their) signature-gathering efforts, their claim that the Commonwealth Court acted in an unjust and unconstitutional fashion by assessing transcription and stenography costs does not pass the straight-face test, Justice Sandra Schultz Newman wrote for the majority.
It's garbage like this that gives third party candidates a bad name. Whether they actually are spoilers for "major" candidates really doesn't matter, Democracy is about choice, and giving people more choices, even if they aren't necessarily good ones, isn't a bad thing. But efforts like this most recent one, that cheat and avoid state rules just in a vain attempt to increase the profile of the party are counterproductive, particularly when they're discovered. This kind of crap only servers to turn people off of third parties and further the perception that their candidates are "unelectable."
Tobacco Companies are Big, Fat Liars
Any third grader can (and often will, sometimes unprovoked) lecture adults about the dangers of smoking cigarettes, and the myriad of health problems that accompany this addictive habit. Regardless, many of us are dumb enough to continue smoking, in spite of the wealth of information looking us in the face telling us to stop. But big tobacco companies haven't exactly been helpful in providing useful information to help people quit, and for years were deliberately obstructive in getting people accurate information about the effects of their product. And despite mountains of scientific evidence indicating the addictive qualities of smoking, executives at major tobacco corporations insisted for years that in fact cigarettes are not addictive while downplaying the negative side effects of smoking. No longer. Today a federal court ruled in favor of the US in a lawsuit filed against virtually every major American tobacco company, declaring their activities fraudulent and finding them guilty of racketeering.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the industry conspired for decades to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking and now must pay to help smokers kick the habit.
Sharon Eubanks, who recently stepped down as the head of the government's tobacco team said of the cigarette makers, "This is the first time they've been found to violate the racketeering statute. For crying out loud that's significant. They're racketeers."
The government had asked the judge to make the companies pay $10 billion for smoking cessation programs, though the Justice Department's own expert said $130 billion was needed.
The case is significant in that it finally forces executives at big tobacco to admit not only the harmfulness of their product (that and the fact that they had deliberately engineered advertising campaigns targeting children and teenagers had already been brought to light in court) but that they have gone out of their way to orchestrate an organized campaign of lies to continue deceiving the American public about what its own researchers already knew.
From a public health perspective smoking remains one of the most problematic activities in the US, and even though smoking rates have declined in recent decades, cigarette related illnesses remain a major obstacle to public health initiatives. Maybe the admission of tobacco companies that they have been deliberately lying and conspiring to keep the truth from consumers will help convince some people that really, it is that bad for you.