Showing posts with label Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Times. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Magic Tricks Amuse Even In Extraordinary Times

Add to Playlist Download   text size A A A June 26, 2010

We live in a time where we expect to see amazing things before our eyes, like space ships streaking between stars. Dinosaurs returning to life. Whole planets blossoming with beautiful blue people. So how do you expect to impress people just by sawing someone in half or picking the ace of spades out of a deck of cards? Host Scott Simon visits the Conjuring Arts Research Center in New York to talk with director and magician William Kalush.

Copyright © 2010 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

SCOTT SIMON, host:

We live in a time where we expect to see extraordinary things before our eyes: space ships streaking between stars, dinosaurs returning to life, whole planets blossoming with beautiful blue people. So how do you expect to impress people just by sawing someone in half or picking the ace of spades out of a deck of cards?

But magic can still enthrall us. Anyone with an interest in what must be the world's oldest other profession, I'd want to schedule a visit to the Conjuring Arts Research Center. It's a small, dark library in the shadow of the Empire State Building in New York City, crammed to the rafters with personal letters from magicians and books on magic that predate Columbus.

William Kalush is the founder of the center. He says magic goes way, way back.

Mr. WILLIAM KALUSH (Conjuring Arts Research Center): What's the oldest thing we know about?

SIMON: Yeah.

Mr. KALUSH: There's an Egyptian papyrus in the Berlin Museum that tells a story of a magician named Dedi of Ded-Snefru, doing an effect for King Cheops, the great - famous for building the Great Pyramid. And he does a thing where he takes an animal and decapitates it and takes its head - I think he used a duck - and shows that its head's over here and the body's over here and he puts them back together, and duck is perfectly fine and goes on to live.

SIMON: Wow. Wow.

Mr. KALUSH: And I've heard academics talk about this papyrus and they say, well, no, these are fairy tales. But I know as a magician this can be done. In fact, we created a method to do this and then actually performed this a few years back on a television show. And it really just looks like that. It looks like youve taken a chicken - we used a chicken - taken its head off, here's its head, here's its body, and you put it back together.

And now put that 5,000 years ago. This papyrus is about 2500 B.C. - so its pretty close to 5,000 years old.

SIMON: Yeah.

Mr. KALUSH: So that's the earliest. But then there's a big gap and we start getting stories about magicians performing things that we would recognize again, by the time of Christ, about the first century A.D. And then books start to be written telling secrets, and there's some really good things that we could still use as magicians today that were written 2,000 years ago.

SIMON: Like what?

Mr. KALUSH: Well, what can I tell you without tipping too much? There are ways to read minds that are 2,000 years old that still work. There are methods to take your hands in front of the entire audience without sort of covering, take a pot of oil, put it on a fire - when it starts to boil you put your hands in the oil.

SIMON: Ah.

Mr. KALUSH: Take them out.

SIMON: Yeah.

Mr. KALUSH: They're fine. Now you throw the vegetables in, which start to cook and you can make dinner. And this is a method that's still great and would still fool anybody today, yet it's 2,000 years old.

SIMON: Youve done that?

Mr. KALUSH: I haven't done it personally. I would though. I mean weve thought about it.

SIMON: This is something like Jamie Oliver should do on his show.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. KALUSH: This could absolutely be done.

SIMON: I dont want Nigella to harm herself. But in any event, I dont want Jamie Oliver to harm himself either. But in any event...

Mr. KALUSH: But then there's a jump again, and then when books start happening now, there's lots of records of books - of non-printed books, if you'd like to go into the rare book room.

SIMON: Yeah. Yeah, please.

Mr. KALUSH: Ill show you some of the things that weve managed to collect here.

SIMON: Okay.

Mr. KALUSH: It's a little bit warm, but I'm not going to turn the air on because...

SIMON: This place is beautiful.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. KALUSH: Thank you.

SIMON: And huge show posters here of, if I knew my conjurers a little better...

Mr. KALUSH: Well, there's Karmie(ph), buried alive for 32 days. Actually was an American, wasnt Indian at all - professed to be an Indian. Fannis(ph), who had now, this is in the '30s, would memorize well in excess of 100,000 telephone numbers. The books, this is where we keep all the books printed and the manuscript books before 1900. And the earliest complete book we have, originally it was written in about 1280.

SIMON: Mm-hmm.

Mr. KALUSH: The first time it was printed was in the 1470s. This example is about from 1480 and it was printed in Rome and it's in Latin. And this particular book is attributed to Albertus Magnus. He's now a saint but he wrote about a lot of interesting things, and in this book he writes about secrets and one of which is how to take a dead fly and resuscitate it, bring it back to life. And here it is, written in the 13th century and printed in the 15th century.

SIMON: Now, if I asked you how do you resuscitate a dead fly, would it be against the code for you to tell me?

Mr. KALUSH: I wouldnt tell you. No. I might tell you the path you might take to go find that method yourself. For example, I've already told you that it's somewhere in this book in Medieval Latin. You might be able to find a copy of this book someplace and find somebody who can translate it...

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. KALUSH: ...and that could tell you what the method is. I wouldn't mind helping you find the method, but I wouldn't want to just tell you the method, because what we're doing here is teaching more than just exposing secrets.

SIMON: Show a man how to do a magic trick and he does a magic trick for a day. Teach him how to do a magic trick and he does magic for life?

Mr. KALUSH: Right. Entertain him for an hour or teach him how to entertain for the rest of his life.

One of the things we do here is we have an outreach program where we send professional magicians into hospitals and they teach kids in hospitals, kids in community centers, and also kids in detention centers, how to do magic. And it's really not about physical therapy. It's really about mental therapy. It's about the ability to project yourself and to show a little initiative and built self esteem.

SIMON: I'm interested in this because (unintelligible) with a kid who's considered to be at risk. He or she learns how to do a series of magic tricks and it lifts their definition of themselves.

Mr. KALUSH: Absolutely. Absolutely. It's all about feeling like you've got some power over your own life, because it's not just about performing tricks. We don't like that word, trick. And you know, sometimes magicians use it, but I think it's the wrong word. I think that it's really about an effect and about a performance and about magic.

And so what we teach these children and the veterans is about having a power. And the power is maybe I can read minds. Maybe I want to have the power to put a solid object through a solid object. And so we create a small set of powers and let the kids choose what power they want to have. It's pretty exciting.

SIMON: There's so much that we can look at now, and for that matter youngsters are growing up with now, that seems like magic, that we know is done by special effects and it's done by computer graphics and it's just, I mean, you see astonishing things. Whole worlds are created that way. Has that made it rougher for magic - conjuring?

Mr. KALUSH: I think - to be honest, that's a great question. I'm glad you asked. And I think that it's made it not rougher. I think it's actually opened the door even wider for us.

Because one of the reasons it's special is because a great - in my - from my perspective, a great performance of magic always involves the audience, whether they pick this card or whether they choose this or when it's a mind-reading effect, what have I done with this and what am I think - these are all things that affect the outcome of the show. So the audience becomes integral.

And I think because of that factor, as long as magicians continue to use that, all of this technology, whether it's in film, whether it's the iPad - which looks like magic to me - I don't think it's going to affect the performer.

SIMON: What's the importance of keeping conjuring going?

Mr. KALUSH: Well, I think a day without wonder is really a terrible day. I think that what keeps people, what keeps science moving forward, what keeps our human spirit, is curiosity and wonder. And I think that as magicians, what we can do when the performer is accomplished, we can give you a peak into what a world would look like if magic were real. I think that if we can allow our audience to feel like there's real wonder and magic in the world, then we've done our job.

SIMON: Thanks very much.

Mr. KALUSH: Well, thank you.

SIMON: Nice talking to you. Thanks for all..

Mr. KALUSH: Yeah, this was wonderful.

SIMON: William Kalush, founder of the Conjuring Arts Research Center in New York.

(Soundbite of music)

SIMON: We have nothing up our sleeve. You're listening to WEEKEND EDITION from NPR News.

Copyright © 2010 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.

  E-mail Share Comments Print Facebook Stumble Upon Reddit Twitter Digg What is this?

Share   Pop Culture A Hollywood Story In 'Everything Lovely''Just Good Enough' Never Good Enough For the 'King Of Pop' Podcast

View the Original article

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Commentology: Times reporter to respond

New York Times health policy reporter Gardiner of Harris responded on THCB founder and editor Matthew holt's comments on the recent series of reports, which he business writer Reed Abelson questioning the science behind the Dartmouth Atlas has written.  Gardiner had this to say in defense of his newspaper's investigation:

The main point of reeds and my pieces on the Dartmouth work is that the data is simply not good enough to cause output decisions in Government 484 million dollar Medicare programme.If this point had confirmed the Dartmouth researchers, our history would be less interesting gewesen.Aber you can not even bring and in fact have repeatedly exaggerated and mischaracterized propose your own work in public settings it may be prescriptive.

An additional point was on Capitol Hill, which tend to warn administration and journalists to these popular cards from the Atlas. You have scoffed that it is a small thing, that the Dartmouth researchers do not fit your online data for price and disease. But misconceptions about these are widespread.The landmark piece of Dr. Gawande cited used who Atlas's unadjusted Daten.Dutzende stories in newspapers and magazines across the country uses the unadjusted data, criticize the health institutions. Even David Cutler, among the top health economists of the country was not aware that the Atlas offered largely unadjusted data.

Accuracy may seem a small point. It is to us.

Our Friday piece also pointed out that Dr. Elliott Fisher and Mr Jon Skinner claimed that your 2003 a negative correlation between expenditure and results found Annals pieces.In fact, the pieces found no correlation between expenditure and results.This is a negative correlation no small Unterschied.Wenn, will actually improve health cuts in spending.If no match is found, then cuts to far harder and may be more painful.We can not go to believe the work easily enormous impact on Capitol Hill had his wird.Aber Dartmouth researchers have proposed, which has this siren song reform our health care system.

In aside, when was the last time researchers saw you so deeply mischaracterize your own work? how it is possible that you claim your Annals pieces something could be if you do not? I can't remember ever happen to see.

-Gardiner of Harris

June 22, 2010

View the Original article

Thursday, July 1, 2010

A NY Times guest (inadvertently) spanks its professionals

By Matthew Holt

A couple of weeks back two New York Times reporters (Abelson & Harris) decided to take on the orthodoxy of the Dartmouth school. Frankly their efforts reminded me of England’s performance in the world cup so far—abject and inept and leaving the fans hoping for much better. Within a few hours the mainstays of Dartmouth (Fisher & Skinner) responded correctly accusing Gardiner and Harris of shaky reporting. Although that original article was particularly muddled, there are indeed legitimate questions about some of the Dartmouth research, raised by serious academics (including on the august pages of THCB), but few of those made their way into the hodgepodge that was that original article. And now in their response to the response, Abelson & Harris have descended further into the mire.

The new argument is basically this. Yes, the Dartmouth academics have done all the corrections to regional data that the NYTimes duo accuse them of not having done. But they’re not available on the website within a click, not always portrayed in the maps in the Atlas, and (horror of horrors) you’d have to read Health Affairs to find out what they’d done. And that some of the academics who read Health Affairs hadn’t carefully looked at the maps which showed unadjusted data.

So now it’s not an academic issue or a misstatement. It’s an issue of poor user interface design! Well I guess we’re used to that in health care!

But let’s not have the Dartmouth researchers respond. There’s no need because the response comes inadvertently in the New York Times this very same weekend. Abelson & Harris in their article ask the key question, “Does higher medical spending lead to worse care?” Precisely, the Dartmouth gang say unproven, but they clearly believe it to be the case. And Harris & Abelson try to hang them with that distinction.

But the punishment that should be meted out to Harris & Abelson is to read a wonderful article by guest author Katy Butler in the Sunday NYT Magazine. It’s titled What Broke My Father’s Heart. Please read it fully.

It’s a fabulous article about the real life over-treatment of the author’s father, and the havoc and devastation that caused on the author’s family—especially her wonderful mother. And it’s an inadvertent and fabulous answer to Harris & Abelson’s question.

Yes, more care, incented by the system and profitable to far too many actors within it, is worse care.

 

 

June 20, 2010 in Matthew Holt, Policy, Policy/Politics

View the Original article