I just know you’ve been asking yourself, “I wonder what Penn Jillette is reading right now?” It should be interesting stuff, for he’s a famous magician, atheist, libertarian, and generally outspoken and intriguing guy.
Well, maybe that question hasn’t crossed your mind, but it did occur to the people at the books section of the New York Times, who, a week ago, conducted a “By the Book” interview with Jillette. I won’t spoil all of it for you (hint: he likes to read in en déshabillé), and it’s longish, but here’s a few tidbits to whet your appetite. These are the gossip-y rather than the literary bits.
What are your reading habits? Do you stick with electronic everywhere? Do you take notes? Do you snack while you read?
Besides the bathtub and rehearsals, I also like to read in coffee shops (I read anywhere I’d like to be naked). I always read electronic, mostly iPad. I won’t touch paper any more even if water damage costs me a few devices. I highlight and take notes like a freak, and I have notes on my computer from every book I’ve read since 1985. Before 1985, I have no evidence there were books. Snacks are always good, even in the bathtub; I like a pot of decaffeinated tea, and some ginger snaps or some peanut butter right out of the jar. If I’m on the road, I eat cashews and wicked-expensive little orange juices from the minibar while I read in the tiny tub.
If someone walked into your office while you were writing, what would they see?
Me in just boxer shorts at the most, with a big pot of tea and three of the biggest computer screens you’ve ever seen. I like to pretend I’m commanding a starship while I’m writing. On the center monitor I have whatever I’m writing. I have it huge, so less than one page takes up the whole screen in a stupid, stupid big font. I have it just black and white, no color on the screen and no toolbars. Each letter is about a half-inch high, and it takes up my whole field of vision. On the left monitor I have camera feeds from all around my house so I can check on my family to break my focus. Also on that left monitor I have small windows of iTunes, MOG and Spotify all open. One of those is playing nutty jazz, like Sun Ra, nutty loud. On the right monitor I have a lot of browser windows open, some with research, some with porn. Between the center and left monitor I have a clear, big hourglass that’s timing the 45 minutes of writing I have to do before I can check my mail again.
If you could meet any writer, dead or alive, who would it be? What would you want to know? Have you ever written to an author?
I’ve met Nicholson Baker, Richard Feynman, Hitchens and Dawkins, and they would be top of my list. I never met Melville, of course, and I’d like to ask him to talk to me about God. I write fan letters all the time. The latest ones are to Daniel Kahneman, Lawrence Krauss and Emma Donoghue.
Did any of them write back? Who wrote the best letter?
It used to be that none of them wrote back; now all of them do. I wish I could say it was because I was successful, but I think it’s more likely that it’s just easier to write mail now without those pesky envelopes and stamps to worry about. The best mail was always from Hitchens — and I don’t imagine he will ever be beat.
Indeed. I have a very few emails from Hitchens (part of a group discussion), and they’re primo stuff.
As for the books Jillette’s reading now, his favorite books of all time, what’s the best book on science he’s read this year, and what he plans to read next, you’ll have to go see for yourself.
Not generally a fan of magic shows, but could always watch Penn and Teller. It is a good idea to read and snack naked, that way you don’t get crumbs in your clothes – not advisable in cafes though.
He’s a pal of Glenn Beck. I think you can watch some vids of them talking religion on youtube. Penn making sense and Beck just gawking at him with nothing to say
The reading habits of blowhard libertarians don’t interest me.
What an insightful comment, AdamK. Thanks for sharing.
Oh yes they do.
Any chance you could post those email exchanges with Hitchens?
Yeah, no offense to Penn but the part about Hitchens’s made me really curious. What makes those emails special? Is it possible to give some details?
David Gorski once mildly and resonably criticised Penn Jillette for his sycophantic performance on the Doctor Oz Show and was subsequently verbally pummelled to death by him when he attended Jilette’s post TAM party.
I find it hard to have any respect for the big guy after that. In fact he comes across to me now as just a loud mouthed buffoon.
And, yeah, his climate change waffle and mindless libertarianism…
So is it only possible to respect someone with whom you are in complete agreement on every possible position ?
Can your question also be no less reasonably directed to Mr. Gillette, re: his giving chin music to Mr. Gorski?
Yes.
The combination of global warming denialism, disregard for the environment, and objectivism is a recipe for total asshole. The essential attitude is: fuck everything up, don’t give a shit about what happens or who ultimately pays, deny the consequences anyway, and get money. It’s beneath contempt.
Jillette doesn’t “deny” anthropogenic climate change:
“the preponderance of information seems to be there is climate change and it is anthropogenic.”
http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-12-morality-religion-and-bullsht-an-interview-with-penn
The sentence you quoted begins with, “Although I used to be more skeptical…” It is not really possible for me to take seriously someone who has, at any time, been a global warming skeptic. It’s a sure sign that ideology has the upper hand on reality in that person’s mind.
While I’m glad he’s changed his mind on that one issue, it makes little practical difference overall. He’s still heavy into Randian objectivism, anti-ecology, fuck the Earth, environmental deregulation, make money at the expense of others and the environment, fuck-the-poor-style libertarianism.
The next sentence after that quote is, “Although I still don’t know that the best solution is just a stronger government.” Anyone familiar with this kind of Randian nonsense knows exactly what that means: do nothing, and the free market will save us all. Bullshit!
The sentence you quoted begins with, “Although I used to be more skeptical…” It is not really possible for me to take seriously someone who has, at any time, been a global warming skeptic.
I’m not sure what a “global warming skeptic” is supposed to be. It just seems to be a noise phrase, like “global warming denialist.” Skepticism isn’t an either/or. It’s a matter of degree. It would have been highly irrational not to be skeptical of global warming before there was strong evidence for global warming. So your “at any time” statement above makes no sense. And your previous assertion about Jillette’s beliefs is just flat wrong, as the quote I provided demonstrates.
LHe’s still heavy into Randian objectivism, anti-ecology, fuck the Earth, environmental deregulation, make money at the expense of others and the environment, fuck-the-poor-style libertarianism.
It is not really possible for me to take seriously someone thinks this kind of vacuous rhetoric constitutes a serious criticism of Jillette’s political views.
It would have been highly irrational not to be skeptical of global warming before there was strong evidence for global warming. So your “at any time” statement above makes no sense.
You’ve lifted the clear meaning of a statement from its context and then derived a contradiction. That’s an illegitimate move (though common on the Internet). Obviously — obviously! — we’re not talking about climate science in the 1970s! It’s also a common misconception that “global cooling” and other hypotheses were once commonly held by scientists; they were not.
And your previous assertion about Jillette’s beliefs is just flat wrong, as the quote I provided demonstrates.
I already said that I’m glad that he changed his mind. Please read more carefully.
It remains that no reasonable evaluation of the evidence could possibly lead to “skepticism” about global warming. (Again, we’re obviously not talking about the 1970s!) On the other hand, climate denialism closely aligns with the anti-ecology/fuck-the-Earth-for-money ideology intrinsic to objectivism.
It is not really possible for me to take seriously someone thinks this kind of vacuous rhetoric constitutes a serious criticism of Jillette’s political views.
Right back at ya. 😉
The new platform for climate change denialists is; yeah, it is happening and its too late to do anything so burn as much fossil fuel as possible. Mortgage the house buy some more. Send everything you own to the trash heap and buy another round. Librarians and rethuglicans are self-centered, selfish people that don’t care about how bad the life they leave for their grandchildren is.
There are very good reasons far beyond AGW to care about the planet and the destruction that humans are causing.
You’ve lifted the clear meaning of a statement from its context and then derived a contradiction.
No I haven’t. Your “at any time” claim is simply nonsense. Claims require evidence to justify belief. Claims that are not supported by evidence, or that are only weakly supported by evidence, should be viewed with skepticism. The weaker the evidence, the stronger the skepticism. When the evidence for global warming was weak, it was perfectly rational to be strongly skeptical about it. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the nature of skepticism.
Not sure if those charges are entirely correct but he is a nut. I remember he was on Bill Maher once where he quipped he tacks Left on God and Right on economics – or something to that effect. If atheism showcases critical thinking of how can one have the mother of all blindspots in any given area? When it comes to science the man defers to Krauss and Pinker. Well what a good boy. When it comes to economics then read books or essays by people who are accomplished economists. There is Krugman, Stiglitz, Jeff Sachs, John Cassidy and Amartya Sen for starters. If that bumps into his sense of group allegiance then give Mankiw – a Republican adviser- a shot. Of supply side economics in the Murdoch Street Journal he said it’s the stuff of cranks and charlatans! Even Adam Smith of centuries ago would have scoffed at him – he who deployed the invisible hand metaphor had equally impressive insights into the corrosive effects of plutocracy and penned works like the Theory of Moral Sentiments. It’s not that Penn merely has a different opinion. But his opinion is not based on anything remotely credible. Someone who gets his econ from bug-eyed writer of mediocre fiction novels is a joke.
Anyone who has Glenn Beck as a pal can’t be all good. I enjoyed Jon Stewart’s comment re Beck: Gawd I miss that guy.
Something a tad trogloditic about the man. Which explains the liaison with full on balls to the wall troglodyte Beck. Something with which we put up – enemy of my enemy and all that.
Gee, the criticisms of Jillette offered by various commenters here are really powerful and compelling: “asshole,” “mindless,” troglodyte,” buffoon,” “blowhard.”
Gillette is really a terrible skeptic. Watch a few epsisodes of their show “Bullshit” on enviromental issues and you’ll understand. For exmaple, they did an episode on recyling calling it bullshit. They called recyling paper bullshit? Why? Because according to them we’ll not run out of paper because we can always plant more trees. He has denied global warming in the past using the following logic:
Someone asked Penn whether he still believed that man-made climate change is bunk, as he has said more than once. Penn’s basic answer was: I loathe everything about Al Gore, so since Gore has been crusading against climate change it must be garbage.
In his show, he has also questioned the effects of second hand smoking using similarly ridiculous logics.
Sure, he has corrected himself on some of the points above but still the point stands that he’s a terrible skeptic. He’s extremely ideological and his first reaction is to accept/reject things based on flimsy ideological grounds (as the above examples clearly show). And don’t even talk to him about finer or more naunsed points such as political ideology. He would show zero ability to keep an open mind and be objective.
Predictably, you provide no actual quotes or citations to support your claims. I seriously doubt that Jillette said that climate change must be garbage because he loathes Al Gore, unless it was a joke.
Okay, here’s their episode on second hand smoking where the amazing skeptical abilities of Jillette shines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6WITuzkS_g
You do know that in a later episode they publicly retracted their claims.
This is in part how scepticism works, knowing that all truth claims are provisional based on your current understanding and being willing to change your stance when presented with new evidence.
There you go again wih the innuendo and vague allusions. What specifically does Jillette say about second hand smoking that you dispute? Give us an exact quote or a time stamp on the video.
You are boring. So you didn’t bother to watch it and want me to quote the video? No thank you. I would rather not waste my time arguing with someone who doesn’t even have the basic decency to look at the evidence he is given.
So you didn’t bother to watch it and want me to quote the video?
Again, what specifically does Jillette say about second hand smoking that you dispute? Give us an exact quote or a time stamp on the video. If you cannot even state your claims clearly or produce evidence that they are true, they don’t deserve to be taken seriously. All you’ve offered so far is vague innuendo and unsupported assertion.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” –Christopher Hitchens.
And here is Jillette reciting old, bunk, and rejected anti-AGW talking points, like a good old creationist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v4Q9Wv10Ho
Yep, it’s hits many of the ridiculous anti-AGW talking points: the scientists said before we’re going to an ice age, here a weatherman who disagrees with AGW, Al Gore is “a pushy asshole” (that’s one of mildest insults they throw at Al Gore in the show), it’s all because of the solar cycles not carbone dioxide, enviroomentalists are bullies, blah blah blah.
it’s all because of the solar cycles not carbone dioxide
Where does Jillette say “it’s all because of solar cycles not carbon dioxide?” Give us a timestamp.
Oh and I forgot. And something that really reduced my respect for him was that when confroned with all the inaccuracies in his show, his defense was to basically say that it’s just an entertainment show. That’s a very childish and immature response. Instead of accepting that perhaps he should switch his methods to be more evidence-based and less ideological, he cowardly hid behind an excuse that “It’s just entertainment”.
By those standards, the bullshit episode about the ADA was pure entertainment gold!
Yes, that episode was totally ridiculous too.
And this shows that the standard of getting accepted in the Atheist/skeptic community is pretty low. If you are funny and/or eloquent, you just need to do reject some obvious BS such as religion, crystal healing, homeopathy, ghosts, and anything whose rejection should be a bare minimum sanity check and then you are in business. The fact that Maher got Dawkins award is another example of low standards of the community.
To his credit you can hear Jillette say that he finds it a huge privilege that people like, I think it was Sam Harris, would even speak to him because he does not consider himself in their league. Übercretin Glen Beck is more his speed.
As far as Maher is concerned – You go to war with the army you’ve got not the one you’d wish. Which also applies to Jillette.
What other issue do you have with Maher aside from the vaccinations thing?
Jillette’s stage art is very entertaining, but I agree with Sidd, Trophy and other commenters that Jillette is powerfully uninformed about climate science and economics. Jillette should focus on his strengths instead of engaging in the buffoonery driven by his political leanings. Jillette’s book “God No!” is also a huge disappointment, unless you really like crude, juvenile bathroom humor.
“Jillette’s book “God No!” is also a huge disappointment, unless you really like crude, juvenile bathroom humor.”
Unsurprising now that we know how he writes his books 😀
$#!+, I thought I was all alone in concluding Jillette was a pile of steaming dingo’s kidneys.
Reblogged this on Mark Solock Blog.