 |
| Jacob Receiving the Tunic of Joseph. Diego Velazquez, c. 1630 |
Errol Morris & Ricky Jay & "Joseph's Tunic"
The painting, above, by Diego Velazquez appears with the Errol Morris column, "Seven Lies About Lying," The New York Times, August 5 and 6, 2009. Try these links for Part 1 and Part 2 of the column. If the link doesn't work for you try the following: Errol Morris archive and look for his "Opinator" columns. You can also try registering at The New York Times website and search for it, go to ProQuest and search, and go to Google and search.
Sarkis Boyadjian of our English 1C kindly sent this note to me for posting. "I googled 'seven lies about lying' and it showed up [as] part one and part two. Here [are] the links":
PLEASE NOTE: You do not need to print the pictures that accompany the Morris column.
How well do you know Bible stories? Not me. So this might be a good place to offer a link to the Biblical story that Morris discusses. Here's the link to a summary of the story from Genesis.
Errol Morris
 |
| Errol Morris (from Grantland . Photo by JEFF VESPA/WIREIMAGE) |
Grantland has Q&A with Errol Morris and links to numerous clips from his films. Both are worth your time. A fascinating interview with Morris, "How Typography Shapes Our Perception of the Truth," appears in Fast Company, a design publication. Smithsonian Magazine also profiles Morris, and The New York Times Book Review reviews his book, Believing is Seeing.
Decide for yourself if Errol Morris has a pretty good website. And after you do, watch this video in which Morris, a documentarian, talks about his desire to "recover reality."
Ricky Jay
 |
| Ricky Jay (from Roger Ebert) |
See Ricky Jay's website. For more information about Jay you can read The New Yorker's April 5, 1993 profile of him and May 19, 2011 interview with him. See Vanity Fair for a Jay Q&A and videos. What are Jay's favorite 10 films? The answer is here. More on Jay from Grantland here.
"Ricky Jay Documentary Reveals His Magical Life and Mentors," appeared in the Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2013. You can also read the Los Angles Times review of Deceptive Practice: The Mysteries and Mentors of Ricky Jay. But most definitely watch this card trick by Jay:
"Ricky Jay Documentary Reveals His Magical Life and Mentors," appeared in the Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2013. You can also read the Los Angles Times review of Deceptive Practice: The Mysteries and Mentors of Ricky Jay. But most definitely watch this card trick by Jay:
After watching these video clips and reading the Errol Morris column from The New York Times and the article on the Jay documentary, answer the following question in 52 words or less: Would you like to have dinner with Morris and Jay? Why? Click on the "comments" and post your response.
And for fans of Ricky Jay and Bob Dylan, who like a little music with their card tricks, here you go.
This one is a young man (not Ricky Jay) who has a lot of talent. He is a master with a deck of business cards. Thanks to Tony Huynh for the link to this master of business card throwing.
Writers on Lying
Stephanie Ericsson's "The Ways We Lie." from The Utne Reader, 1992. Ericsson classifies lies as The White Lie (truth vs. "harmless" untruth), Facades (wearing a mask; illusion), Ignoring the Plain Facts, Deflecting (abuse the messenger), Omission (withholding information), Stereotypes and Cliches, Groupthink (combination of ignoring the facts, selective memory, omission, denial), Out-and-Out Lies (baldfaced lie easily confronted).
Sissela Bok's, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Vintage, 1978, 1989, 1999. (Some of her topics: the perspective of the deceived and the liar. Letters of Recommendation. Excuses. Avoiding Harm. Benefits. Fairness. Threats to Survival. Expanding Deception. Lying to Unmask Liars. Giving Enemies Their Due. Confidentiality. Fidelity to Colleagues and Clients. Political Deception. Deceptive Social Science Research and Experimentation. Professional Responsibility. Paternalistic Deception. Lies to the Sick and Dying. Deception as Therapy. Respect and Truthfulness.)
A Liar and the Law
The New York Times
Opinion, February 19, 2012
XAVIER ALVAREZ is a liar. Even the brief filed on his behalf in the United States Supreme Court says as much: “Xavier Alvarez lied.” It informs us that he has told tall tales about playing hockey for the Detroit Red Wings, being married to a Mexican starlet and rescuing the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. But as the brief reminds us, “none of those lies were crimes.”
Another of his falsehoods, however, did violate the law. In 2007, while introducing himself at a meeting of a California water board, he said that he was a retired Marine who had been awarded the Medal of Honor (both lies). He was quickly exposed as a phony and pilloried in the community and press as an “idiot” and the “ultimate slime.”
But his censure did not end there. The federal government prosecuted him under the Stolen Valor Act, which prohibits falsely claiming to have been awarded a military medal, with an enhanced penalty (up to a year in prison) for claiming to have received the Medal of Honor. Mr. Alvarez was convicted but appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that the act violated the First Amendment.
The government has taken the case to the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear arguments this week. The question before the court is not whether there is a constitutional “right” to lie. Rather, it’s a question about the scope of the government’s power over individuals — whether the government can criminalize saying untrue things about oneself even if there is no harm to any identifiable person, no intent to cheat anyone or gain unfair advantage, no receipt of anything of value and no interference with the administration of justice or any other compelling government interest.
The court should rule in favor of Mr. Alvarez. Harmless fibbing should not be a federal offense.
The Justice Department argues that the Stolen Valor Act serves an “important” government interest: preserving the integrity and credibility of the military medals program. False claims, it maintains, dilute the reputation and meaning of the medals.
But the government has offered no evidence that lies by crackpots like Mr. Alvarez have in any way damaged the honor or prestige of medal recipients. A few instances of dubious characters lying about medals does not require the government to deploy the heavy artillery of criminal sanction. The United States has had military medals since the Revolutionary War, but the founding fathers didn’t seem to think such legal protection was necessary, and neither did Congress until 2006, when it passed the act.
Nor has the government shown that the law is necessary and narrowly tailored to protect any valid government interest. Those who lie about being awarded medals could easily be exposed if the government maintained an online database of medal awardees; the government could even shame known liars by publicizing their names.
The Stolen Valor Act is also dangerously broad: it puts satire and parody at risk of criminal prosecution. The comedian Stephen Colbert could not safely perform a skit in which his blowhard patriot persona claimed to have a medal. The act doesn’t require proof that anyone believed or was deceived by the false claim.
If the Supreme Court were to accept the government’s argument, other disconcerting legislation could easily follow. Congress could enact a law that criminalized false claims by political candidates about their qualifications for office, or false claims about their opponents. Surely the government has an “important” interest in preventing voter deception. But as much as we want to encourage factual accuracy in our politicians, do we really want the government to prosecute, for example, Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who falsely stated on his Senate Web site that his parents moved from Cuba after — rather than before — Fidel Castro took power? Who among us has not said things about ourselves that are untrue? Who has not exaggerated or embellished details to tell a better story?
The public humiliation that follows such exposure is punishment enough. The recognized constitutional remedy for false speech, as Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously said, is not suppression but “more speech.” The court should reject Congress’s attempt to police what we are allowed to say about ourselves.
William Bennett Turner teaches a course on freedom of speech at the University of California, Berkeley, and is the author of “Figures of Speech: First Amendment Heroes and Villains.”
The New York Times
June 28, 2012
Lying About Earning War Medals Is Protected Speech, Justices Rule
by James Dao
Writers on Lying
Stephanie Ericsson's "The Ways We Lie." from The Utne Reader, 1992. Ericsson classifies lies as The White Lie (truth vs. "harmless" untruth), Facades (wearing a mask; illusion), Ignoring the Plain Facts, Deflecting (abuse the messenger), Omission (withholding information), Stereotypes and Cliches, Groupthink (combination of ignoring the facts, selective memory, omission, denial), Out-and-Out Lies (baldfaced lie easily confronted).
Sissela Bok's, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Vintage, 1978, 1989, 1999. (Some of her topics: the perspective of the deceived and the liar. Letters of Recommendation. Excuses. Avoiding Harm. Benefits. Fairness. Threats to Survival. Expanding Deception. Lying to Unmask Liars. Giving Enemies Their Due. Confidentiality. Fidelity to Colleagues and Clients. Political Deception. Deceptive Social Science Research and Experimentation. Professional Responsibility. Paternalistic Deception. Lies to the Sick and Dying. Deception as Therapy. Respect and Truthfulness.)
A Liar and the Law
The New York Times
Opinion, February 19, 2012
Is There a Right to Lie?
By William Bennett Turner
XAVIER ALVAREZ is a liar. Even the brief filed on his behalf in the United States Supreme Court says as much: “Xavier Alvarez lied.” It informs us that he has told tall tales about playing hockey for the Detroit Red Wings, being married to a Mexican starlet and rescuing the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. But as the brief reminds us, “none of those lies were crimes.”
Another of his falsehoods, however, did violate the law. In 2007, while introducing himself at a meeting of a California water board, he said that he was a retired Marine who had been awarded the Medal of Honor (both lies). He was quickly exposed as a phony and pilloried in the community and press as an “idiot” and the “ultimate slime.”
But his censure did not end there. The federal government prosecuted him under the Stolen Valor Act, which prohibits falsely claiming to have been awarded a military medal, with an enhanced penalty (up to a year in prison) for claiming to have received the Medal of Honor. Mr. Alvarez was convicted but appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that the act violated the First Amendment.
The government has taken the case to the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear arguments this week. The question before the court is not whether there is a constitutional “right” to lie. Rather, it’s a question about the scope of the government’s power over individuals — whether the government can criminalize saying untrue things about oneself even if there is no harm to any identifiable person, no intent to cheat anyone or gain unfair advantage, no receipt of anything of value and no interference with the administration of justice or any other compelling government interest.
The court should rule in favor of Mr. Alvarez. Harmless fibbing should not be a federal offense.
The Justice Department argues that the Stolen Valor Act serves an “important” government interest: preserving the integrity and credibility of the military medals program. False claims, it maintains, dilute the reputation and meaning of the medals.
But the government has offered no evidence that lies by crackpots like Mr. Alvarez have in any way damaged the honor or prestige of medal recipients. A few instances of dubious characters lying about medals does not require the government to deploy the heavy artillery of criminal sanction. The United States has had military medals since the Revolutionary War, but the founding fathers didn’t seem to think such legal protection was necessary, and neither did Congress until 2006, when it passed the act.
Nor has the government shown that the law is necessary and narrowly tailored to protect any valid government interest. Those who lie about being awarded medals could easily be exposed if the government maintained an online database of medal awardees; the government could even shame known liars by publicizing their names.
The Stolen Valor Act is also dangerously broad: it puts satire and parody at risk of criminal prosecution. The comedian Stephen Colbert could not safely perform a skit in which his blowhard patriot persona claimed to have a medal. The act doesn’t require proof that anyone believed or was deceived by the false claim.
If the Supreme Court were to accept the government’s argument, other disconcerting legislation could easily follow. Congress could enact a law that criminalized false claims by political candidates about their qualifications for office, or false claims about their opponents. Surely the government has an “important” interest in preventing voter deception. But as much as we want to encourage factual accuracy in our politicians, do we really want the government to prosecute, for example, Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who falsely stated on his Senate Web site that his parents moved from Cuba after — rather than before — Fidel Castro took power? Who among us has not said things about ourselves that are untrue? Who has not exaggerated or embellished details to tell a better story?
The public humiliation that follows such exposure is punishment enough. The recognized constitutional remedy for false speech, as Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously said, is not suppression but “more speech.” The court should reject Congress’s attempt to police what we are allowed to say about ourselves.
William Bennett Turner teaches a course on freedom of speech at the University of California, Berkeley, and is the author of “Figures of Speech: First Amendment Heroes and Villains.”
The New York Times
June 28, 2012
Lying About Earning War Medals Is Protected Speech, Justices Rule
by James Dao
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a law that made it a crime to lie about having earned a military decoration, saying that the act was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.
Therese Tran/Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Xavier Alvarez said he was a Medal of Honor winner.
Multimedia
AT WAR BLOG
Reaction to Stolen Valor Ruling
Twitter users react to the Supreme Court's overturning a federal law making it a crime to lie about having earned a military decoration.
The case arose from the prosecution of Xavier Alvarez under the Stolen Valor Act, a law signed in 2006 that made it a crime for a person to falsely claim, orally or in writing, “to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Mr. Alvarez, an elected member of the board of directors of a water district in Southern California, said at a public meeting in 2007 that he had received the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award, after being wounded in action as a Marine.
All of those claims were lies, his lawyers later conceded.
Charged with violating the law, Mr. Alvarez argued that his remarks were protected speech under the First Amendment. The trial judge rejected his defense, saying the First Amendment does not apply to statements the speaker knows to be false.
But in 2010, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, reversed that decision, saying that if the law were upheld, “there would be no constitutional bar to criminalizing lying about one’s height, weight, age, or financial status on Match.com or Facebook.”
On Thursday, a six-justice majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court, ruling that the law was overly broad and posed a threat to First Amendment rights by criminalizing speech, even when it was knowingly false.
Though the government has a clear interest in protecting the integrity of military honors, the court said, the Obama administration had failed to demonstrate in its defense of the Stolen Valor Act how Mr. Alvarez’s falsehoods undermined the awards system.
“The First Amendment requires that there be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. “Here, that link has not been shown.”
A concurring opinion written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and joined by Justice Elena Kagan agreed that criminal prosecution of false statements could have a chilling affect on public debate. But Justice Breyer also provided possible templates for rewriting the act, saying it had “substantial justification.”
“The First Amendment risks flowing from the act’s breadth of coverage could be diminished or eliminated by a more finely tailored statute,” Justice Breyer wrote. “For example, a statute that requires a showing that the false statement caused specific harm or is focused on lies more likely to be harmful or on contexts where such lies are likely to cause harm.”
In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that there had been “an epidemic of false claims about military decorations,” which Congress had reasonably concluded were “inflicting real harm on actual medal recipients and their families.”
He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
“By holding that the First Amendment nevertheless shields these lies,” Justice Alito wrote, “the court breaks sharply from a long line of cases recognizing that the right to free speech does not protect false factual statements that inflict real harm and serve no legitimate interest.”
Thursday’s ruling by the court was somewhat surprising. During oral arguments in February, most of the justices seemed to accept that the First Amendment did not protect calculated falsehoods that caused at least some kinds of harm and that the government did have a substantial interest in protecting the integrity of its system of military honors.
First Amendment advocates hailed the decision.
“The First Amendment reserves to individual citizens, not the government, the right to separate what is true from what is false, and to decide what ideas to introduce into private conversation and public debate,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union.
But many veterans organizations expressed dismay, saying that criminal prosecution was the only way to deter false claims about military awards. The act called for fines and imprisonment of up to one year.
Mark Seavey, a lawyer who is the new-media manager for the American Legion, said he was confident that a more narrowly drawn Stolen Valor bill would easily pass Congress.
“It’s not a good day for us, but it’s not Black Thursday,” he said.
A bill that would make it illegal to knowingly misrepresent military service with the intent of obtaining “anything of value” was introduced in Congress last year by Representative Joe Heck, Republican of Nevada.
Mr. Heck contends that his bill will pass constitutional muster because it does not attempt to restrict speech but instead prohibit a type of fraud.
UPDATE: STOLEN VALOR ACT
Obama Signs Stolen Valor Act Into Law
ABC News, June 3, 2013
by Lee Ferran
If you lie about being awarded military honors for profit, you can now be subject to criminal prosecution, according to a new law signed by President Obama today.
The Stolen Valor Act of 2013, introduced in January by Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.), “makes it a Federal crime for an individual to fraudulently hold oneself out to be a recipient of any of several specified military decorations or medals with the intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit,” the White House said today, announcing the signing.
The law was the latest attempt by the government to help protect real military heroes from phonies. The original iteration of the bill, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, had been in effect for six years before the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional.
At the time, the law was written to say it was a crime simply to lie about military service and awards — a broad characterization the Supreme Court said violated a person’s First Amendment right to free speech.
A new version of the bill, introduced by Heck in late 2012, narrowed the act to say the liar must be attempting to somehow materially profit from the lies, making the would-be crime more akin to fraud. A tweaked version of that bill was reintroduced in 2013.
President Obama took a hard stance against military phonies last year when he announced a new government website to track awards for legitimate heroes.
"It may no longer be a crime for con artists to pass themselves off as heroes, but one thing is certain – it is contemptible,” he said in reference to the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2012. “…[N]o American hero should ever have their valor stolen."
To read the above article on the ABC News website click on this.
The Stolen Valor Act of 2013, introduced in January by Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.), “makes it a Federal crime for an individual to fraudulently hold oneself out to be a recipient of any of several specified military decorations or medals with the intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit,” the White House said today, announcing the signing.
The law was the latest attempt by the government to help protect real military heroes from phonies. The original iteration of the bill, the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, had been in effect for six years before the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional.
At the time, the law was written to say it was a crime simply to lie about military service and awards — a broad characterization the Supreme Court said violated a person’s First Amendment right to free speech.
A new version of the bill, introduced by Heck in late 2012, narrowed the act to say the liar must be attempting to somehow materially profit from the lies, making the would-be crime more akin to fraud. A tweaked version of that bill was reintroduced in 2013.
President Obama took a hard stance against military phonies last year when he announced a new government website to track awards for legitimate heroes.
"It may no longer be a crime for con artists to pass themselves off as heroes, but one thing is certain – it is contemptible,” he said in reference to the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2012. “…[N]o American hero should ever have their valor stolen."
To read the above article on the ABC News website click on this.
To read "Stolen Valor ‘More Than Just Lying,’ SEAL Watchdog Says" click on this.
To read the Department of Defense’s listing of the top military honor winners click on this.
To read about viral videos combating "stolen valor" click on this.
To read the Department of Defense’s listing of the top military honor winners click on this.
To read about viral videos combating "stolen valor" click on this.
I would want to have dinner with Ricky Jay. I love his take on lies and deception. I would love for him to explain himself more to me and the reasons behind where he developed these thoughts. He is so interesting. Also I would love for him to put on a card show after dinner. I was so entertained by the trick on the blog that I went to you tube and saw a few more. the cups and balls is a really good trick as well.
ReplyDeleteVanessa,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. You are the first to post this semester. This important moment must be commemorated. And it will.
Christopher McCabe
I also would like to have dinner with Ricky Jay. First reason being because he's a magician. I would love for him to perform a "deception" while lying to me. Second, because his thoughts about how lying and deception are totally different is fascinating. In the article, Errol Morris states that even the dictionary cannot define a "lie" without the use of deception in its definition. I would just love to debate with him how deception and lying are in fact related than separated.
ReplyDeleteIt would be very interesting to have dinner with Ricky Jay, and have him show me a card trick or two. I think I would have a better time with Jay than with Morris, simply because Morris seems to be a bit dull.
ReplyDeleteI would find a dinner with Ricky Jay extremely interesting. I agree with Daisy, Errol Morris does seem a bit dull. Having a dinner with Ricky Jay would be a great opportunity to discuss in more detail the differences between a lie and the art of deceiving. It would be a great chance for me to learn a neat trick or two!! Ricky Jay is a very talented individual.
ReplyDeleteI would have Ricky Jay entertain me with his witty magic and use of language, while I probably have dinner with Errol Morris to have a more serious thought provoking discussion.
ReplyDeleteHello Nancy and Mark,
ReplyDeleteNo surprise, but Ricky Jay might pick up the check, if not your wallet. Not in a bad way. Just for a laugh, of course.
--Christopher McCabe
Ricky Jay, of course! The prospect of the check disappearing is most appealing. Morris seems a bit too academic for dinner...
ReplyDelete--Eva Derzic
I would like to have dinner with Ricky Jay because he seems like a fun person to talk too. I love how he combines comedy into his magic acts, which makes it more entertaining to watch. Morris seems to be an interesting person to talk too but he can’t do magic tricks like Jay.
ReplyDeleteCheri
If he was to only perform magic tricks at the table, I would not want to have dinner with Ricky Jay. I feel fooled when someone deceives me and I try my best to try to figure out how they did it. Unfortunately, I rarely find out how.
ReplyDelete-Paimon Mohammadion
English 1C
Ricky Jay all the way at the Magic Castle! Hopefully he could bring Bob Dylan too. I would like to see him do that trick with the watermelon after a couple drinks. That would be impressive! Also I would ask him if he believes that lying has to be verbal. I would also like him to elaborate on this quote he made:
ReplyDelete“You wouldn’t want to live in a world where you can’t be conned, because if you were, you would be living in a world with no trust. That’s the price you pay for trust, is being conned.”
I wonder if he is less trustful since he is used to being the one who cons or whether or not he believes it's harder to pull the wool over his eyes.
- Elva Zepeda-Earnhart
I would definitely like to have dinner with Rick Jay and talk about more about this lie and deceit business. His article really forced me to step back and look at the issues of lying and deception in a completely different way. The article really made me think and question what I truly believe in. So I would really enjoy having the chance to ask more about his views about the article as well as ask about other things that fall in the gray.
ReplyDelete-Aimé Galeazzi-Pimentel
I love the comments! Thanks for the insights and entertainment, everybody. There should be a like button after each post.
ReplyDeleteDinner with Ricky Jay would be out-of-this-world. I'd be dying if I saw Ricky Jay showing Bob Dylan a card trick. Too good.
I would like to have dinner with both of them. I like Morris because he sees deep down into things and goes beyond the superficial. And with Ricky Jay because I know I will have a very fun and entertaining dinner with him.
ReplyDeleteI would like to have dinner with them both. Having Morris finding the truth in reality and talking to Jay on manipulating ones mind would be very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI would love to have dinner with Ricky Jay because I want to learn more about his perspective on lies and deceit. I find it intriguing how he uses magic, one of the well known arts of deception, to explain his thoughts in the article. It would be fun to hear him talk a little more about that at the dinner table.
ReplyDeletei wanna have dinner with the angry card guy he seems entertaining cause he might cut his food with his cards lol which i wanna see happen
ReplyDeleteWould love to have dinner with Morris. I find his way of thinking unique and interesting. Also would love to hear stories about Plainfield and Ed Gein.
ReplyDeleteI would love to have dinner with Ricky Jay because he seems easy to get along with. I would also love to see him throw cards in real life and to be the real life gambit from X-Men.
ReplyDeleteNancy,
ReplyDeleteI hope the dinner is in your future.
Christopher McCabe
Comfort food, a dram of good whisky, and cleaver conversation sounds good with Mr. Morris. A hot dog on the pier with Ricky Jay, sounds good too.
ReplyDeleteArrell,
ReplyDeleteIn this weather, comfort food sounds just right.
--Christopher McCabe
The great thing about taking everything online is that us
DeleteOSDs can now compete against the 'big guys' to get the
sessions. In fact, when someone searches online for some
drum tracks, the folks who win are rarely the players you
will have heard of. They are drummers who have learnt about
Google advertising, building websites and making YouTube
videos to promote their playing rather than guys who have
played big gigs with established artists.
online session drums
online session drummer
online drum tracks
I'd like to have a dinner with Ricky Jay. I myself would like to learn how to throw a few cards and pick his brain about deceit.
ReplyDeleteI would be delighted to have Ricky Jay at my dinner table. His energetic wit and charisma would keep the dinner interesting and conversational. His knowledge on deception, lying, and magic could keep my interest for the entire night. The dinner may also be especially memorable if he sliced up foods with those cards! Although Morris may be an interesting person with profound ideas, he does not have the same energy and "flow" as Jay. I fear he may offer a dull atmosphere if I had him for dinner.
ReplyDeleteTony Huynh
ReplyDeleteI would be delighted to have Ricky Jay at my dinner table. His energetic wit and charisma would keep the dinner interesting and conversational. His knowledge on deception, lying, and magic could keep my interest for the entire night. The dinner may also be especially memorable if he sliced up foods with those cards! Although Morris may be an interesting person with profound ideas, he does not have the same energy and "flow" as Jay. I fear he may offer a dull atmosphere if I had him for dinner.
Tony Huynh, Eng 1C (7:25AM)
ReplyDeleteI would be delighted to have Ricky Jay at my dinner table. His energetic wit and charisma would keep the dinner interesting and conversational. His knowledge on deception, lying, and magic could keep my interest for the entire night. The dinner may also be especially memorable if he sliced up foods with those cards! Although Morris may be an interesting person with profound ideas, he does not have the same energy and "flow" as Jay. I fear he may offer a dull atmosphere if I had him for dinner.
I would be more interested in having dinner with Ricky Jay because I would like to further discuss the topic of deception and lies. I found the topic very interesting and I never got a clear understanding of the differences between the two until I read Ricky Jay's take in the "Seven Lies About Lying" articles. Furthermore, his magic tricks and the way he presents himself is much more entertaining compared to Errol Morris, which is one of the reason why I would like to have dinner with Ricky Jay. :)
ReplyDeleteMelissa Luong
English 1C
7:25-9:30 am