What "The Aristocrats" Taught Me About Freedom and Integrity

You can’t allow people freedom and then change your mind when the things don’t go your way.  

When AMC said that they would not show The Aristocrats, the movie company ranted about this being a horrible attack on freedom of speech.  And they wanted me to write editorials about how AMC was taking away my creative freedom.  And I said I’m on AMC's side.  I’m absolutely 100 percent on their side.  They own the AMC Theaters.  They should show precisely what they want to show in those theaters.  That’s why they worked so hard to own those theaters.  They deserve it. They deserve to not show The Aristocrats for whatever reason they want.  The reason could be that they don’t like the movie or the reason could be they don’t think they’ll make as much money.  I don’t care what the reason is. The reason could be the zodiac signs.  They own those theaters they show what they want.  

I run the Penn and Teller Theater, along with Teller.  There will not be a religious revival in our theater. There will not be.  I won’t allow that.  Will I allow religious revivals?  Sure.  Not in my theater, not when I have control of it.  That’s the way freedom works.  

So I wrote an editorial in favor of AMC not showing The Aristocrats.  I thought it showed some backbone.  If you believe something, stick up for it.  I also think that anyone who wanted to see The Aristocrats should also boycott AMC and never go to the theater again. Perfect.  Great.  I mean, there’s no harm done.  The number of people that wanted to see The Aristocrats was in the hundreds of thousands.  People that want to go the AMC theaters is in the millions, so it wouldn’t be even a drop in the bucket.  But that’s the way the world works.  That’s the way the feedback works.  

So because of AMC not showing The Aristocrats I made a little less money, probably a lot less money. So what?  If I wanted to make more money with AMC, I would have made a movie to please them instead of a movie to please me.  I did fine with The Aristocrats. I made fine money.  I’m really proud of it.  And people that saw it really loved it.  But AMC didn’t, and more power to them. I disagree, but I’m also in favor of that decision being made. 

This happened to me another time.  We did a special for – a series of specials for children for PBS, a zillion years ago called “Behind the Scenes,” teaching music and art and so on.  And there was a big, big corporate sponsor that was coming in and said that they didn’t like the way I spoke.  I mean, it wasn’t obscenity or anything. They just didn’t like my style, and they would pull out their funding unless the production company got rid of me.  And the production company threw this big fit, saying "We’ll stand behind you and they can’t do this and they should give this money just to us to do what we want."  And I went, "Why?"  They’re 100 percent in the right.  They’re going to drop a lot of jingle on you and they don’t want me, okay.  Get rid of me. So long.  I have a contract, you must pay me off.  I will make money, you know, a small amount of money to be paid off.  They’re offering you a huge amount of money.  Just follow your contract.  Penn gets this amount of money, we make this amount of money and I’ll watch the show.  And by the way, just for kicks, the scripts that I wrote, you can have them.  Fine, I’m not going to use them anywhere else.  Go, be successful."  And they went through a big corporate process and made the decision to finally use us at the end and it was Penn and Teller.  

You can’t allow people freedom and then change your mind when the things don’t go your way.  

In Their Own Words is recorded in Big Think's studio.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock. 

Related Articles

Major study: Drug overdoses over a 38-year period reveal hidden trends

It's just the current cycle that involves opiates, but methamphetamine, cocaine, and others have caused the trajectory of overdoses to head the same direction

From the study: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/eaau1184
Surprising Science
  • It appears that overdoses are increasing exponentially, no matter the drug itself
  • If the study bears out, it means that even reducing opiates will not slow the trajectory.
  • The causes of these trends remain obscure, but near the end of the write-up about the study, a hint might be apparent
Keep reading Show less

Why "nuclear pasta" is the strongest material in the universe

Through computationally intensive computer simulations, researchers have discovered that "nuclear pasta," found in the crusts of neutron stars, is the strongest material in the universe.

Accretion disk surrounding a neutron star. Credit: NASA
Surprising Science
  • The strongest material in the universe may be the whimsically named "nuclear pasta."
  • You can find this substance in the crust of neutron stars.
  • This amazing material is super-dense, and is 10 billion times harder to break than steel.

Superman is known as the "Man of Steel" for his strength and indestructibility. But the discovery of a new material that's 10 billion times harder to break than steel begs the question—is it time for a new superhero known as "Nuclear Pasta"? That's the name of the substance that a team of researchers thinks is the strongest known material in the universe.

Unlike humans, when stars reach a certain age, they do not just wither and die, but they explode, collapsing into a mass of neurons. The resulting space entity, known as a neutron star, is incredibly dense. So much so that previous research showed that the surface of a such a star would feature amazingly strong material. The new research, which involved the largest-ever computer simulations of a neutron star's crust, proposes that "nuclear pasta," the material just under the surface, is actually stronger.

The competition between forces from protons and neutrons inside a neutron star create super-dense shapes that look like long cylinders or flat planes, referred to as "spaghetti" and "lasagna," respectively. That's also where we get the overall name of nuclear pasta.

Caplan & Horowitz/arXiv

Diagrams illustrating the different types of so-called nuclear pasta.

The researchers' computer simulations needed 2 million hours of processor time before completion, which would be, according to a press release from McGill University, "the equivalent of 250 years on a laptop with a single good GPU." Fortunately, the researchers had access to a supercomputer, although it still took a couple of years. The scientists' simulations consisted of stretching and deforming the nuclear pasta to see how it behaved and what it would take to break it.

While they were able to discover just how strong nuclear pasta seems to be, no one is holding their breath that we'll be sending out missions to mine this substance any time soon. Instead, the discovery has other significant applications.

One of the study's co-authors, Matthew Caplan, a postdoctoral research fellow at McGill University, said the neutron stars would be "a hundred trillion times denser than anything on earth." Understanding what's inside them would be valuable for astronomers because now only the outer layer of such starts can be observed.

"A lot of interesting physics is going on here under extreme conditions and so understanding the physical properties of a neutron star is a way for scientists to test their theories and models," Caplan added. "With this result, many problems need to be revisited. How large a mountain can you build on a neutron star before the crust breaks and it collapses? What will it look like? And most importantly, how can astronomers observe it?"

Another possibility worth studying is that, due to its instability, nuclear pasta might generate gravitational waves. It may be possible to observe them at some point here on Earth by utilizing very sensitive equipment.

The team of scientists also included A. S. Schneider from California Institute of Technology and C. J. Horowitz from Indiana University.

Check out the study "The elasticity of nuclear pasta," published in Physical Review Letters.

How a huge, underwater wall could save melting Antarctic glaciers

Scientists think constructing a miles-long wall along an ice shelf in Antarctica could help protect the world's largest glacier from melting.

Image: NASA
Surprising Science
  • Rising ocean levels are a serious threat to coastal regions around the globe.
  • Scientists have proposed large-scale geoengineering projects that would prevent ice shelves from melting.
  • The most successful solution proposed would be a miles-long, incredibly tall underwater wall at the edge of the ice shelves.

The world's oceans will rise significantly over the next century if the massive ice shelves connected to Antarctica begin to fail as a result of global warming.

To prevent or hold off such a catastrophe, a team of scientists recently proposed a radical plan: build underwater walls that would either support the ice or protect it from warm waters.

In a paper published in The Cryosphere, Michael Wolovick and John Moore from Princeton and the Beijing Normal University, respectively, outlined several "targeted geoengineering" solutions that could help prevent the melting of western Antarctica's Florida-sized Thwaites Glacier, whose melting waters are projected to be the largest source of sea-level rise in the foreseeable future.

An "unthinkable" engineering project

"If [glacial geoengineering] works there then we would expect it to work on less challenging glaciers as well," the authors wrote in the study.

One approach involves using sand or gravel to build artificial mounds on the seafloor that would help support the glacier and hopefully allow it to regrow. In another strategy, an underwater wall would be built to prevent warm waters from eating away at the glacier's base.

The most effective design, according to the team's computer simulations, would be a miles-long and very tall wall, or "artificial sill," that serves as a "continuous barrier" across the length of the glacier, providing it both physical support and protection from warm waters. Although the study authors suggested this option is currently beyond any engineering feat humans have attempted, it was shown to be the most effective solution in preventing the glacier from collapsing.

Source: Wolovick et al.

An example of the proposed geoengineering project. By blocking off the warm water that would otherwise eat away at the glacier's base, further sea level rise might be preventable.

But other, more feasible options could also be effective. For example, building a smaller wall that blocks about 50% of warm water from reaching the glacier would have about a 70% chance of preventing a runaway collapse, while constructing a series of isolated, 1,000-foot-tall columns on the seafloor as supports had about a 30% chance of success.

Still, the authors note that the frigid waters of the Antarctica present unprecedently challenging conditions for such an ambitious geoengineering project. They were also sure to caution that their encouraging results shouldn't be seen as reasons to neglect other measures that would cut global emissions or otherwise combat climate change.

"There are dishonest elements of society that will try to use our research to argue against the necessity of emissions' reductions. Our research does not in any way support that interpretation," they wrote.

"The more carbon we emit, the less likely it becomes that the ice sheets will survive in the long term at anything close to their present volume."

A 2015 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine illustrates the potentially devastating effects of ice-shelf melting in western Antarctica.

"As the oceans and atmosphere warm, melting of ice shelves in key areas around the edges of the Antarctic ice sheet could trigger a runaway collapse process known as Marine Ice Sheet Instability. If this were to occur, the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) could potentially contribute 2 to 4 meters (6.5 to 13 feet) of global sea level rise within just a few centuries."