1/5 B.S. Indeed
  by Kristopher Haines (Portland, OR United States)
I watched the first season of "Penn & Teller: Bull**** on DVD and found it interesting. The quirky Vegas magicians turn an illusionist's eye on those who endeavor to dupe people for profit. (TV psychics, for instance.) Easy targets, yes, but entertaining nonetheless.

Later, I found out that "Bull****" had done an episode on The Americans with Disabilities Act., entitled "Handicapped Parking".

The first interview subject is Marianne Catrall, whose daughter is blind and has autism. She has taken it upon herself to photograph drivers who misuse disabled parking spaces. Penn argues that it is "way easy" to obtain a parking permit because all you have to do is get "some doctor" to sign it. To buttress this oh-so astute argument, Penn says that the ADA's definition of disability is very broad, noting that the criteria includes those who have trouble keeping track of money and those who have trouble using the telephone. (Does he mean the mentally disabled, who just so happen to use that accounting assistance to maintain a level of independence?) Actually, there is a little bit of the titular substance in whom the ADA classifies as disabled: Substance-Abusers, a fact completely unaddressed by Penn and Teller.

Penn asks whether police officers "have better things to do" than enforcing "thoughtfulness." Well, yes, that is precisely why the bulk of enforcement falls to deputized civilians. But, you can hardly argue the need for the space in the first place, can you?

Unfortunately, Penn does.

When an interviewee compares fight for accessibility to the civil rights movement, Penn denounces that as B.S. making the argument that Jim Crow Laws prevented black people from getting on the bus, whereas disabled people cannot board due to the Laws of Physics. Now, I have read how other people have dismissed this as the nonsense as it is, but I think we can learn something from following it to its logical conclusion, (if we can stomach it.)

So, in Penn's view, the wrongness of segregation did not lie in the discrimination against someone on the basis of the color of their skin, but rather that such behavior was sanctioned by The Big Bad Government. As such, if a business-owner chose to, he could post a Whites-Only sign in his window. Imagine the outcry if Showtime had aired an episode arguing that.

The above illustrates one of the biggest problems we face as disabled citizens: It is still OK to treat us as concepts-as problems to be solved- rather than human beings with needs. They used to solve the "problem" of disabled people by shoving us out of sight. We were warehoused in terrible institutions. It is because of the ADA and earlier legislation that we are granted access to our communities. Wasn't access the crux of the civil rights movement? Black people wanted access to the segregated schools, access to lunch counters, access to voting booths. Now we are not hidden away, but we fight against apathy and indifference, and those things do not lend themselves to being held up for public scorn. We must use the power of law because we have seen that only under threat of litigation do the changes get made.

Penn believes that business owners would make accommodations on their own because it is good for business, but sadly this is not the case. Take as a small example that a movie theater I attend is wonderfully accessible on the inside, but ask them for a door-opener and all you get is a polite nod. Businesses will only do what is required of them and nothing more.

In the course of the episode Penn manages to argue against handicapped parking, building/street accessibility, and adaptive public transit, citing cost concerns. What's left? Well, the episode begins with Penn in a wheelchair, navigating the obstacles around the set, and he remarks, "Man, if I had to do this everyday, I'd never leave my one-story house." This sounds like Penn's advice to those of us that do....

"Handicapped Parking" appears on the 5th season DVD of Bull****


Side-note: I recently went on a trip to Vegas and because of this episode I boycotted Penn and Teller and chose David Copperfield instead. While searching for a seating chart, I Googled the venue and "wheelchair" It turns out that the MGM Grand had settled with the government over a claim that it was not in compliance with the ADA, during Janet Reno's tenure. I can tell you that the seating is now excellent and I can thank the ADA for improving my experience.

5/5 Excellent.
  by J.B. (Chicago, IL.)
If you like Penn & Teller, and have any familiarity with this show, you'll definitely want to own this modern classic.

4/5 Still a great show
  by Ash Ryan (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Some reviewers have complained that the quality of this season is markedly lower than its predecessors, so I ordered it under advisement. Thankfully, I found most of their complaints to be unwarranted---or at least exaggerated.

True, in a couple of episodes, the strength of their argument seemed to be sacrificed to some extent to sheer entertainment value, such as the lesbian road trip in the hybrid car episode. But most of the episodes did a good job making their point, while also making fun of their opponents---something the show has always done. The Wal-Mart episode, the immigration episode, the ADA episode, and the nuclear power episode were all very well done. (Also, loved the gratuitous Ayn Rand plug in the anger management episode.)

And the exorcism episode was hilarious.

3/5 Still Crazy After All These Years!
  by Kevin Currie-Knight (Newark, Delaware)
I have been a long-time fan of Bullsh^t for all five (now six) years and, as a long-time fan, I am rather ambivalent about this latest season. I agree with the positive reviewers that Penn & Teller's show is still capable of packing a mighty wallop against insane ideas like exorcism and toxicity cleansing. On the other hand, I sympathize with the negative reviewers who note that the show has gone down hill, and what used to be an intellectual show with humor has turned into a humorous show with smatterings of intellectual argument.

I will start off with the better episodes: the episodes rebuking Americans with Disabilities Act, anti-immigration policies, and anti-Walmart stances were phenomenal! While some episodes in this season are intellectually "light weight," these two were of "first season quality." The shows did a great job refuting the key arguments of the opposition, and showing the superiority of P&T's more libertarian approaches (capitalism is generally more efficient and cost-effective than coercion).

The episodes on exorcism and toxic cleansing were good for a different reason. These episodes were closer to those in the first and second season, where we were able to have a good laugh at some easy targets. Yes, P%T refute these notions, but they are easy targets to refute. Unlike the episodes noted in the previous paragraph, the fun of these two episodes was less in the argument than in the exposee.

A lot of the rest of these episodes, though, were less than good. Penn and Teller try to refute the use of hybrid cars by showing that they they are small and a bit slower than standard cars (that they are more energy efficient, P&T very quietly acknowledge). P&T try to refute the idea - that no one I know of actually holds - that the four presidents on Mount Rushmore were saints. These episodes seriously lacked intellectual argumenmt and even though I agree with P&T's position on most things, I still found myself spotting easy holes in arguments they made. (For instance, while they are against government regulation in many episodes, they are against anger management coaches, in part, because they are unregulated?!)

Overall, then, I give this set 3 of 5 stars. This is nowhere near the first two seasons' quality, but is a step up from some of the most recent seasons. Penn and Teller may be getting a little rusty with age, but they are still very watchable.

1/5 Quality of each season going downhill
  by W. Epp
Have they sold out? It looks like they've cut their research staff. I don't think you make a convincing argument by asking someone a question and overdubbing their answer with derogatory remarks or shouting obscenities. They've gone from some intelligent discussion to pure mindless entertainment. I preferred the former so for me it's very disappointing.