“There is a lemur living wild on the streets of Boston, and if I have to be the first person to say so, well . . . that’s just the way it is"
From
The New YorkerLOOSE LEMUR
by Ben McGrath
AUGUST 4, 2008
Bill James, the Boston Red Sox senior adviser and resident skeptic, made his name by using statistics to debunk many of baseball’s truisms—by showing that much of what we think we see on a ball field turns out to be little more than an illusion when held up to the light of evidence. Then, after the Red Sox won their first World Series in eighty-six years, breaking Babe Ruth’s supposed “curse,” James published an essay, “Underestimating the Fog,” in which he seemed to backpedal on some crucial points. He suggested, for instance, that clutch hitting—long since dismissed by Jamesian rationalists as a myth—might exist after all, and that his colleagues just weren’t looking hard enough. Diehards in the statistician community wondered if James hadn’t gone soft with age, and begun seeing ghosts.
Several weeks ago, James was walking home from Fenway Park, after a Red Sox victory over the Kansas City Royals, when he came across a strange-looking animal with a speckled gray head. He at first took it to be a cat, but soon noticed a number of peculiar characteristics: the animal had large eyes on the sides of its head, a puglike face, and an extra-long tail (“like a broom handle”), and it moved with “an odd sashaying motion.” The moon was full. James was alone on the street. He stared at the animal for, as he later recalled, “a length of time which is probably six or seven times as long as the period that a fly ball is in the air.” The animal scurried under a parked car, at one point seeming to lift its hind legs over a stick in the road by using its tail as a kind of lever.
James quickly dispensed with the obvious candidates—dog, squirrel, raccoon, rat, skunk, possum—and began working his way down a checklist of more exotic possibilities: sloth, bear, porcupine, beaver. By the time he reached his house, he had decided that the animal he saw must have been a lemur. Lemurs are primates native to Madagascar, and by all available evidence, he realized, this was unlikely; the odds of stumbling upon a lemur living on the streets of a northeastern metropolis are a little like the odds of a baseball team’s going eighty-six years without a championship because of a curse. James says he called the local animal-control center, which informed him that his was the first Boston lemur sighting on record. (The Franklin Park Zoo, in Dorchester, has four ring-tailed lemurs, but all are accounted for.)
One of James’s friends discovered a report, on the Web site CryptoZoology.com, of a “strange lemur-like dog” spotted on a farm in Sherborn, Massachusetts, in 2002. (“It reminded me of a small, skinnier version of a Tasmanian wolf,” the poster, a filmmaker named Andrew Mudge, wrote.) Sherborn is twenty miles southwest of Boston, and James hypothesized that the lemur could have migrated in the years since and come to be living in the trees of a sanctuary in the area. The city, according to his theory, is an ideal habitat, because there are few natural predators, and the human demographics skew young and indifferent to wildlife. (James, by contrast, lived for most of his life in Kansas, where he saw enough skunks, possums, and raccoons to rule them out immediately.)
James eventually wrote a three-thousand-word account of his sighting and posted it on his Web site, which requires a subscription. “There is a lemur living wild on the streets of Boston, and if I have to be the first person to say so, well . . . that’s just the way it is,” he wrote. “I believe that if you set up a nocturnal observation camera at that location, you probably would wind up with footage of this animal, probably within a few days.” Several readers posted comments suggesting that the animal might have been a fisher or a stoat. “Not wishing to be dogmatic, in my mind it was simply a lemur,” James responded.
“I decided to report the sighting, against the urgings of my wife, who thought that I would get a reputation as a nut,” James explained in a recent e-mail. “I assume, if people start making fun of me for seeing a lemur, other people will step forward and say, ‘I saw something, too.’ ” No such luck yet.
Andrew Mudge, when reached by phone recently, assumed the call to be a prank. “Let me get this straight: you’re calling me about the lemur I saw in 2002?” he asked. “Which one of my friends put you up to this?” Mudge then recalled that he’d received an e-mail from a man named Bill James, but hadn’t paid it much attention. “I just remember having this gut feeling that this animal does not belong in this part of the world,” he wrote in an e-mail, thinking back to his sighting. “Ironically, I was leaving the house to go to a Red Sox game when this happened.” ♦
Vans are Ghosts
P.S. This is a persuasive speech I did for class.
As most of us are quite aware, human beings experience a phenomenon known as “the chills” when stepping into a modern van. In fact, for many of us, becoming a little “freaked out” when getting into vans, old and new alike, has been a life-long occurrence. But do you know why this happens?
I propose that the reason behind this curious anomaly is that all vans are in fact ghosts, and that you should always exercise caution when deciding to enter one.
Have you ever noticed that when you are in a van, whether it be for travel, studying, or just hanging out, that you always end up either just fine or in the most horrible situation imaginable? It’s true. I polled 17 of my friends and they all said that they had traveled without any problems in vans on numerous occasions, yet each one had a handful of dreadful stories to tell involving breakdowns, the desert, parking tickets, break-ins, vagrants, tow trucks, break-outs, and random drug stops in New Mexico.
If it is taken as fact that all ghosts are either good spirits or menacing, haunted ghouls, this would explain the seemingly polarized results of my interviews. In other words, just as all normal ghosts are either good or bad, van ghosts are no different. There is information available on the internet regarding various tests one can perform to determine whether a van is a good or a bad ghost before entering it. The simplest one of all is to park it near an old Willow tree, sit down on the grass, and see what color it turns at dusk. If the answer is between 460 and 500 millimicrons, then you’ve got a bad spirit on your hands…watch out! This information is also available at your library.
The second observation to support my theory that vans are ghosts is that kidnappers always use vans to steal children, or wealthy people. After the men throw their victims into the van, peel off, and you emerge from the bushes at the end of your driveway, you often recall that the van you’ve just seen was white, but did it ever occur to you that vans are not the only things that are white? So are ghosts! Here’s a fun bit of trivia. Ghosts were first captured on film in our fine city of Boston by a man named William H. Mumler in 1861. Ever since then we have had conclusive proof that ghosts are indeed white. For those of you who are not familiar with Mr. Mumler’s photography, you may recall that the ghost from Scream was white, unlike the ghost from Scary Movie, who was black and therefore not a real ghost.
If you’ve ever bought an automobile, surely you’ve asked yourself, “Should I consider a van?” Before I answer that question, let’s review some more facts about vans. People who contemplate purchasing a van usually take into consideration that they tip over quite easily when making turns. This is what business people call a “necessary evil.” Auto makers insist that they really have no choice but to incorporate this flaw into the design of the vehicle when it is manufactured and merged with its soul at the assembly plant. Don’t be fooled by mathematicians who cite various equations and valencies to explain why an object such as a van would tip over…these men received their diplomas from modern Universities. Had they been schooled in the wisdom of the ancients, they might realize that all ghosts float. It seems rather silly then, to manufacture an automobile that is utterly incapable of touching the ground. Have you ever looked under all four tires of a van? You might have seen something alarming. A Thin layer of air. This quality is shared by ghosts and magnets, but not regular cars and trucks.
To return to the question “Should I consider buying a van?” the answer is "Yes," but be careful.
As a result of the digital revolution, you may have noticed an abundance of vans on the street these days featuring emblems of various internet service providers as well as a cadre of other businesses who are sustained by the demand for the World Wide Web. You might have entertained the notion late at night that the reason for this is that the internet is a ghost. This is not far from the truth. The internet is actually a network of ghosts who work together to create the energy to collect and allocate our constant stream of data. Who do you think counts the number of eggs you use every morning to make your omelet? The dog certainly doesn’t. No, this ever-flowing mass of data is collected by the dark forces of our world and stored on the internet. It follows then, that internet-related companies use vans and their ghostly powers to mend breaches in the world wide web.
Ghosts are all around us. They are part of our world. It’s not even our world, its OUR world. Vans are ghosts. When you enter a van, ask yourself, “Do I want to enter a ghost?” And if the answer is yes, you may want to think about how it would feel to be reincarnated as a ghost and then have people get in and out of you all the time. Just saying.