The term me decade was coined by novelist Tom Wolfe in New York magazine in August 1976, describing the new American preoccupation with self-awareness and the collective retreat from history, community, and human reciprocity. The term seemed to de-scribe the age so aptly that it quickly became commonly associated with the 1970s. Compared to the 1960s, Americans in the 1970s were self-absorbed and passive. Americans turned from street theater to self-therapy, from political activism to psychological analysis. Everyone, it seemed, had an analyst, adviser, guru, genie, prophet, priest, or spirit. In the 1970s the only way many Americans could relate to one another was as members of a national therapy group.
Then maybe we just find ourselves at the river.
It’s a work in progress in its current state but it will be a triptych (tri-tip) in 4 parts (12 panels)) of representations of what people have said the holiest of holy men represent
(cut to INTERIOR van for big dumb white spaghetti dinner revival cult driver to say, “Jesus won’t no pussy”
Jesus with a broken heart on a large gold chain around his neck, buff without a shirt, feet being attended to woman with myrrh
skinny Undercover Jesus in spiritual ‘disguise’ with his blanket draped over hunched shoulders with shopping card crossing skid row, as it shape shifts below his feet (using a 3D map graphic as people walk to show how our virtual world invades our ‘personal space’ and is changing all the time, always and forever). In that world vision, what remains — if anything at all — in fixed motion. the idea of a constricting faith, belief systems that don’t budge, institutional orders “just doing my time thank you go stand in that line” shuffling, a meaningless existence, a Camus’ nightmare [as as such, cite L'etranger when appropriate].
So like a super-hero, this undercover jesus starts in the ‘underground’ with Mole People as the first stop, he migrates.
The story must give instruction thru allegory to show people how to live life –awareness and knowledge and wisdom — in a world gone mad. If I had to ‘encapsulate’ (red pill or blue pill, I am not sure? can I have hello kitty pink instead?) the notion of acceptance creed it would be: grace; all-encompassing always true, never false, impossible to attain or grasp for more than 1/2 a second in real time-love (imagery would def include LO-VE sculpture/branded imagery from my lexicon of nostalgic virtue, aka remembering my youth with rose-colored glasses on); and the notion that god in his/her essence is a creator, a mad scientist, an artist with a sick sense of humor, in love with this world but sneaking off to cry by the side of the road, some force that sees humanity in all our what’s best about us–and yet, the inevitable Sisyphus irony must be presented, without explanation but woven threads of pure speculation. God as the ultimate human. Jesus was a heroin addict is the song that will be performed by The Dubious Gypsies, the band with a front-woman who’s married to the slide guitarist but having an affair with the manager. And there’s a chick drummer and 2 ex-heavy metal aficionados who now go to NA on Thursdays together.
Undercover Jesus, art installation. Part 1, underground mini-transportable comic strip
After living on the street / she would obsessively vacuum
looking for litter / from the resolute past
Delays are not denials- keep going, keep your vision clear. Perseverance does wonders.
“Art must suppress violence, and only art can do so.”
The rest is just self-indulgent bullshit.
Originally posted on Patrick Galey:
There is a peculiar type of arrogance latent in the way we in the West react to news. We assume that because we control media spending – and have for so long controlled the news agenda – that we automatically control the truth. Any counter argument or riposte is ridiculed and propagandised by those of us who simply know better.
Take for example the following lines, provided by a friend of mine on the demonisation of South American leftist leaders by the American press. (The essay is 3000 words and contains myriad examples of this, but you’ll have to wait a little while for full publication on what will be a news site). All are quotes from Washington Post profiles:
Former President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez was “a brutal dictator.” Rafael Correa is the “autocratic leader of tiny, impoverished Ecuador.” Evo Morales, President of Bolivia since 2005, seeks “to import Chávez’s authoritarian…
View original 618 more words
It violates the code of junkie, she blurts out, proud of herself that’s behind her, for now, but it always looms, circling your heels like a shadow or a panther, growling underneath its breath, waiting, just waiting, for you to slip up, again. Coz we all know it’s inevitable.
Originally posted on FOX8.com:
Most Americans will set their clocks 60 minutes later before heading to bed Saturday night, but daylight saving time officially starts Sunday at 2 a.m. local time.
You lose an hour of sleep, but daylight saving time arrives with the promise of many months ahead with an extra hour of evening light.
It’s also a good time to put new batteries in warning devices such as smoke detectors and hazard warning radios.
The time change is not observed by Hawaii, most of Arizona, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Marianas.
Daylight saving time ends Nov. 2.
The Ellsberg paradox is a paradox in decision theory in which people’s choices violate the postulates of subjective expected utility. It is generally taken to be evidence for ambiguity aversion. The paradox was popularized by Daniel Ellsberg, although a version of it was noted considerably earlier by John Maynard Keynes.
The basic idea is that people overwhelmingly prefer taking on risk in situations where they know specific odds rather than an alternate risk scenario in which the odds are completely ambiguous—even when mathematically the odds are identical.[unreliable source?] That is, given a choice of risks to take (such as bets), people “prefer the devil they know” rather than assuming a risk where odds are difficult or impossible to calculate.
Ellsberg actually proposed two separate thought experiments, the proposed choices which contradict subjective expected utility. The 2-color problem involves bets on two urns, both of which contain balls of two different colors. The 3-color problem, described below, involves bets on a single urn, which contains balls of three different colors.
Generality of the paradox
Note that the result holds regardless of your utility function. Indeed, the amount of the payoff is likewise irrelevant. Whichever gamble you choose, the prize for winning it is the same, and the cost of losing it is the same (no cost), so ultimately, there are only two outcomes: you receive a specific amount of money, or you receive nothing.
A modification of utility theory to incorporate uncertainty as distinct from risk is Choquet expected utility, which also proposes a solution to the paradox.
Other alternative explanations include the competence hypothesis  and comparative ignorance hypothesis. These theories attribute the source of the ambiguity aversion to the participant’s pre-existing knowledge.
Subjective expected utility
Jump up ^ Ellsberg, Daniel (1961). “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 (4): 643–669. doi:10.2307/1884324. JSTOR 1884324.
Schmeidler, D. (1989). “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity”. Econometrica 57 (3): 571–587. doi:10.2307/1911053. JSTOR 1911053. edit
Economics of uncertainty
Decision theory paradoxes