SINCERITY

He closes the hood. Group moves across to other car.

JUDY and PLATO. The other kids are behind them. JUDY looks to see that their attention isn't on her, then speaks quietly to PLATO.

 JUDY

 Is he your friend?

 PLATO

 Yes. My Best Friend.

 JUDY

 What's he like?

 PLATO

 Oh, I don't know. 

You have to get to know him. 
He doesn't say much but when he does you know he means it. 

He's sincere.

JUDY

 Well, that's The Main Thing--

Don't you think so?

PLATO

 Maybe next summer he's going to take me hunting with him--and fishing. 
I want him to teach me how and I bet he won't get mad if I

 goof. 
His name's Jim. It's really James but he likes Jim more.

 (laughing)

 People he really likes--he lets call him "Jamie."

JUDY

 Want to finish my hamburger? I only took a bite.

 PLATO

 Okay.

Full shot. Guarded cars. 

JIM is close in f.g. at wheel of his car.BUZZ is beyond, at wheel of his. Both boys are gunning their engines, listening critically. JIM lets his idle.

JUDY, GOON and group. 

They watch in silent anticipation.

PLATO starts away from them.

Traveling shot. PLATO hurrying away from the group. 

He stops, looking off.

JIM and BUZZ. 

PLATO in distance.

 BUZZ

 Better try the doors. Jump out.

JIM opens his door.

BUZZ

 No--quick, man! You got to break quick.

JIM shuts his door and tries again. So does BUZZ. Then both boys walk forward to The Edge. Neither says a word.

BUZZ puts his hand on JIM's shoulder.

High angle. The edge of the bluff (process). JIM and BUZZ are directly below us. Under them the plateau falls steeply away in a sheer drop of a hundred feet to the ocean below.

Two shot. JIM and BUZZ. JIM is staring below. He is beginning to perspire. He lights a cigarette. Without taking his hand from JIM's shoulder, BUZZ borrows the cigarette from his lips, takes a drag and hands it back.

JIM takes another puff then tosses it into The Abyss.

 BUZZ

 (quietly)

 This is The Edge, boy. 
This is The End.

JIM

Yeah.

BUZZ

 I like you, you know?

JIM

 Buzz? What are we doing this for?

BUZZ 
(still quiet)

 We got to do something. 
Don't we?

David Foster Wallace - The Problem with Irony 

The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal”. To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows.

This was further examined on the blog Fiction Advocate by Mike Moats:

The theory is this: Infinite Jest is Wallace’s attempt to both manifest and dramatize a revolutionary fiction style that he called for in his essay “E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction.” The style is one in which a new sincerity will overturn the ironic detachment that hollowed out contemporary fiction towards the end of the 20th century. Wallace was trying to write an antidote to the cynicism that had pervaded and saddened so much of American culture in his lifetime. He was trying to create an entertainment that would get us talking again.

"Cultural critics love hypothesizing about hipsters. And certainly hipsters make for useful lab rats if you're interested in the culture of young, gentrifying, trendy, affluent, and white college graduates. But it's easy to let this hypothesizing go too far, and you get into trouble when you try to charge hipsters with representing the "ethos of our age." They're just kids making their way from young adulthood to the rest of their lives.

Yet that's exactly what Princeton professor Christy Wampole does in her recent New York Times op-ed, titled "How to Live Without Irony." She tells us, with disconcerting certitude, that irony is the ethos of our era, and she knows because, I mean, just look at those hipsters with their ironic mustaches, record players, and trombones, right?

If hipsters aren't convincing enough, Wampole offers a second proof that we live in the "age of Deep Irony": advertisements. Not a specific advertisement, mind you, but, she writes, "an ad that calls itself an ad, makes fun of its own format, and attempts to lure its target market to laugh at and with it." You know, that one. That's irony, she says, and because she's raised the specter of an unidentified advertisement, along with the unidentified hipsters, we're supposed to believe that the overwhelming ethos of our time is irony.

But you can't determine the ethos of an entire age by looking at a sub-sub-sub-sub-culture."

“ What is The New Sincerity? 

Think of it as irony and sincerity combined like Voltron, to form a new movement of astonishing power. 

Or think of it as the absence of irony and sincerity, where less is (obviously) more. 

If those strain the brain, just think of Evel Knievel. Let’s be frank. 

There’s no way to appreciate Evel Knievel literally. 

Evel is the kind of man who defies even fiction, because the reality is too over the top. 

Here is a man in a red-white-and-blue leather jumpsuit, driving some kind of rocket car. 

A man who achieved fame and fortune jumping over things. 

Here is a real man who feels at home as Spidey on the cover of a comic book. 

Simply put, Evel Knievel boggles the mind. 

But by the same token, he isn’t to be taken ironically, either. 

The fact of the matter is that Evel is, in a word, awesome. ... 

Our greeting: 

A double thumbs-up. 

Our credo: 

“Be More Awesome”. 

Our lifestyle: 

“Maximum Fun”. 

Throw caution to the wind, friend, and live The New Sincerity.

He Bounces Back

 And Joker walks away-- heads for the sliding glass doors. Only the motion detector doesn't engage--

 AND HE SLAMS RIGHT INTO THE GLASS DOOR.

 HARD.

 He bounces back.

61 EXT. CITY HOSPITAL, ER - NIGHT 61

 Joker sits on a bench outside the bustling emergency room. He's getting some fresh air, but he picked a weird spot to do it.

 He watches the sick and dying being rushed through the glass doors. Opening and closing. This happens in the background throughout the scene. 62. 

The two detectives walk up to Joker, interrupting him watching the doors. Gotham police detectives, GARRITY (50's), grey hair, and BURKE (30's), his partner.

 DET. GARRITY

Mr. Fleck, sorry to bother you, I'm Detective Garrity, this is my partner Detective Burke.

Joker looks up at them. Doesn't say anything.

DET. GARRITY

We had a few questions for you, but you weren't home. 

So we spoke to your mother.

JOKER

You did this to her?

DET. GARRITY

What? No. 

We just asked her some questions and she started getting hysterical-- 

hyperventilating, trouble speaking-- then she collapsed. 

Hit her head pretty hard.

 JOKER 

They told me she had a stroke.

Beat.

 DET. GARRITY 

Sorry to hear that.

AND JOKER BURSTS OUT LAUGHING, he can't stop it.

The detectives are taken aback. 

They don't know what to make of him laughing.

They share a look.

 DET. BURKE 

(confused) 

I'm lost. Is something funny?

JOKER 

(laughter choking up in his throat) 

No I,-- I have a, a--

Tears rolling down his face, he takes out one of his cards and hands it to Det. Burke. Burke glances over the card, a skeptical look on his face. 

 DET. BURKE 

Okay. But we have some questions for you.

 DET. GARRITY 

About those subway killings from a few weeks ago.

Joker pauses for a moment, his laughter subsiding. He holds his breath.

 JOKER 

I don't know anything about that.

 DET. GARRITY 

We have an eyewitness who described a white male, about 6 feet tall, in clown make up. Or a clown mask. 

Spoke to your boss at Ha-Ha's, Mr. Vaughn, and he said you were on a job the day of the shooting.

Joker's still holding his breath, he nods yes.

 DET. GARRITY (just continues) 

He also said you got fired that day,-- 

For bringing a gun into the children's hospital.

And Joker cracks up again, his laughter coming back harder-- He covers his mouth with his hand, shaking his head no, his face now turning red.

 DET. GARRITY 

You weren't fired?

Joker catches his breath as the intensity of his laughter starts to wane, petering out.

JOKER 

Not for having a gun. That was prop gun. Part of my act.

Joker's laughter finally stops for good.

 DET. BURKE 

So why were you fired?

 JOKER 

They said I wasn't funny.

The detectives share another look.

 Joker stands up.

 JOKER 

Now, if you don't mind, I have to go back and look after my mother.

 Detective Burke steps close to him, holds up the card that Joker handed him--

DET. BURKE

Hey lemme ask you a question? This condition of yours,-- 

Is This Real or is this like some sorta Clown Thing?

 JOKER 

"Clown thing?"

DET. BURKE 

I mean, is it part of your act?

JOKER 

What do you think?

 And Joker walks away-- heads for the sliding glass doors. Only the motion detector doesn't engage--

 AND HE SLAMS RIGHT INTO THE GLASS DOOR.

 HARD.

 He bounces back.

1981

 JOKER

 AN ORIGIN 

 Written by

 Todd Phillips & Scott Silver 

 13 April 2018 

This story takes place in its own universe. It has no connection to any of the DC films that have come before it.

We see it as a classic Warner Bros. movie. Gritty, intimate and oddly funny, the characters live in the real world and the stakes are personal.

Although it is never mentioned in the film, this story takes place in The Past.

Let's call it 1981.

It's a troubled time. The crime rate in Gotham is at record highs. A garbage strike has crippled the city for the past six weeks. And the divide between the "haves" and the "have- nots" is palpable. Dreams are beyond reach, slipping into delusions.

The Black Bug Room

“And so then, The Student would leave the room, have a real let-down and then begin to exhibit acute neurotic symptoms, as well as a complete inability to do Intellectual Work. 

In effect, if you begin pulling-up in Analysis what had happened to these people, on an unconscious level, the effect was as-though a large, slightly-more-than-man-sized black beetle had performed sodomic rape on them.”

"It doesn't kill you. What it does is make you feel like you're in a noisy little dark room... naked and ashamed... and there are things in the dark that need to hurt you because you're bad... little pinching things that go in your ears and crawl on the inside of your skull. And you know that if the noise and the crawling would stop... that you could remember how to get out... But you never ever will." — Glory describing the effects of her brain suck to Tara, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

The Evil Counterpart to the Happy Place and the darkest corner of the Mental World, the Black Bug Room is the place inside a person's head where all of his or her negative feelings dwell and fester. A person's consciousness may get sent there when his or her mind breaks under the strain, or other characters may end up there by taking a wrong turn during a Journey to the Center of the Mind, and permanent confinement there is to be avoided at all costs. 

In movies, entering the Room is often shown with a Madness Montage. Compare Room 101 and Psychological Torment Zone for the non-metaphysical versions with all the same effects. Not to be confused with a Debug Room, or the Black Room of Death in Super Mario 64.

Douglas Murray - Can Women Prey On Men?

"We're in The Realm of Manners -

And Manners are things you are best trying to acquire as you go along from other people, and learning from your elders.

And The Elders at the moment are saying,

"We Don't Know What We Know.

We're Not Passing it On.

Don't Touch -- Figure it Out for Yourself"

...and by the way, Some of Them are MEN.

Tyranny, One Tiny Step at a Time

How Ideology, Group Identity & 

Collective Guilt Destroy Societies

LET

“Just let a woman be The Most Crucial Modern Author!”

But it isn’t TRUE.

let (v.)

Old English lætan (Northumbrian leta) "to allow; to leave behind, depart from; leave undone; bequeath," also "to rent, put to rent or hire" (class VII strong verb; past tense let, leort, past participle gelæten), from Proto-Germanic *letan (source also of Old Saxon latan, Old Frisian leta, Dutch laten, Old High German lazan, German lassen, Gothic letan "to leave, let"), from PIE *led-, extended form of root *‌‌lē- "to let go, slacken." If that derivation is correct, the etymological sense would be "let go through weariness, neglect."

 

"The shortening of the root vowel ... has not been satisfactorily explained" [OED]. Of blood, from late Old English. Other Old and Middle English senses include "regard as, consider; behave toward; allow to escape; pretend;" to let (someone) know and to let fly (arrows, etc.) preserve the otherwise obsolete sense of "to cause to." To let (someone) off "allow to go unpunished, excuse from service" is from 1814. To let on is from 1725 as "allow (something) to be known, betray one's knowledge of," 1822 as "pretend" (OED finds a similar use in the phrase never let it on him in a letter from 1637). To let out is late 12c. as "allow to depart" (transitive); intransitive use "be concluded," of schools, meetings, etc., is from 1888, considered by Century Dictionary (1895) to be "Rural, U.S." Of garments, etc., late 14c.

Let alone "abstain from interfering with" is in Old English; the phrase in the sense "not to mention, to say nothing of" is from 1812. To let (something) be "leave it alone" is from c. 1300; let it be "let it pass, leave it alone" is from early 14c. To let go is from c. 1300 as "allow to escape," 1520s as "cease to restrain," 1530s as "dismiss from one's thoughts." Let it go "let it pass, no matter" is as old as Chaucer's Wife of Bath: "But age allas Hath me biraft my beautee Lat it go, far wel, the deuel go ther with!" [c. 1395]. Let me see "show me" is from c. 1300.

let (n.)

"stoppage, obstruction" (obsolete unless in legal contracts), late 12c., from archaic verb letten "to hinder," from Old English lettan "hinder, delay, impede," etymologically "make late," from Proto-Germanic *latjan (source also of Old Saxon lettian "to hinder," Old Norse letja "to hold back," Old High German lezzen "to stop, check," Gothic latjan "to hinder, make late"), related to *lata-, source of late (adj.), from PIE root *‌‌lē- "to let go, slacken."

Thou Shalt

thou (pron.)

2nd nominative singular personal pronoun, Old English þu, from Proto-Germanic *thu (source also of Old Frisian thu, Middle Dutch and Middle Low German du, Old High German and German du, Old Norse þu, Gothic þu), from PIE *tu-, second person singular pronoun (source also of Latin tu, Irish tu, Welsh ti, Greek su, Lithuanian tu, Old Church Slavonic ty, Sanskrit twa-m).

 

Superseded in Middle English by plural form you (from a different root), but retained in certain dialects (e.g. early Quakers). The plural at first was used in addressing superior individuals, later also (to err on the side of propriety) strangers, and ultimately all equals. By c. 1450 the use of thou to address inferiors gave it a tinge of insult unless addressed by parents to children, or intimates to one another. Hence the verb meaning "to use 'thou' to a person" (mid-15c.).

Avaunt, caitiff, dost thou thou me! I am come of good kin, I tell thee!

["Hickscorner," c. 1530]

A brief history of the second person pronoun in English can be found here.

thee (pron.)

Old English þe (accusative and dative singular of þu "thou"), from Proto-Germanic *theke (source also of Old Frisian thi, Middle Dutch di, Old High German dih, German dich, Old Norse þik, Norwegian deg, Gothic þuk), from PIE *tege-, accusative of root *tu-, second person singular pronoun (see thou). The verb meaning "to use the pronoun 'thee' to someone" is recorded from 1662, in connection with the rise of Quakerism.

 

In Middle English, people began to use plural forms in all cases, at first as a sign of respect to superiors, then as a courtesy to equals. By the 1600s, the singular forms had come to represent familiarity and lack of status, and fell from use except in the case of a few dialects, notably in the north of England. People in Lancashire north of the Rossendale Forest and Yorkshire formerly were noted for use of the singular second person pronouns tha (nom.) and thee (acc.). For religious reasons (Christian equality of persons, but also justified as grammatically correct), the Quakers also retained the familiar forms.

Thou and Thee was a sore cut to proud flesh and them that sought self-honour, who, though they would say it to God and Christ, could not endure to have it said to themselves. So that we were often beaten and abused, and sometimes in danger of our lives, for using those words to some proud men, who would say, "What! you ill-bred clown, do you Thou me?" as though Christian breeding consisted in saying You to one; which is contrary to all their grammar and teaching books, by which they instructed their youth. [George Fox's journal, 1661]

While the Quakers originally adopted "thee" and "thou" on account of their grammatical correctness, they soon fell into the careless habit of using "thee," the objective, instead of "thou," the nominative. Common illustrations are: "How does thee do?" or "Will thee," etc. [George Fox Tucker, "A Quaker Home," Boston, 1891]

thine (pron.)

Old English þin, possessive pronoun (originally genitive of þu "thou"), from Proto-Germanic *thinaz (source also of Old Frisian, Old Saxon thin, Middle Dutch dijn, Old High German din, German dein, Old Norse þin), from PIE *t(w)eino-, suffixed form of second person singular pronominal base *tu-. A brief history of the second person pronoun in English can be found here; see also thou

thy (pron.)

possessive pronoun of 2nd person singular, late 12c., reduced form of þin (see thine), until 15c. used only before consonants except -h-. Compare my/mine, a/an.

BILL MOYERS: 

What is that story about and I forget where it comes from about the camel and then the lion, and along the way you lose the burden of youth?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

The three transformations of the spirit. That’s Nietzsche. 

That’s the prologue to 

Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

BILL MOYERS: 

Tell me that story.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

When you are a child, when you are young and a young person, you are a camel. 

The camel gets down on its knees and says, 

“Put a load on me.” 

This is obedience. 

This is receiving the instruction, information that your society knows you must have in order to live a competent life. 

When the camel is well loaded, he gets up on his feet, struggles to his feet, and runs out into the desert, where he becomes transformed into a lion. 

The heavier the load, the more powerful the lion. 

The function of the lion is to kill a dragon, and the name of the dragon is 

“Thou Shalt.” 

And on every scale of the dragon there is a “Thou Shalt” imprinted. 

Some of it comes from 2,000 years, 4,000 years ago. 

Some of it comes from yesterday morning’s newspaper headline. 

When the dragon is killed, the lion is transformed into a child, an innocent child living out of its own dynamic. 

And Nietzsche uses the term, ein aus sich rollendes Rad, a wheel rolling out of its own center. That’s what you become. That is the mature individual.

The “Thou Shalt” is the civilizing force, it turns a human animal into a civilized human being. But the one who has thrown off the “Thou Shalts” is still a civilized human being. Do you see? He has been humanized, you might say, by the “Thou Shalt” system, so his performance now as a child is not simply childlike at all. He has assimilated the culture and thrown it off as a “Thou Shalt.” But this is the way in any art work. You go to work and study an art. You study the techniques, you study all the rules, and the rules are put upon you by a teacher. Then there comes a time of using the rules, not being used by them. Do you understand what I’m saying? And one way is to follow…and I always tell my students, follow your bliss.

BILL MOYERS: Follow your bliss?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Your bliss, where the deep of sense of being in form and going where your body and soul want to go, when you have that feeling, then stay with it and don’t let anyone throw you off. Have you ever read Sinclair Lewis’s Babbitt?

BILL MOYERS: Not in a long time.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Do you remember the last line? “I’ve never done a thing I wanted to in all my life.”

BILL MOYERS: Quite an admission.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: That’s the man who never followed his bliss. Well, I heard that line. I was living in Bronxville when I was teaching at Sarah Lawrence. Before I was married, I used to be eating out in the restaurants of the town for my lunch and dinners. And Thursday night was the maid’s night off in Bronxville, so that all the families were out in the restaurants. And one fine evening, I was in my favorite restaurant there. It was a Greek restaurant. And at a table was sitting a father, a mother, and a scrawny little boy here, about 12 years old. And the father says to the boy, “Drink your orange drink your tomato juice.” And the boy says, “I don’t want to.” And the father with a louder voice says, “Drink your tomato juice.” And the mother says, “Don’t make him do what he doesn’t want to do.” The father looks at her, and he says, “He can’t go through life doing what he wants to do.” Said, “If he does only what he wants to do, he’ll be dead. Look at me, I’ve never done a thing I wanted to in all my life.” I said, My God, Babbitt incarnate. And that’s the man who never followed his bliss.

Well, you may have a success in life, but then just think of it, what kind of life was it, what good is it? You’ve never done a thing you wanted to in all your life.

BILL MOYERS: What happens when you follow your bliss?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: You come to bliss. This should be it in marriage. I mean, that’s the sense of the marriage ceremony. In the Middle Ages, a favorite image that occurs in many, many contexts is the wheel of fortune. There’s the hub of the wheel, and there’s the revolving rim of the wheel. And if you attached to the rim of the wheel, let’s say fortune, you will be either above, going down, at the bottom, or coming up. But if you are at the hub, you’re in the same place all the time. And that’s the sense of the marriage vow, you know. I take you in health or sickness, you know, in wealth or poverty, but I take you and you are my bliss, riot the wealth that you might bring me, nor the social prestige, but you. And that’s following your bliss.

I came to this idea of bliss because in Sanskrit which is the great spiritual language of the world, and they know all about it and have known about it for a long time, the transcendent is transcendent. But there are three terms that bring you to the brink, you might say the jumping off place to the ocean. And the three terms are sat, chit, ananda. And sat, the word sat means “being.” Chit means “full consciousness.” And ananda means “rapture.” So I thought, I don’t know whether my consciousness is full consciousness or not, I don’t know whether my being is proper being or not, but I do know where my rapture is. So let me hang on to rapture and that’ll bring me both being and full consciousness, and it worked.

BILL MOYERS: What was your rapture?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Well, it started with Indians, and then it went on into more and more mythological matters and the realm of the arts, music, and when I met Jean, then the dance came in, and this is it, just stay with that.

BILL MOYERS: And one doesn’t have to be a poet to do this, carpenters do it, farmers do it.

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: A poet is simply one who’s made a profession and a lifestyle of being in touch with that. Most people have to be concerned with other things. They get themselves involved in economic and other activities, or you’re drafted into a war that isn’t the one you’re interested in, and how to hold to this umbilical, you might say, under those circumstances? That’s a technique each one has to work out for himself somehow. But most people living in that realm of what might be called occasional concerns, they all have the capacity that’s waiting to be awakened, to move to this other place. I know it, I’ve seen it happen in students. A wonderful way of teaching we have at Sarah Lawrence, where I taught for 38 years, I’d have an individual conference with every one of my students at least once a fortnight for half an hour or so. And there you’re talking on about the things that students ought to be reading, and suddenly you hit on something that the student really responds to. You could see the eyes open, the complexion changes, a life possibility has opened there. And all you can say to yourself is, I hope this child hangs onto that, you know. They may or may not, but when they do, they’ve found a life right there in the room with you.

BILL MOYERS: How would you advise somebody to tap that spring of eternal life, that joy, that is right there?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Well, we’re having experiences all the time which may on occasion render some sense of this, a little intuition of where your joy is. Grab it; no one can tell you what it’s going to be. I mean, you’ve got to learn to recognize your own depths.

BILL MOYERS: Do you ever have this sense, when you’re following your bliss, as I have at moments, of being helped by hidden hands?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

All the time. It’s miraculous. I even have a superstition that has grown on me as the result of invisible hands coming all the time. Namely, that if you do follow your bliss, you put yourself on a kind of track that has been there all the while, waiting for you, and the life that you ought to be living is the one you’re living somehow. 

And well, you can see it. 

You begin to deal with people who are in the field of your bliss, and they open doors to you. 

I say, follow your bliss, and don’t be afraid, and doors will open where you didn’t know they were going to be.

BILL MOYERS: 

Do you ever have sympathy for the man who has no invisible means of support?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Who has no invisible means yes, he’s the one that evokes compassion, you know, the poor chap. 

And to see him stumbling around, when the water of immortal life is right there, is really evokes one’s pity.

BILL MOYERS: 

Right there? 

Right there? 

You believe that?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Yes, yes.

BILL MOYERS: The waters of eternal life?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Right there.

BILL MOYERS: 

Where?

JOSEPH CAMPBELL: 

Wherever you are if you’re following your bliss. 

I mean, you’re having that joy, that refreshment, that life, all the time.

The Plan is HORRIFYING

“ I just did what I do best — I took your little plan and I •turned• it on itself. 

Look what I did to this city with a •few• drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hmmm? 

You know... You know what I've noticed? 

Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if The Plan is HORRIFYING! 

If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, 500,000 elderly people will die, alone, in human isolation inside nursing homes, or that a truckload of soldiers will be blown up - nobody panics. Because it's all part of The Plan. 

But when I say that •one• little old black man in custody will die..... Well then everyone loses their •MINDS!!!!•. 

Introduce a little anarchy. 

Upset the established order, and everything becomes CHAOS. 

I'm an Agent of Chaos. 

Oh, and you know the thing about chaos.....? It's FAIR! ”

— Joker

Be Impeccable With Your Word

The Four Agreements are as follows:

Agreement 1: Be Impeccable With Your Word

Ruiz states that while this agreement is the most important, it is the most difficult one to honor. 

For this agreement, Ruiz first analyzes the word “impeccable”. The word Impeccable comes from the Latin word peccatus meaning “sin”, and the “im” in the beginning of impeccable is the Latin prefix that means “without”. 

Ruiz describes a sin to be anything that goes against oneself, and therefore being impeccable with language means to take responsibility for one’s actions and remain without judgment against oneself and others.

BAD

Smoking is not good for you. Anything not good for you is bad.  Hence, illegal. 

Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat, bad language chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and spicy food.

Abortion is illegal, so is pregnancy if you don't have a license.

Planet of The Imitators

ape (n.)

Old English apa (fem. ape) "an ape, a monkey," from Proto-Germanic *apan (source also of Old Saxon apo, Old Norse api, Dutch aap, German affe), probably a borrowed word, perhaps from Celtic (compare Old Irish apa, Welsh epa) or Slavic (compare Old Bohemian op, Slovak opitza), and the whole group probably is ultimately from an Eastern or non-Indo-European language.

The common word until the emergence of monkey in 16c. More technically, in zoology, "a simian; tail-less, man-like monkey" 1690s. The only native apes in Europe are the Barbary apes of Gibraltar, intelligent and docile, and these were the showman's apes of the Middle Ages. Apes were noted in medieval times for mimicry of human action, hence, perhaps, the other figurative use of the word, to mean "a fool" (c. 1300).

To go ape (in emphatic form, go apeshit) "go crazy" is 1955, U.S. slang, said to be from the armed forces. To lead apes in hell (1570s) was the fancied fate of one who died an old maid. Middle English plural was occasionally apen. Middle English also had ape-ware "deceptions, tricks."

ape (v.)

"to imitate," 1630s, but the notion is implied earlier, as in the phrase play the ape (1570s), and Middle English apeshipe "ape-like behavior, simulation" (mid-15c.); and the noun sense of "one who mimics" may date from early 13c. Related: Aped; aping.

Statistical Probabilities

I don't accept it. 

Your entire argument is based on a series of statistical probabilities and assumptions. 

BASHIR: 

They're not just assumptions. 

If you want me to take you through the equations, I will. 

SISKO: 

Even if I knew with a hundred percent certainty what was going to happen, I still wouldn't ask an ENTIRE GENERATION of people to voluntarily give up their FREEDOM. 

BASHIR: 

Not even to save over nine hundred billion lives? 

SISKO: 

Surrender is Not an Option. 

Now I'm happy to hear your group's advice on how to win this war, 

but I don't need your advice on how to lose it. 

BASHIR:

We can't win this war. 

SISKO:

I don't care if the odds are against us. 

If we're going to lose, then we're going to go down fighting so that when our descendents some day rise up against the Dominion someday, they'll know what they're made of. 

BASHIR:

With all due respect, sir, aren't you letting your pride get in your way? 

SISKO:

All right, Doctor. 

You've made your recommendation. 

I'll pass it on to Starfleet Command. 

BASHIR:

Without add your voice to it, they'll dismiss it out of hand. 

SISKO:

I'm counting on it. 

BASHIR:

So we go down fighting. 

How terribly courageous of us.

BASHIR: 

Is there some part of the analysis you didn't understand, because if there is I'd be happy to explain. 

O'BRIEN: 

I understood it perfectly. 

Believe it or not. 

BASHIR: 

That's not what I meant. 

All I'm saying is that you have to look at the bigger picture. 

O'BRIEN: 

I'm trying. 

Maybe I'm too •uncomplicated• to see it. 

BASHIR: 

I didn't say that. 

O'BRIEN: 

You don't have to.

 The way you're acting, you'd think nobody with half a brain could •possibly• disagree with you. 

BASHIR: 

Frankly, I don't see how they •can•. 

O'BRIEN: 

I can see two possible explanations for it :  

Either,

• I'm more feebleminded than you ever realised, OR

•You’re not as smart as you THINK you are.

Captain Marvel 2000

“As part of his alien maturation process, Superman crosses a second, critical threshold of solar radiation absorption and suddenly wakes up three times more powerful and three times smarter.

This changes everything…

Superman is defined immediately by his increase in capability. This is a more powerful Man of Steel, a Superman with a much keener intellect and curiosity. Suddenly there’s more to learn, more to do, further to travel and a greater responsibility than ever before. At the same time, one of the first effects of his increases in power is to make Superman a little more remote (but only as he takes time to understand the changes which have affected him). After the initial shock, Kal is more Superman than ever before, with a corresponding tight focus on the character and his incredible adventures. Now is the time to make Superman very definitely the star of his own book and to play down the sprawling soap opera subplots.

 

Superman’s character is one we all feel we know intimately. The scene with Superboy and the grasshopper in Miracle Monday nails it beautifully; this could be the world’s scariest living being, a detached, scientific observer with the ability to experiment upon us all. Instead, this brilliant Kryptonian brain was introduced to the noblest of human values and somehow those great powers were put to use in the service of an ethical code the Kryptonians would have been impressed and startled by.

 

To that end, we’d like to balance out his battles with Brainiac and Luthor with stories which thoroughly explore those values, stories allowing him to return to his roots as a champion of the weak and oppressed. Even more so than for Batman, Green Lantern, Flash--all his peers and contemporaries--Superman’s job is to fight for and inspire those who cannot fight for themselves. His job is to make this world a better place and to help all men realize their potential as supermen.

Further to this, it’s important to keep in mind the Superman/Christ parallels WITHOUT being obvious and heavy-handed about them. Superman has to think differently from us, and when we see into his head, we should be shocked by the clarity and simplicity of his brilliance and compassion. This is a god sent to Earth not to suffer and die but to live and inspire and change the face of the galaxy by his deeds and reputation. This is the man who will take time out from stopping Mongul’s plan to crash Alpha Centauri into our sunsystem just to save a drowning dog or dry the tears of a child.

We also see Superman as the ultimate communicator--invulnerable to pain, he needs none of the physical defensive postures we take for granted and so would be incredibly relaxed and open--the big smile, the instant handshake, the conviction that everyone he meets is to be regarded as a friend until he proves otherwise. Superman should be indefatigable and trustworthy. No more "Bad Superman" or "Crazy Superman" stories for a while.

 

His curiosity and kindness are childlike in their purity but he should also be frighteningly quick and clever. The combination of contradictory qualities adds to his slightly removed air. The eyes go vague when he looks at your electrical field for a second and gets the idea for an oscillating defensive forcefield based on the rhythms of your pulse rate. Sometimes he seems not all here, but it’s only because he’s much more here than we can sensibly hope to be.

 

We’d like to tweak the costume by finally getting rid of the red underpants. This gives us a new look which somehow recovers the more classic, Golden Age, "primal" Superman look and feels like an update. This move also has instant media appeal: Finally, Superman’s smart enough to wear his shorts UNDER his pants.”

SUPERMAN 2000

By Mark Millar, Grant Morrison, Tom Peyer & Mark Waid