Friday Rant

yikes! i've been accused of losing my mind! on reflection, i think it is so! too many things going on, although most of them are interesting; and they're all time-consuming! i'm losing track. how can that be? i always stay on top of it--aargh...

poka laenui spoke in my class last night. the topic was ho`oponopono, but he took the long way to get there, to discuss how one "fixes" the breaks in relationships in hawaiian families. he says the kind of ho`oponopono done in the "old days" requires too much prep, and that it can't be done that way anymore. he's a professional in the field, so he should know. but i beg to differ. i think we should always give it a shot if a way to resolve an issue is identified. it's better than not doing it. the problem could get fixed or half-fixed if we try something (or it could get worse), but the reality is it WILL get worse if we don't do anything. i'm wondering how/if i might try to do a practice session in next thursday's class. maybe i should call in a different expert...something to think about.

yesterday (wait, what day is it?), no wednesday i attended a lecture by stephen schneider at the rRed Elephant downtown (cute spelling, but pain in the ass to write correctly all the time). he's a nobel laureate who has worked on climate change issues for a number of years. he shared something that i found useful, in terms of how i think about climate change and global warming. he showed a slide that says "the jury's still out on climate change" and then proceeded to talk about how evidence is used to determine whether or not an issue merits concern or a decision. in terms of global warming and man's part in hurrying that process along, dr. schneider (i'll call him steve, hereafter, and assume some intimacy because no one cares, anyway) noted that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the criteria used by some to determine whether or not global warming is really happening, and whether or not human beings are contributing to it. some scientists are not at a place where they can or will apply that criteria. but from his point of view, the legal definition of guilt or innocence doesn't/shouldn't apply. rather, if it's going to be a legal definition, then it should hinge on the kind of criteria that is used for civil cases--a preponderance of evidence. this merely means that a majority, or 51% of the accumulated evidence, points to a fact that needs to be addressed--global warming is definitely happening, and policies should be developed (maybe too late now!) to deal with the issue. the arguments are political ones, primarily. the evidence is suppressed because there are economic ramifications for launching any program to halt human impacts on global warming. bad for business, basically. so i walked out of there, late to my next meeting, feeling the usual depression from having too much information and knowing there wasn't much i could do about it except, maybe, saying "ah, i got it" as i watch the sun set on humanity and the earth. oh happy day.