I took this photo at an Occupy Southern California Meet-Up called SPRING IS COMING.
Why, you might ask, are we fueling the evolution of another world with Coca-Cola?
Because it’s “free” - it was donated. Sounds like the same reasoning that brought soda dispensing machines to Los Angeles public schools several years ago. Coca-Cola was willing to fund programs that our tax dollars were not made available to support.
Evolution is a messy business, and this photo, to me, encapsulates this reality. Perfect is the enemy of good.
But in my humble opinion, we have to stand up somewhere. Otherwise the words, “Another World Is Possible” become a sad joke. Nothing is “free.” We have to work for it.
We don’t need to wait for someone in a uniform to tell us to change.
From an Op-Ed in January 22, 2012’s LA Times by By Naomi Oreskes
In my travels, I have met many, many people who have told me that they are not in denial about climate change; they simply don’t know enough to decide. It strikes me that these people aren’t unlike my fellow jurors at the start of jury selection. They are trying to keep an open mind, something that we are routinely enjoined to do in many other aspects of daily life.
But just as open-mindedness can be the wrong answer in jurisprudence, it can also be the wrong answer in science and public policy. Since the mid-1990s, there has been clear-cut evidence that the climate is changing because of human activities: burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests. For the last decade or so it has been increasingly clear that these changes are accelerating, and worrisome.
Yet many Americans cling to the idea that it is reasonable to maintain an open mind. It isn’t, at least not to scientists who study the matter. They have been saying for some time that the case for the reality and gravity of climate change has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But there’s the rub. The public seems to view scientists as the equivalent of the prosecuting attorney trying to prove a case. The think tanks, institutes and fossil fuel corporations take on the mantle of the defense.
We have to get over that flawed notion. Scientists don’t play the role of prosecutor trying to prove a case. Rather, they are the jury trying to evaluate the evidence. And they have rendered their verdict. The problem is not that scientists have become advocates, as some have claimed. The problem is that there is no judge, no recognized authority giving us instructions we accept, and no recognized authority to accept the scientists’ verdict and declare it final.
Consider for a moment the case against tobacco…
In that case, there was a judge whose instructions had a large effect on public consciousness: the U.S. surgeon general. Without a scientist general to instruct us on climate change, we as a nation have been adrift, looking for leadership and not finding it.
But there is one notable exception: California…
It is possible to move forward, even without a judge in black robes telling us what to do.
In between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.
- Viktor frankl