dirtymick

I may have missed the boat, but I'll throw this one out.

It's nearing certainty that we'll fail in our efforts to prevent, contain, or reverse the effects of climate change. Much of therapy seems to use the permanence/continuity of the world as a kind of cognitive anchor for those in distress. Rooting themselves in the moment, "this, too shall pass", etc. When faced with such a strong likelihood of a world/society/species breakdown, collapse, or even extinction, how should therapy, et al, change to meet this new paradigm?

Interestingly (at least to me), that sense of duty is one of the things that most keeps me going. I can do more good here than not here.

Waste Management Artisan.

Thank you for what you do.

You likely can't answer something like this, but maybe a lawyer in the thread can. It seems that whenever I see cases like these, there's a pattern that goes: accusations made, accused's vehement denial, accuser's truthfulness asserted and evidence hinted at, defense's further denials with accompanying character dispersions, video evidence surfaces, recantment/settlement/fini.

Am I imagining that or do the prosecutors follow a rough plan like this in order to let the accused dig themselves ever deeper and finally destroy their own credibility?

Very good. It seemed there was a strategy at work.