Quantum Physics, the basics

The movie, "What the Bleep Do We Know?," could easily be titled, "A Dummy's guide to Quantum Physics." For most people (myself included,) while the movie illustrates some excellent points about new research on the true nature of "reality," the topics are so foreign that the viewer walks away with a vague feeling of having their world turned upside down without the legitimate facts to explain why or how it happened. Some of the basis for the claims in this educational movie can be found in the following statements:
1. Matter is not static and predictable.
2. Particles appear and disappear all the time.
3. The theory of quantum superposition explains that particles exist as a wave.
4. Matter is not matter until we perceive it, only tendencies and possibilities.
5. Both self imposed distance and overreaction prevent us from acting in the world as whole, coherent people.
6. We are physically addicted to many of our emotions. Every time we react the same way to the same stimulus, we reinforce a connection in our brains.
7. This connection can be broken by consciously choosing to move out of the area of the brain which contains our associations and reaffirms our previous personalities or selves.
8. In December of 1993, a collective meditation was performed in Washington, DC by about 4,000 people. The FBI predicted a 25% drop in violent crime that summer.
9. The molecular structure of water is highly receptive. Experiments conducted by Mr Emoto demonstrated a significant change in this structure both after blessings from a Zen Buddhist Monk and after bottles were left overnight with words taped to them. These findings are especially significant when you note that over 90% of the human body is water.
More information on Mr. Emoto's research can be found here: http://www.wellnessgoods.com/messages.asp
To address the question of the implications of this movie on politics: it essentially tells us that we have it all wrong. We are experiencing a self choosen reality, and both individually and as a nation, we are in a rut. Our collective understanding of the world around is falling within simplistic terms and in mass we obey the rules set forth for us, paying no attention to our own personal power or the real magic that exists in the world around us. If we truely have the power to create our world, we each become responsible and there is no reason left to complain or place blame. The cliche but true statements about the power of positive thinking take on deeper meaning when you imagine that focusing your energy on hatred will spread a pretty ugly molecular structure through 90% of your fellow man's body. And if meditation is all that's required to reduce the crime rate, can we please stop spending billions of dollars on weapons and defense?? Really, let's all just sit down together and meditate on this together . . .

Good Night, and Good Luck

“We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.”
Edward Murrows, RTNDA Convention Speech (1958)

Good Night, and Good Luck is the story of Edward Murrows and his historic challenge of McCartheism in the 1950's. Best known for his radio broadcasts during WWII, Murrows was an eloquent and thought-provoking journalist who had genuine concern for the state of the American media. This film is highly relevant to the content of this class and an absolute necessity for serious media students.
Murrows personal struggle with the structural bias embeddeded in the professional code of journalism happens early in the movie. Realizing that relying on official sources or the occurrence of an event will not allow him an opportunity to expose an obvious injustice, he decides that "stating the obvious" is necessary, despite the fear of being labeled as unprofessional or partisan. His direct and factual reporting of communist hearings ultimately changes the course of America, ending the witch-hunt simply by informing viewers about a topic most journalists were afraid to cover. This movie is a reminder of the amazing potential broadcast journalism has when it does it's job correctly. Here it is easy to see the importance of the news media's role in a true democracy; public education.
Underlying the battle between common sense (Murrows) and finger pointing hysteria (McCarthy) is another struggle: big business versus hard news. The sponsors drop Murrow's program during the controversy and his show is moved off of prime time. The CBS representative tells him that Americans are not looking for a "civics lesson," his dry and serious style clashes with the station's profit motives. This scene feels like an ultimate showdown between commercialism and integrity. Commercialism wins, giving Murrows nightly sign-off a particularly chilling effect. "Good Night, and Good Luck."

Corporate bias, anyone?

Heard on a media program on NPR today 10/2/05:
The Ny Times has run a story several times over the past few months stating that "dress down Fridays were out" and that employers and employees were being more professional. Turns out their "source" was a PR company.

sweet land 'o liberty

Ironically, in 1831, the same year that Tocqueville was traveling across America and observing the lack of free thought and discussion, Samuel Francis Smith was writing the lyrics to the song America. ("Our country 'tis of thee . . .") The song, written in Andover, Massachusetts, was a tribute to freedom, and the country that allowed it. ("Let freedom reign.")
The simultaneous occurrence of these two events to seems like more than a coincidence. Tocqueville came to America expecting something radically different, a new, truly free mentality, revolutionary thought . . . and instead found peaceful country folk singing to a flag. Where was this "freedom" they all spoke of? Where was the passion, the courage, the guile that had spawned this new and interesting government? Where were all the angry frenchmen?
His assessment, that individuality was lost in a massive "group think," was not entirely accurate. While Tocqueville did observe a painful contradiction in the very concept of democracy, his interpretation was wrong. An educated, engaged, and politically active population is necessary for a healthy democracy. But in America, when all forms of oppression were removed, the passion for change subsided and politics were prioritized behind personal achievement. Content with majority rule, the people become complacent and willing to accept the status quo, as long as it did not interfere with their freedom.
In America, this complacency has, over time, allowed those in control to erode freedom in a more subtle way. Elite interests dominated our government, our media, even our way of thinking. Unfortunately, the responsibility to form educated opinions, to think, and to CARE is not as ingrained in the American pysche as a love for "freedom." And this lack of responsibility is far more to blame for our limited scope of opinion than Tocqueville's explanation that we are somehow afraid of, or repressed by, the masses.
The question of how freedom itself can be oppressive was discussed in Plato's The Republic. "The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery" Is there such a thing as too much freedom? I say, no, both Tocqueville and Plato were too pessimistic on the subject, underestimating mankind's ability to bring about change and progress when it's truly needed. But freedom must be preserved by a concerned and aware public to survive profit-driven attempts to exploit it. America needs to believe that freedom is a complicated thing, hard work, and that it disappears as soon as it is taken for granted. Perhaps the real difference between democracy in America versus the rest of the world is that they remember what it was like to live without it.

A Tribute to The Most Important News Show, Ever.

21% of people between the ages of 18 and 29 cited The Daily Show as a place to get news about the 2004 presidential campaign. In a communications class I took last semester, the professor called this figure frightening, and took it's mention as an opportunity to deride modern programs for their "poor taste," and "pandering to the lowest common denominator." While I agree our generation's fascination with reality television and obsession with the lives of celebrities is a certain sign that the apocalypse is near, I had to smile when it became clear that the professor had never actually watched the show.
As mainstream sources scamper to find a way to exploit this young audience and networks line up to offer Jon Stewart a job as a more traditional news-anchor, I would like to offer a little insight about the show's success.
This week The Daily Show is running a series about the debate over evolution versus intelligent design. Amid the sarcasm, the mockery, and the satire, a three minute segment on the show gave me more actual facts about the topic then a weeks's worth of articles in the New York Times. For example:
24 states currently have court cases challenging the supremacy of teaching evolution over intelligent design. Kansas deleted the teaching of evolution from it's state biology requirement in 1999 but restored it in 2000. Ohio passed a law in 2002 requiring science teachers to include a critical analysis of evolution. In Dover Pennsylvania, 9th grade biology students currently must hear a three paragraph precautionary preamble prior to the teaching of evolution. The ACLU is part of a suit filed to stop the district from promoting intelligent design to take place later this month.
Did I say three minutes? That was actually two minutes and thirteen seconds. And I'm sure I missed a couple of facts while laughing . . .
In my last blog, I listed ten facts about Hurricane Katrina. During our class discussion previous to the blog, it became obvious that while many of us knew the basic events that had transpired in New Orleans, there was an extreme shortage of details and hard facts. The real lesson that I learned in my afternoon of searching for these details was that the hard facts are pretty hard to find. Sure, the basics were there, but detailed and thorough coverage of, for example, what category storm Katrina became as it made it's way across the country, was not exactly at my fingertips even though every major news source was currently reporting on almost nothing else.
Now, if a classroom full of students (mostly political science majors) all studying media, don't know the facts, then how much do you suppose the average American who works as, say, a carpenter, would know? And if James Madison was correct in stating that "A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce . . ." then what does this say about our country?
My point is simply this : If the major networks want our viewership maybe they should concentrate on more comprehensive coverage and stop dumbing down the news to make it easy to digest. Stop sensationalizing. Lose the fake smile and sure, go ahead and laugh because at least that will show a little honesty and prove that you actually have a pulse. Indeed, with our current administration's capacity for mistakes and the incredible ignorance demonstrated by the the Christian Right's determination to contradict science, laughter is the only appropriate response.

Just the facts, please.

The media's reporting on hurricane Katrina has been somewhat more thorough/critical than average. In effort to commend the sources for giving us access to varied and important information, I would like to list the following facts and links that I have found on the story.

1. Due to atmospheric conditions, Katrina was one of many storms predicted for this overactive season. 10-13 additional storms are still expected. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.html
2. Katrina appears to have entered Louisiana as a category 4 storm. Shortly after hitting land, it was reduced to a category 3 storm. http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at200512.asp
3. Damage to the bridge spans that carry Interstate 10 over Lake Pontchartrain made delivery of releif supplies difficult. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/30/katrina/?section=cnn_topstories
4. Breaks in the London Ave. Canal and 17th Street Canal have been repaired and engineers from the U.S. Army Corps are pumping water out of the city. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4834195
5. Many of the voluteers that have gone to New Orleans to help with relief efforts been told that they are not needed and sent home. (A friend of mine in the Army Reserve also arrived back today.) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/3/171718/0826
6. Evacuation orders given by Mayor Ray Nagin (previous to Katrina's arrival) were mandatory and had been personally recommended in a phone call by President Bush. http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?base/news-18/1125239940201382.xml&storylist=louisiana
7. Bush declared a State of Emergency on Sunday, August 28th, a day before the storm hit. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050907/STORMFEMA07/TPInternational/Americas
8. The confirmed death toll in Louisiana as of today is 154 people. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/09/11/forensic_crews_collect_new_orleans_corpses/
9. FEMA has limited reporters ability to represent the situation by not allowing them on boats seeking victims. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702126.html
10. FEMA director Michael Brown has been removed from his position, a possible indication of negligence in the slow responce to this disaster. http://www.ocean.com/resource-news.asp?ResourceID=2730&CatId=27

Sad state of affairs

The first article on hurricane Katrina (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/31/235829/261) does not even attempt to depict the situation fairly. While implying negligence on the part of the administration for not being able to deliver aide from Canada, it supplies no proof of the accusation. It is irresponsible to even publish a story with so few actual facts about the situation. Sadly, this type of story will make it into public commentary and will most likely not be followed up on when/if it is found that noone is at fault. Yes, there is "mass confusion!!!" We are in the midst of a natural disaster like the country has never seen before. Noone wants this tragedy to continue if it is avoidable, especially the administration that wants to avoid political fall-out.
It is sad that the article on global warming (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/afor-they-that-sow-the-_b_6396.html) also took such an anti-Bush slant. I understand the frustration and concern over the continous depiction of the phenomenon as a "radical fringe issue" but the wording and tone allows critics to dismiss the author's point as equally biased. I found more mainstream coverage of the global warming issue (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-09-01-katrina-global-warming_x.htm) also disturbing. While most valid scientific sources have published multiple studies showing that the warming has increased water temperature, thereby creating potential for increasingly larger storms, equal coverage is given to a couple of scientists claiming simply that they "don't buy it." If you'd like to see their research, good luck, it won't be out until later this year. If you'd like to see one of many, many, studies demonstrating that global warming could, in fact, be responsible, start here: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html
The media could, and should, better inform us of the situation simply by listing the facts. There is a difference between editorial and fact but our sources seem to have forgotten it. Government actions can and will be changed only with pressure by it's citizens but our ability to form the necessary stance is hindered by lack of simple facts. We are hammered at by the right and left to the point where the average American is just too confused to do anything short of picking a "side." While USA Today atleast made it into the spectrum of acceptable journalism the subject was essentially dismissed as "inconclusive." So put down the paper and move on with your day. We may follow up on the story but really, it's unlikely once Katrina, and therefore our interest in global warming, is in the past.
This is the other media issue which needs addressing if we ever expect to hear the "truth." Complex issues will never be understood by the general public if they are only mentioned in passing while the issue is "hot."