Some say we've entered an "Information Age," and we're indeed bombarded with mountains of written, auditory, and visual material.  We have countless freedoms in the U.S., but powerful forces still work to manipulate our beliefs and thereby control our behavior.  We can squander our treasured freedom by succumbing to the avalanche of information and allowing dominant world-views to carve out a rigid space in our minds.
         Few wish to be manipulated.  If we share "dominant world views," they should be chosen freely and consciously--not adopted just because we've been so persistently pummelled with some ideas that they come to feel "natural."  To maintain real freedom, we must practice "Self Defense of the Mind."  This article will outline some principles and techniques of mental self defense.
         It's crucial to take charge of your information sources.  Choose carefully  your newspapers, books, magazines, websites, TV or radio programs, and movies.  Don't hesitate to chop many right out of your life or imbibe some only occasionally--it's more important to enjoy space to think and independence of mind than to know every detail about the latest issues.  If your sources aren't balanced, seek alternative voices--which are usually underfunded and sometimes found only in small or obscure periodicals or in listener-supported radio, independent films, or public access TV.  If you choose to watch regular TV, mute the commercials!
Advertising is information; its overall message is that possession and consumption are the keys to fulfillment.  While muted commercials run, practitioners of mental self defense study the ads to see how they attempt to program our behavior.
         There's some great stuff on TV, but I find the medium addictive and so avoid it completely myself.  I'm 42, and have never owned a television.  My wife has a TV and VCR mounted on a rolling cart; we often rent video movies or documentaries, and can easily set up our "theater" in any part of the house.  We don't buy cable TV.
         Along with regulating information flow, applying basic logic can fortify our mental self defense.  A common logical fallacy used to manipulate us is the argument "ad hominem," which when laid bare takes the form "X is a disgusting person, therefore what X says is wrong."  Such maneuvers are usually hidden, visible only to the critical eye.  An article on Smith's political activities may mention Smith's personal problems, scraggly appearance, or history of drug use--the implication being that we can therefore safely ignore what Smith says.  Another kind of logical fallacy involves "circular reasoning," where the overall conclusion is in some subtle way assumed within the argument.  This is far more common than one might suppose.  Many colleges offer a logic or "critical thinking" class that satisfies general education requirements.  I took several logic classes myself and also tutored it; it's one of the most valuable subjects I've ever studied.
         Still, I think most of us reach our viewpoints not through logic and reasoning, but rather through values and feelings.  Reasoning then operates to "rationalize" or justify our beliefs.  This is perhaps as it should be, but we ought to stay flexible and open to change.  When incessant media voices seek not only to inculcate dominant values but also to cement them into place with sometimes questionable logic, we can sometimes become rigid and unimaginative in our thinking.
         The media have many tools to manipulate us.  "Hit and Run" aptly describes a technique that utilizes the overwhelming power of first impressions.  Last year, the Eureka daily paper ran a top front page headline proclaiming, basically, that "Poll Finds Town Favors Wal-Mart."  The text of the story noted that the "poll" was conducted by Wal-Mart and the results announced by Wal-Mart PR at a Wal-Mart press conference.  It doesn't take a black belt in mental self defense to question such a poll's validity, but the impression had nevertheless been made and
many people undoubtedly saw the headline but never read the story.  I later spoke with a woman who had been "polled," and found that the questions were indeed skewed to guarantee the result Wal-Mart wanted.  Though usually less blatant, much of our "news" similarly originates with corporate public relations.
         Another common ploy might be called "Selective Vagueness."  In recent coverage of environmentalist response to dramatically increased clearcutting in the Sierras, a Eureka Times-Standard report stated that "Wildlife biologists say clearcutting may not be any more harmful than less drastic harvest methods to mule deer, songbirds, ground squirrels, and an array of species."  While clearcutting does increase deer habitat, it's highly questionable that it's benign for wildlife overall.  What does this mean--"Wildlife biologists say..."?  Does it mean that's the
predominant view of scientists in that branch of biology, or does it mean that somewhere they can find a couple biologists (perhaps timber company employees) who kind of believe clearcuts aren't so bad?  We can't be certain what their vague phrase means, but if the reader wants to believe that clearcutting is OK, then the Times-Standard story certainly invites him or her to do so.
         A similar approach in the national media can be observed regarding global warming.  It's frequently stated vaguely that "scientists are divided," when that "division" may be 98 to 2.  A 1997 booklet called "Common Questions About Climate Change" published jointly by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization reports facts about increasing global temperatures along with the view shared by a vast majority of atmospheric scientists that "...human activities have led to a discernible influence on global
climate and these activities will have an increasing influence on future climate."  The understated report goes on to note that "...the Earth's climate has occasionally changed rather rapidly in the distant past.  There may be similarly abrupt transitions due to human-induced climate change... [raising] the possibility of significant surprises as the world warms over the next century."
         The global warming example leads to the final topic I want to consider regarding mental self defense--the question of "the burden of proof" and where it lies.
         Proponents of the status quo (who own or through advertising dollars otherwise control all our major media) assume "proof" means 100% absolute certainty, and maintain that since there's no "proof" we're causing climate change, we may as well continue pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year.  Why shouldn't they have to prove such practices are not harmful?
         Science seeks to answer questions of fact; the question of who bears "the burden of proof" is not itself a scientific question, but a political and ethical one.  In practice, the system of power and money arranges to have the burden of proof placed consistently upon the backs of its beleaguered opponents.
         This issue is constantly present but rarely acknowledged.  Should DuPont and Monsanto prove that genetically modified foods are safe, or must natural food advocates prove they aren't?  In the meantime--before the answers are in--what should we do?  Science can't answer such questions, but it would seem reasonable to "err on the safe side."  That's not what we're doing.
         For years, tobacco company scientists reassured smokers by saying there was no proof cigarettes were harmful, although there was certainly no proof that smoking was safe, either.  Today, we're told there's no proof that diet is related to conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis or multiple sclerosis.  Why shouldn't the burden of proof lie with those who casually say diet is unimportant?  It seems to me reasonable to suppose that diet bears some relationship to all health conditions, since it affects the organism as a whole.  We may wait lifetimes before diet is
proved important in these specific diseases--scientific studies are expensive, and you can bet that pharmaceutical companies will fund a lot more of them than the celery and carrot lobbies.  In the meantime, we still must act.  Should we assume that diet isn't important in these conditions, or that it is?
         When the issue of scientific proof arises, good mental self defense requires us to ask who is assumed to bear the burden of proof, and why.
         In a totalitarian society or police state, naked force controls the populace.  Despite remarkable freedoms here, the same urge to power operates and seeks to control us from within by shaping our values and perceptions.  Mental self defense may be our only protection.  Choosing information sources carefully, applying logic, studying media manipulation, and questioning the allocation of burdens of proof--these are just some of the ways we can protect our precious freedom and independence.