[adapted from my blog,
Peace Tree Farm]
Eventually, this diary will focus on the American political climate, but please indulge me first while I offer up a little bit of freshman chemistry.
The term buffering capacity is often heard in discussions of acid rain. The course notes for Chem 3/5 (General Chemistry) -- a course I took in Hanover almost 37(!?!) years ago -- define it:
- the acidic buffering capacity of a solution is the number of moles of H3O+ per liter of buffer which are required to lower the pH by one unit
- the basic buffering capacity of a solution is the number of moles of OH- per liter of buffer which will raise the pH by one unit
What this means is that ecosystems may appear to be unaffected by acid rain, even after years of onslaught, until all of a sudden they suffer catastrophic effects ... algae blooms, fish kills, and the like. No evident changes for a long time (as long as the ecosystem is able to neutralize the acidity) and then WHAM!, everything changes.
Look below the fold for a kewl graph and the rest of the story...
Because the ecosystem may include natural constituents that are able to neutralize the acid in the rain, the solution's pH (measure of acidity) doesn't change much for quite some time, even after large amounts of the chemical are added. At a certain point, however, a little bit more results in a
huge leap in the pH. That's where the solution's buffering capacity -- its ability to neutralize the overt effects of the chemical -- has been exceeded.
Graphically, the effect looks something like this (in reverse, as this diagram shows neutralizing an acid by adding a base, not the effects of adding acid to a neutral solution):
Update [2005-7-1 18:50:58 by N in Seattle]:I forgot to cite the source of the diagram...
Think of the dots as successive additions of the chemical. Notice that the curve is flat (little pH effect) for quite a long time, but that once the ecosystem's ability to neutralize has been exhausted, there's almost a discontinuity, that the system very rapidly shifts to an entirely new equilibrium state.
By now, of course, you're wondering what in the world this has to do with the end-of-June political scene. Here's the punch-line...
It all started on Tuesday, when I read Kate's essay, I have hope, over at Cider Press Hill, in which she describes a conversation over drinks with a Bush-voter friend of hers. Kate's key paragraphs:
It was a fascinating conversation. There was no one thing that swayed her formerly strongly held opinions of the President. It seemed more of an accrual of events, though if I had to pinpoint a particular moment of revelation, the Terry Schiavo fiasco was probably her tipping point. Everything since has solidified her convictions. She’s not a blog reader nor a frequent newspaper reader. The last time I knew, she was a devoted Fox News consumer. But somehow, somewhere, she has reached her conclusions on her own.
And you know what? She’s a true focus group representative. An average American who doesn’t ordinarily pay that much attention to the news, who goes about her daily business, too busy to read the newspaper, trusting that the government knows what it’s doing. Until something doesn’t strike her quite right and she begins to pay more attention. Discrepancies begin to filter through. The “everything’s going well in Iraq” pronouncements don’t gibe with her own eyes watching daily film clips of suicide bombers blowing things up or the daily tally of dead American soldiers. In other words, the spin isn’t working for her anymore. She’s afraid for her kids. She’s afraid for herself and her future as a single woman. None of it looks good to her anymore.
Where others might have thought "tipping point" or "straw that broke the camel's back", my immediate reaction was "buffering capacity". What can I say? I'm just an insufferable science guy.
What struck me particularly deeply was that Kate apparently had no inkling that her friend's sudden transformation was about to take place. In fact, I get the feeling that the friend wasn't really expecting any such change either. Clearly, though, something clicked for her that rapidly brought together a whole lot of little things, things she hadn't really considered to be of much import or interest, into an entirely new reality.
We're starting to hear such stories in other places as well. Sometimes the MSM seem to "get it", seem to be ready to recognize the moral, ethical, and intellectual bankruptcy of the ruling junta. More and more issues seem to reach the outrage thresholds of more and more Americans. It might be Schiavo or might be the Downing Street memo; it might be the bankruptcy bill or the Bolton nomination. It might be Valerie Plame or the utterly unconvincing propaganda speech at Ft. Bragg.
Will reality finally break through so thoroughly that we can begin the difficult process of putting this awful chapter in the desecration of our country and our world behind us? I sure hope so. Maybe when Dubya's "favorable" rating starts with the numeral three ... which, it seems, won't take too many more weeks.
And, to tie this to today's headlines, it's quite possible that the fight over a replacement for Justice O'Connor might provide what it takes to reach the buffering capacity of many more Americans. If Dubya nominates someone really, truly scary and nutty -- a not-unlikely prospect IMHO, given the Rovian propensity to appeal solely to the base when things aren't going his way -- the ugly scariness and nuttiness of the cabal might be paraded around for all to see still again. I do believe that an awful lot of Americans are nearing their equivalence points, where their ethical and moral values will finally have been insulted deeply enough to prepare them to see the nakedness of the emperor. Their buffering capacity is reaching (or exceeding) its limits.
Good god, I hope that's so.