Blog links

Having received my first request to link to another blog I thought it timely add a blog link section. In general I will be happy to link to blogs that are well thought out and contain useful links and information. Calvin Jones’ blogs climatechangeaction.blogspot.com and climatechangeresources.blogspot.com collectively have the honor of being the first that I have linked. If you are interested in doing something about climate change please visit Calvin’s blogs.

Think tanks: conclusions pt. I

Hopefully the last few posts have given you a taste of how think tanks can be used to promote economic gain for particular donors. How think tanks actually influence politics is subtle and not easilly encapsulated in few sentences. First, there is the "echo chamber" effect where media outlets and politicians begin to echo particular viewpoints that have been promoted by think tanks [1]. Second, the fact that think tanks can promote ideas that are not popular today allows them to lay the groundwork for the future defintion of particular debates. For example, if a think tank continually expounds that inheritence tax is in bad it will eventually become a legitimate point of view despite the factual merits of that point of view [1]. And lastly, this leads to the most subtle but powerful part that think tanks play in our political process: they add intellectual merit to specific points of view [1]. In other words, if a politician has a specific belief he or she will be far more likely to proclaim it (and get results) if that belief is backed up by "objective" research (for a detailed listing of think tank techniques [2]).

The very fact that think tanks are treated as institutions of objective thought makes them powerful forces. In "real" academic institutions (mostly univerisities, a subject in itself) members rise or fall by how well they can play to their peers; who presumably have enough training to spot problems with or bias in the data. Think tanks have no such check. Rather, their members rise and fall by their impact on public perception. How well they are able to influence public perception seems to be largely tied to the amount of funding they are provided [3], and how well they further the goals of the donors [4], rather than the quality of their research. This begs the question: are most think tanks simply highly refined advertising firms masquerading as academic institutions [5]?

At this time, and especially with the current administration, think tanks probably have far more influence on the political process than "real" academics. A great example of this is the Bush administration's amazing ability to come up with arguments against A) that global warming is happening [6] and B) that we should do anything about it if it is [7]. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists (nearly 100% of those people actually analyze the data) believe that climate change is happening and that it is human caused [8]. Further, some scientists are now saying that if our climate shifts beyond certain threshholds that it will precipitate a state shift that could make it difficult or impossible to switch back by simply reducing greenhouse gas emissions [9]. In other words, the entire scientific community, who uses peer reviewed research (and is thus as objective as humanly possible), is saying cut greenhouse gases now so that we can prevent a climatic state shift. Otherwise we're screwed.

But Bush ignores this plea, why? Because it hurts his pocketbook [10]. And where does he get the "research" to give legitimacy to his point of view? Think tanks. In a glaring example of self-interest ExxonMobil has been paying out enourmous sums of money (more than $8 million) to a slew of think tanks for one purpose: give amunition to those who don't want to do anything about global warming [11].

The whole aim of this post is to point out that many think tanks are not acedemic institutions that produce objective research. I'll conclude with these questions: can think tanks produce objective research? Are think tanks inevitable in this day and age? And if so, how do we deal with this situation? Do we have alternatives? I will discuss these questions in the next one or two posts, and then switch to a new topic.

Think tank influence pt. II

Wikipedia: "Critics charge as another example that over the past three years Microsoft has funded about a dozen think tanks that have released papers attacking open-source software."

While the open-source movement is not something I am an expert on I do feel that it is an important part of society that is integral to the free exchange of information and ideas. Open-source code and software can allow people who would not be able to afford proprietary software to enter into the computing world. In his book, The World is Flat [1], Thomas Friedman notes that much of the developing world uses open-source platforms such as Linux. Also, much of the internet foundation is based on some of sort of open-source code. Philosophically, the open-source movement believes that many minds are better than few, thus allowing for rapid improvements to code or information, and that it is generally good for many to people to have access to programs, code and information because it allows for heightened community creativity. But due to the fact that open-source code is generally non-proprietary making money from it can be difficult. How a company does so depends on the details of the code in question. The operating system Linux is especially onerous to companies such as Microsoft who wants everyone in the world to use Windows. Because people by nature will tend to keep doing things that don't cost money, the only way to stop or hinder open-source movements is to create a legal framework that makes it difficult or impossible for open-source advocates to operate. Think tanks can generate the idealogical momentum to push such laws.

Apparently, Microsoft has funded at least fourteen think tanks to research open-source software and the movement in general, 5 of which are confirmed to use open-source software. Microsoft has spent at least $750,000 on this endeavor, and that's only the money that's been tracked down. It is not surprising to find that all fourteen of these think tanks have produced research that is negative toward open-source [2].

Some think tanks appear to bought out completely by Microsoft. According to United Press International, "several tank officials and analysts, who spoke to UPI on the condition of anonymity, said that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a small Arlington, Va.- based think tank that promotes free-market principles, receives a significant portion of its funding from the Microsoft Corp. The sources said that the think tank essentially lobbies in favor of issues important to Microsoft through op-ed pieces and policy briefs by tank officials [3]." Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (ADTI) fellows have written that open-source conflicts with intellectual property rights, and one fellow even went on to say that "Every day, an untold amount (sic) of employees beholden to strict employee/invention/intellectual property agreements, in their spare time (and even during work-hours) freely give away ideas, code, and products to open source projects[4]." This last statement raises the issue of who owns a person's creativity. Certainly if open-source content is being produced on company time then there's a direct conflict of interest, but is a person's spare time no longer their own but rather owned by the company they work for? It looks like the world is moving in that direction.

Microsoft has used these same tactics to defend itself against the anti-trust case held against it [3, 5]. In one glaring example, Microsoft paid a think tank called the Independent Institute to run full-page adds in newspapers supporting Microsoft's position in the case [5].

To wrap up, it appears that there is a direct attack the open-source movement by think tanks with funding from corporations who have direct involvement in the issue. Further, this whole process suggests to me that there is a direct attack being leveled at the whole idea of freedom of thought. In a perfect Microsoft world they would own all the thoughts of their employees and would be able to buy your thoughts as well.

Think tank influence pt. I

First off, you might have noticed that I didn't cite many sources in the last post. In the interests of keeping good records and allow readers to fact check on their own I will now cite my sources starting with this post.

A little more on the ideological effect on the media and policy, according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) in the years between 1995 and 2003 roughly 50% of media citations of think tanks were from conservative groups, 36% from centrist groups and 14% from liberal groups [1]. Hmm...

Okay, another interesting bit about think tanks. Generally they are able to propel ideas that politicians won't embrace initially. A good example is the current debate over social security. The idea that social security needed severe overhaul originated from several conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute [2]. Until Bush took up the issue few politicians would touch it, but it has been bounced around in the think tank world for years.

Two other issues that think tanks have been deeply involved in recently are security issues (i.e. terrorism and the Iraq War) and the open source software movement. First, I'll mention what might seem to be a conflict of interest in a particular think tank: The RAND Corporation. RAND claims to be an impartial and objective producer of research on security issues. Looking at their website [3] leads me to believe that an attempt is made to do this, or at least appear to do so- I would encourage you to look their website and those of other think tanks, a few new links are posted on the sidebar. I would probably agree with much the analysis that RAND produces (depending of course on what world-view assumptions I am operating under, but more on that later). Nevertheless, RAND does have what could be considered a conflict of interest. How much of one, I'll let you decide.

RAND is one of the most influential think tanks on security issues in the world. Besides getting money from various big corporations and big oil RAND also has a connection with one of the biggest "defense contractors" (in quotes because they technically just buy and sell defense companies) in the world: the Carlyle group. Needless to say when war is on defense contractors make lots of money. So to the connection, Frank Carlucci (a former Secretary of Defense under Reagan) is on the board of trustees of RAND, and is also a chair on RANDs Middle East Public Policy Advisory Board [4]. Frank Carlucci is also a chairman for the Carlyle group [4, 5]. Hmm...

It's a little off subject, but I should note that the Carlyle group is a whole subject in itself (George Herbert Walker Bush is a member), but I'll save that for another time. If you are interested check out the video provided on indybay.org [5]. The video is narrated and subtitled in German, but since most of the interviews are in English it is completely understandable.

Since this post seems to be getting a bit long already I will save the other subject: think tanks and the open-source movement for another post.

Stay tuned for Think tank influence pt. II

1. http://media.eriposte.com/4-4.htm
2. http://www.socialsecurity.org/
3. http://www.rand.org/
4. http://www.hereinreality.com/news/rand.html
5. http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/04/1678405.php

A source for some of the last post:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tank

What are think tanks?

According to Wikipedia: "A think tank is a group of individuals dedicated to high-level synergistic research on a variety of subjects, usually in military laboratories, corporations, or other institutions. Usually this term refers specifically to organizations which support theorists and intellectuals who endeavor to produce analysis or policy recommendations." Here I discuss just the think tanks that "produce analysis or policy recommendations."

While some think tanks attempt impartiality in their research most do not. Think tanks are funded by private donors and private donors often fund think tanks that produce the types of "research" (and outcomes of that "research") that the donor is interested in. Because think tanks are not technically lobbying firms or affiliated with any political party they do not have to disclose who funds them. Having poked around a bit on some think tank web sites I've noticed a very interesting trend: those think tanks that attempt impartiality usually disclose their largest donors, whereas those that have very specific idealogies never do. This means that donors who want a specific outcome do not have to publically endorse the ideas that they want to put into place.

One of the buzzterms associated with think tanks is the "echo chamber." If findings of a think tank's research starts to be echoed by politicians or by the press then that think tank knows that it has done its job. In fact nearly all experts heard on mainstream radio or television today are working for some non-academic institute or another (think tanks) and much of the "facts" that are repeated on news programs by politicians and pundits (I would hope that journalists have findings of there own) orginate in think tanks. Probably all "experts" on FOX news are from think tanks. Even public and community supported media, such as Democracy Now! and NPR, use think tank fellows. So it seems obvious that these organizations have a lot of influence. This is not to say that good research doesn't come out of think tanks. Rather, I would reccomend that the particular affiliations of think tank fellows should be checked when trying to understand who's interests they might be promoting.

One interesting fact is that there are two times as many conservative think tanks as liberal think tanks and the conservative think tanks are by far the best funded. So if you think that there is a fair fight in terms of ideas, think again. Funding for liberal think tanks has increased rapidly in an attempt to play catch-up, but I do not know whether it increasing as rapidly as that for conservative organizations. Also of interest, in the 1970s there were only a handful of think tanks dedicated to policy analysis and political influence. Today there are over 300 think tanks devoted to politics of some sort or another. This is a rising trend.

In other posts I plan to give specific examples of think tank influence, talk about alternatives to think tanks and discuss questions like: are think tanks just money laundering operations for political lobbying? And, do we want a country where multiple think tanks on all sides of political issues duking it out?

Think Tanks

Ok. So I've been doing this blog thing for a few hours now and I'm starting to get the hang of working with my template.

In thinking about how ideas are presented in the news media and how policy is shaped in this country I can't help but consider the importance of political think tanks. In that vein I have posted two links in the "Think Tank Links" section. I don't know much about how think tanks operate so I have decided to make this a running topic in my next few postings. As I discover information I will proceed with posting my opinions and analysis on the subject.

Suffice it say, think tanks are an integral part of our society and politcal process and many of the ideas that pour from the mouths of politicians usually have there roots in the political idea factories we call think tanks.

Links and such

I have now posted a few links to sites where I get much of my news and news analysis. This leads me to some issues that I should discuss. First, I suppose I am what many would call a "liberal." I do have liberatarion leanings and I am by no means a drone that spouts one party line or another. I do believe that we should get our news from multiple sources. It encourages free thinking. To that end I attempt to read and consider ideas on several sides of any issue (note: I said "several" and not "both," as I believe there are usually multiple ways to view an issue and not just one or two). I will continue to post news and news analysis links as I find them. Please feel free to pass on your favorites.

Beginnings

This is my first post on my first blog. We shall see where it leads. At the moment I have little direction. However, I do have a few ideas. First, I would like this to be a place where I can talk a bit about world issues and perhaps connect people to useful sources of information. Second, I hope that this can be a place where interesting ideas about how to exist in this world and move into the future can be exchanged. That's a tall order I know. So I will just start slow and see where things lead.