Tag Archives: think tanks

Extraordinary

30
by Atheism, Climate Change, Media, politics • Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When I put in a complaint the other day regarding an extraordinarily biased tv report about cattle in national parks a twitter follower asked if I would have complained if the bias had been the other way. Made me consider the question for a moment.

The answer of course is “no”, but why? Remember Carl Sagan’s comment that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”? Which is why there was such interest in the “faster than light neutrinos” the other day. That claim illustrated the Sagan idea – it has to be checked and rechecked, duplicated and reduplicated (and hasn’t yet been, so it is not an extraordinary proof and is probably wrong).

Which brings me back to the question of “balance” in a story in the media. An “ordinary” claim doesn’t require balance. Earth is round, species evolve, there is no imaginary friend, the planet is warming as a result of human activity, Elvis Presley is dead, chocolate and red wine are good for you? Go for it, make your program, I’ll watch it, no problems.

But if your schtick is that vaccination is bad for you, cigarettes good for you, the moon landings were fake, a picture of Jesus has appeared on a piece of toast, there is no global warming, cattle are good for the alpine environment, etc, etc, etc, then you had damn well better present the other side of the argument or at least indicate its existence, or I’ll be down on you before you can say “Media Watch”.

To paraphrase Sagan, extraordinary claims require a balanced tv program. Which brings me to the second part of a modern recipe for accurate television – we need to be told the affiliations of the person making the program, or speaking during a segment, or writing a newspaper column, or a blog.

Affiliations that have no bearing on an argument in hand are irrelevant. Someone who is a member of a football club, and who comments on, say, environmental issues, has no obligation to reveal that they are a Collingwood supporter. Nor would someone who went to a particular church, had a hobby involving antique furniture, or whose place of work was a hospital.

On the other hand if the topic being addressed was poker machines or liquor licences then football club membership would almost certainly be relevant. As would the other interests be if the topics were private school subsidy, import duties, or health funding.

We live in times where people go to great lengths to hide affiliations that are relevant. Hence the rise and rise of right wing think tanks with bland titles and hidden funding sources. Hence the rise of “astro turf” protest groups, apparent movements arising spontaneously as a result of public anger or concern, in reality carefully created by billionaires, or conservative politicians, or media shock jocks. Hence the rise of commentators with, like the think tanks, bland meaningless names like “social commentator”. Hence the rise of political parties with apparently meaningful names “People for the Forest” say, or “Responsible Climate Change Action” which will turn out to be parties started by forestry and coal companies respectively, with a policy of cutting down trees and burning coal.

So I am very careful to look at the affiliations of people I am seeing and hearing these days, want to know if their background is ordinary or extraordinary in some way. But does it matter, won’t their arguments, if valid, stand alone, fail if not? Well, yes, it does.

Physics has to be time and geography independent. That is, whenever and wherever you perform an experiment the results should be potentially the same. This is also true of other sciences, with obvious variations in biological science. What should also be true is that science is ideology independent. That is, if you read, or hear, a paper by a scientist, whatever their background, it will be the results that count (while recognising that interpretations can vary in all kinds of ways).

But outside of science it matters greatly. If I read something by, for the sake of argument, George Pell, I am reading something by someone who is not merely a Catholic but who has so much absorbed and accepted Catholic teachings as to be Cardinal and head of church in Australia. When he pontificates then, on issues such as gay marriage, contraception, abortion, church school funding, religion in the classroom, I don’t read his words as being the result of independent research and analysis to reach a carefully considered position, but as simply a statement of church dogma.

Similarly if I read, hear, material on the economy from a libertarian free market think tank funded by big business, I am quite sure I won’t be reading any Keynesian economics, or support for socialism, or for action on environmental issues. In addition, on more particular issues, where the tank has funding from, say, energy companies or tobacco companies, I know I won’t be reading research supporting climate change action or reduction in cigarette promotion.

I really don’t want to know what clubs think about problem gamblers, foresters about tree felling, pubs about alcohol, evangelicals about evolution, psychics about the supernatural, irrigators about water, nuclear spokespeople about nuclear safety, billionaires about taxation, shooters about gun safety, libertarians about public service, warmongers about war. So when people appear, right there on my tv, making statements about such things, I really do want to know where they are coming from. If someone with no axe to grind has done independent research which shows that more forest can be cut down, fine, I’ll listen to your arguments, examine your data. But if you are an employee of a pulp mill forget it.

A scientist approaches a question in the spirit of the old legal oath – “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” – following the data to see where it leads, what the answer to the question is, however it might conflict with, contradict, the hypothesis the scientist began with. An ideologue (of whatever kind), or someone paid by ideologues or interest groups, does the opposite of this, they start with the answer, the truth as revealed by, say, Hayek or Benedict, and they set about investigating the data in order to obtain that answer. What else could it do, it is the truth, the whole truth, and there is nothing else but that truth? Whether they know it or not, people who start with an answer instead of a question are driven by their ideology.

Look this is not to say there are not scientists with ideology that warps their science. Most notoriously in evolution and climate change. It is usually easy to recognise because of their strong links with religious groups or libertarian think tanks (climate change being the biggest challenge ever posed to the mad-brained libertarian ideology). In some it can be more subtle though, representing political mind-sets more inclined to accept one analysis than another (an example in my own field of research being the role of fire in Australian ecosystems). With so much money around these days for those willing to argue against climate change, or gambling reform, or plain packaging of cigarettes, it is not surprising that a scientist of a certain ideological tendency can be tempted to turn a blind eye to some results, or present other results in the way most favourable to his or her employers. Or even without money, argue strongly for something which forms a fundamental part of their political or religious world view.

Obviously we all approach issues with predispositions influenced in some way by our family background, schooling, personal circumstances and so on. We are all ideological creatures to some extent. Me no less than others. In the ordinary scheme of things this doesn’t matter. I may want some research outcome to match my own belief about, say education strategies, but if it doesn’t I would shrug and say well, isn’t that interesting. My “ideology”, such as it is, doesn’t tell you much about what I write except in a negative sense – I am an atheist, I am vaguely left of political centre with an interest in the environment, I belong to no political party, I am not employed by any think tank, I have no financial vested interest in political outcomes. Judge what I say, the logic of my arguments, the quality of my data. I guess my outlook is coloured by my background, but good luck working out how. And that would be true of a very big proportion of ordinary people writing, blogging, appearing on tv, voting in elections.

But where it is not true I bloody well want to know before I invite you into my living room or on to my computer screen. Okay? That’s not so extraordinary is it?

Counting out his money

9
by Economics, Media, politics • Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What slogan is above the door of the free marketeer’s think tanks? No, it’s not “Abandon hope all ye who enter here”, you naughty people. It’s “Government small enough to drown in a bathtub”.

These people believe that “government” should leave banks and financial institutions alone, get rid of regulation, has no business in business, as it were, should “get out of the way” of private enterprise, and so on. Any suggestion that the “government” should do something about CEO salaries, risky investments, fees, interest rates, is met with the outrage usually reserved for apostates from a religion. And the outrage in turn is largely met with acquiescence by the media, themselves determined not to be regulated in any way. Faced with the unanimity of “think tanks”, media, and of course the financial institutions themselves, politicians from both “sides” have quickly jumped in to say “oh my goodness gracious me heavens to betsy why no of COURSE we wouldn’t want to regulate banks etc. Reckon we are socialists or something?”

So let’s think about this for a moment. Twenty two million Australians elect several hundred people from among their number to represent their interests. Each one has gained the confidence of tens of thousands (in the case of Senators hundreds of thousands) of people. And yet, these people, combining to form a “government”, are told, by a handful of people with a bizarre ideology, that they must not attempt to have any control over the organisations that not only serve the financial needs of the 22 million, but through their activities fundamentally control the economy of the nation.

That is forget the word “government” as used pejoratively by this little band of reverse Sherwood Foresters, instead say to yourself – these financial bodies are supposed to have no oversight by we, the people of Australia? Really? How did that come to be a thing?

Well it came to be a thing because the banks and the think tanks kept saying it, and a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth for all practical purposes these days.

Look, money isn’t a get out of jail free card. Oh, sorry, yes it is of course. Let’s start again.

Just because your major activity, your role in society, involves money, doesn’t mean you can do what you like. I mean, banks aren’t churches, are they?

In almost all other major kinds of activities in our society we, as a people, through our government, decide how we want those things to work. If you are in medicine, teaching, building roads, serving food, police, flying planes, and all the rest, you work within structures, within limits, for the good of society.

Once upon a time only the church was, as they say, a law unto itself. the reason was obvious, they had you over a barrel, in an explicit, and exquisite form of blackmail – try to rein us in and we will damn your soul to eternal hell, no white robes, harps, bunches of grapes or virgins for you. So they were left alone and for centuries did very nicely thank you. Still do pretty nicely actually with tax exemptions, and ability to make their own laws, and avoidance of laws on discrimination, and largely a freedom from discrimination. Nice work if you can get it and they got it.

And then a second group achieved a similar status floating above and beyond ordinary mortals – the media. Achieved in the same way – hey, try to control us, even look sideways at us, and we will hack our phone, have you on the front page of a fish and chip wrapper; or running the perp walk between serried ranks of cameras and blonds with microphones as weapons, outside your own front door every morning. Wouldn’t like that would you mr politician, we know where you live, and we know where your children go to school, oh, and we have a copy of that ill-advised video you and your wife made on holiday in Bali. Any questions? Right then, piss off and leave us alone.

And now the third of this unholy triumvirate. The blackmailing style the same, the weapons slightly different. Not being poked by imps with red hot pokers for eternity, or junior reporters with red hot microphones, but worse, much worse, blackmailed by the guys, and gals, with the keys to the treasure chest. You want us to do what? Cut CEO salary from $20million to $19million, pass on interest rate savings to home buyers, lend more to small business, reduce fees on breathing while in bank, stop playing risky games with dodgy financial brothers? Right, we’re out of here, got a place to go to in Panama, Liberia, Burma, Zimbabwe, no nonsense about regulation there, few dollars to the country’s president and you can do what you like. See ya.

No wonder solidarity from the media, playing similar games. No wonder support from libertarians who mistake a license to print money for a statement about human freedom. No wonder that other industries, seeing the way these groups have got away with murder as effectively as Al Capone, are adopting the same tactics. MIners, clubs, supermarkets, manufacturers have all been at it, when faced with royalty payments, or regulation of problem gamblers, or food labelling.

So time we the people told our representatives we want the bluff called. Want banks behaving responsibly before we count to ten. Nine, ten, knockout. And the blackmail? To hell with it. Do you really think a rich country with 22 million people can’t develop new community banks if the others pick up their notes and coins and go home? Some genuine competition from groups prepared to work with community for a modest return rather than against it for greed would quickly emerge. Competition, you see, remember that quaint concept? Bit old-fashioned, but then I’m just an old fashioned guy with an old-fashioned idea about millionaires.

And with that victory under the belt the government could then tackle the media, and then, gulp, the church. Let’s move from the 14th to the 21st century in one giant leap. And put the fear of god into these other wannabe blackmailers while we are at it.

Oh, and that sound you hear? Tents being folded in the night as the freemarket think-tankers, no longer a job to do blocking regulation here and no money to be earned from doing so, head for Zimbabwe and freedom.

Writing on the wall

1
by Media • Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The world is divided into two kinds of substances – medicines and non-medicines. You will notice this doesn’t leave room for the pseudo-category of “alternative medicines”, those are substances that don’t exist.

Yet there appear to be moves to regulate the “alternative medicine” industry, with things like registration, regulation of activities, training requirements and so on. There are already, apparently, organisations whose membership comprises the various branches of quackery.

At first sight such moves might be welcomed, making sure particularly bad operatives were removed, raising standards, providing a recourse for “patients” treated badly. But it’s a two-edged sword and the negative side is much sharper than the positive. Why the quacks want such a system is apparent respectability. They would be “government approved”, could add some letters after their name “member of …”. Certificates of registration and membership to put on otherwise bare office walls, mimicking those that actual medical doctors have.

But with so little qualification in the real world the alternative medicine industry has set up a kind of parallel universe where virtual qualifications can be obtained. “Colleges of this” and “Institutes of that” give courses about nothing (as Seinfeld might say) and issue degrees when they are passed (wonder if anyone has ever failed?) – “Diploma of this”, Certificate of that” on the wall looks good to the casual visitor. But even more disturbingly, just in the corner of my eye, I seem to sense that some real universities are now offering units of mumbo jumbo too. I guess this is like the media offering “balance”, “she said, he said”, between rational thought on climate change and the denial industry.

In all of this the homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropracters, chinese herbalists, iridologists, reflexologists, and all the rest of this medieval superstition passing as medicine, are following the same path as those other believers from medieval times the creationists and the neoconservative libertarians. Creationists establish bible based “universities” which in the free speech US of A are seen as valid, and “museums” with exhibits of human-dinosaur coexistence. Libertarians set up “think tanks” funded by those public-spirited people from industries like tobacco and oil. In both cases the motive is the same, to give people spouting garbage a platform and a piece of paper on the wall, a set of letters after the name, that will convince the gullible that they are talking real science, real economics.

Hard to decide which of these three groups of charlatans is the most damaging. Possibly alternative medicine by a whisker (and the eye of a toad) if only because people can die horribly when they put their trust in the quack practitioners instead of real doctors. But the other two are damaging the minds of children on the one hand, and our society on the other.

Next time someone says to you “trust me I am from the college of libertarians” (or homeopaths or intelligent designers) look carefully at the fine print on the certificate on the wall. It’s probably a clause disclaiming all responsibility for your well-being. Treat it as an escape clause. Go and see a real economist, scientist or doctor.

Random Quote Generator

8
by Media, politics • Tags: , , , , , ,

What are these conservative “think tanks” that have suddenly blossomed on the political landscapes of the US and its Deputy Sheriff? You may find the names confusing at the start, may find it hard to distinguish them since they all have three word names turned into acronyms as alike as ABC. These names are apparently produced on computers by a Random Quote Generator. The first two words are chosen in random order from feel good words like Freedom, Enterprise, Independent, Competition, Heritage, Conservative, Studies. The third part of the name is chosen at random from words like Foundation, Institute, Association, Centre that imply some august intellectual body above the daily grind of politics. Add seasoning with the name of the particular country if so desired. The names don’t matter, are interchangeable, if you confuse one with the other, no problem, the outputs are identical.

Historically I understand, “think tanks” were assembled to get the best minds working on a difficult and complex problem. They would brain storm, coming at it from all different angles, from the knowledge of people from a variety of different subject backgrounds. Try to work through an economic crisis for example, perhaps a military expedition, some social problem. I was going to add an environmental issue, but that seems unlikely, although I presume Obama put together a think tank to deal with the oil spill in the Gulf, and was there effectively one for the Victorian Bush Fires? In those kinds of cases the think tank is set up as a temporary structure to deal with a short term issue, although there is no reason they couldn’t last longer. But the point of them as I understand the way government works is to start with an issue and look for the best possible solution by getting the issue looked at independently from all kinds of different angles and then reach a consensus.

The conservative think tanks differ in two important ways from this model. Instead of being based on a university seminar room, or public service conference room, full of all kinds of academics arguing, discussing, drawing diagrams on white boards, waving scraps of paper in the air, starting up laptop computers, phoning a friend for the results of the latest piece of research on something, the conservative think tanks are based on the politburo or Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith models. Instead of being given a problem and seeking a solution, the conservative think tanks have a solution and apply their minds to working out how that solution applies to whatever the most recent problem is. The solution to any problem (and there would be no problems if this solution were simply applied in all situations automatically – think Marxist-Leninist dialectic, think Roman Catholic religious dogma) lies in the pure operation of the free market. Just as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith was established “to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines”, so conservative think tanks are there to proscribe any deviations from the free market, any false economic doctrines. Just as the Russian Politburo would make Trotsky a non-person, so the conservative think tanks seek to make Keynes a non-person.

There are sub-headings under this central ideology, guidelines and examples if you like, and specialists available in think tanks to address each one. The free market means never having to say you are sorry if you are a corporation, and all of us are either corporations or work for corporations in conservative land. So, no restrictions of any kind relating to the environment are ever to be applied to the activities of a corporation. There are to be no rules relating to employment – until every worker in the world is employed under the pay and conditions of the poorest worker in the poorest country there can never be prosperity for all. There is to be no public ownership of any activity in society (not that there is, you understand, any such thing as society, and once the Ayn Rand nirvana has been reached the word will never be used again and will drop out of the language). All components of the environment are either to be exploited or removed. The last person to leave parliament house could turn off the lights please – then drown yourself in a bathtub. The economy will never be free until the last public servant is strangled with the entrails of the last unionist. Human activities can never affect the world we live in (there is no global warming) but if they did the free market would soon sort it out. The ABC is biased until and unless all its staff consists of conservatives – then it should be instantly sold to Rupert Murdoch. You can be educated and healthy only to the extent you can afford to be – what did you think? No restrictions of any kind on trade are to be retained – the market will decide what is best for each country, and the role each country will play in the corporate global market place. There are to be no regulations – you want to drive on the roads, eat food, drink water, fly in a plane, then do so at your own risk, if you die, you won’t do that again – you think this is a Nanny State? We may retain public armies and police forces until a country has come to its senses and totally embraced neoconservatism, then they should be immediately privatised – no two countries following Hayek have ever gone to war. The arts are for rich people – what do you mean you can’t afford to be the patron of a sculptor? Religion is good for keeping people contented and happy, but the scriptures of each religion must be carefully vetted to get rid of that nonsense about the poor being blessed, and about rich people having trouble with camels and needles or whatever. Applied science in the service of the corporation is good, pure science bad. Cut taxes for the rich and wealth will trickle down like a gentle rain from heaven on the poor, remove taxes entirely from the rich and wealth will pour down on the poor like a Queensland rain storm. There is no such thing as too much individual wealth. All food should be GM food. If coal and oil ever runs out, and they won’t, then nuclear is the next best wealth (oops, power) generator. Smoking is good for you, or at least not bad. Our sponsors never do anything wrong. There can never be too many people in Australia – or the world.

So with those guidelines firmly in mind the task is easy. Just wait for the next issue to arise – big small, doesn’t matter. Apply the Ayn Rand test – would this make John Galt cry? Sadly, until the Millennium comes, or Ayn herself returns to Earth, the answer is always yes. Explain why. Each member of a think tank is responsible for producing one piece of ideology at least once a week and have it accepted in the media. Your income will depend on how many more than one you get published. The major aim of conservative think tanks is not, as it were, to think about the validity of their ideology, they know it is correct, just as Pope and Cardinals are confident about their faith. No their role is to assume the protective colouration of an actual think tank, and so fool the media into thinking they are producing serious independent analysis (and free of charge, how good is that?!), just as cardboard tanks in England in World War Two fooled the Germans about where the invasion was really taking place. Hardly anyone except some columnists on “The Australian” believe in neoconservatism, but the feverish think tank activity, producing random quotes from Hayek or Strauss, makes it look as if this is a serious political ideology believed by a majority of the Australian population. Working, innit?

Anyway, gotta go, setting up a think tank called the Independent Progressives of Australia (just me, actually, but who’s going to know?). If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em I say. Well, not actually join them as such. More a case of mock them relentlessly until they are laughed out of Australia, economic migrants on a plane to America where they have been offered shelter by the Heritage Foundation. Plenty of room for all six of them in the George W. Bush-John W. Howard Friendship Memorial Wing (on the right).

Cross-posted at ABCs “The Drum Opinion“.

Newspeak

4
by Economics, Environment, politics • Tags: , , , , , , , ,

I hold these truths to be self-evident:
We live on a small not very distinguished planet, circling a small not very distinguished star on the edge of nowhere in particular.
The surface of the planet has developed over billions of years.
The present day plant and animal species have evolved over tens of millions of years.
The present day ecosystems have developed over tens of thousands of years.
The life support systems – air, water, soil – for these ecosystems have been modified by the organisms themselves to create and maintain their own favourable environments.
One animal species, one of the thousands of mammal species, Homo sapiens, evolved in the last million years or so, and like all other species, relied for survival on the life support systems of the planet.
Homo sapiens, like a few other species (rabbits, beavers, termites, army ants, swallows, galahs, corals, tapeworms, pine trees, gum trees, blow flies), extensively modifies its own habitat in ways that are detrimental to other species (and itself).
Seven billion members of the species Homo sapiens have found ways to modify the environment so extensively that they are not only damaging the habitats of all species, including their own, but are degrading the fundamental life support systems of all species.
As a result many species have already gone extinct in the last few hundred years, each loss with a feedback effect causing more damage to the ecosystems they came from.
A continuation of this trend will result in a massive loss of species, and, at the very least, a massive reduction in numbers of the Homo sapiens population.
Ultimately this trend will result in the loss of all life on this small planet on the edge of nowhere.

Now all of that chain of logic seems to be rejected by conservative politicians, big business, and the shock jocks of print and radio. As best I can tell (because they never pause to examine their own assumptions) the truths they hold to be self-evident are as follows:
We live on an infinitely big planet in the centre of the universe.
The planet is a kind of terraformed billiard ball, a round and if need be empty stage on which humans strut their stuff.
Humans are not an animal species.
The planet is infested with plant and animal species, which are either domesticated for human use or are weeds and ferals.
Humans were put on the planet by an invisible supernatural being who told us to do with the plants and animals what we will.
Any plants and animals not domesticated are best got rid of because they are a waste of space (except for any which can be used for entertainment in zoos and circuses).
Humans have no need to rely on any so-called environmental life support systems, we make our own.
We can make any modifications to the soil that suit us, and add any chemicals in any amounts that suit economic objectives, to the air and water, with no negative effects of any kind.
If we clear all those unwanted life forms from the planet there will be much more room for people, whose population potential is then absolutely unlimited. Ten billion, twenty billion, you name it.
Never ending exponential growth in human numbers is good, indeed essential, because it allows exponential growth in corporate profits, and therefore the fortunes of rich people.
Those who turn the environment into profit by destroying it are heroes. Those who try to slow down the destruction should be strung up from lamp posts because they hate humans.

So where does this irrational train of thought come from? Well, some is from the old “you can’t teach a man something if his livelihood depends on his not knowing it” observation, and this, in large part, explains the anti-conservation ethos of the union movement. An ethos, incidentally, in which the workers once again, unknowingly, act for the benefit of the bosses and against their own interests. And some is from the new “you can’t teach a man something if his massive profit levels depend on his not knowing it” observation which I just made. Some of course comes from the religious self-serving proposition that man was given “dominion” over the animals. And I think religion plays a role even beyond that. Most obviously in the case of American fundamentalists who believe that any moment now they will be whisked away to heaven so who cares what, if anything is left behind, and indeed, destroying the Earth will hasten the day when “The Lord” takes us away from all this. While the rational among us can laugh, through the tears, at this kind of nonsense, I suspect that among many ordinary religious people there are variations on this belief, hidden away, perhaps unknowingly.

A new technique has recently been developed by conservatives as part of the camouflage net under which all kinds of antisocial activities can occur. Anyone who points out the growing and deliberately nurtured gap in economic status between rich and poor, or who points out, say, the disparity of government funding to public and private schools, or the different access to good health care enjoyed by different socio-economic groups, is accused of “class envy” and engaging in “class warfare”. The rich, you understand, are not engaging in class warfare as they set about massively increasing their share of the economic pie, it is the poor, those ungrateful wretches, unwilling to tug the forelock, properly, as the lord rides by on his white charger, in his red porsche. Giving words totally opposite meanings to those they once enjoyed, has the desired effect of so debasing language that we no longer have words for real concepts like “class warfare” and therefore can no longer discuss them or be aware of the process in action, as Orwell knew (“In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it”).

The aim of those who accuse people trying to conserve the world environment which six billion human beings absolutely require for survival of being “misanthropic” is similarly to remove our ability to discuss and recognise what is really going on. No coincidence in the identical semantic tricks being employed. For the richness of the rich to keep exponentially expanding at the expense of the poor three things need to happen. The pay and conditions of the working class need to be reduced by removing their protections; the share of the economy devoted to the public good (schools, hospitals, infrastructure, communications) needs to be reduced, preferably to zero; and both the parts of the environment being protected (national parks, wilderness), and the real environmental costs of development (greenhouse gases, oil spills), need to be reduced, again, preferably to zero.

By calling those who both recognise and object to these things class warriors and misanthropes, when the opposite is true, is an attempt to silence us by a perversion of the English language. Call them on it every time it happens, reclaim the language for the real world on the small planet.