February 25, 2008

Cosmo Macfarlane, University of Bristol, Bronze Contributor (17)

The PNAC is an excessively militaristic organisation. Perhaps its incorrect predictions, and unpopular desicions will cause it to lose influence in the future? Either way, the existence of a range of think tanks represents the broad spread of public opinion. I'd be far more concerned had Bush been making decisions by himself.

As for the Heritage Foundation, check out its donors. Reads like an A-Z of badass multinationals.

March 7, 2008

Florian Kuhne, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Bronze Contributor (25)

I am really afraid about the power of such very influential think tanks as the PNAC or AEI. I think they are the most responsible for the situation the USA is in in Iraq now.
The most interesting as far as think tanks are concerned in my opinion is the "cui bono"-question. Who is writing what for whom/what purpose? What connections are there between members (of the think tanks) and deciders in every-day-politics? And how come, that these guys get powerful like that?
But we also have to say that there is no alternative for groups of specialists who need to discuss topics of relevance as a support of political decisions being made. Themes are getting more complex and independent (!) research scientists may help to find out how to behave.

July 10, 2008

Rev. Bob Celeste

"There is one `solution' -- scrap the dollar and print a whole new currency for the US . This will destroy 66% of the rest of the world's savings/reserves in one swoop. Imagine the implications? Such are the desperate things now swimming around heads in the White House, Wall Street and Pentagon."

But, wouldn't that new currency have to be backed by something real, such as gold?