Think Tank Credibility (Required Blog #5)

In his book The Competition of Ideas, The World of the Washington Think Tanks, Murray Weidenbaum sheds a positive light on all think tanks in general. He argues that although some environmental groups such as Greenpeace argue against think tanks,they are wrong in doing so because they too are financed in corrupt ways. (p. 56) He believes that all think tanks are benign, could cause no harm and puts them on a pedestal of utmost credibility. So this got me thinking. What makes a think tank credible? What makes a think tank lose its credibility?

Although also humorous, this picture above does a good job of explaining this issue. If approval ratings are low and people are not believing what you say, as was the case of George Bush, it is obvious you will lose credibility. But think tanks don't really have approval ratings so their credibility has to be decided within other means. 

Objectivity of thought and research is the main think that gives think tanks the most credibility. Although leaning a little to the right or a little to the left, the big 5 think tanks of Washington fall mainly into the centrist category. This is certainly saying something. It is saying that they are the most respected and their research is most used because people feel as if they can trust it. As Weidenbaum explains, think tanks must remain unbaised in order for the public to trust them.

While we would traditionally assume that objectivity of research means credibility, then the advocacy think tanks came around. Do these groups lack any such credibility? Thomas Medvets said "These 'advocacy think tanks' were less inclined than their predecessors to claim ideological neutrality as an underpinning of their credibility" in his book called Think Tanks and Production of Policy - Knowledge in America. This, though, makes perfect sense. If a think tank is advocating for a specific idea, of course they are not going to be objective and neutral. While they may lose support or credibility from their opponents, they were certainly gain it from their supporters. If a politician finds facts that support their point, he or she will likely use it without question. Whereas if it is against their point, they will try to rip its credibility to shreds.


Nationalpress.org explains in this article, "The biggest issue with think tanks is understanding and appreciating their biases beforehand, and then making your own decision on what to use, or how to identify them to readers." It then goes on to explain ways you can determine the biases of such think tanks...did they just get a big donation from a specific source? Is there existing material all leaning toward the right or the left? While these may seem obvious, it is definitely important that we look at think tanks credibility before believing what they have to say.

Dani

Think Tanks and Social Media (Required Post #4)

In class we discussed that think tanks do not have the same appeal as medicine in terms of getting people to support their research (with money). I agree that this is true because of the life and death consequences of supporting medicinal research and also because when we give money to medicinal researchers, we are more or less comforted by the fact that we know where our money is going and that it will be used in ways we agree with. With think tanks on the other hand, and basically anything government related, there is much more skepticism in terms of where the money goes. There is also a lack of urgency for solving the American train problem than there is for curing cancer.

But I also think that in our discussion in class, we were giving the think tanks less credit than they deserve. A quick search on Twitter showed me at least 10 legitimate CSIS accounts, ranging from CSIS Poni (Project on Nuclear Issues) to CSISAfrica. Although their pages don't have that many followers (meaning between 400 and 1800) they do post a lot of information weekly. Yet CSIS is sort of on the backburner in terms of social media action for think tanks.

The Heritage Foundation has got their social media game together. Their twitter account boasts over 150,000 followers. Their Facebook page has over 360,000 likes. This is significant and important, but not nearly as important as their membership levels. Heritage has more than 710,000 individuals with membership who are willing to donate at least $25 annually. This link gives more details if you are interested. A quick search on the Heritage Foundation website shows that joining is simple and easy. All you have to do is select which level you want to be, ranging from Basic Member ($25 donation) to Founder ($100,000 donation). The benefits reaped from such membership also range. Any member of the Heritage Foundation receives a quarterly newsletter and opinion surveys, whereas the founders get invitations to lots of fancy meetings and issue briefings.


The website states, "By becoming a member of The Heritage Foundation, you will join hundreds of thousands of conservatives around the nation in supporting our work to build an America where freedom, prosperity, opportunity and civil society flourish." Now doesn't that sound enticing?  

With a logo like this, than invokes feelings of liberty and freedom, who wouldn't want to support the foundation?


So maybe we were off a little in class. Maybe some Think Tanks have got it figured out. But I think this just brings up the most important thing about think tanks. They are all so different and so distinct that it is hard to classify them as one single entity. While The Heritage Foundation has done a pretty good job of getting their name out and finding supporters, many think tanks struggle on this front. Like I said in class, I never would have heard of any of the think tanks in this book if I hadn't done Speech and Debate. (On a side note... we cited think tanks right and left even when we were making up the facts. They gave us lots and lots of credibility...). So I conclude that on a whole, think tanks not only need to utilize social media better. Maybe this will help Americans understand who they are and what they do...because at this point, Americans don't seem to have such knowledge. 


Dani

The Problem is NOT Resources, It's Consumption. (Blog #3)

As I closed The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman after reading the final page, I sat for a few minutes trying to digest everything. In the final chapters, Friedman scared me as a reader but then didn't do much to comfort me afterward. He brought up some of the negative sides of the flat world, especially the use of technology by terrorists, and said that we can combat it by being the best global citizens we can possibly be or by getting on the airplane. I also pondered his reasons for saying that the world is not flat. Personally, I don't believe the world is flat and I am not sure it will become so within my lifetime. So I wanted to really understand why Friedman thought it hadn't yet happened. I get the sick, disempowered, frustrated, and humiliated thing, but I had a hard time wrapping my head around the "Too Many Toyotas" concept. With this, Friedman argues that the lack of enough resources for India, China, and the rest of the world to become flat are a huge road block for a flat world.


So I did some research to find out the predictions that are out there in terms of the longevity of our resources. I stumbled upon some pretty negative websites, and then I found this:

As someone who is truly concerned about our environment, I am not sure I want to buy into this option but honestly, I think it is true. I think Friedman is wrong when he states that "we are, at best, going to experience a serious energy shortage." As the video states, we have been predicting that we will run out of energy for the past hundred years and it has yet to happen. As the world becomes more flat, the world also becomes more innovative.

This chart shows the number of patents being filed throughout the past century or so by other countries versus the United States. It is apparent that as these countries flatten out, their ability to create, produce and innovate increases. With minds working all around the globe, and not just in certain pockets, it is likely that there will be a new form of energy, or a new way to use renewable energy, that will gain popularity.

What I do agree with Friedman on is the fact that consumption increasing is really going to destroy our planet. Friedman says "The best thing we in the United States can do to nudge China toward greater conservation is to set an example by changing our own consumption patterns." For one of the first times, I can wholeheartedly say amen to that, Friedman. America needs to make monumental changes in its consumption. American businesses need to only work with other businesses that follow these same practices. American consumers need to only buy from companies that care about the planet too. While I think we are definitely moving toward a greener world, I think we are far from it. The monumental change needs to come from the top in order to have an effect worldwide. While I do believe that each person can contribute to the solution of the problem by reducing their carbon footprint and encouraging others to do the same, I simply do not believe this is enough.

America needs to get serious about going green. We need to be greener than green. And it is going to take a lot of sacrifices on our part. We might not be running out of resources, but we are destroying our planet day after day. I might not fall into the category of believers that our oil will run out, but I definitely am one to believe in global warming. When Friedman said "A Green New deal today requires getting two things right: government regulation and prices," he was right on the money.

I don't believe a lack of resources is going to stop our world from flattening. But what happens when we get to that flat world and it is a piece of crap? Look at the effects of global warming today and then add in the consumption levels of an entirely flat world, and try to tell me that something doesn't need to change.

Social Activism--Good for Society (Blog #2)

In his book The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman briskly mentions and then overlooks the idea of social activism in terms of a way to go about "maximizing the benefits and opportunities of the flat world" (p. 378). It is likely that his understanding of such a topic was minimal and he threw it into the book in passing as a way of making himself look well-versed. Yet Friedman then created an award that is recognized nationally for social activism--one of the largest awards for social activism known to date. How does this make sense? 

That's because the Friedman that created this award was not Thomas Friedman, but rather Stephen Friedman, the President of MTV. The 2011 Video Music Awards included this category-- "Best Video with a Message". It seems logical that in 2011 such thing would occur, as social activism is a much more talked about subject than it was when Thomas Friedman published his book. It seems as if his inclusion of that topic was a little ahead of the curve. Today, social activism can be seen everywhere. To Write Love On Her Arms, an almost purely technology-based non-profit that works to reduce suicide and depression has over a million supporters on Facebook. 

Each year the organization picks one day and promotes it like crazy on all the social media websites. Millions of people around the world write the word "love" on their arm on that day in support of their cause. 

Personally, I am a huge supporter of social activism. The ability to reach out to large groups of people is key in getting support for movements to promote change. This year, Penn State's FreshSTART Day of Service had over 900 volunteers, all of which signed up online. The possibilities for service and for bettering the world, to me, are endless with the use of social activism. Whether it is a small group of university students, a non-profit organization, or a celebrity, social activism is truly bettering the world.

If we jump back to the first example with the Social Activism Award at the VMAs, we can see how social activism is being noticed throughout the world. This article by the Huffington Post lists the nominees for this award:

Pink - “F-ing Perfect”

Lady Gaga - “Born This Way” 

Katy Perry - “Firework” 

Eminem featuring Rihanna - “Love the Way You Lie” 

Rise Against - “Make It Stop (September’s Children)”

Taylor Swift - “Mean”

While I wouldn't say these are the best songs of all time, if you check out the lyrics, they do all send positive messages. The winner of the first annual Social Activism Award was Mean by Taylor Swift. 

 
The song's lyrics include phrases such as this one:

"You, with your voice like nails on a chalkboard/Calling me out when I'm wounded/You picking on the weeker man"

Taylor Swift inspires youth by saying that one day they will grow up to be bigger and better people, but the bullies are simply always going to be mean.We have seen bullying, and cyber-bullying in particular, in the news quite frequently, as kids are feeling more comfortable bullying behind the protection of a computer screen. Songs like this, and many other videos that have been created recently, work to combat cyber-bullying. 

So what do you think? Are you as supportive of social activism as I am? Do you feel that the use of social media has caused too many service-related causes to gain importance that you almost don't know which one to support? I am looking forward to your responses!

Dani

In-Forming the World (Blog #1)

In Chapter Two of The World is Flat, Friedman discusses the ten major factors that he believes truly flatten the Earth. While I have experienced the effects of many of these flatteners personally, the flattener that jumps out the most to me in in-forming.

This takes me back to Morocco in April of the past year. We were in Rabat, the capital city, and met with an NGO that has helped to make a poor neighborhood better to reduce crime and gangs. This wasn't your typical NGO though. It was run by college students--people just like you and me. The way they helped was through hands-on efforts; they plan a summer camp for the kids to get them off the streets and participating in positive, confidence-boosting activities. The people we met with were both inspiring and motivational.

Here's a picture of some of the kids from my study abroad and our new Moroccan friends! Please note the super comfy couches that go all the way around the room: typical in Morocco and a wonderful place for guests for sleep!

After talking to one of the guys for quite some time, I realized the true depth of his inspirational qualities. He began telling me about the fact that he watches tons of American poetry slam videos on YouTube and that he does poetry slamming as well. Yet these aren't the only types of videos he can be found watching. He also watches lectures from American universities such as Stanford that are posted on the internet for anyone to see.

After watching these videos, he and one of his buddies decided to get together and do their best to change and educate the world. Their plan is to start a website in which they can make videos of themselves and others teaching lectures in a classroom setting that can be broadcasted across the globe. Learning for the sake of learning. Learning as an equalizer. He's pretty good at math and sciencey type stuff, so he wanted to lecture on that. He planned to create a chatroom in which people could ask questions and in real time he would answer their questions on a livefeed. He was seeking others to help with this work, others to teach English and history and just about any subject you can think of.

While this idea has yet to materialize, it is completely obvious that in-forming has become a flattener in his life. He spends his time learning all there is to learn on the internet and he wants to share the favor. He feels that no matter where you live, you should have access to the same free and customized education. Ten years ago, a dream like this would not even have materialized. Ten years from now, this dream will easily become reality.

Throughout my entire time in Morocco, I realized just how small the world truly is. An eye-opening experience like this which shows globalization at its utmost potential, is exactly the type of experience that would fire Friedman up. Just the fact that I was in Morocco was an accomplishment. It required tons of technology just to plan--especially because almost 100 people from my study abroad program were there during four separate sessions. The fact that we were able to communicate in one language with little to no problems was also impressive. Moroccans learn French in schools but speak Moroccan Arabic outside of the classroom, yet many of them have also managed to learn (or more often teach themselves) English.Thanks to technology, they can listen to songs, movies, and TV shows in English and therefore have a much easier time learning the language.

It's exciting and scary and weird and inspiring to think about the potential flattening that will occur in the future. Imagine a world where you can get a well-rounded education online for free. It might seem a little unrealistic today, but I don't think my Moroccan friend was too far off. I think with Globalization 3.0 and the pace that we are moving, it's more than possible. In my opinion, we need more people just like him. We need more people to take the positive effects of globalization and run with them to make the world a better place.

Welp that's all for now, but check back next week for more!
Beslama! (That means bye in Moroccan Arabic!)