Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Commentary

When think tanks produce propaganda

AMIR ATTARAN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 2:35 AM EDT 04/03/08

At the very least, credible public intellectuals should disclose the source of their funding. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes:

    Its been said before but I'll say it again. The DND is a 'Black Hole' for taxpayers money and government double dippers.
  2. Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: WHO SAID THERE WASN'T A HIDDEN AGENDA?
    Who said that we wouldn't recognize Canada once he got his hands on the PMO?

    One more reason for people to seek out Conscience Canada. Start holding back a portion of your taxes that gets put into these places that are counter to our best interests. I know not all of us can do this because someone with foreboding-thought made it mandatory for your employee to take away your taxes before giving you an option of paying them or not. Time for the peaceful revolution. We need a national strike!

    Canada's underhanded government is starting to sound more and more like a bunch of Republican plants which is what many understood as their hidden agenda. How many of us are being served by this government? Certainly not anyone with a Conservative MP. Try writing them if you disagree with what is going on. The same propaganda comes back to you that you're writing with concerns over. It's as though no one in that party has a mind of their own. Someone needs to do an intervention for their parents. Think-tank - cult - dangerous.

    Thank you Mark for getting this into the public domaine.
  3. Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Sorry,

    Thank you Amir Attaran.
  4. D M from Canada writes: Should we know where these groups get their money? Absolutely! But, why do we need them to disclose their funding? It's mentioned that we need fresh ideas and not groupthink. Sure, but what we really need are people who critically judge information when it's presented to them. It's even presented in the first paragraph that our greatest asset is our value of 'inquiry', but the author goes on and argues against that! As a professor, I assume that this author instills the value of inquiry, of critical thinking, in his students, but then forgives the rest of the population.

    We should be not be demanding voluntary disclosure, but forcing those who present the information (media, etc.) to present the funding. We should be forcing people to think about the source of information themselves. Leave the think tanks to do what they want, let us decide ourselves if it's valid or not.

    Same goes for polling about political parties... who knows hows these polling companies slew the questions to receive a certain response...
  5. Diogenes the Cynic from Canada writes: 'At the very least, credible public intellectuals should disclose the source of their funding.' -- Here is a short analogy. Whenever I hear that toxic substances are to be found in what I am 'given' to eat, I do not ask that that 'food' be labeled, with all the toxic substances identified. I demand that there be no toxic substances in what I eat. As much as we are what we are 'given' to eat, we are what we are 'given' to 'think'! Toxicity has nothing to do with the label.
  6. GREG CROMPTON from Scarborough, Canada writes: Mr Attran wrote in this article;

    But the government, too, should know better. Rather than have DND dole out cash to public intellectuals -- and risk tainting their scholarship and their conferences -- it should give the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that money, to award grants on an arm's-length basis. This is how other public intellectuals in Canada get funded.

    Who is Mr Attaran you ask?

    Amir Attaran, Canada Research Chair in Law, Population Health and Global Development Policy at the University of Ottawa is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and not by DND.

    So apparently Mr Attaran doesn't disapprove of DND doing academic research just not doing it with his organization

    Give me a break.
  7. john stolarski from Canada writes: Tax payers money being used to finance a political parties agenda, is an abuse of democracy. Especially, when it hidden from the Canadian public.

    The government appears to have an underground economy of financing mind control, to support its agenda.

    I congratulate Amir Attaran on this article, for exposing how institutions and intellectuals can be on the take, from unsavory governments.
  8. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Phys ops , and information controll have always played a part in international conflicts . However, now we see phys ops directed not against the enemy , but the citizens of our democracy . DND's funding of 'academics' is reprehensible in a democracy .But as we see in the endless War on Terrorism, democracy is only a cencept , never a reality .
    As a result of Phys ops, we can not trust Nato for information, and now a wide range of academic institutions are turned into propoganda agencies .
    Has Canada entered the Dark Ages?
  9. Max Kelly from Canada writes: Full disclosure is one thing, but Prof. Attaran is unfairly calling into question the independence of those who receive research funding from DND. You can't logically infer that simply receiving the funding has compromised the integrity of thought, analysis and conclusions of those academics - a point Attaran grudgingly acknowledges towards the end.

    And, for the record, I belong to a student society that organizes a major conference on international affairs that has received small amounts of funding from SDF for the last two years. SDF was by no means the sole sponsor, and more importantly, they had absolutely zero input into the structure and substance of the conference. We sent them an application that outlined the concept and the structure, and provided a tentative speaker list. They was never any hint of an expectation that they could change anything or control the content. They had zero input, and there were plenty of dissenting views at these events. Mind control? Give me break.

    I'm curious as to whether the self-righteous squawkers who've posted above would be equally exorcised about the funding Foreign Affairs gives for various projects on everything from corporate social responsibility, to research on civilian protection in peace support operations. I guess DFAIT somehow isn't as scary as DND.

    Oh, and by the way, Geoff - it's PSY Ops, not PHYS ops. As in PSYchological? If you represent the literacy of the average G M reader, then yes, I'd say Canada has entered the Dark Ages.
  10. Michael B from Canada writes: Max Kelly - I understand that funding does not equal mind control, however it remains a very valid point that, in an age where partisan think tanks often name themselves dishonestly and portray themselves as non-partisan, and governments of the day see no problem in using tax payers' dollars to further their own party's interests at the expense of those very tax payers, DND should allocate it's funding to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to award grants on an arm's-length basis. I very much liked the example below:

    There is one Canadian professor who received an $825,000 SDF grant. For that money, DND expects the professor to 'conduct outreach activities with the Canadian public ... and Parliament about security and defence issues.' And reach out he does -- eloquently, but not always disclosing that he is funded by DND. He made no disclosure when he testified to Parliament that the government's Afghanistan policy 'is the right mission for Canada and the right mission for the Afghan people.'
  11. Diogenes the Cynic from Canada writes: Max Kelly from Canada writes: 'Prof. Attaran is unfairly calling into question the independence of those who receive research funding from DND. ' --- Let's get serious for one second, shall we!One can't depend on God for one's existence and reasonably claim to be 'independent' vis a vis God! All the more so, one cannot depend on the Devil for one's existence and reasonably claim to be 'independent' vis a vis the Devil (btw that is Faust's problem in Goethe!). Want to be independent? Don't begin by being dependent for your very existence.... Millions are 'independent'. Very few are independent; for they usually walk half naked, like Gandhi did. But the man was credible without even trying to be....
  12. Billiam Smith from Montreal, Canada writes: 'Amir Attaran, Canada Research Chair in Law, Population Health and Global Development Policy at the University of Ottawa is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and not by DND.'

    Okay, so he's funded by an organisation that exists solely to lobby for money for humanities professors and social sciences 'experts' in the form of lucrative research contracts and commissioned studies. This makes him more objective because..?
  13. leo Innocente from Windsor, Canada writes: Attaran is at it again. A law professor whose salary, I suggest, is paid by canadian taxpayers. He is an acolyte of the disgruntled canadian left who apparently see absolutely no redeeming quality in any group such as the Conference of Defence Organizations which, by the way, has been in existence since 1932 spanning many different governments, a World War and other engagements of our military that should, even to a casual observer, be considered necessary. Canada honours our committment to NATO and people like Attaran want to attack our country's bona fides. I have attended many conferences concerning Canada's storied military history, sponsored, I might add, by Laurier University , University of Waterloo and the Humanities Section at the University of Windsor. There is no sabre-rattling at these conferences but only thoughtful,reasoned and humanitarian outlooks of all conflicts that engage our great nation. The Globe and Mail should look beyond Dr. Attaran to obtain a less biased approach about the mission in Afghanistan, in particular, and about Canada's overall approach to world affairs. Perhaps if he is disgruntled enough, Dr. Attaran will instruct the University of Ottawa and its' Humanities Department to refuse any future grants from our Federal Government unless, of course, the monies go directly to him. NOT
  14. Just Visiting from Ottawa, Canada writes: Odd that this seems to be the only commentary piece from today's paper that isn't listed with all the other commentary pieces from today. It looks like it shows up on the Opinion page only because it was immediately banished to the Afghanistan features section, which appears well down the Opinion page.

    And darned if right below isn't a listing for Jack Granstein as a panelist on the Globe's online Q&A a few days back. Checking the bio they give him, they seem to have missed his connection to -- CDA! No doubt an oversight.

    So was Jack being paid by PMO/DND/CDA when he graced the Globe with his usual unrelenting enthusiam for war?
  15. D Yugg from Canada writes: An interesting op-ed from a source which I can only imagine holds a view contrary to the government. Academia is notorious for its liberalism and being decidedly to the left of centre. Small wonder that, being outmatched, they promote a conspiracy theory. I've not noticed any relucantance by media to publish views critical of the government. There is lots of NGO and non-govt related money out there to sponsor studies which disagree with the govt. Could it simply be that the govt is right and everyone knows it?
  16. Sam Barns from Moncton, Canada writes: This is an excellent article. Finally one that discusses the issue of government and corporate funded think tanks masquerading as independent voices.

    The issue goes much deeper.

    In nearly every political science department in the country, there is a 'strategic studies' program that is linked up to DND, CSIS, and NATO.

    The whole structure of these programs breeds hundreds of dumb little yes-men and yes-women for the state, the military, and the corporations. And when they graduate they get to work for dumb little think tanks that offer even more government and corporate funded propaganda on why we should be bombing and occupying third world countries.
  17. Billiam Smith from Montreal, Canada writes: Sam Barns:

    Who the hell else is going to fund a Strategic Studies program? Strategy is kind of what the government 'does', and DND and CSIS are both government agencies. The fact you observe is only sinister if you happen to be of the opinion that anything related to the military is inherently bad.

    I've uncovered another sinister conspiracy: all primary education is funded by provincial departments of education. Clearly this is a plot to brainwash children from a young age to plug money into the education departments, which explains why tens of billions are spent on education every year. Those sneaky devils!
  18. s d from Canada writes: I don't think it's a matter of academic liberalism, it's a matter of academic honesty. If you read an article asserting that cigarettes have now been proven to cure lung cancer, wouldn't you want to know that self-serving study was funded by by the tobacco companies?

    The standard of disclosure requested by Dr Attaran for international policy research is excellent, and no less than what's already required in any other field of research. If DND wants to pay for a mouthpiece, and pre-determine the outcome of its funded thinkers' deliberations, then it should so disclose.... and caveat lexor.
  19. mojo fr kokomo from Calgary, Canada writes: Since I am a graduate of one of those mind controlling programs I feel a special obligation to comment. If the government didn't fund research into some of these issues who should? Or maybe we could only study those subjects that Dr. Attaran and his contemporaries approve of. All academics are funded by the government to one degree or another. This must mean that all research including his own is suspect. Since the good Dr. and others on this string automatically equate this with propaganda then I assume that his article is nothing more than propaganda as well. He discredits himself as he tries to discredit others. He claims funding is at arms length in his special case just not others.
  20. Ivan Bateman from Canada writes: Billiam Smith writes......I've uncovered another sinister conspiracy: all primary education is funded by provincial departments of education. Clearly this is a plot to brainwash children from a young age to plug money into the education departments, which explains why tens of billions are spent on education every year. Those sneaky devils!

    Sorry, but your example is not a useful analogy. DND is a government department with a specific agenda that competes with other departments for taxpayers' funds. The focus is narrow.

    Education is the development of critical thinking rather than indoctrination. Educated persons will develop all kinds of skills and political opinions from 'right' to 'left' in the process. The focus is broad.

    If governments are to dispense money to universities it is better that they become general grants without strings attached. The Universitys' boards of governors and faculties are there to ensure that funds are properly spent. We don't need bureaucrats paying pipers.
  21. Michael B from Canada writes: Billiam Smith from Montreal, Canada writes: Sam Barns:
    Who the hell else is going to fund a Strategic Studies program? Strategy is kind of what the government 'does', and DND and CSIS are both government agencies. The fact you observe is only sinister if you happen to be of the opinion that anything related to the military is inherently bad.

    Uh.. Billiam... So you're basically saying that people should learn whatever our military/secret services want them to learn in post-secondary education? I guess aiming to deliver non-biased, non-partisan, pro-independent thinking schooling so that people can then choose their eventual opinions for themselves is a bad idea? And Sam never said anything inherently military is bad... he said that bombing and occupying third world countries is bad. Why is it always 'Do EXACTLY what boss-man says or else you hate the military/canada/freedom/etc/et al/ad nauseum' with you people?
  22. Michael B from Canada writes: kindly replace 'anything inherently military is bad' with 'anything military is inherently bad' when reading... cheers
  23. Michael B from Canada writes: mojo fr kokomo from Calgary, Canada writes: All academics are funded by the government to one degree or another. This must mean that all research including his own is suspect. Since the good Dr. and others on this string automatically equate this with propaganda then I assume that his article is nothing more than propaganda as well.

    a) actually his main point is that sources of funding should be disclosed, not that it is instantly propaganda. In fact he goes to great lengths to show he's not making that direct comparison.
    'I don't ever want this professor to stop saying and writing what he believes. But I do want Canadians who encounter his interventions to know how he has been funded.'
    b) government in general funding for universities is VERY different from DND funding specific organizations/people. Dr. Attaran is in fact advocating for the government in general funding that you refer to.
    c) his funding IS arm's length. the DND funding he referred to is not. duh. look up the definition.
    d) you graduated from what program? the above errors in your basic analysis/logic should have been obvious to a 1st year.
  24. Tommy Shanks from Canada writes: Oh, this analysis is too complicated for me to comprehend

    I know, I will attack not the argument but the source of funding. Nevermind that the government funds all sides of the debate via CDA to the the Humanities fund, I am just not bright enough to make a counter argument against the academics funded by DND..
  25. siren call from Canada writes: Billiam Smith from Montreal, Canada writes: Okay, so he's funded by an organisation that exists solely to lobby for money for humanities professors and social sciences 'experts' in the form of lucrative research contracts and commissioned studies. This makes him more objective because..? ........................................ The difference is that Social Sciences Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and its sister body, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) do not put the scholars receiving funds on a 'leash'. Although dispensing the funds is up to the academics which compose the board of both SSHRC and NSERC, once a fund is given the only stipulation is that a dissertation, report is manifest in reasonable time. The board is not composed of political shills but working academics who can deduce the merit of proposals requesting funding. Lobbying efforts by SSHRC and NSERC? Where, when who, what? There are also parameters of academic merit that must be met to even apply to SSHRC and NSERC. As government funded bodies, they are under scrutiny to be apolitical. A 'think tank' like the Fraser Institute (cleverly chosen name to confuse people with Simon Fraser University) on the other hand is privately funded and hires whomever it chooses to write reports of a free market bias. One of the new members of the Fraser Institute is former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein; from whom you might get lots of tanks but damn little in the way of thinking.
  26. siren call from Canada writes: Billiam Smith from Montreal, Canada writes: Okay, so he's funded by an organisation that exists solely to lobby for money for humanities professors and social sciences 'experts' in the form of lucrative research contracts and commissioned studies. This makes him more objective because..?

    ........................................

    The difference is that Social Sciences Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and its sister body, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) do not put the scholars receiving funds on a 'leash'.

    Although dispensing the funds is up to the academics which compose the board of both SSHRC and NSERC, once a fund is given the only stipulation is that a dissertation, report is manifest in reasonable time.

    The board is not composed of political shills but working academics who can deduce the merit of proposals requesting funding. Lobbying efforts by SSHRC and NSERC? Where, when who, what?

    There are also parameters of academic merit that must be met to even apply to SSHRC and NSERC. As government funded bodies, they are under scrutiny to be apolitical.

    A 'think tank' like the Fraser Institute (cleverly chosen name to confuse people with Simon Fraser University) on the other hand is privately funded and hires whomever it chooses to write reports of a free market bias. One of the new members of the Fraser Institute is former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein; from whom you might get lots of tanks but damn little in the way of thinking.
  27. siren call from Canada writes:
    By the way, is DND funding above and beyond, or included in, the $32 million per year plus 500 personnel costs that CDS Hillier is given to run his public information 'policy sector'?
  28. siren call from Canada writes:
    Also, I have never heard of a SSHRC or NSERC grant being dispensed with the stipulation that the benefactor, 'write a number of op-eds to the press'.
  29. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: Dr Attaran is engaging in a smear campaign with this article. He seems to suggest that this is some insidious secret DND programme that has co-opted the universities. In fact, the Security and Defence Forum has been around since the early 1970s and was intended to encourage independent military and strategic thought outside DND. I would suggest that people go to the websites of the various SDF university centres to see the diversity of work that is being conducted. It is certainly not propaganda for DND. Dr Attaran has consistently demonstrated that he is a shill for blindly partisan anti-defence interests in this country. Hence, I would not give much credence to his obvious rant that is masquerading as an op-ed piece.
  30. John Smith from Canada writes: Wrong Freddie Fender. Withholding information about funding and influence from readers is 'smearing' transparency. This information should be made available to readers and they can determine if it might be influencing credibility of the writer. It is not for you or others to tell us it does not. We don't care about your opinion or you trying to formulate an opinion for us abut the 'neutrality'of received funding.

    The issue of funding and conflict of interest is one that arose and eventually dealt with within medical journals. All credible medical and medical research journals now require the author(s) to disclose funding they might have received who could benefit from their research findings or opinions. From there, it is open to the reader to be aware of a potential conflict of interest and how that might be influencing the opinion.

    It seems the Globe, if it was a professional credible organization, would adopt similar protocols for disclosure and transparency for all its op eds, military and otherwise.
  31. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: John Smith from Canada:

    You don't know what you're babbling about. SDF spending is available in the public record. If you're too lazy or ignorant with regards to finding out someone's background, then it simply demonstrates the need for some education on your part.
  32. Gary H. Rice from Canada writes: Canada’s Conference of Defence Associations certainly does have an unique funding arrangement with our government and the military. But it is such that there is little doubt that he who pays the piper calls the tune - Pity.. But that’s not the way it has to be or the way it is in some other Commonwealth countries with similar organizations and who deliberately stay beyond their government’s reach. They neither want nor will take money from their government or military organization lest their voices be muzzled. GREAT BRITAIN. The newly formed United Kingdom National Defence Association (UKNDA) for example campaigns for sufficient, appropriate and fully funded armed forces that the Nation needs to defend effectively our Country, its people, their security and vital interests at home and worldwide. Its sources of Funding are from private individuals (military and civilian), corporate (business) bodies, donations. and legacies. AUSTRALIA Since 1975 the ADA (Australia Defence Association) has been Australia’s only truly independent, actively non-partisan, community-based, public-interest guardian organization and ‘think-tank’ on defence and wider national security issues. To preserve its independence, non-partisan integrity and institutional transparency the ADA is financed entirely by membership subscriptions; corporate and institutional subscriptions to its magazines; limited advertising in the magaziones; research, representational, consultancy or teaching work undertaken by members on the Association's behalf; and personal and corporate donations from patriotic and concerned Australians. Furthermore, as a registered not-for-profit public company limited by guarantee, our audited accounts are submitted annually to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
  33. John Smith from Canada writes: Wrong again Freddie Fender. What are you trying to hide Freddie? Conflict of interest or lack of intelligence? Well you gave the latter away already, so it must be a conflict.

    Transparency is not about laziness or ignorance. The old tired argument you trot out is just what medical researchers and pharma industry said many years ago. Modernize Freddie. Reporting conflict of interests (i.e. funding) is a standard practice among credible journals of many types. Try reading one sometime (I will warn you, they do not come with pictures to assist the reading challenged). It’s time for the Globe to enhance journalistic integrity and practice.
  34. Bert Russell Paradox, BC from Canada writes: It appears from examples like Pakistan, Israel, India,France, Russia,China, USA ... that what Countries need to mark their territory and establish respect, is a big club. (Like a nuclear war head missile on all of our borders) I know this will have pacifists and Liberal bleeding hearts wringing their hands and shouting loudly .. sorry ... sorry.
    But seriously are we not entitled to more respect and why shouldn't we insist on it. We have resources, more than we need, but letting them be siphoned off to the USA, without getting a fair deal in return??
    In BC we have sufficient sustainable water hydro for our use, but our Provincial Govt has given up generating rights on one large river to Alcan, forever...( thats right folkes, forever) the BC Liberal have hooked us up to the US North West network to supply power to them and our rates are going up to provide access to our supply??? FERC the major US Energy Corp (who missed Enron for years) has their hands in our pockets. What about free trade reciprocity?? Are we getting a fair shake or just tolerated?
  35. V ADS from Canada writes: Yawn.
  36. V ADS from Canada writes: I don't care who 'pays' people to 'think.' Taxpayers pay the Professor to 'think,' not that I think his thoughts are worth much.

    Does the professor really think that people are so stupid that they believe everything they read in the paper, or hear on the news?

    Does he think that he's the only 'thinker' who deserves an almost daily 'free-think' rant on the op-ed pages of the G&M?

    Or does he think that the government should regulate 'thinking' and force all 'thinkers' to disclose who paid for their 'thoughts'?

    I think that the Professor thinks that we, the people, can't 'think' for themselves, so he wants do the 'thinking' for all of us.
  37. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: I expect, if you check, that most of the money DND provides to those universities goes to fund the study of military history, IR and political science rather than policy. At most universities, these subjects are popular with students, but hardly with academics other than those who teach them. If SSHRC could be expected to support these sort of projects then maybe the money could be redirected. I suggest, however, that SSHRC would simply give more money to Sociologists to study the social habits of strippers, Psychologists to tell us why certain jokes are funny, Queer Studies folks to tell us about the sexual proclitivites of transexuals, and to relieve Law Professors of the requirement that they teach so that they have more time to criticise.
  38. Tommy Shanks from toronto, Canada writes: The difference is that Social Sciences Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and its sister body, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) do not put the scholars receiving funds on a 'leash'.

    yeah right!
  39. siren call from Canada writes: Freddie Fender from Canada writes: If you're too lazy or ignorant with regards to finding out someone's background, then it simply demonstrates the need for some education on your part.
    ........................

    Apart from the other errors in your argument, this one is particularly egregious.

    These people are presented to us on a daily basis as professionals or 'public intellectuals'. If you watch much news you may see a number in a news cycle. It is ridiculous to say that citizens 'lack education' if they don't run to the internet and research the affiliations of everyone presented to them as a non-partisan, disinterested but terribly informed source of information.
  40. John Smith from Canada writes: You don't care who pays V ADS from Canada and that is perfectly fine. Why do I and others who do care have to live by your standards and expectations?
  41. John Smith from Canada writes: Elaborate Tommy Shanks from Toronto, give evidence that SSHRC requires the researchers they fund to give a pre-determined opinion and to publicize it. Otherwise, your comment is a sniggering nothing.

    In the meantime, those who want to give a considered opinion to the topic rather than spew, look back at the comments by Gary H. Rice. Then check out the ADA, its history and mandate. Interesting and thanks for bringing it to our attention Gary (well, those who actually care about integrity and intelligence).
  42. siren call from Canada writes: Tommy Shanks from toronto, Canada writes:
    yeah right!

    ?????????????????????????

    Please explain your dreadful experiences with NSERC and/or SSHRC and how they imposed their terms on your research, publication(s) and media interchange.

    the fact is that Conference of Defence Associates defines itself as an advocacy group designed to influence government policy on 'defence'.

    They are publicly funded.

    The difference between advocacy and lobbying?
  43. Jim Cohoon from Canada writes: Anyone who claims not to be able see what is fundamenrtally wrong with the picture of deceitful manipulation painted in this article should either take a course in Democracy 101, or not pretend to be a supporter of democracy. Of course, it would be naive not to realize that 'pretending' to defend democracy is part of the smokescreen that perpetuates increasingly covert and insidious assaults on some of the fundamentals of our democracy -- an assault by the far-right aided by a lot of very naive conservative 'patriots' who do not realize that patriotism itself is being hi-jacked to serve far-right ideology and agendas. Where are the honest conservatives like General Eisenhower who have the courage to stand up and defend democracy against the far-right and the military-industrial complex? We need genuine, honest, courageous (and democracy respecting) conservatives more than ever. Of course, we also need everyone respecting democracy to begin standing up for what is increasingly in danger from within.
  44. John Smith from Canada writes: Can't say I disagree with your sentiments Jim Cahoon but would take exception to your reference regarding General (President) Eisenhower. Was he not President during the times of the McCarthey era? He did, of course, not only give warning to and put into public discourse the term 'military-industrial complex.' He was a man who saw war and rightfully viewed it as an action of last resort for important benefits. Yet we know most of those who promote war have never and never will (nor their children) actually have to experience military conflict. When you are safe and secure you can be big, bold and brash (a loudmouth a...hole is the correct term I believe). But othewise, you are quite correct, true conservatives are not adverse to democracy and openess and would not support the regime of partisan lies and propaganda that Steve Harper seems to represent. Alas, most true conservatives are in hiding.
  45. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: John Smith from Canada writes: 'Try reading one sometime (I will warn you, they do not come with pictures to assist the reading challenged).'

    I don't recall seeing you at one of the three graduate schools or the two staff colleges that I attended, smart-a$$.
  46. John Smith from Canada writes: Wow Freddie Fender, your response astounds me with its intelligence and information. Please give the name of those graduate schools and colleges (what, can't you complete one thing?) so I can make sure my children avoid them. Or are you confusing day care and kindergarten with grad school and college?

    Game, set and match for me Freddie. Back to your wasted days and wasted nights government purchased loser.
  47. Stan Bladams from Blandford, Canada writes: Freddie: If you're going to argue that you have graduate degrees you'd be doing the rest of us who have them a favour by not arguing so poorly.....you'll taint the rest of us. Which is kinda Attiran's point as well....academics that don't disclose their funding sources, particularly from groups WITH biases (mine for the record is SSHRC, which is happy to see me publish and provides no restraints on what I say) taint the rest of us.
  48. bethany middleton from Canada writes: tommy shanks: sshrc funded research for me and no restraints put on my research. The only expectation? That I publish my work in reputable academic journals in order to make it available to others. No requirements to publish a certain number of op-ed pieces....and yes, I do disclose my sshrc funding in my bio every time I publish a piece or I present to a public forum.

    Attaran is not arguing against the funding, but rather, for full disclosure. This is the basis of transparency - it is the ethical thing to do. If you have a potential conflict of interest, you need to disclose that conflict: If I was brought before a tribunal on the efficacy of sshrc funding, then I would be obligated to disclose the benefits I have received from sshrc funding.

    And for those posters blathering off about government sponsorship of this and that, etc, give it up. The government sponsors businesses, entrepreneurs...everyone.
  49. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: John Smith from Canada writes: "Wow Freddie Fender, your response astounds me with its intelligence and information. Please give the name of those graduate schools and colleges (what, can't you complete one thing?) so I can make sure my children avoid them. Or are you confusing day care and kindergarten with grad school and college?"

    Low-brow knuckle draggers such as yourself continue to drag the G&M site down to the level of pre-toddlers, hence your obvious reference to daycare and kindergarten- this was undoubtedly the best ten years of school for you. Yes, I have attended three university graduate schools - one MA as a young person, a second MA almost twenty years later and the third school at the doctoral level - what are you unable to comprehend? I mentioned specifically two military staff colleges. These are not "colleges" as you may understand the term, "colleges,", but are advanced professional military education institutions for mid-ranking officers. Your low self-esteem obviously forces you to engage in juvenile "comments." Seek help for this handicap and you can still have a fulfilling life.
  50. Anti Fascist from Canada writes:

    Another very good reason to work very hard at turfing the quisling administration of Steven Harper.

    This election say no to tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

    Vote for Jack!
  51. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: Anti Fascist from Canada writes: "Vote for Jack!"

    You have a great sense of humour. The funniest comment ever!
  52. War Detester from St. John's, NL, Canada writes: When think tanks produce propaganda.

    Another way tax-payers hard earned monies are doled out to keep the Armanents Industry running. Keep things non-transparent - end result will be Canadians will remain uninformed. Just a continuation of how everything in government is conducted. Nothing ever is how it appears.
  53. Chris Young from Newfoundland, Canada writes: I too say thank you Amir Attarin! I have been waiting for an article like this that would clarify for all of us the motives of many of the pro-war proponents.
  54. John Smith from Canada writes: You really are a piece of work Freddie Fender. I would elaborate but will let Stan Bladams from Blandford, Canada provide his opinion on your wonderful intellect: "Freddie: If you're going to argue that you have graduate degrees you'd be doing the rest of us who have them a favour by not arguing so poorly.....you'll taint the rest of us."

    Lets see who started. I provided comment that legitimate intellectual and research journals require authors to declare any possible conflict of interests - the purpose being to allow readers to make their own determination.

    Your reply (requiring two MAs and doctoral) was: "You don't know what you're babbling about...If you're too lazy or ignorant with regards to finding out someone's background, then it simply demonstrates the need for some education on your part". (This is the best intelligence you can muster with 2 MAs and doctoral??) Yes, I can see how superior your knuckledragging is compared to mine. You are a joke and disgrace Freddie and clearly no amount of education will elevate you.

    And thanks for illuminating us with your own clear conflict of interest.
  55. Man and Superman from Canada writes: Max Kelly's points are the most valid here. Michael B. I doubt very much that a single professor receieved anywwhere close to 800,000 from DND.

    I challenge all of you to a Pepsi taste test except in this case it will involve a blind review of my scholarly output some of which has been funded by SSHRCC, some by DND/SDF, some by the UN and and some by other Federal and Provincial agencies in Canada. According to Mr Attaran each of you should be able to discriminate between that which is produced through DND funding and that which is not. In defiance of this claim I doubt that any of you - Attaran included- could tell the difference. And that is exactly the point which belies Attaran's weak and untenable argument.
  56. F.T. Ward from Canada writes: This entire business is simply a way to circumvent regulations preventing serving officers from engaging in policy debates in public. Don't like the government's plans trot out retired colonel X or professor Y to explain to the public why we so badly need more Z. Funding university military studies programs and think tanks arms DND with a ready supply of academic spokesmen.... It also creates a place to park scores of officers for an easy year of studying the military. The worst case I know of being a brigadier general sent away on full pay for a one year military studies BA. Once the military is paying for the "strategic or military studies" program a lot of the "must haves" that normal students have to cope with drop away.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top