"Think tank", that phrase has become very popular in the last 50 years or so, but what exactly is a "think tank"? Is it like a big tank that we stuff people into and we don't let them come out, until they reach some sort of serious decision? In truth, that definition may not be too far off. Webster's defines ""think tank"" as an Institute, Corporation, or group organized for interdisciplinary research as in technical and social problems and states that it's also called a "think factory". The first known use of the phrase ""think tank"" was in 1959. When people hear the phrase "think tank", I think that many of them picture a group of geniuses deciding on which way the country, or world should go. But are all "think tanks" composed of geniuses, or just washed up politicians who didn't make very good decisions when they were in charge?

It is being said that many decisions that were made in Iraq were made because they were suggested by "think tanks" and we could all see where these decisions have gotten us. One of my favorite examples of suggestions made by "think tanks" are those that were made on the economy. They certainly haven't helped us and indeed our economy has been going down hill for the last 10 years or so and maybe longer. Many of these "think tanks" are classified as tax-exempt and as nonprofit organizations. Some are even funded by governments. You would think that with all the people working in the government, there would be no need for us to fund organizations to do our thinking for us, but could some of this just be political patronage? In other words, when ex-politicians have nowhere to go and are brought into "think tanks", is it a reward and are we supporting their lifestyle? Some "think tanks" are supported by businesses and some by different advocacy groups.

I think it is very interesting that a "think tank" in Japan has said that "think tanks" are responsible for making many of the policies in democratic societies. Hey what the heck do we need governments for, we got these guys making policy decisions, why not just put all of them in office? Here we are voting for people that we believe in, and we hope would do a good job running our country, and yet they are going to other people, who are not even elected and are letting them make many of the decisions that they should be making. While "think tanks" were only called such recently, they have been around a long time. There's one in England that dates back to 1831 and it is called the Institute for Defence and Security Studies, also known as RUSI. This might interest you, "think tanks" during World War II were known as "brain boxes". There we go again with the implication that to be in a "think tank" you practically have to be a genius. Why not just refer to them as gangs of geniuses, or Institute of Geniuses?

One of the problems with "think tanks" is that the people in them are sometimes aligned with only one side of the political spectrum and because of this it would be impossible to get nonpartisan advice. If one think tank was very conservative, then you would probably get advice that would mirror the conservative wing of the Republican Party. If another "think tank" was very liberal, then you would probably get advice that would mirror the left wing of the Democratic Party. These type of "think tanks" are really nothing more than branches of political parties even though they don't classify themselves as such. They are only there to advance the party's platform and ideas and as such, we really don't need them. The Brookings Institute, which is basically a "think tank", came out with a report that stated that if US citizens were to find out that UFOs are from other worlds, it would destroy the social fabric along with religion and the report recommended that we never be told. The report was entitled, "Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs", and was commissioned by NASA in 1960. It was submitted to the House of Representatives on April 18, 1961 and entered into the Congressional record and the most famous part of this report is one very short section called "Implications of a Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life".

This just shows how powerful advice from a "think tank" can be. Even if extraterrestrial life doesn't exist, the idea that a group of elitists stated that we ought to have facts hidden from us in an area that certainly should not be classified as secret is abhorrent to a citizen of this country. It has to make one wonder what else we are not allowed to know? Could it be that medical information is being kept from us, because some think tank somewhere has said that if we found out about it, it might scare us? Maybe information on the economy is being kept from us? Maybe our economy will never recover because of all the emerging nations which are each taking a piece of the pie and a "think tank" recommended that we never be told this, to keep our hopes up? Who knows what kind of suggestions are coming out of these places? It has always been my feeling that if a complex social problem is given to a group of people that purport to be experts, there is a very good chance that the problem will be over analyzed and the resulting advice may not even be realistic.

I think that one of the problems that people have who are making reports and trying to advise the government, is that they don't have the background when it comes to social problems. It is very hard for a person who has been born with a silver spoon in their mouth to know what it's like to live as an ordinary person, and yet the same people are telling us what we can handle knowing and what we can't. We also have people that have no military experience advising the government on what to do in some of the war torn countries and also advising the government on what the outcome will be under certain circumstances. Pardon me, but I thought that was why we had certain agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA.

I am not saying that all "think tanks" are bad, we need certain ones so that businesses and organizations can get an idea of what to do and what not to do, but when it affects US policy, or the policy of other countries, it just might not be the way to go. If government agencies are not equipped to do studies, then maybe they don't need as many people. If it turns out that they're only going to "think tanks" to line the pockets of former administrators and such, then they should not be allowed to use these places.