Table: Media References to Major U.S. Think Tanks



Think Tank

Political Orientation

Number of Media Citations 1995

Number of Media Citations 1996

Number of Media Citations 1997

Brookings Institution

U.S. Centrist

2192

2196

2296

Heritage Foundation

U.S. Conservative

2268

1779

1813

American Enterprise Institute

U.S. Conservative

1297

1401

1323

Cato Institute

U.S. Conservative/libertarian

1163

1136

1286

RAND Corporation

U.S. Center-right

795

826

865

Council on Foreign Relations

U.S. Centrist

747

727

755

Center for Strategic and International Studies

U.S. Conservative

612

586

668

Urban Institute

U.S. Center-left

749

655

610

Economic Policy Institute

U.S. Progressive

399

452

576

Freedom Forum

U.S. Centrist

496

625

531

Hudson Institute

U.S. Conservative

354

396

481

Institute for International Economics

U.S. Centrist

410

288

438

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

U.S. Progressive

-

359

425

Hoover Institution

U.S. Conservative

570

350

355

Carnegie Endowment

U.S. Centrist

517

502

352

Competitive Enterprise Institute

U.S. Conservative

298

205

290

Manhattan Institute

U.S. Conservative

254

227

261

Progressive Policy Institute

U.S. Centrist

455

279

251

International Institute for Strategic Studies

U.S. Conservative

177

145

177

Institute for Policy Studies

U.S. Progressive

161

110

172

Worldwatch Institute

U.S. Progressive

201

186

168

Center for Defense Information

U.S. Progressive

136

187

158

Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies

U.S. Center-left

255

228

158

Progress and Freedom Foundation

U.S. Conservative

570

234

122

Reason Foundation

U.S. Conservative/libertarian

229

133

92



TEXTBLOCK 1/3 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611704/100438658270
 
Funding Sources and Revenues

While most progressive think tanks acquire their funding through many different sources, for conservative think tanks financing by corporations prevails. Among the think tanks receiving a considerable amount of corporate money are the Cato Institute (U.S. conservative/libertarian), the Brookings Institution (U.S. centrist), the Heritage Foundation (U.S. conservative), the American Enterprise Institute (U.S. conservative) and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (U.S. conservative).

Also, whereas the combined revenue base of such conservative multi-issue policy institutions as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, the Cato Institute, and Citizens for a Sound Economy exceeded US$ 77 million in 1995, the roughly equivalent U.S. progressive Institute for Policy Studies, the Economic Policy Institute, Citizens for Tax Justice, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities had only US$ 9 million at their collective disposal in 1995.

TEXTBLOCK 2/3 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611704/100438658391
 
Identificaiton in history

In biometric technology, the subject is reduced to its physical and therefore inseparable properties. The subject is a subject in so far as it is objectified; that is, in so far as is identified with its own res extensa, Descartes' "extended thing". The subject exists in so far as it can be objectified, if it resists the objectification that comes with measurement, it is rejected or punished. Biometrics therefore provides the ultimate tool for control; in it, the dream of hermetic identity control seems to become a reality, a modern technological reconstruction of traditional identification techniques such as the handshake or the look into somebody's eyes.

The use of identification by states and other institutions of authority is evidently not simply a modern phenomenon. The ancient Babylonians and Chinese already made use of finger printing on clay to identify authors of documents, while the Romans already systematically compared handwritings.

Body measurement has long been used by the military. One of the first measures after entering the military is the identification and appropriation of the body measurements of a soldier. These measurements are filed and combined with other data and make up what today we would call the soldier's data body. With his data body being in possession of the authority, a soldier is no longer able freely socialise and is instead dependent on the disciplinary structure of the military institution. The soldier's social being in the world is defined by the military institution.

However, the military and civilian spheres of modern societies are no longer distinct entities. The very ambivalence of advanced technology (dual use technologies) has meant that "good" and "bad" uses of technology can no longer be clearly distinguished. The measurement of physical properties and the creation of data bodies in therefore no longer a military prerogative, it has become diffused into all areas of modern societies.

If the emancipatory potential of weak identities is to be of use, it is therefore necessary to know how biometric technologies work and what uses they are put to.

TEXTBLOCK 3/3 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611729/100438658096