From Investor’s Business Daily:
[…] George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire’s backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.
How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely “NASA whistleblower” standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute, which gave him “legal and media advice”?
That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s “politicization of science” program.
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly “censored” spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.
Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen’s OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.
That’s not the only case. Didn’t the mainstream media report that 2006’s vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?
Turns out that wasn’t what happened, either. Soros’ OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.
So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI’s glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI’s 2006 annual report.
Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.
Do people know last year’s Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld  for the terrorists.
OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called “Secure Flight,” which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.
They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer?
Well, I don’t — but many civil libertarians do.
For me, the problem is not with the causes adopted by progressives or civil liberties absolutists — though in nearly every instance I disagree with the agenda being pushed with the aid of Soros’s money.
Instead — and as the article intimates — the problem is with transparency. And in fact, it is the push for transparency that animates most of my critiques of the mainstream press, while serving as the lynchpin for many of my arguments concerning the linguistic base of progressivism. To wit: when the responsibility for creating meaning is transferred from the intentional subject to an “interpretive community,” the interpretive community cannot simply turn around and attribute to the orignal “author” an intent that is more properly its own. Or rather, it can, but the maneuver needs to be pointed out. Because when it does so — when, say, a group of people culls an argument by Bill Bennett out of its original intentional context in order to suggest that “his words,” when “interpreted” a certain way, can be construed as racist (and so, it follows, he in fact must be racist — such an interpretive community is hiding its own intentional interests, and by attributing to Bennett its own intentions, that community is obscuring its influence in creating the meaning it has now attributed to others.
Transparency in meaning comes from agreeing upon the locus of that meaning — on a conventional understanding of a linguistic absolute: that meaning must proceed from intent. Whose intent we privilege is crucial for establishing interpretive ground rules.
For its part, Soros’ organization works to hide its own machinations, to obscure the intent behind the speech acts it funds, whose interpretive reception it carefully nurtures.
It’s all part of the $74 million OSI spent on “U.S. Programs” in 2006 to “shape policy.” Who knows what revelations 2007’s report will bring around events now in the news?
OSI isn’t the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in “direct action”  also known as eco-terrorism.
On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called “Democracy Alliance” whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats.
“As with everything about the Democracy Alliance, the strangest aspect of this entire process was the incessant secrecy. Among the alliance’s stated values was a commitment to political transparency  as long as it didn’t apply to the alliance,” wrote Matt Bai, describing how the alliance was formed in 2005, in his book “The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics.”
Soros’ “shaping public policies,” as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it’s a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it’s old news.
That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them.
Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears and tunes out.
The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an “open society.” His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn’t have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society’s political action.
Writes Gary Schamburg (who emailed me the article) in a loose paraphrase of Lenin, “[Soros’] money is buying the noose that will hang our country.
Maybe so.
Though I remain stubbornly convinced that a paradigm shift in the way we come to think about how it is we interpret could provide the intellectual corrective to combat the consensus-driven meaning-making that has grown like kudzu in the wake of the linguistic turn.
Think of intentionalism, in this regard, as a kind of Ortho Ground Clear for an intellectual landscape overrun with bindweed.
Yeah, Jeff, but subtextually this whole thing just means that you weren’t breastfed long enough as an infant.
Yeah, I’m sure the money for Hansen was just a reward for a job well done. After all, government scientists don’t need grants, do they, since they already work full time for the government? Aren’t there rules and disclosure requirements about accepting private sector gifts by government employees? Surely Hansen wouldn’t be foolish to run afoul of these in his messianic zeal to control and manipulate global warming data would he?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/one_more_reason_to_distrust_gl.html
Perhaps its not the dinnerjacket, but Soros who should be monitored, heckled and boo’d at every public occasion.
In light of how Hsu leveraged his contacts and supposed investment opportunities to convince even non-supporters to donate to Hillary and the Democrat machine, what other ways might a super trader/ hedgefund manager ,such as Soros, be manipulating people to the detriment of the U.S. Government?
The infantilized only recognize the intent of the author insofar as it does not disrupt their motherly paradise (whether past, present or future.)
It is often that those on the right are criticized as not accepting ‘progress’ – in the form of increased pervasive sexualization, lexical distortion, nihilism, pushing of ethical and moral envelopes, misappropriation of scientific fact and method, and so forth. When in fact most of those things represent at best pointless license – like a child throwing paint on a wall – and at worst are making regress instead of progress.
Not to psychologize too much (Don’t we have a psychologizer for that?) but compared to the Democrats of the past, todays left-wingers seem to be joined together by nothing but common pathology.
Part of this pathology must be projecting it onto us. What might be telling is that in this regard those on the right are primarily defending themselves by pointing this out, whereas the left seems to be actively attacking us psychologically. The rights ‘attacks’ primarily stick to policy decisions and illogical propositions.
I might be repeating myself here.
Shorter self, above: ‘They started it!’
Until I learn of actual groups being funded in regards to the immigration marches, I suggest concentrating on the even more worrisome groups involved. Details at the link. If anyone can find which groups Soros funded in relation to the marches, post it.
Soros in his own way is more dangerous than the wackjob in Tehran. Ahmadinjad is a visible outside force working to destroy the West. His motives are clear, just look at the speeches he gave in New York. Only a fool would think he wasn’t dangerous. But Soros is far more insidious. He founds and funds groups who are bent on promoting the transnational progressive agenda. And considering the way he does it, with backdoor financing, and most peoples limited attention spans, to most he doesn’t appear that harmful at all.
Soros has said, and though his action is pushing, that he would like to see America humbled. He favors nondemocratic international institutions, such as the UN, over the messy democrocy in America. Groups he funds like ACORN will stoop to any level, voter fraud, to put those in power who would enact this agenda. He needs to be constantly called out for his ideas, and for the actions of those he funds.
Soros wants to think he’s more than a B-class Bond villain.
I understand the underlying premise regarding the hijacking of the original intention, but I’m not tracking that in the case of Soros. Are you suggesting that groups funded by Soros are attempting to sway our interpretation of certain issues? Whose intent is manipulated in that case? I’m all for transparency, but Soros is under no obligation to clearly watermark every cause he’s involved in. Even if we learn of his involvement in an issue after the fact, he and his groups are not the only interests driving the debate, and I don’t think thoughtful members of the public are part of some vast interpretive community willing to be duped.
I am simply not willing, everytime I consider an issue or controversy, to wonder “Who is behind this and what do they WANT!!”
You know, as far as I can tell Hansen is at least affliated with NASA
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
Is it acceptable that a person on the public dole receive $720,000 from Soros? And who else has received Soros cash on the public dole to? Valerie Plame? Aand did she get paid by Vanity Fair for her expose?
Ortho Ground Clear for an intellectual landscape overrun with bindweed
You can’t destroy Common Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) with no Ortho Ground Clear or RoundUp or Weed-B-Gone or a controlled nuclear explosion. The roots go as far as 30 feet into the ground, entwining in a vast network of roots. You pull out the vine topside, it gets more vigorous, and there’s no way to tease out the roots from the soil, because every root fragment that stays in the ground grows into a new plant.
Bindweed left to itself will entwine and strangle anything it gets its tendrils on, then in late summer will be covered in powdery mildew and pock-marks, which is unattractive indeed.
In other words, ridding one’s yard of bindweed is a Sisyphean task of Herculean proportions, wherein one may gain ground in one area while losing it in another, and in the meantime, you never win for good. You just keep it in check with Constant Vigilance, because one week of vacation later, you’ll remember why you hate it so.
Wait, this isn’t about plants, is it?
Does the name William Lerach ring any bells?
Trust, but verify. It’s called ‘A healthy level of paranoia’. Many on the left like to frame everything in terms of power politics (except when it involves them.) Many righties (myself included) already understand this from both sides, and inherently check as best as we can the intent of the person giving us information. If someone has something to gain, there is likely an agenda. Those who we trust, we trust, but verify. Sometimes the cheese slips off the cracker, or mistakes are made.
Of course, one must understand ‘trust’ itself to understand such things…
Cynn —
People’s interests can overlap. I don’t doubt the motives for many of those fronting for Soros. My problem is that Soros’ (nontransparent) funding is helping to push an agenda that might otherwise stall without his financing, and that his organizations motives — his movement’s own intent, if you will — is being obscured by the ostensible intent fronting the gambit it hides behind.
When (and if) he Soros is buying media access, ad placements, etc., we should know.
You don’t have to ask constantly who is behind this and what do they want. But it certainly doesn’t hurt to do so — particularly when you learn that there’s a track record involved.
Are you suggesting that groups funded by Soros are attempting to sway our interpretation of certain issues?
Yes, I think he is, through the illusion of false consensus. If he’s funding disparate groups to march to his tune, but the connection is invisible, it can appear that they’ve sprung up spontaneously like mushrooms after a rain.
Someone with that much power (read:money) and enough free time on his hands can figure out where to notch the timbers just enough that they’ll fall without anyone having to give an almighty push.
James Hansen’s role in the Global Warming Hysteria is nearly pivotal. The GISS is one of the primary sources for temperature data, because they are the primary collectors and analyzers of temperature surface station data in the US.
It was only this month that Hansen finally released his raw data and the algorithms that he uses to adjust temp data for whatever factors might skew the raw data. Prior to that, he’d been sitting on them like the Royal High Emperor while calling AGW skeptics “court jesters.” When Steve McIntyre gets through with this data, expect some damning evidence.
Can’t we have both?
“For its part, Soros’ organization works to hide its own machinations, to obscure the intent behind the speech acts it funds, whose interpretive reception it carefully nurtures.”
So did the KGB during the Cold War.
All this from a man who made most of his fortune driving third world countries’ economies onto the rocks by raiding their currencies.
Even pound sterling fell victim to this bloodsucker. He bears watching because their is a dark purpose behind what his actions. If anyone on the left believes that he is just being altruistic, think again.
Geez, I’m sleepy and that last reads like something from Borat. Apologies.
I read somewhere that Soros is an artifact of the old Soviet infiltration effort of the USA, that he was bankrolled and built his money up to destabilize the government and economy. Now that the Soviets are gone, he’s still an old ideologue and is doing the job still. Not sure if that’s true or not, but it sure seems plausible.
There’s a clear lesson to learn from all of this: never trust Hungarian-born billionaires with a raging Messianic Complexes who haves palindromic last names. Duh!>/i>
tag apologies!
Is G. Soros a U.S. citizen? What is his background?
I believe he’s a naturalized citizen of the US.
Gee, I wonder if there’s a reason why the Euro is insanely valued against the dollar despite Europe’s mostly shitty economies? Anyone? Bueller?
I suppose what I am really wondering is how one could deploy this intentionialism defogger is one is unaware that potentially underhanded interests are involved. Is there a Soros sniff test I am can apply to any debate so I can tell whether or not I’m being manipulated?
Maybe these groups would just evaporate without Soros’ patronage, maybe not. Since the same sort of string-pulling pushes many right-wing agendas, I would assume that if I’m going to consider one talking-point suspect, I would need to question them all. And that’s hella work.
it’s not an evil conspiracy if it’s just one guy driving, it’s just one guy with evil purpose. Of course all the organizations will have evil results, that’s why he’s funding them. The members of the individual organizations may not think so but you can bet Soros is only giving money to them to get the result he wants.
Not if we don’t get disclosure until afterwards.
And you’re right, it’s hella work remaining vigilant. And nobody can do it all the time. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth the effort.
Soros is a native speaker of Esperanto who was born in Hungary. Original name: Schwartz. Also, he’s a jooo.
Since the same sort of string-pulling pushes many right-wing agendas
I don’t know of any single conservative with Soros’s cash who can pull off  or attempts to pull off  what he does.
How about a little of the same skepticism you display towards any hint of good news for/in Iraq or any story beneficial to Bush?
That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them.
Jeff, in response to cynn:
Of course not constantly, but it is helpful if you want to try to determine what the (unintended) consequences of a proposed law or election may be.
I’m thinking right now of the Ohio proposition for a fair minimum wage. Soros, Susie Tompkins, and Hsu were three of the top 5 donors.
Why would Tompkins and Hsu, who made/make money on cheap Chinese labor, want to drive up the cost of US labor? It helps them to make the American worker more expensive by comparison, which is actually harmful to the US worker while looking like they are pro-American laborer.
Yeah, I do want to know what people who are pushing legislation hope to get out of it. Especially if it is the opposite of what the politicians they are financially backing say it is.
There was a huge push to develop cynicism about elections after 2004 – black box this and paper trail that, and then it vanished, more less, almost as if its raison d’etre had collapsed.
You don’t have to ask constantly who is behind this and what do they want…
cause that’s what we have a vigilant media for. Who wants pie?
Gee, I wonder if there’s a reason why the Euro is insanely valued against the dollar despite Europe’s mostly shitty economies?
Yes, that’s the kind of questions people should be asking and the State Department ought to be looking into.
Really? So what’s your take on the people who shout “oil company shill!!!” every time a scientist expresses doubt on global warming?
See also the “campaign finance reform” push. It’s been admitted that the movement behind that was a handful of activist groups, essentially it was astroturf.
Really? Can you name a right-wing equivalent of the Tides Foundation? It’s essentially a money-laundering house that allows prominent lefties to fund extremist groups without having it traced back to them. I submit that any such group on the right would be headline news for most of a calendar year.
The left constantly attacks people on the right over the source (or supposed source) of their funding. When there’s an actual financial connection (as opposed to an imagined one), they got the information from the open disclosure of the conservative or the associated group. With the Soros dollars, there’s apparently an effort to conceal the source of the funds. I dunno about you, but I find that a bit odd. If you believe your cause is just and right, why hide the source of funding?
It’s odd that we don’t demand the same level of transparency from non-profits and political advocacy groups that we do of politicians.
Andy – Is there something wrong with Investor’s Business Daily? Can you explain?
In the paragraph I quoted, I don’t see how they go from the first two sentences to the conclusion in the third. Somewhere else in the article they say that OSI’s disclosures are a “legal minimum.” I’m not so sure there is a mandate to publish annual reports.
I’ve seen broader jumps to conclusions in NYT stories.
Andy, I’m sure you apply the same skepticism when the press relays yet another Bush-bashing story, right? Yeah.
Reactionary leftists rant and rave against capitalist oligarchs, unless, that is, they fund their undermining of Western civilization.
Like George Soros does.
“Andy, I’m sure you apply the same skepticism when the press relays yet another Bush-bashing story, right? Yeah.”
It’s not really skepticism. Its just that one doesn’t follow from the other. OSI funds immigrant groups. Soros has for a while been involved with immigration and funding groups in that. I’ve heard of grants Soros has for “new americans” — like he sees himself. But thats a far cry from the conclusion that it was his offices that manipulated those protests. For one, there’s lots of other funders too.
Aldo
—Does the name William Lerach ring any bells?—
Yes it does and if what I think you are thinking I’ve wondered too.
Yipes.
Giving George Soros the benefit of the doubt almost has to spring from some pretty aggressive ignorance.
I mean, dude, track record.
On the other hand, it is entertaining watching the left’s memes (oligarchy, unearned wealth, soak the rich, anti-globalism, money influencing politics, secrecy, ad nauseum) dissolve into thin air when Soros walks in the room.
Reminds me of the old days of Willie “He’s OUR crook!” Brown.
How is Sorus’ modus operandi any different than that of the foundations that fund NPR I wonder.
http://www.npr*.org/about/place/corpsupport/
“On the other hand, it is entertaining watching the left’s memes (oligarchy, unearned wealth, soak the rich, anti-globalism, money influencing politics, secrecy, ad nauseum) dissolve into thin air when Soros walks in the room.”
Capital would be much nicer if it acted like Soros, rather than like Scaife. Or even most corporate lobbying and PR campaigns.
I don’t know of any single conservative with Soros’s cash who can pull off  or attempts to pull off  what he does can be reduced to I don’t know of any single conservative with Soros’s cash, because his ideology, “what he does,” is only a side-effect of his having that “cash.”
You can’t name a similar conservative because there isn’t one. There’s an absolute incompatibility between American “conservatism” — the unideological Reganoid quasi-libertarian entrepreneurialism that’s common to all non-“neo” variations of it (and unknown among Republicans, not a goddamn one of whom is a conservative in the way that the voters are) — and extreme wealth. You can’t get that rich honestly, and you can’t maintain a fraudulent fortune without force.
There are no free-market “capitalists.” Period. Soros is a parodically perfect Marx villain — just like all the left’s heroes.
(And this is not ironic.)
“I’m not so sure there is a mandate to publish annual reports.”
Depending on your type of organization there certainly is – try telling the SEC, FEC, etc. otherwise.
The IRS kind of gets curious when large amounts of money get moved around too.
I fear your definition of “nice” is non-standard.
Oh, no, the U.S. government is not the least bit invested in controlling the debate. They have nothing at stake, after all. Don’t shovel me bullshit about the grasping righties and their flagging support of the great experiment.
Let’s just shift the debate to personal attacks on those involved. Face it; when the logos and pathos fails, revert to the ethos. Give us the heavy-hitters. Bring out your dead.
Not another conservative? There are a million conservatives doing this, but it starts with Richard Melon Scaife. Check out SourceWatch.org for a lefty organization keeping tabs on rich Republicans.
PS Cynn, don’t look now, but Bob Perry, who almost single-handedly financed the Swift Boat campaign is opening his checkbook for another election cycle.
PPS
Nope, there are a helluva lot more than one. Where do you all the money for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the AEI, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institute, the Hudson Institute and the Cato Institute comes from? Bake sales? Someone has endowed money somewhere to ensure none of the Kagan family ever has to work again.
PPPS. There’s nothing wrong about it either. Politics takes money, since the days of Pompey and Caesar all the way up to George Bush’s Pioneers.
Sometimes I think that pizza guy bears watching.
CEI, AEI, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institute et al are doing all their work above board and in the public eye. Unlike Soros.
Excellent background on the Tides Foundation, including links to Teresa Heinz Kerry, here.
More on Tides, including links to CAIR here.
Q: So, what’s the difference between the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy and the Vast Left-wing Conspiracy?
A: There really is a Vast Left-wing Conspiracy, the other is just projection.
So the HillRaisers, Soros, et al operate as openly as the AEI, Chris?
I may have burst out laughing as hard as Jeff did at the Fellini riff.
The point isn’t “hey, there is a rich lefty, get ‘im!!!11!1!” It is, why do we never hear squat about this until well after the fact – as in FEC fines coming how many years after the cycle? Our ever vigilant media trotting up Soros paid shills as “objective” sources or brave “whistleblowers” – when they have enough pocket lint of George’s on them to look like the New Shmoo?
As a consumer of news and information, I want to know everything I can about the sources of funding, alignments, past associations, etc. of EVERYONE who is pushing the coersive power of the government in a certain direction. In Illinois, we had the utter humiliation of having two of Lyndon LaRouche’s followers end up winning the Democratic primary for two different Statewide offices – the #$&* press (as well as the party) didn’t bother to say a #$&* word about where these loons had come from. We had a whole election cycle blown to crap (see the glorious history of the Illinois “Solidarity Party”)
Bah.
“Depending on your type of organization there certainly is – try telling the SEC, FEC, etc. otherwise.”
Did you read the annual report we’re talking about here? Take a look and tell me what you think.
“I fear your definition of “nice†is non-standard.”
He gives to EPI, which is a labor friendly think tank. That’s quite a nice thing for capital to do, as opposed to funding people like CEI and AEI and Heritage.
“CEI, AEI, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institute et al are doing all their work above board and in the public eye. Unlike Soros.”
How so? They declare things in annual reports? They declare who funds them? Soros does that. I don’t think he does anonymous funding.
“I don’t think he does anonymous funding.”
If he does, he don’t tell anybody about it, huh?
“If he does, he don’t tell anybody about it, huh?”
Nor would AEI. And it wouldn’t be covered by an article about their respective annual reports. You wouldn’t happen to know the difference between AEI/Heritage/CEI/Scaife/Coors and Soros would you?
I put up some links with lots of background info in a post over at the pub for anyone who wants to do more research on this subject.
A quick skim through the material will show that the Tides Foundation is not comparable to a think-tank like the AEI.
“A quick skim through the material will show that the Tides Foundation is not comparable to a think-tank like the AEI.”
I understand them to be a recipient, not a donor. Which is why it is curious that they were compared to a donor. I suppose for them the proper question is who funds them, not who they fund.
He gives to EPI, which is a labor friendly think tank. That’s quite a nice thing for capital to do, as opposed to funding people like CEI and AEI and Heritage.
It’s nice if his intention is for American workers to do better. Not so nice if he gives to “pro-labor” think tanks if his intention is to make it more expensive for American workers to compete with less expensive foreign labor.
I wondered how long it would take for some asshole to bring up Richard Mellon Scaife. Back during the ’90s the lefties screamed bloody murder about this guy at every opportunity, all but claiming he was solely behind Hillary’s “Vast right wing conspiracy”, blah, blah, ad nauseam. But other than giving Emmett Tyrrell some upfront money to start “The American Spectator” (oh, the humanity!), I have yet to hear anyone come up with anything that made any sense that he’s supposed to have done. Certainly nothing as Machiavellian as our friend Soros.
PS Cynn, don’t look now, but Bob Perry, who almost single-handedly financed the Swift Boat campaign is opening his checkbook for another election cycle.
Perry came along after the Swifties were news. He didn’t create them. Try again.
“It’s nice if his intention is for American workers to do better. Not so nice if he gives to “pro-labor†think tanks if his intention is to make it more expensive for American workers to compete with less expensive foreign labor.”
For that you’d have to see what he spends on foreigners. As well as how EPI acts on trade and competition. Did you read the annual report?
“But other than giving Emmett Tyrrell some upfront money to start “The American Spectator†(oh, the humanity!), I have yet to hear anyone come up with anything that made any sense that he’s supposed to have done. Certainly nothing as Machiavellian as our friend Soros.”
A great argument to make in the thread about the lack of transparency and threats to democracy.
““I’m not so sure there is a mandate to publish annual reports.â€Â
Depending on your type of organization there certainly is – try telling the SEC, FEC, etc. otherwise.
The IRS kind of gets curious when large amounts of money get moved around too.”
i was thinking the same thing, Maj. John, and wondering whether RICO would apply to any of this, and musing about the NYT/MoveOn ad fiasco, whether that may be just the tip of the iceberg regarding the movement of monies from one group to another for “services rendered”.
“Depending on your type of organization there certainly is – try telling the SEC, FEC, etc. otherwise.”
Like I said above, take a look at the annual report that Soros puts out, and that this article talks about. Then tell me what sort of legal mandate would make them do that. It looks more like they’re showcasing their giving than meeting regulatory minimums with full page photospreads.
For a while now you’ve been able to find form 990’s for nonprofits online at guidestar.org.
Maybe we can just agree that maybe when a news outlet runs a story that was fed to them by an interest group, they should also dig into who fed them the story and why.
Cave Bear, thanks for the oersonal attack. I went ahead and copied his donation list from Wikipedia, you can let me know if that’s just the Arkansas Project or not:
Management of the Scaife family foundations
When Scaife refocused his political giving away from individuals and toward anti-communist research groups, legal defense funds, and publications, the first among these was the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.
Through contacts made at Hoover and elsewhere, Scaife became a major, early supporter of the Heritage Foundation, which has since become one of Washington’s most influential public policy research institutes. Later, he supported such varied conservative and libertarian organizations as:
* American Enterprise Institute
* Atlas Economic Research Foundation
* David Horowitz Freedom Center
* Federalist Society
* Foundation for Economic Education
* Free Congress Foundation (headed by Paul Weyrich)
* Freedom House
* GOPAC (headed by Newt Gingrich)
* Independent Women’s Forum
* Intercollegiate Studies Institute (which operates the Collegiate Network)
* Judicial Watch
* Landmark Legal Foundation
* Media Research Center (headed by Brent Bozell)
* Pacific Legal Foundation
* Pittsburgh World Affairs Council
* Reason Foundation
The bio notes he also donated millions to hospitals, research labs and to refurbish the White House (in other words, I’m not making the “he’s evil” argument).
In the end, the fundamental problem with this argument is the folks on the right want to claim they have pristine hands and then allege Soros is doing evil things. Sorry, Soros is just playing Scaife’s game.
While I will agree with Major John that media transparency would be wonderful, the title of the post is “The Soros Threat to Democracy” not “Why Won’t the Media Do Its Job.” So, in the end, I was attempting to answer that title and the assertion that conservatives “just don’t do this sort of thing,” except they have been doing it since the 1970’s.
The next time, for instance, I see noted CEI flack Chris Horner introduced as an attorney representing a group which accepts millions of dollars from the coal and oil industry, instead of “Global Warming Expert” I will be heartened.
It’s not that it’s illegal or even immoral and it certainly is no “threat to democracy” because Soros does it. It’s just nice to know what interest a supposed disinterested third party has, like the good Major said.
But, thanks Cave Bear, analogies are dangerous
George Soros funded fronts are more labyrinthine than a a Mafia money laundering scheme.
Why?
Because he doesn’t want anyone to know that he’s doing his best to undermine Western Civilization.
And as to the reactionary lefist OCD fascination with Scaife, he is small potatos, miniscule, in comparison to Soros and his leftist octopus.
“Soros and his foundations have had a hand in funding a host of leftist organizations, including the Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; the National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; the American Civil Liberties Union; People for the American Way; Alliance for Justice; NARAL Pro-Choice America; America Coming Together; the Center for American Progress; Campaign for America’s Future; Amnesty International; the Sentencing Project; the Center for Community Change; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Human Rights Watch; the Prison Moratorium Project; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the National Lawyers Guild; the Center for Constitutional Rights; the Coalition for an International Criminal Court; The American Prospect; MoveOn.org; Planned Parenthood; the Nation Institute; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the National Security Archive Fund; the Pacifica Foundation; Physicians for Human Rights; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Urban Institute; the American Friends Service Committee; Catholics for a Free Choice; Human Rights First; the Independent Media Institute; MADRE; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Forum; the National Council of La Raza; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee; and the Peace and Security Funders Group.”
Source:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977
Just a little more prolific that Scaife supporting a couple think tanks, wouldn’t you saY?
Just a little more prolific that Scaife supporting a couple think tanks, wouldn’t you say?
The difference, N. O’Brain, is that andy supports those groups’ mission(s), and everyone at those think-tanks Scaife supports are “flacks” attempting to undermine all the Democrat achievements of the last 65 years…
OSI is a Non-Profit, isn’t it? If so, they are absolutely required to publically disclose, and not voluntarily out of the good of their hearts as was suggested.
“ChrisS” rather, but nonetheless…
“Maybe we can just agree that maybe when a news outlet runs a story that was fed to them by an interest group, they should also dig into who fed them the story and why.”
Sounds good. Like the scientist claiming censorhip that sought a change in the openness of NASA’s media policy. They can dig in and find out that he is funded by a program that fights the politzation of science. That program in turn is funded by an organization seeking a more open society. Shocking.
“And as to the reactionary lefist OCD fascination with Scaife, he is small potatos, miniscule, in comparison to Soros and his leftist octopus.”
I’m sure there are numbers on this.
What’s shocking is your belief that Hanson’s funding comes from sources that support an open society or fight the politicization of science. Those missions may be what’s printed on the letterhead, but the arguments here make it sound like there may be a bit of a disconnect between the PR and the actual activities.
And maybe they can ask why those groups are so secretive about their funding and aims. And why they’re connected to ACORN, a group that commits voter fraud as casually as most people breath.
“I’m sure there are numbers on this.”
See above.
How odd they’d be funding a scientist who was cooking the books on climate change data, including full knowledge of a fatal flaw in his computer models that he didn’t publically acknowlege until it was exposed by an outside entity, and the same scientist who’s been politicizing science since at least 1971.
Yes, shocking.
“Sounds good. Like the scientist claiming censorhip that sought a change in the openness of NASA’s media policy. They can dig in and find out that he is funded by a program that fights the politzation of science. That program in turn is funded by an organization seeking a more open society. Shocking.”
Why is it that words are always more powerful than reality to reactionary leftists?
“What’s shocking is your belief that Hanson’s funding comes from sources that support an open society or fight the politicization of science. Those missions may be what’s printed on the letterhead, but the arguments here make it sound like there may be a bit of a disconnect between the PR and the actual activities.”
Hansen is supported by the Government Accountability Project. Which has been doing whistleblower and other protections for 30 years. It was founded for government oversight during the Carter administration. Why dont you find out what they’ve done over these 30 years, and tell me how it matches the PR?
I will tell you one thing. I found one disconnect between PR and reality. Though their name says “government,” they also protect corporate whistleblowers. Shocking disconnect!
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 09/27/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Yeah, the millions Scaife donated in the 70’s to start Heritage and Hudson and the AEI are probably less than the tens of millions (or more) than Soros now gives, unless you adjusted for inflation.
Again, you are throwing stones at the evil guy who funds organizations you don’t like….a screed that could by substituted word for word into any of the anti-Scaife screeds from the Left over the last dozen years. In fact, if you were interested, N. O’Brain, you might want to google “Scaife destroys democracy.” I just did it and received 30,600 hits.
In politics, what’s good for the goose is apparently something the gander’s supporters complain loudly about.
Investor’s Business Daily has as much as 100 lies on every page…
Via RealClimate, James Hansen refutes the Investor’s Business Daily’s claim that he endorsed global cooling in 1971: Mr. McCaslin reported that Rasool and Hansen were colleagues at NASA and “Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting i…
“It has to do with hiding the agenda of those organizations, or obscuring their larger intent.”
BECAUSE OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS
It’s not just the secretive nature of the funding, it’s the ultimate goal of it: destabilizing and overthrowing the US government.
We’re not supposed to pay any attention to that.
For that you’d have to see what he spends on foreigners. As well as how EPI acts on trade and competition. Did you read the annual report?
You really think annual reports are excellent sources of intent? I don’t. The problem is, as I tried to state earlier, a lot of these organizations look good on paper. ACORN just wants to register and educate voters. Fair wage laws are good for American laborer. International environmental treaties that exclude developing countries are a good start toward saving the planet. Media Matters just wants to keep media outlets honest. Hansen was a whistle blower that needed protection. It’s all good. Right?
Hey, I just googled “chris talks stupid” and I got 2,360,000 hits.
On the other hand, I copied and pasted Chris’s “Scaife destroys democracy” text in google and got 515 hits. Without quotes.
So either my google is different from Chris’s, or Chris was Making Shit Up.
Any guesses from the gallery?
“For me, the problem is not with the causes adopted by progressives or civil liberties absolutists  though in nearly every instance I disagree with the agenda being pushed with the aid of Soros’s money. Instead  and as the article intimates  the problem is with transparency.”
Yes. And George Soros (who has made the claim that a proclivity to “paranoia” runs in his family but that HE has not fallen victim) is apparently a great proponent of secrecy.
And this list of 2006 “things” that had Soros $ (Hansen, immigration rally (not so spontaneous, it seems) Hamden v. Rumsfeld, defeating “Secure Flight”…) only comes out months later at the release of a financial report.
D’OH!!! I used the stats from my typo: “Sciafe destroys deomcracy” instead of the corrected one. So, the lefties need to watch Scaife destroying “deocracy” too! Whatever that is. Sorry for the confusion. When I typed the right words, I got 515 hits.
Maybe, lefites are 60 times more frightened about Scaife destroying other stuff than just democracy? Sorry for using the wrong number.
Just like the other thread, you are always friendly…
You reap what you sow. I try to make sure laws of nature are observed.
You want reason, be reasonable. You want shit, there’s plenty of that to go around.
Obviously my core point that #’s of google responses to a phrase is useless was not stated explicitly enough, or you’d see that either number is the wrong number.
Since Hansen was only able to give 1400 media interviews last year while being censored by Bush, you gotta wonder what podunk media outlets he missed. That censorship stuff sounds pretty overrated. Thank god he had that super duper expensive Soros protection thingee going. Didn’t he also get a quarter mil from Teraaayza and Tides the year before?
I’m thinking he doesn’t drive a Yugo.
“You really think annual reports are excellent sources of intent?”
Its a source of how much he spends on foreigners. Apparently it set Investor’s business daily off enough.
Check it out, ChrisS. It’s pancake rhetoric: flipped, browned, and prepped for consumption. If you don’t like the taste, syrup helps.
I’ve been wondering when the Soros thing was going to hit the fan. I guess there’s nothing wrong with a wealthy citizen contributing whatever they want to the political causes they want. But I’m really curious how much of the left would be left if it weren’t for Soros’ broad and deep support. For instance, would big-time meme’s like “”Bush Lied” have ever have made it into the mainstream?
yours/
peter.
Jeff, I noticed there was a Deltoid trackback in here somewhere; now it’s gone. As much distaste as I harbor for Tim Lambert, I think it’s probably a better move to acknowledge that he’s commented.
My take, anyway. Your site, of course, and your choice.
Comment by MayBee on 9/27 @ 12:28 pm #
You really think annual reports are excellent sources of intent?
Most of them are.
“But I’m really curious how much of the left would be left if it weren’t for Soros’ broad and deep support. For instance, would big-time meme’s like “â€ÂBush Lied†have ever have made it into the mainstream?”
Exactly. Would people be able to figure that out on their own?
What’s a Deltoid, and who is Tim Lambert? I spend an hour every morning nuking comment spam, so if I nuked a legit one I didn’t recognize, let me know. I’ll try to retrieve it.
Here, Jeff.
I think he has a point, even if it’s nearly buried in nasty.
Found it, reinstated it. Haven’t read it, though. Pennant race, you see.
Isn’t Tim Lambert that guy Tim Blair bags on a lot?
Yeah. I think he gets bagged on justly, most of the time, but in this case he’s making a decent point.
Which I hate to admit, given what a flaming asshole he is. But there you go.
I think my last paragraph most certainly does mean something!
Why is it that when people on the left can’t be bothered to think through what they read, they are allowed to blithely dismiss arguments as nonsensical or “gibberish”? I mean, do they really think that simply pretending toward intelligence grants them some? And why in the world would this flip idiot brand me as “anti-science”? Does he know me? Know any of my positions? Did he arrive at that conclusion using some sort of method he’d like to share?
Re: Soros. Debunking a single data point, as important as it is, doesn’t deny the trend — and in the case of my post, I was less interested in the individual funding (as I made clear — though cynn and ChrisS seemed confused by that) than I was with the methodology. Or, to put it another way, the article merely provided the occasion for a segue of sorts.
And incidentally, I don’t think Hansen qualifies as a whistleblower, but then, I have my biases.
Soros is clever at hiding what he’s up to. You don’t play the world financial market like he does without setting up some plausible deniability.
Exactly. Would people be able to figure that out on their own?
Figuring something out typically requires it to be true in the first place. Since “Bush Lied” is spurious, the closest answer to your question is no. And please don’t try to rebut me unless you can actually point to an actual lie by Bush. You’d be the first.
yours/
peter.
Incisor: Better demand links to primary sources upfront. Otherwise you’ll get vague quotes that you’ll have to hunt down yourself.
Looks like Lambert might have found a factual error in the original article – the problem is, it’s hard to trust Lambert’s research skills after getting it wrong over and over again on easy to check things. Even if he got this right he’s 1 for like 15.
Slarti is right, the IBD… campaign?… against Hansen is the usueal irresponsible stuff.
So where does the $720,000 figure come from?
which says…
So maybe Hansen received the entire ‘politicization of science’ grant for that year?
Googling ‘OSI grant “government accountability project”‘ goes straight to the OSI grant page.
So maybe Hansen received the entire OSI grant to GAP for that year, $100,000?
Hansen…
which Chinese whispers into…
… sigh.
this Hansen story is false, is there any reason that all those posters believce this phony story, is being a right winger mean that you print phony stories: is it lack of ethics?
check link http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/09/if_you_cant_beat_em_smear_em.php
Well, one thing I’ve learned from this sort of thing is that when the phrase “carefully orchestrated” begins to fly around, it’s a clear sign that some outlandish bullshit is being foisted.
Uh, Naeko? That’s already been linked. Here. And responded to, here. And here. And here.
Note the differing viewpoints, all from site regulars.
And, I hasten to point out, all plucked from the very thread where you suggest that something unethical is happening, then RELINK the piece that was already linked, because you didn’t bother to read through the comments. Nor, I’m guessing, did you read through the original post, to which the Hansen example provided by IBD is tangential.
Got so excited about questioning the “ethics” of a RightWinger you probably squirted a little in your shorts, though, didn’t you?
Sorry, but you came to wrong place. I don’t hide counterargumnents here, nor do I moderate comments.
As a return courtesy, you might try reading before commenting next time.
I read quite a bit, and found that the story is false, can you give verification that is true, or is it much like that “ACLU remove crosses from military cemetary” story, and I do question the ethics of those that publish false stories. And yes you are right, I came to the wrong place, sorry I usually visit science sites and other ethical sites.
Soon after my research had began, things started to happen. I had borrowed a book from the library about [faeries], and a few days later the book had disappeared from the spot I had left it. I searched the whole flat to no avail. I started to feel disillusioned; thinking the faeries didn’t want me to learn about them. I shared my fears with like-minded people on a website I regularly visit. They reminded me that faeries are very mischievous and like to play tricks. One of the other members suggested I find another book to replace it with, and then the book would be returned. Taking her advice, I returned to the library and managed to find another book about faeries. To my delight, the book turned up the next day in the very place I had left it originally. What took me even more by surprise, was that the new book was much more informative and useful than the original book. It was as if the faeries had led me to the right book. My faith was renewed.*
But, Naeko, how do we get to Never Land?
Yeah, Naeko. Starting off with insults works so well in conversation.
Or not.
If IBD screwed up, I would like to see a retraction from them. We’ll see whether or not we get it. I’ve learned not to expect the same from AGW religionists, but there you are.
The general point re: Soros’ heavy-handed political machinations and the lack of coverage thereof remains largely intact, as does the general pointing and laughing at how Hansen never shuts up about how he’s not allowed to speak. That and how a NASA scientist is so bad at math.
Well, that last part isn’t really so surprising.
In either case, you’ll discover that your ethical chops are respected if they’re exposed by your being ethical rather than simply stating how ethical you are.
Merovign, reasonable answer. I did not intend to insult anyone, sorry for that. I am not very political, except for a few news articles I know very little of Soros, my interest is science not politics. As for happyfeet, what a nice convoluted display of simulated intellegence, thanks for offering confirmating of the opinion I just developed of your intellectual prowess. As you seem to believe in fairies, I bet you believe that talking snake story too.
Harry Potter can talk to snakes.
Naeko: That’s happyfeet’s gentle way of making fun of you. It’s a classic PW method – if someone leads off with an insult or makes no sense, feed them nonsense in return.
I usually just metaphorically cut their head off with a shovel, but only if the offense is directed at me in particular.
You just implied, twice, that PW and the “right” in general are unethical, which, while not a great beginning to a beautiful friendship, at least wasn’t a personal slur, more of a useless gross generalization.
“Hey guys, here are some strong indications that this story is either completely in error or at least greatly exaggerated” would have been much more warmly received than “is being a right winger mean that you print phony stories: is it lack of ethics?”
I thought it was a nice little parable about how beliefs can be self-reinforcing. Which is not to say I’m not an idiot, just not a particularly unethical idiot.
Gabriel says that “open hostility from said press is not only to be expected, but to be demanded by those who expect the press to do their job.” But with respect to IBD, Naeko clarifies that open hostility from the press is actually appalling and unethical. These two should talk.
happyfeet: the more glaring point is that the open hostility of the press corps flows almost entirely in one direction, with only occasional forays in the other.
If you’re a bottomless ideological pit, you might assume that’s because the flaws are all on one side. On the other hand, if you’ve been paying any attention at all to things like the press corps self-identifying as left-wing in overwhelming numbers and giving money to leftist causes and politicians in overwhelming numbers, you might just think that the corps itself may be the source of the imbalance.
There is a newsroom culture, and it desperately needs to reform itself. Take all that talk about objectivity and actually do some of it.
And as to your parable – sorry I described it as nonsense, that was an oversimplification, you were trying to make a point in a silly diversional way, which is not the same as nonsense.
Nonsense is what I do when I hamster vague simple just goof piddle echo umber wacky fog quim leopard box canker ostrich someone who is being a dolt.
It’s ok. I was all oblique about it so maybe it would appear to be nonsensical and then I could do the parable thing later with respect to the wobal glorming thing and look more cleverer but Neiko kind of checked me by making the whole thing about “intellectual prowess” so that it wasn’t a fun game anymore.
I think this fellow has a bit of a problem with the definition of “ethical” if he thinks the ACME of ethical places is in science. It’s not that science is particularly unethical it’s that it is generally anethical – its not concerned with ethics either way
Except for the Bionic Woman.
“It’s not that science is particularly unethical it’s that it is generally anethical – its not concerned with ethics either way”
It certainly is. Falsifying research is a concern for science’s ethics.
Ok. NEW RULE… falsifying research is bad.
I think that should be scientist’s ethics. there’s a difference.
Correct, scientists can be ethical or not, but science is not. It deals with facts, not truth.
daleyrocks says “Since Hansen was only able to give 1400 media interviews last year”
last year 365 days
1400 / 365 = 3.8 media interviews per day, thats more than Britney Spears
I’ve seen 3 media interviews by hansen the past 2 years, there appears to be a disconnect here. I may have missed a few but can you clarify?
You have missed at least 1,397 interviews.
‘1400’ was an allegation made by Rep Darrell Issa that does not refer to the previous year, nor, per some misleading reports, was it confirmed by Hansen.
here from here
from TFJ web site:
Texans for Public Justice is able to continue its work thanks to generous support from the following foundations:
The Alliance For Better Campaigns, Washington, DC (The Alliance is supported by grants from the Pew Charitable Trusts.)
The Arca Foundation, Washington, DC
The Deer Creek Foundation, St. Louis, MO
The Magnolia Charitable Trust, Houston, TX
The National Association for Public Interest Law (NAPIL), Washington, DC
The Ottinger Foundation, New York, NY
The Proteus Fund, Amherst, MA
The U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Washington, DC
The Margaret Cullinan Wray Charitable Trust, Houston, TX
The Solidago Foundation, Northampton, MA
The Stern Family Fund, Washington, DC
The Rockefeller Family Fund, New York, NY
The Open Society Institute, New York, NY
The Tides Foundation, San Francisco, CA
research funding of each of above
Soros is a criminal not just for stealing money but because he pretended not to be a Jew then helped Hitler detain other Jews and steal their property before killing them.