Byron York reports on the financial ties between George Soros’ Open Society Institute and terrorist-supporting lawyer Lynne Stewart:
Billionaire financier George Soros, whose opposition to President Bush’s conduct of the war on terror caused him to pour millions of dollars into the effort to defeat the president, made a substantial donation to the defense fund for radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, who last week was found guilty of giving aid to Islamic terrorists.
According to records filed with the Internal Revenue Service, Soros’s foundation, the Open Society Institute, or OSI, gave $20,000 in September 2002 to the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee.
In filings with the IRS, foundation officials wrote that the purpose of the contribution was "to conduct a public education campaign around the broad civil rights implications of Lynne Stewart’s indictment."
Soros personally contributed over $95 million to the OSI in 2002 (the donation to Stewart is on page 47 of the pdf file of the OSI 2002 tax return). Its beyond bizarre that someone who favors an "open society" would be financing the advocate of those who prefer the closed society of sharia law. What the heck was George Soros thinking? The mission of the Open Society Institute is to "implement a range of initiatives that aim to promote open societies by shaping government policy and supporting education, media, public health, and human and women’s rights, as well as social, legal, and economic reform." Giving money to Lynne Stewart isn’t mission creep. It’s mission leap.
Update II: My beef with George Soros and his institute is this: he and his group are chock full of rampant hypocrisy. While I tip my hat to his efforts in eastern Europe for his attempts at improving and liberating post-Soviet society, his anti-Bush obsession is causing a fundamental misallocation and distortion of huge resources. If he really wanted to pry open the closed societies of the world, he’d work off of this list, start with the unfree countries and work backward, if by "open" he means "free". Surely Soros’ money could go so much farther in places like Cuba, Burma, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Turkmenistan. There are 148 countries with fewer freedoms than the United States. Why waste it here?
If Soros means "open" to be "transparent", the Open Society Institute could do so much better working off of this list, starting at the bottom with countries such as Haiti, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Myanmar and Chad. There are 128 countries that are more corrupt than the United States. But no, Geoge Soros would rather try to stick a thumb in George Bush’s eye and defend America-hating communists such as Lynne Stewart. The hypocrisy is major league and world class. The fact is that without Soros’ money, Lynne Stewart’s rights to a competent defense are the same as with the money. New Sisyphus offers some details which show that what Stewart did went well beyond the bounds of the attorney-client relationship.
Update III: Looking further into the numbers. In 2002, George Soros, via his institute, gave $131.2 million to a whole range of recipients. Of that total, $120.7 million or 92.0% went to recipients who happened to be in the most open society on the planet, the United States of America. When you include all of the other free countries (according to Freedom House) where Soros donated money, it amounts to $123.6 million or 94.2% of the total. If there’s any group of countries that could really use Soros’ money, it would be the partially free ones such as Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Malaysia, since their citizen have enough freedoms to perhaps do something to improve their situations. The Ukrainian election and do over are prime examples. However, those countries only got 3.0% of Soro’s OSI money. Like I’ve said, the man can do whatever he wants with these funds. He’s earned it and he’s donated it. But if he really believes in the open society concept, surely he must be aware that he’s wasting and misappropriating his resources since 94.2% of his preaching is already to the choir.
To clarify further. I have not said that Soros or Stewart were treasonous or traitorous, or that Soros funds terrorists. If I did, I would have said so explicitly. Stewart was indicted on the charges, Soros subsequently donated money to her cause, then Stewart was later convicted of those charges. Those are the facts.
The fundamental point here is that this is a criticism of a multi-billionaire, what he’s doing with his money and how he’s misallocating massive resources. If he really wanted to expand and grow his open societies, he’d be marshaling 94.2% of said resources to the partially free and unfree nations, and send the 3.0% to the U.S.
Update IV: In Hilzoy’s post above, Paul Cella came by and wrote this: "The question of when free speech can no longer be extended to a certain faction is one that must be decided by the people’s representatives sitting in legislative assemblies." This is where Paul and I differ. For me, the First Amendment and the body of resultant case law is good enough. When legislatures start infringing on the boundaries of free speech, I get very nervous because that opens the door to a tyranny of the majority. For example, even though the Supreme Court upheld it, that is why I opposed the McCain-Feingold bill. Because of this, I do not agree with his statement that "subsersives" be given the option of "silence, exile or death".
In their FAQ, the OSI proclaims that there is "no monopoly on truth", but then they proclaim their own truth in the next sentence, that their society is "characterized by a reliance on the rule of law, the existence of a democratically elected government, a diverse and vigorous civil society, and respect for minorities and minority opinions." So which is it, because apparently a communist’s or a Wahhabi’s truth would not be welcome in a Soros society.
[Update I below the fold]
In comments at Redstate, Paul Cella makes the following astute observation:
The principle behind the idea of the Open Society is this: all questions are open questions — even the question of whether the open society should endure. On its own logic, the Open Society cannot silence any opinion, no matter how heinous. It cannot say to the Islamist: "your opinions are not welcome here." It cannot say to the Communist: "we will not protect your freedom to advocate the overthrow of our society." It cannot say to the Nazi: "you will keep silent about your views or face various legal disabilities."
The moment that the Open Society decides that certain opinions are unacceptable, and thus worthy of social, political and legal sanctions against them, it ceases to be an Open Society. It has closed certain questions and renounced its creed.
The basic problem with the Open Society is that it will allow a polity to simply talk itself into civil war. The examples we have are not pretty: Spain before her Civil War and Weimar Germany.
Fortunately, the United States never has been, is not, and (please God) will never become an Open Society. We have always been willing to proscribe certain opinions, to place a high enough price on holding certain views that most people simply give them up; we have, in short, always been willing to offer to subversives the choice that Athens gave to Socrates: silence, exile, or death.
That George Soros is trying to overturn this American tradition does not speak well of him.
That is just pocket change to Soros. It is no more significant to him than you dropping a quarter in the collection basket on Sunday.
But the fact is Soros gave the contribution with the PURPOSE “to conduct a public education campaign around the broad civil rights implications of Lynne Stewart’s indictment” BEFORE Stewart was convicted.
At the time of the donation Stewart was just a lawyer doing her job. The Soros donation was not even to help defend her in court, it was to educate the public about the implications of the government indictments of a working lawyer.
So what exactly is your problem?
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the defense lawyers.
This post is yet another example of conservative political correctness. Believing a person accused of treasonous acts is entitled to competent defense is now beyond the pale. Believing that fair trials for all accused is compatable with open societies is now “mission leap.”
What was Soros thinking?
Maybe that Stewart was entitled to defend herself in court.
What are you thinking? That she should have been designated an “unlawful combatant” or whatever and whisked off to prison on Bush’s say-so?
Come off it, Bird Dog — the Stewart case was entirely supported by governmental eavesdropping on what would normally be privileged client-attorney communications. Tis is something new and disturbing to many of us.
Helping pay for the defense in such a case is nowhere near as nefarious as your loaded language implies.
Charlie, methinks that your enthusiasm to find something to hold against George Soros overruns itself. He contributed to her defence fund, which was based on freedom of speech. He would not be alone in thinking that her defence was relevant (even if the court disagreed) and believing freedom of speech to be vital to an open and liberal society, felt that it was one of the occasions where the dictum about defending to the death the right of others to express opinions which you find abhorrent applied.
Now whether he was misguided in holding this belief, or whether the court erred – as the Guild of Lawyers (whoever they are, I am Irish and not well acquainted with US professional bodies) is a moot point, but being wrong on this doesn’t mean that Soros personally, or OSI institutionally favours Sharia etc.
If we’re playing the guilt through association game again can we back up and re-examine the ties between the Bush and bin Laden families? I always loved that one.
I always loved that one.
oo! me too!
Edward, can you tell us the story of Uncle Bandar’s Bush Family Christmas?
Or could we maybe just refrain from playing the game at all? Please? Why not talk about ideas that matter?
This thing about Soros is a non-starter. Advice to commenters: drop it and move on.
“Advice to commenters: drop it and move on.”
I disagree. The post’s implications are entirely inconsistent with my concept of a free society. Getting people on the other side of the fence (like Charles) to see this and to stop making these implications is a necessary step to prevent society from unraveling further than it already has.
at least he’s not using a male whore to give himself favorable press coverage
Why not talk about ideas that matter?
I’ll go along with that.
sorry for bringing up the “game” nonsense…although Charles started it…;PPPPPPPP
Let’s start with the basics. Was what Lynne Stewart did something you want to defend? Because if the answer is yes, it is obvious that there is nothing wrong with Soros defending her. If the answer is no, we need to expand further on the issue. It isn’t obvious to me which direction you all are going with it.
Bad Bird Dog is back …
Amy Weil told National Review that while the Institute initially underwrote Stewart’s defense, the foundation’s commitment was not open-ended. “More recently, OSI was asked for additional funding and we turned down that request,” she said.
So … they funded an education campaign … and then dropped her.
Moving on.
Sebastian,
Let’s start one step further back. Is someone who is accused of doing what Lynne Stewart is accused of doing someone who is entitled to be defended? If so, contributing to her defense is entirely appropriate. If not, you are, among other things, advocating a reversal of the concept of being viewed as innocent until proven guilty and thereby changing the whole basis for our criminal legal system.
I read the title and immediately realized who would write this nonsense.
Bird’s smear and hate by association is an art form by now. It makes Powerline’s “Carter is one of them” and Instapundit’s “Kennedy is practically a traitor” amateur by comparison.
I really don’t understand why you let someone like Bird post here. Ask Tom Maguire to join you if you need other conservatives. He has good points to make and doesn’t make a practice of spreading hate all over.
Charles: the Lynne Stewart case has always had two angles. (1) is Lynne Stewart guilty? (2) how does either bringing a case against a defense attorney for speaking in public or using surveillance of attorney/client conversations affect attorney/client privilege, the business of defending people, and the practice of defense law generally? Now: those two are completely separate questions. I, for instance, have no particular love for Lynne Stewart, but I have an abiding love for the Sixth Amendment.
According to York, Soros made his donation in September 2002, which seems to be fairly shortly after it became clear that the government had been secretly recording her conversations with her client. This step, according to an article written at the time in Salon, alarmed a lot of people besides Soros:
Now: The Open Society Institute, according to its web site, aims “to promote open societies by shaping government policy and supporting education, media, public health, and human and women’s rights, as well as social, legal, and economic reform.” The Lynne Stewart prosecution raises serious issues about the nature of the attorney/client relationship — issues that are completely independent of the question what we should think of Lynne Stewart. (In the same way, the recent case of someone who was put to death despite the fact that his attorney seems to have slept through most of his trial raises serious questions about the application of the death penalty, which are completely independent of what you think of that particular defendant. I know nothing about him; he may be horrible; but no one should be put to death without a trial that at least involves their lawyer being conscious.)
I don’t see Soros having donated money for “a public education campaign around the broad civil rights implications of Lynne Stewart’s indictment” as mission creep at all. Those issues are real, and they’re exactly the sort of issues Soros’ foundation normally addresses. Nor do I think it’s at all right to describe this as giving money to, or supporting, Stewart: I would have considered giving money to defense of the guy whose lawyer slept through the trial, if that was necessary to get him another trial with competent counsel, and that wouldn’t have been because I necessarily liked him, supported him, or even thought he was innocent; it would have been because I think people accused of serious crime should have competent counsel. Same thing here: there’s Lynne Stewart herself, and there’s the principle of being able to talk to your attorney without the government eavesdropping, and the two are distinct, and Soros seems to have supported the latter.
Oh look! Soros had something to do with Stewart!
Spare us the middle school gossip rountine.
In my quote from Salon, I should have put an ellipsis between the second and third quoted paragraphs. There is stuff in between them.
“The Lynne Stewart prosecution raises serious issues about the nature of the attorney/client relationship — issues that are completely independent of the question what we should think of Lynne Stewart.”
I agree with you until this point, but I cannot agree that they are completely independent questions. I would argue that being used as a conduit for terrorist messages is a punishable abuse of the attorney/client relationship. That relationship exists for defense, not to create a kind of diplomatic pouch to the outside world. Then you get to the problem of how you would prove such an abuse. And then you see that the two issues are not independent.
I think that funding the defense in 2002 is not an awful thing for the Institute to do. Funding an appeal at this point (when much more of the evidence is known) would be worse.
This may be seen as an attempt at threadjacking–but I think the much more interesting question is: How do you prevent serious (and possibly life-threatening) abuses of the attorney-client privilege without allowing taping and if you allow taping, how is it possible to do so with seriously hurting the attorney-client privilege?
Wow. Charles still has posting privileges after writing contemptible, Limbaugh-grade hackery like this?
The bar at ObWi has reached a new low.
“The Stewart conviction is a travesty. She faces up to 30 years in prison for speaking gibberish to her client and the truth to the press. It is devastating for lawyers and for any American who may ever need a lawyer. Shouldn’t the Justice Department be defending our constitutional freedoms rather than assaulting them?”
Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox News analyst and former judge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17napolitano.html
Seems like Fox news has a connection to the support of Lynne Stewart, too. Drive them off the air!
riffle
That is just pocket change to Soros.
But not to Lynne Stewart and her defense, Ken. Nice of you to twist it around by saying that there’s something wrong with me for bringing it up.
Come off it, Bird Dog — the Stewart case was entirely supported by governmental eavesdropping on what would normally be privileged client-attorney communications.
The conviction speaks for itself, Philip. Beyond reasonable doubt, Stewart was convicted of providing material aid to terrorists. Soros can put his money where he pleases, but surely it could’ve been better spent in a cause against terrorists’ helpers rather than in support of them.
your faith in the jury system is touching, CB. So you don’t support the Bush admin’s call for tort reform?
Francis
Sebastian,
It is threadjacking, and throwing up a tangential issue to obscure some unpleasant facts.
Look, there’s something else important going on here. There is clearly an effort by some on the right, including not least the Speaker of the House, and the former spokesman of another Speaker, to smear Soros. York has joined in and Charles now endorses York’s views, effectively claiming that there is something insidious about helping an accused criminal mount a defense. This is outrageous.
Myself, I always love it when Sebastian and Charles let the human mask slip. They may be adorable, but they still have hearts of coal.
“The conviction speaks for itself, Philip. Beyond reasonable doubt, Stewart was convicted of providing material aid to terrorists. Soros can put his money where he pleases, but surely it could’ve been better spent in a cause against terrorists’ helpers rather than in support of them.”
I think we need a new award for this comment, something which requires a person to base their actions upon knowing how future events will unravel. Congratulations, Charles, you’ve just been awarded the first Alphee (after a character in one of Spider Robinson’s short stories).
“The conviction speaks for itself?”
She was convicted so, ex post, she was not entitled to a defense?
Double standard that he will never apply to the Republicans he votes for? Check!
Lame smear/innuendo of Soros with no real basis in fact? Check!
Manufacturing an issue where there is none? Check!
This crap belongs on worldnetdaily.
I have to echo that everyone is entitled to the best defense they can muster in this country and that being found guilty in no way retroactively denies one that right. If I want to support the defense of someone who’s accussed of a terrible crime on the basis of believing in the US Justice System, it in no way implies I support that terrible crime.
The sillyness here is getting out of hand.
Hmmm… In light of the Poor Man’s most excellent post yesterday, I think it’s really high time that we start taking Bird and Holsclaw at their word and treat them like the adults they are. They actually mean this stuff. They’re not just inflicted with the blog posting equivalent Tourette’s syndrome that we have to decode with special rings lifted out of cereal boxes. It comes dripping through in every post and every comment they make. As PZ sez
Hal,
You need to stop short of calling folks here fascists. Even via another person’s words.
Check the posting rules if you’re not clear about this.
Thank you.
“If I want to support the defense of someone who’s accussed of a terrible crime on the basis of believing in the US Justice System, it in no way implies I support that terrible crime.”
I agree, but only sort of. I think it is perfectly legitmate to point out that spending fund money on the defense of some particular person,(mob hitman, twice before convicted child molestor, etc.) is odd coming from a particular person or group. Everyone gets a defense, but that doesn’t mean that paying for that defense is automatically laudable. I think you would agree Edward (though correct me if I’m wrong) that if we discovered that Bush had given $20,000 to the defense of the Matthew Sheppard murderers, it would say something about Bush that wouldn’t be dismissed by saying that everyone deserves a defense.
The question is whether or not this case is such a case. I think it is a close call. The issue of attorney-client privilege is important, and implicated in this case. The issue of how to deal with serious attorney-client abuse is one that is not well defined (or maybe not properly defined). It is clear to me that we can’t let lawyers be conduits for terrorist information under the privilege, but it isn’t easy to see how we are going to deal with that and leave the privilege intact. So on the balance, in 2002 when the donation was made, it is a defensible expenditure though not one I would have made.
Obsidian Wings has a *big* troll problem right now. At the very least, could those of us who want to think rather than smear get a Bird-free feed?
Hmm, I get called a fascist for agreeing with you. I guess that makes sense on some level….
I’ll try not to do it again. 🙂
And if Soros was funding this guy’s defense would the thread be identical?
Bird left out some damning evidence against Soros: “[he] is a self-admitted atheist; he was a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust.” (via Tony Blankley).
“And if Soros was funding this guy’s defense would the thread be identical?”
I can only answer for myself by saying my opinion would not change.
Stan, do you believe that an equivalent post (perhaps equating contributing to the killers’ defense with supporting a return to Jim Crow) would not be condemned by you?
I think you would agree Edward (though correct me if I’m wrong) that if we discovered that Bush had given $20,000 to the defense of the Matthew Sheppard murderers, it would say something about Bush that wouldn’t be dismissed by saying that everyone deserves a defense.
That’s not a good parallel for a lot of reasons. A better one: Bush gives $20,000 to the defense of Ken Lay’s lawyer, who’s accused of helping Ken hide his assets. You can claim that doesn’t hurt people the way aiding terrorists does, but assuming that’s not legally Ken’s money but instead the money of ailing retirees who need costly medication, we’re closing in on a parallel situation. Is Bush wrong for standing on principle and helping Lay’s lawyer get a good trial? I’d say no.
…we have, in short, always been willing to offer to subversives the choice that Athens gave to Socrates: silence, exile, or death.
Excuse me, I have a question. Do we think this is a good idea?
Nice tries Sebastian and Stan LS, but last I had heard neither of those (presumed innocent until proven guilty) parties had their attorney client privilege violated.
Cheers,
Bob
Here is a principle that we ought to be able to establish: Journalists, commentators, bloggers, etc., are not officers of the court. We are in no way obligated to assume any given defendant’s innocence, and, concomitantly, we are perfectly free to speculate and, yes, pronounce upon said defendant’s guilt without in any way implying that the legal concept of assumed innocence should be revoked.
And if Soros was funding this guy’s defense would the thread be identical?
“If wishes and buts were candy and nuts…”
If Brewer had been tried on evidence that had been gathered in a similarly constitutionally shaky fashion, I wouldn’t have a problem with Soros mounting a defense.
Of course, the nice thing about hypotheticals is that you can just assume that I’d act differently, but I just don’t know it.
Um, Edward, did I say anyone was a fascist?
I suggested that we start treating them like adults and start taking what they say at face value rather than going through this ritual of where we try to figure out if they really, really meant what they just said.
I mean, please clarify how I’m crossing the line. I’ve repeatedly read the rules and don’t see where I’ve crossed the line. I’ll gladly stand corrected if you will only show me where there rule is that I broke.
“your faith in the jury system is touching, CB. So you don’t support the Bush admin’s call for tort reform?”
Heh.
“We have, in short, always been willing to offer to subversives the choice that Athens gave to Socrates: silence, exile, or death.”
Excuse me, I have a question. Do we think this is a good idea?
Yes. A very good idea. Socrates agreed.
Paul,
Here’s another principle we should all be able to agree upon: supporting someone accused of a crime does not mean that if that person is later found guilty of it the support was based upon knowledge that the person would eventually be found guilty. Therefore, support for someone accused of a crime does not mean that one supports the commission of the crime.
Yes. A very good idea. Socrates agreed.
Socrates agreed with corrupting youths as well, Paul. 😉
Hal, you quoted
If you didn’t mean to imply Charles and Sebastian are fascists by that, I can’t fathom what you did mean. Let’s not play games about this, please. Let’s just leave all fascist talk out of the dialog here.
Edward:
Socrates agreed with corrupting youths as well, Paul.
Indeed, but he did not begrudge the Athenians when they moved to stop him. That was my point.
Dantheman:
I agree with your principle. My own charge against Soros is not malice but stupidity. Stewart’s well-documented apologetics for every dreary tyranny that ever mouthed the proper Leftism, coupled with her defense of terrorist sympathizers, ought to inclined him to keep his distance.
“My own charge against Soros is not malice but stupidity.”
Really? Did Charles misquote you in his update? The quote seems to indicate you do think Soros acted out of malice.
“Is Bush wrong for standing on principle and helping Lay’s lawyer get a good trial? I’d say no.”
I’d say Bush should not do that under those circumstances.
Indeed, but he did not begrudge the Athenians when they moved to stop him.
Not honoring their belittling request that he pay his way out of the judgement is not quite the same as not begrudging their moves to stop him. My understanding is he felt the charges were bogus. But, we’re getting into splitting cilia here, so…
I’d say Bush should not do that under those circumstances.
Why, is Lay’s lawyer only entitled to the defense he can afford on his own? Does principle mean nothing here?
“Does principle mean nothing here?”
What principle are you asking me to sign up for?
Edward – no problem. Seems kind of bizarre considering this is a comment thread on a post literally calling Soros a treasonous supporter of terrorists, but hey. It’s your blog.
Really? Did Charles misquote you in his update? The quote seems to indicate you do think Soros acted out of malice.
My comment did not address the question of Soros’ financial support for Stewart’s defense. It addressed Soros’s whole Open Society project and the principles behind it, which I regard as dangerous and quite alien to the political tradition of this country.
What principle are you asking me to sign up for?
Guilty until proven innocent.
Seems kind of bizarre considering this is a comment thread on a post literally calling Soros a treasonous supporter of terrorists, but hey. It’s your blog.
Soros is not protected by the posting rules. Only those who comment here are.
We try to stay polite, if only to keep the conversation going.
I do note that the positions advocated by posters on this board – such as guilt-by-association and guilt-by-assumption; the strange statement that assumptions of innocence are mindgames we play but don’t actually mean; and statements conflating contributions to a defense fund with treason – are morally repugnant and philosophically indefensible. One needn’t use the “f word” to say that.
Where the “f word” comes in handy is dealing with the response one generally gets to pointing out the above. On a polite site, like this one, proponents of those positions will be dismissive. On a less polite site, the proponents will take a strutting glory in how appalled you are, as if the test of their politics was how much fear and loathing they can provoke in you.
The “f word” comes in handy for such situations, if only because there are no others I know of that describe a political philosophy which embraces brutishness and willful non-thought so rapturously.
“It addressed Soros’s whole Open Society project and the principles behind it, which I regard as dangerous and quite alien to the political tradition of this country.”
I think you will find that the political tradition of this country strongly supports the concept of a marketplace of ideas (to use Justice Holmes’ phrase) where people can openly try to convince one another of the desirability of anything.
Let’s see, according to the OSI site:
which I suspect sounds like the sort of society most of us would like to see. When Paul Cella reframes it as:
it sounds like it’s a stone’s throw away from anarchy. What happened? Primarily, it appears that Paul places little faith in the marketplace of ideas in a democratic society to marginalizing the heinous ideas. It’s not clear to me whether he thinks that “reliance on the rule of law” also provides inadequate protection to society.
Fortunately, the United States never has been, is not, and (please God) will never become an Open Society. We have always been willing to proscribe certain opinions, to place a high enough price on holding certain views that most people simply give them up; we have, in short, always been willing to offer to subversives the choice that Athens gave to Socrates: silence, exile, or death.
And fortunately for the United States, Paul is confusing the real world for the one he apparently wishes we lived in. If we lived in this fantasy world of his, members of, say, the KKK and neo-nazis would be imprisoned simply for holding their opinions, to say nothing of legally demonstrating. Fortunately for the United States, we allow community pressure to do the work of what would otherwise require unconstitutional laws. The price we place on views we find abhorrent is not exile, but ostracism, and the only death we offer is the ignominy of being held in contempt by history. What we criminalize is actions: the translation of First Amendment-protected violent opinions into a crime committed.
Silence, exile, or death: I have absolutely no reservations declaring anyone who thinks this is a good philosophy to be un-American. As for the manufactured outrage over Soros, let’s dissect the nonsense that Charles has offered us here. The facts:
– Lynne Stewart was accused of a crime based on taped attorney-clinet communications.
– Soros provided funding to her defense on the principle that indicting someone based on the contents of privileged conversations jeopardizes the trust that must exist between defendants and attorneys.
– Soros did not provide additional money to the Institute for her after she was convicted.
Even a cursory examination of the facts and BD’s rhetoric reveals this to be a hit piece that does not even rise to the level of tabloid journalism.
Its beyond bizarre that someone who favors an “open society” would be financing the advocate of those who prefer the closed society of sharia law.
Notice the choice of the word “advocate”, which transforms Stewart from a defense attorney into someone who endorses her client’s worldview. Notice how Charles misrepresents money contributed to her defense committee as “financing” her, and thereby implies that Soros is financing terrorism. Notice how Charles stops just short of that libel, instead throwing out a mixture of misrepresented facts, loaded phrasing, and the ever popular “The Person1-Person2 Connection” formulation, well-abused by hacks everywhere to smear Person1 with the negatives associated with Person2, devoid of any context at all.
Assuming this piece of character assassination is honest–and that is purely a concession to the posting rules, as that is an assumption I do not believe is supported by the facts–it reveals either a lack of insight or a view that should be disturbing to anyone who thinks it through. Charles’ reasoning, as it were, is that Lynne Stewart was found guilty, and therefore someone contributing to her defense before she was found guilty–a contribution made out of a principled belief that her indictment sets a chilling precedent for the privilege of attorney-client communications–is endorsing the crime of which she was committed.
This tripe is a spectacular embarassment to Obsidian Wings.
“What principle are you asking me to sign up for?
Guilty until proven innocent.”
I have to think you were saying more than merely that, otherwise you wouldn’t have objected that my defenders of the murderers of Matthew Sheppard hypothetical wasn’t a good one.
And I would like to echo the idea that “guilty until proven innocent” is a legal issue before the court and before the law, not a moral issue. I wouldn’t have given money to the defense of Gotti because he is a lying, cheating, mafia-controlling murderer whatever the state can prove in a court of law before conviction.
I think you will find that the political tradition of this country strongly supports the concept of a marketplace of ideas (to use Justice Holmes’ phrase) where people can openly try to convince one another of the desirability of anything.
Not “anything.” Most things, perhaps, but not anything. We have always been willing, as I said, to proscribe certain opinions; we have always been willing to apply limits to what can be said, advocated, even thought.
Examples abound: the suppression of the Loyalists in the Revolutionary period; the suppression of Jacobins under the Alien and Sedition Act; the suppression of the Northern Copperheads by Lincoln; the persecution of German-sympatherizes in both World Wars; and of course, the suppression of the Communists during the Cold War.
Which, by the way, is why it wasn’t ridiculous to give money to Stewart’s case. From what I know (incomplete as it is) her guilt wasn’t as obvious.
Mr. Cella’s accusations regarding Soros’s Open Society are provably false.
The Open Society website says: “The Network Women’s Program works to promote the advancement of women’s human rights, gender equality, and empowerment as an integral part of the process of democratization” link
now, one could conceive of an organization which is tolerant of every point of view, including intolerant ones. (both the democratic and republican parties have this problem, a point not mentioned either by Mr. Bird or Mr. Cella). This is not, however, Soros’s Open Society. His organization clearly supports initiatives which support such radical concepts as the rule of law, universal education and women’s rights.
how dare he. doesn’t Soros know that the only acceptable non-profit for billionaires like him is the Scaife Foundations?
Doh.
I took an illicit hiatus from my pledge of Feb 1 just to check in on things Avian and Canine, and I was rewarded like Lot’s wife for my transgression.
There is a discontinuity between the outraged liberal population, who believe their complaints will chasten Mr Bird away from serving as a repeater for Freeptastic innuendo, and Mr Bird himself, who likely sees the outrage he generates like clockwork as evidence of a job well done. . the sweet wages he derives from speaking hard truth to the power of complacent and foolish liberals. As long as that is the case, your complaints are part of the problem.
I expect if enough people join me in my pledge of Feb 1, a more reasonable solution will have been found.
“Examples abound: the suppression of the Loyalists in the Revolutionary period;”
Not quite sure what you mean here, as I don’t believe anyone was prosecuted (note, not persecuted under public opinion, but prosecuted under the law) for supporting England during the Revolutionary War. Can you give examples?
“the suppression of Jacobins under the Alien and Sedition Act;”
A matter which is generally believed to be unsupportable today, and I believe was found to be unconstitutional at the time.
“the suppression of the Northern Copperheads by Lincoln;”
An exception to the rule, as the Constitution gives the President the power to suspend habeas corpus during insurrection. Are you seriously arguing that either this has been done or that there is such an insurrection?
“the persecution of German-sympatherizes in both World Wars;”
Again, persecution, not prosecution.
“and of course, the suppression of the Communists during the Cold War.”
Again, a matter of dubious constitutionality, so long as it was limited to advocacy, and not support of overthrow of the government by violent means.
Tell us, Paul, exactly what these ideas and opinions are, that ought to be banned, and how banning them upholds, rather than defies, American tradition. tell us how to recognize new subversive ideas in the future.
We have neo-Nazis running around. We have secessionists. We have those who think it would be nice if the army targeted journalists. We have those who advocate the overthrow of the government. Are they “subversives” who ought to be exiled or killed? Be careful. Some of these nuts are popular on the right.
Or is it only ideas you don’t like that shouldn’t be expressed?
Tell us exactly who should be making these decisions. More specifically, tell us how a group of people should be selected who will have control over what ideas you are free to express.
Charles, when you came aboard as a poster I had my doubts, but was willing to hold them in abeyance. With this post, and your view that advocacy of thought police is “astute,” I’m seriously wavering.
Nice to know that GT and Catsy can slam Charles without respect to the posting rules… I guess for the left that is civil behavior.
And I would like to echo the idea that “guilty until proven innocent” is a legal issue before the court and before the law, not a moral issue.
OK, I got that backwards…obviously I mean “innocent until proven guilty.”
Still, I believe morally everyone is entitled to the very best defense they can get. Otherwise “innocent until proven guilty” means nothing.
More specifically, “innocent until proven guilty” IMO must mean that an accused person is presumed to be the victim of mistaken identity, having no guilt in the case at hand whatsoever.
If that’s the case, what’s moral here is to help that person through any means available prove they’re the victim of mistaken identity.
They’re not on trial for how mean they are or how ugly they’ve been to people or how many unpaid parking tickets they have if the charge is murder. There’s one charge before the court and if they’re not guilty of that charge, how dispicable they are otherwise is totally irrelevant.
Assuming this piece of character assassination is honest–and that is purely a concession to the posting rules, as that is an assumption I do not believe is supported by the facts–it reveals either a lack of insight or a view that should be disturbing to anyone who thinks it through. Charles’ reasoning, as it were, is that Lynne Stewart was found guilty, and therefore someone contributing to her defense before she was found guilty–a contribution made out of a principled belief that her indictment sets a chilling precedent for the privilege of attorney-client communications–is endorsing the crime of which she was committed.
This tripe is a spectacular embarassment to Obsidian Wings.
I agree. I’ll take it a step further though. Charles Bird is a hack who couldn’t analyze his way out of a paper bag. I always considered ObWi to hold a higher position intellectually than tacitus. So much so that I often find I have nothing to contribute because it’s been said or that I just am not as informed as current commenters.
These bulls**t birddog pieces really drag it down in the mud though. Yeah I know he’s ruining the site haha old joke, but I always felt there was a kernel, however small, of truth in that joke at tacitus, and it sure as hell is true here.
I find myself stunned that any regular reader of tacitus would have ever considered this idiot to come on board here. What are you guys smoking?
If you wanted everybody to be polite and nice to eachother you should have left him out of the equation. His posts are often inciteful and not well thought out.
This piece is so absurd it’s not even funny. I guess I could say that if you contributed money to Bush’s relection campaign that you support torture, the demonization of gays, etc, etc…. Oh no wait, we’ve got to be pansies and let the moral cowards run and hide behind “not all of us are like that” (yeah, just the ones running things).
Jesus, I just wish we could drop all the niceties and start the next civil war already. I am soooo ready for that.
Yeah…gonna get banned. Should have never started commenting on this site. Should have stayed in the lurker’s box.
First Socrates, now the Alien and Sedition Acts. Such shining examples of how society should be. Let me disagree:
Bill, whoa.
Dantheman:
I did not limit myself to purely legal prosecution. Most often what we are talking about is social in nature. Legal measures have only been used rarely.
Loyalists.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were allowed to expire. They were not ruled unconstitutional.
Mr. Yomtov:
Tell us exactly who should be making these decisions. More specifically, tell us how a group of people should be selected who will have control over what ideas you are free to express.
State legislatures or Congress, of course. This is a republic.
When I first read Bird’s post, I tried to figure out whether other attorneys had been convicted for speech-related “aid” or “conspiracy.” I’m not a lawyer and so probably don’t know how to search effectively. Most of the sources I found that did not pertain to Stewart talked about defense lawyers who had been found guilty of moving assets. Anyone better at this kind of search have any tips?
(With all this talk of treasonous sedition punishable by exile or death going round, I hope to have an aggressive defense available to me someday…)
“There’s one charge before the court and if they’re not guilty of that charge, how dispicable they are otherwise is totally irrelevant.”
Irrelevant to the court, not to the general public.
Paul, there seems to be a gap between this statement–
I did not limit myself to purely legal prosecution. Most often what we are talking about is social in nature.
–and this statement–
State legislatures or Congress, of course. This is a republic.
Could you explain how legislation and persecution should interact?
On one hand, posts like this one make me want to request that ObWi put the contibutor’s name at the top of the post so that I can just do my own filtering without actually wasting time reading it. On the other hand, someone biting the head off a live chicken does tend to draw a crowd, and this kind of tired smear job is the blog equivalent.
So I’m indesisive. Of course, following with an update that essentially advocates and endorses totalitarian-like thought-control is like biting the head off a really diseased-looking rodent, so this should draw an especially big crowd. And, as intended in the oldtime carny days when geeks actually did bite off animal heads, after watching with revulsion the crowd could then wander into the ten-in-one to see some quality acts.
And apologies to Charles for the added pile-on here, and the above analogy, but I’m a big believer in natural consequences, and this kind of lame guilt-by-association is going to inspire this kind of response from a lot of readers. I like to keep my voice moderate here, but it’s getting somewhat difficult when this precious group blog gets polluted with the kind of stuff you can find in the seedier comments sections of the cheap seats in the boggodome. I mean, come on, you can’t be so desperate for analysis critical of Soros that you have to resort to this stuff. He advocates free speech? The monster!
You know, with stuff like this, and this, it strikes me that there are a lot of elements in the U.S. right now that are desperately looking for an honest-to-goodness traitor, any traitor, to call out. Why? Why does this seem to be important to them? If they can identify a traitor, does that make them better patriots or something?
The update and the Cella comment is more odious than the original post, which was simply a small-minded Soros snark.
Unfortunately for Cella, we are an Open Society, per our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the various writings of the founding fathers. Glad to know he advocates dumping our core tradition.
Or else what Bush and crew mean by America standing for freedom is something very differnet from the plain meaing of those words.
We last flirted with the Cella “casus belli” on free speech (and all that it implies) in the 50s, when there were attempts to make illegal membership in the Communist party since it did advocate violent overthrow of the US government. Didn’t work then, and won’t work now.
By the way, the founding fathers were advocates of the violent overthrow of government, just in case you forgot.
Where Cella gets it wrong its right out of the gate —
It [Open Society]cannot say to the Islamist: “your opinions are not welcome here.”
Uh, yes it can. That is the whole point of an open society.
What you are not supposed to do is advocate criminal penalties (or other violent means of suppression) against people based on their ideas, which is exactly what Cella advocates, and is the cornerstone of all tyrannies, whether they are fascist or communist, or whatever.
“I did not limit myself to purely legal prosecution. Most often what we are talking about is social in nature. Legal measures have only been used rarely.”
If legal measures are not used, then you are simply talking about attacking or defending the argument in the marketplace of ideas.
That is very different than saying “We have always been willing, as I said, to proscribe certain opinions; we have always been willing to apply limits to what can be said, advocated, even thought.” Doing this strongly implies use of the legal process to punish those who hold those positions.
…it strikes me that there are a lot of elements in the U.S. right now that are desperately looking for an honest-to-goodness traitor, any traitor, to call out. Why?
Because it’s easier than contemplating the mess in the Middle East? Because it’s easier to feel like a knight in shining armour slaying a hideous dragon if you can first get your opponent into a dragon suit? Because if you solely define your political stance by who you aren’t, then its important to demonize the opposition as much as possible? Because strawmen are so soft and pliable? Because if your opinions are true and pure, then surely opposing opinions must be traitorous at some level, if only we could find it?
I dunno, actually. It soes seem a bit on the playground level, and I hope it doesn’t get more serious than that.
Tell us exactly who should be making these decisions. More specifically, tell us how a group of people should be selected who will have control over what ideas you are free to express.
State legislatures or Congress, of course. This is a republic.
Silly me. I thought Congress could “make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press;” and that this extended to the states.
Not in the astute Paul Cella’s America. There if Congress wants to ban dissent against the Iraq War, for example, it is free to do so. What does the First Amendment have to with American tradition, anyway?
Oh, rest assured that Congress, in its infinite wisdom, would only ban bad ideas, Bernard.
Jackmoron:
Could you explain how legislation and persecution should interact?
That’s a fair question. I would say that, in general our tradition has been to socially ostracize (as another commenter put it) those factions whose opinions we find intolerable. The legal measures have tended to come into play when the faction in question is perceived to constitute a pressing threat to the security of the nation. Thus, we socially ostracize neo-Nazis, because there is little reason to fear that they might actually take a shot at violently overthrowing the country. But we went farther with Communists because they were (rightly, in my view) perceived as an immediate threat; and we go further with radical Muslims, for obvious reasons.
Classical Greece was a society based on slavery and was in an almost perpetual state of war. Such a society might well rely on suppression of ideas in order to achieve stability.
Perhaps Mr. Cella advocates a return to those glory days.
Classical Greece was a society based on slavery and was in an almost perpetual state of war. Such a society might well rely on suppression of ideas in order to achieve stability.
Perhaps Mr. Cella advocates a return to those glory days.
No, my “glory days” vision is of another age — but I’ll note that alot of thinkers far greater than I have pined for the glory days of Greek antiquity. They are often categorized under the historical heading “Renaissance.”
dmbeaster:
We last flirted with the Cella “casus belli” on free speech (and all that it implies) in the 50s, when there were attempts to make illegal membership in the Communist party since it did advocate violent overthrow of the US government. Didn’t work then, and won’t work now.
It worked fine. As Leftists were never hesitant to remind us, the Communist Party (USA) had one of the smallest membership counts in the Western world. All our domestic Communists had to avoid associating with Party. I wonder why that could be?
and thereby implies that Soros is financing terrorism.
You made that connection, not me, Catsy. If I thought Soros financed terrorism, I would have said so, directly.
My beef with George Soros and his institute is this:…. his anti-Bush obsession is causing a fundamental misallocation and distortion of huge resources.
It’s his money, Bird Dog. What you are saying is that anyone spending money on political causes you disapprove of is “causing a fundamental misallocation and distortion of … resources.” Well, I misallocated some resources to the DNC and the Kerry campaign myself. Sorry if that offends you.
The fact is that without Soros’ money, Lynne Stewart’s rights to a competent defense are the same as with the money.
No doubt. Indigents have the same right to a competent defense as does Michael Jackson, or Ken Lay. But somehow having more money to spend affects that competency. Did you not know that?
“The legal measures have tended to come into play when the faction in question is perceived to constitute a pressing threat to the security of the nation.”
The error is in focusing on the faction, not the action. Surely you don’t believe that criminal law ought be based on how or with whom people associate, not what they do. Consider these possible ‘crimes’:
1 Reading Communist Literature
2 Being Communist
3 Publicly Advocating Communism
4 Engaging in Destructive Acts in Order to Advance Communism.
In an Open Society, you are free to socially ostracize someone for any of these, and it is within the purview of the state to punish someone for #4. Are you advocating something different? Are you, for example, advocating that 3, 2, or even 1 ought be punishable by the state?
OK: keeping posting rules in mind, I will add my considered opinion that this post IS one of Charles’ suckier contributions to ObWi in his brief tenure here, having hit a sort of bad-blogpost trifecta.
First, for simply re-posting a NRO piece – complete with its irrelevant references to George Soros’ oppostion to President Bush (seeming enough of a sin in their book to earn opprobrium all by itself).
Second, by adding an inane comment like “…someone who favors an “open society” would be financing the advocate of those who prefer the closed society of sharia law.” I suppose that in CB’s view (especially if informed mainly by reading biased blogs like NRO) the Lynne Stewart case is such a simple example of “WarOnTerror” good-vs-evil that anyone who just MIGHT find deeper or more important issues in her prosecution, or contribute money (pre-conviction, mind) to promote these issues is, ipso facto, what? A dupe of terrorists? A “Subversive”? Or worse, A Democrat?
(and PS; anyone know what George Soros’ personal input into this contribution was? or was it done by the OSI? Do they have to clear things with GS?)
And third, though, compounding the bad-bloggery, is updating it with Paul Cella’s comment (from RedState? That sump?) – “Astute” is hardly a term I would use for a post that includes a gem of a comment like:
“….we have, in short, always been willing to offer to subversives the choice that Athens gave to Socrates: silence, exile, or death.”
Nice sentiment, Paul (complete with Classical reference!) – but it runs afoul of just one little sticking-point: who, exactly, is it, that gets to define (and on what grounds) who is a “subversive” and who isn’t? You? Me? Charles? George Bush? George Soros? George of the Jungle?
Sorry, in the ‘marketplace of ideas”, the shoppers ought to pass stuff like by while holding their noses.
Sidereal:
I have no qualms about legal sanctions against 2, 3, or 4. To put it another way: I believe that, this being a republic, the legislative bodies in this country ought to be free to legislate against them.
Sheesh, go away for a few hours and the post and the thread both get much, much worse.
But it is not a Republic, it is a Constitutional Republic, and with good reason.
Jay C:
who, exactly, is it, that gets to define (and on what grounds) who is a “subversive” and who isn’t? You? Me? Charles? George Bush? George Soros? George of the Jungle?
We the People do, acting through our duly-elected representatives.
I’m sorry if this point has been made, but Charles’ Update II just makes a bad post worse. Did he even try to look at the initiatives that the Soros Foundation funds? (http://www.soros.org/initiatives) They’re all over the world. They’re involved in major initiatives in Cuba (http://www.soros.org/initiatives/lap), Burma (http://www.soros.org/initiatives/burma), Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Turkmenistan… (http://www.soros.org/initiatives/regions/mideast). (In Bird’s defense, they don’t seem to be doing much in North Korea. I can’t imagine why that is, but I’m sure it’s proof that he hates America.
Does he honestly think that the Soros Foundations are bent on “try(ing) to stick a thumb in George Bush’s eye”? This sounds quite a lot like the complaints people have whenever Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or feminist groups criticize the US. In a twinkling, massive expeditures and efforts around the world are dismissed as intentionally blind conservatives say, “Why don’t they worry about Saudi Arabia?” It does no good to point out that they do a ton of work re: Saudi Arabia.
And…. when did Stewart become a Communist? Is that true?
Guys, there are a lot of blogs where I can go to get my intelligence insulted. Don’t be one of them.
Correct me if I have misunderstood, Paul, but are you then willing, in theory, to cede the power to decide who among us is a “subversive” and whose expressed ideas are “subversion” (and thus, by your Socratic example above, the power to enforce “silence, exile, or death” over such ideas) to the average State Legislator, and/or Federal Congressman or Senator –without any overriding [Constitutional] safeguards or [Constitutional] judicial review as to what is permissable speech or permissable ideas? Or are said ideas required to pass some sort of test as to their “fitness” for dissemination?
Gee, and I thought it was only “lefty moonbats” who were in favor of Big Government curtailing free speech on grounds of “political correctness”!
just to continue this trainwreck, there’s an interesting tie between Cella’s idea that the majority can prevent freedom of association and SH’s posts on Bush judicial nominees.
after all, Ms. Stewart’s appeal, that her prosecution is barred by the First and Sixth Amendments will be heard by . . . judges.
Mr. Bird, I find your views regarding how Mr. Soros allocates his funds utterly repellant. On what possible basis do you assert that he is being hypocritical? On what possible basis do you dare smear his character? IT’S HIS MONEY!
If, for example, Scaife started contributing to the defense of pedophile priests, would your views change on how billionaires get to distribute their funds?
feh.
Francis
This thread is like a 34-car pile-up on the interstate.
America, whatever it is or has been, should be moving toward Soros’s ideal of an Open Society. Our shameful past of silencing the voices we disagree with via exile or death or whatever is impossible to change, but to confuse it as our identity to the point that one suggests we can do no better going forward is defeatist, pessimistic, and unAmerican.
Of course we can do better. Our Founding Fathers did not build this nation on the premise we’d hit a glass ceiling of open thought and content ourselves to live under it, like snakes in a terrarium. Our greatest social revolutionists did not risk their lives to force the issues because they wanted to invite death or exile for themselves, but rather because they desired a better life for their children. The ideal is more tolerance of ideas, not some couch-potato-level comfort zone in which bread and circuses placate the masses.
This notion that human tolerance for new ideas is finite is ludicrous. Tolerance is like any art form, only by testing its boundaries does the artist learn what he’s capable of. I’d much rather support the Soros-type dreamers of this world than their detractors, however reality-based they thing their limited thinking is.
Edward, time to post a relieve-the-tension thread? Maybe “things that went terribly wrong at weddings” since I’m thinking about the possibilities?
“And if Soros was funding this guy’s defense would the thread be identical?”
Sure, if that guy’s lawyer was being monitored by authorities, violating basic confidentiality. That’s pretty unsettling. I’m worried by the idea that being *suspected* of committing certain crimes is now justification for the elimination of core constitutional rights.
It reminds me, strangely enough, of the conservative uproar during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle. Liberals were accused of making sexual harassment a ‘magical accusation’ that could never be disputed. These days, ‘terrorism’ is the conservative equivalent.
Paul:
First Amendment
I like this part of the Constitution.
Jackmoron,
You’re obviously not astute enough to understand that the First Amendment is not a part of the American tradition.
It’s his money, Bird Dog.
Of course it’s his money, Bernard. I’ve never said otherwise. He can be as hypocritical as he wants with it, and I reserve the right to criticize him for it. Free speech cuts all ways.
I’m a fan of this one, meself:
I haven’t seen it in quite these words yet, so…
I firmly believe that people I firmly believe are guilty of disgusting, heinous, evil things deserve an excellent defense. Justice requires that the state prove its case. In the court of public opinion, my surety is enough. But in law, the standard ought to be a whole lot higher. And this is especially true when I am most tempted to sneer at the limitations of jurisprudence. It is better for guilty people to free than for innocent people to be punished, and this principle is well worth supporting in every single case, every time, from the smallest crime to the greatest. Conviction should be the reward of a good hard struggle on the state’s part.
This got beautiful. Best thread in days. Thanks Bird, and of course thanks to Mr Cella. Always a pleasure.
Is the 1st Amendment (and its companions) an end in itself, its protection superseding all other goods?
Does the Bill of Rights have only an instrumental value, or an absolute value? May it be partially and specifically and temporarily suspended or vitiated, in service of other goods and goals? History tells us we have survived such episodes, so perhaps there is something in America more valuable than the Constitution, than needs protection even from the abuse the Constitution may be in occasional service to.
Like a polity? A culture? Should the Constitution cause damage to the nation or part of it, it may be in a more general peril. It is only a piece of paper, respected as long as it shows its usefulness. It is the people who make it work. So many constitutions around the world, so few that are actuallt respected.
Mr Cella has frightened many here who tend to be frightened of their fellow men. Some have violated posting rules. I am not frightened of Mr Cella, or his ideas, but do hope he provides assistance to some of his companions on the right who may lack his judgement and compassion.
Question to Cella:
Consider these possible ‘crimes’:
1 Reading Communist Literature
2 Being Communist
3 Publicly Advocating Communism
4 Engaging in Destructive Acts in Order to Advance Communism.
* * *
Cella’s response:
I have no qualms about legal sanctions against 2, 3, or 4. To put it another way: I believe that, this being a republic, the legislative bodies in this country ought to be free to legislate against them.
Well guess what? Our founding fathers disagreed, and 2 and 3 cannot legally be outlawed. As a matter of policy, I am glad that you don’t believe in freedom or democracy, since you believe the majority are free to criminalize dissenting belief they do not like.
By the way, its no longer a Republic once you go down this path. It rapidly becomes tyranny. Read a little history, and you’ll figure that one out.
I think 3.6: Publically Advocating specific acts of destruction to further the Communist Cause is illegal. (Or would it be specific imminent acts of destruction…)
Bird Dog,
Just because he disagrees with you as to the most effective way to promote his goals does not make him a hypocrite. You and Paul Cella have no monopoly on truth. Soros is entitled to form his own judgments. Even being wrong does not make him a hypocrite.
Also 3.1415: Shouting “Communist” in a crowded theater.
“since you believe the majority are free to criminalize dissenting belief they do not like.”
Hang out with Yglesias too much, and his pragmatic empiricism has ruined me.
When will your neighbours criminalize dissenting speech?
What kind will they criminalize? How onerous will the sanctions be? Will the majority pay a price for this action, will there be consequences? If freedom were to go into partial eclipse, would we survive? Would useful lessons be learned?
If we were headed into tyranny by will of the majority, do you really think that piece of paper would save us?
What is it, exactly, that protects us from tyranny?
bobmcmanus states that anyone who disagrees with Cella is someone “tend[s]to be frightened of their fellow men.
Please explain that one to me. Where I come from, people who want to limit open discussion, and indeed want to criminalize open discussion, are the ones who are considered fearful, frightened men.
Tell me what’s so freaking brave about advocating “silence, death or exile” for dissidents?
Re the First Amendment:
Yes, I haven’t forgotten about it. But the First Amendment is contained within the larger document, which begins, in the Preamble, by setting out its purposes thusly:
The amendment cannot be simply wrenched free from its wider context. I have a hard time seeing how domestic Tranquility can be reconciled with tolerance for those who advocate the violent overthrow of our government.
We are not talking about run-of-the-mill radical opinionating. We are talking about, as I mentioned in my original comment, Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and suchlike — people who aspire to violently replace the U.S. government with another.
I am perfectly happy with a broad tolerance for a very wide variety of opinion. My point is only that We the People are free to set limits at the extremes — indeed we are obligated to. My point is that for us, all questions are not open questions; one that we have closed is this: “should the American government be overthrown?”
I’ll also note that the application of the First Amendment to the states through the Incorporation Doctrine is a very recent innovation — a departure, that is, from our political tradition as it remained for 150 years.
“neighbours”
A Canadian in our midst!
“What is it, exactly, that protects us from tyranny?”
The willingness of the judiciary to enforce the Constitution, the willingness of law enforcement to abide by the judiciary, and the willingness of the populace to support the mandate of law enforcement. Quite a lot derives from that little piece of paper, and our collective agreement to honor it. Subverting any link in that chain is quite possible, on the order of a revolution or a coup d’etat.
“If we were headed into tyranny by will of the majority, do you really think that piece of paper would save us?”
You’re begging the question. If we’re ‘headed into tyranny’ then obviously the paper isn’t saving us. What that paper means is that tyranny must come by a bloody revolution, not by a slow degradation of rights.
dmbeaster:
Well guess what? Our founding fathers disagreed, and 2 [being a Communist] and 3 [publicly advocating Communism] cannot legally be outlawed.
Oh no?
[Smith Act of 1940 (yes, I know it has been amended)]
“The amendment cannot be simply wrenched free from its wider context.”
Nor can the aspiration to Tranquility. If Tranquility were the overarching raison d’etre for the establishment of the state, the forefathers would have payed their stamp tax. It would have been much more Tranquil than the revolution. The Blessings of Liberty follows shortly thereafter in the document.
Sidereal:
I think what Mr. McManus (who has generous come to my defense again) means is that even in a Constitutional Republic, the people have final authority. That’s why it is still a Republic.
McManus is just echoing the dismissive attitude of Publuis in The Federalist toward “parchment barriers” against the will of the people. When your form of government is republican, meaning rule by the people through their representatives, you cannot, in the final analysis, thwart their will.
— Tocqueville, Democracy in America (the “rapid stream,” of course, is the march of democracy.)
Sidereal writes, Nor can the aspiration to Tranquility. If Tranquility were the overarching raison d’etre for the establishment of the state, the forefathers would have payed their stamp tax. It would have been much more Tranquil than the revolution. The Blessings of Liberty follows shortly thereafter in the document.
Well said. Unity, Justice, Tranquility, common defense, general welfare, the Blessings of Liberty — all these are set before us as the goal to which “We the People” must dedicate ourselves. The balancing of these goals is the public conversation of this republic, which is also, of course, the first public business of this republic.
I paraphrase: By the guidance of the Preamble, the Republic is to be conceived in its motion as an ongoing public argument. We the people, by constituting ourselves one people, declare that we are locked in argument as citizens under God, about the refinement, enhancement and perfecting of our political order. Our government shall be as a dialogue in classical political philosophy: a sober and very serious, though certainly not dull, attempt to approximate the good (that is virtuous) life of political man. And the sky is the limit as regards legislation, subject to a variety of sagacious qualifiers and codicils, so long as it emerges from the deliberate sense of the community (Publius’s words) acting through assemblies of representative citizens to whom We the People have vouchsafed our authority.
This could be the platonic tarbaby post.
“McManus is just echoing the dismissive attitude of Publuis in The Federalist toward “parchment barriers” against the will of the people.”
This miscontstrues the barrier. The parchment itself is meaningless. Easily forgotten or burned. But in creating the parchment you create a new will: the will to defend it and abide by it. The will to a coherent polity. The question then becomes: does the will to a new order supersede the will to abide by the founding document? Or, does our will to be something new supersede our will to maintain the identity of the United States? The former will is, I would hope, proportional to the wisdom enshrined in the document.
There’s another issue. It’s in the nature of humans to be wise some times and foolish others. We are fearful creatures, and often short-sighted. Is it appropriate to make a rule in your wiser times that you obey in your foolish times, because even if you no longer see the wisdom, you honor and respect your wiser self? In the context of religion, the family, and the self, we say yes. Capriciousness is not a virtue. Is politics different? Is there such a thing as the tyranny of the better self? I ask honestly. I don’t pretend to know the answer.
Mr. Cella:
there has always been a fine line between freedom of association and conspiracy, especially when the purpose of the association is to advocate for significant changes in the US economic and/or political systems. the line separates advocacy for change from advocacy for violence.
for example, i am absolutely entitled to form the “New American Communist Party” and advocate for the election of officials who will nationalize some / all of the US economy. i’m even allowed to call for a constitutional convention to revoke the 5th amendment obligation to pay just compensation. so long as i don’t advocate for the overthrow of the US govt through force or violence, i’m covered.
as far as your concerns about the incorporation doctrine, the civil war and 14th amendment resolved that issue. the states’ rights side lost.
Francis
“bobmcmanus states that anyone who disagrees with Cella is someone “tend[s]to be frightened of their fellow men.”
Well, ya know, not exactly what I said.
The imprisonment of Eugene Debs, and I think Robert Montgomery?, but at least Debs was a terrible thing. Yet 90 years later we are free to criticize this war and this President. By “frightened of their fellow men” I meant that the slippery slope argument that allows no discussion of the instrumental value of “Rights” implies that your opponents will lack the good judgement, moral values, and reasonable restraints that you yourself have.
They may not have the quantity and quality of those good things that you possess, but I suspect they have some.
I trust that If this President were to try to make all and any criticism of himself illegal, Mr Cella would stand alongside me in resistance.
Now I have been down this road before, telling Katherine at one point that the rendition of one man or two did not necessarily lead to tyranny, and I didn’t see Ashcroft jailing every American Muslim. I reversed myself upon subsequent revelations.
Make no mistake, I disagree with Mr Cella on many things, and am offended by this story(Lynne Stewart) and am much more receptive to George Soros and the Open Society. I disapprove of banning the Communist Party.
I do not, however think Mr Cella intends general tyranny or widespread suppression of dissidents.
I disapprove of banning the Communist Party.
Thank you.
bob, how would you think he feels about, say, atheists holding office in America? And proclaiming how their atheism has led to a rich life, or a political decision or appointment?
Charles: As Ted Barlow pointed out, your second update seems to overlook the fact that Soros is not just spending money in many of the countries you mention, but in some cases one of the major donors supporting open and civil society. If you go to his website, you’ll find links to all of them, including the Turkmenistan Project and the Burma Project, along with others (e.g., the Middle East and North Africa Initiatives, that don’t make their relevance to your criticism quite so simple to figure out, since they don’t actually contain the names of the countries you suggest Soros should be involved in.) And he’s not giving small amounts, either: a year and a half ago, the Washington Post wrote:
Now: that’s a billion dollars for just Russia, leaving aside the work of the OSI in the rest of the world. The total amount he spends on democracy development in developing countries is estimated to be around $270 million a year.
In addition to spending over a quarter of a billion dollars a year promoting democracy in developing countries (not including Russia), he also spent $20,000 once “to conduct a public education campaign around the broad civil rights implications of Lynne Stewart’s indictment”. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there was a serious legal issue at stake in Stewart’s prosecution, and being concerned about it in no way requires any sympathy for Stewart. Moreover, legal protections are one of the issues he focuses on.
So why does this grant make him a hypocrite? Is the idea that as long as there are other countries that are worse off than we are, it’s hypocritical to give money in our own? If so, then let me just announce my hypocrisy: I give a bunch of money away every year, most of it to organizations like Oxfam and Medecins Sans Frontieres, but I also give to my local United Way, even though I realize that there are places in the world where people are worse off than Baltimore. Baltimore is my home; I feel some obligation to it.
Worse still, sometimes I spend money on things that aren’t even charitable at all, even though I know that there are people who need the money more than I do. A couple of days ago, for instance, I ordered some books online, even though that same amount of money would have done a lot more for desperate people all over the world.
Does this make me a hypocrite? If so, I’d be grateful (really) if you’d explain to me why. (I’m quite serious: I try to be a decent person, and if my spending charitable dollars in Baltimore is wrong, I would like to know.) Do you live up to this standard? If not, do you think you are a hypocrite? If not, have I somehow misunderstood your point? If so, I’d be grateful if you’d explain it to me, since the way it reads to me, you are arguing that spending $20,000 here at home when there are other places that need that money more, even if you are giving over a quarter of a billion dollars a year for work in those other places, is what makes his actions wrong. And that seems to me to be an extraordinary view.
On the other hand, if you just didn’t know about the extent of his other donations, I’d suggest doing research before you accuse someone of hypocrisy.
Sorry: on rereading the last few paragraphs of my post, I see that their structure is not clear. So here it is, in schematic form:
I) I assume that you know how much money he gives. If so:
Ia) You seem to be saying that if someone gives any amount of money to do something in one country when there is another country in which people need help more, then that person is a hypocrite.
If this is what you meant, then: 1) I am a hypocrite; 2) Please tell me why; 3) are you?
Ib) If you meant something different, please explain.
II) If my initial assumption that you checked Soros’ giving in other countries is wrong, then you should have checked before accusing him of hypocrisy.
Mr Cella has frightened many here who tend to be frightened of their fellow men.
Well Bob, maybe I can stop quivering in fear long enough to address your point.
If we were headed into tyranny by will of the majority, do you really think that piece of paper would save us?
So the First Amendment is useless because it’s not a perfect defense against tyranny? Is that what your “pragmatism” means? No sense carrying an umbrella, because someone might steal it, and then you’d get wet anyway.
So the First Amendment is useless because it’s not a perfect defense against tyranny?
I think what he means is that the First Amendment isn’t *physically* able to stop bullets.
Being paper and all.
And even if it could stop bullets, would it be able to stop Lex Luthor armed with kryptonite?
I didn’t think so.
For those of you interested, the transcripts of the taped conversations are here (also the deliberations(!))
What amazes me is that the Sheikh is speaking Arabic and Stewart is speaking through Yousry’s translation. If you haven’t worked in a country where you have to work through translation, (not to mention a language like Arabic, which along with Japanese and Chinese, is the most difficult to learn, according to the State Department), consider for a moment how it might be just be possible to misinterpret.
I find it strange that the transcripts are up, but none of the RW sites actually cite any particular passages to prove Stewart’s guilt. I guess with all the s**t that is thrown up, they figure there has to be a pony in there somewhere.
I really don’t understand why you let someone like Bird post here.
Shorter, Bird Dog Sucks and is ruining this site.
I am curious, if we were talking about “Militias” instead of the “Blind Sheikh”, would everyone be so upset with Bird Dog? Just asking.
“So the First Amendment is useless because it’s not a perfect defense against tyranny?”
Golly. Ok, the 1st amendment is neither useless nor all-powerful. It did not help Debs a lot. Ulysses got legal.
It helped Hustler and Flag-Burners. But got kinda savaged in Campaign-financing. Isn’t stopping media consolidation or moderate-conservative dominance.
But wait. Maybe these things aren’t so much about the amendment as the judges who interpret it. We had a bad set of judges for Debs and a good set for Jehovah Witnesses. How do we get good judges? Politics. Do we want judges who retard the people’s will, reflect it, or anticipate it,ignore it. Problems in all of these.
You want interpreters with blindfolds, an absolute and timeless interpretation? Ain’t gonna happen. Most of the time, in easier cases with a plurality of consensus, we’ll manage. In times of war or issues of passionate disagreement, it(or judges) may fail, and people will get hurt.
Look, you simply can’t say it will protect people all the time… because it hasn’t. You can say it should, and I wish I had a pony. You can fight for it in specific cases, and sometimes lose.
But politics, persuasion and confrontation and coalition and compromise, is the only place where freedom lives. Not in a piece of paper.
I am curious, if we were talking about “Militias” instead of the “Blind Sheikh”, would everyone be so upset with Bird Dog? Just asking.
In a word, yes.
BD’s hackery in writing this screed had nothing to do with who Stewart’s client was, and everything to do with a transparent and dishonest attempt to smear Soros by insinuating a Bush/bin Laden-style connection between he and someone convicted of aiding terrorists.
Had you taken the time to read the rest of the thread in good faith, you would know this.
I am curious, if we were talking about “Militias” instead of the “Blind Sheikh”, would everyone be so upset with Bird Dog? Just asking.
StanLS asked essentially the same thing. Whyncha scroll upthread for the answer?
Catsy, I read it all both here at Wings as well as over at Tac. There is no doubt if the situation had changed as described, Bird Dog would make the same remarks about the situation, although the cite would have been from a different source.
I wasn’t troubled by the contribution made by Soros. A liberal activist in trouble someone in Soros’s organization wrote a check, maybe even the man, himself.
I was troubled by many of the comments, including the personal insults, something about Posting Rules rings a bell. But Catsy you would have a better feel for that than I.
“I am curious, if we were talking about “Militias” instead of the “Blind Sheikh”, would everyone be so upset with Bird Dog? Just asking.”
Obviously, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, Timmy, but given that all the other facts in the post were the same, I would probably have exactly the same reaction. The issue, as I see it, is not at all related to the particular political bent of the criminal in question, but rather on the propriety of the government so casually shredding the attorney-client-privilege right in their pursuit of Lynne Stewart (who I think is a crank and an idiot, and whose client is a scumbag murderer but that’s *way* by the by). I take issues of constitutional protections and civil liberties quite seriously, the views (however loathesome) of those affected ought not, to my mind, be a factor where principles of Law and Justice are involved.
I voiced my critique of BD’s post in my comment at 4:18 – had he indeed blasted George Soros for contributing to the defense fund of a lawyer charged re representing, say, Tim McVeigh, my reaction would be the same.
“For those of you interested, the transcripts of the taped conversations are here (also the deliberations(!))”
For the record, I think those transcripts labelled “deliberations” are of court proceedings after the jury had gotten the case (e.g., discussions of notes from the jury, the verdict, etc.). It is extremely rare for a jury deliberation to be recorded in any way.
I think it’s fair to say our system treats juries very much as a “black box” where we dump in the info. (both fact and law), we get out a verdict, and we don’t want to know anything else.
StanLS asked essentially the same thing.
Phil, I read your response, it didn’t really answer the question I asked. Now Jay C. makes a much better effort.
Jay C. just one question, does attorney client privilege pertain when it has nothing to do with the client’s legal rights? It appears to me (absolutely no legal training, other than contract and securities law) is that counsel has an obligation to the court to limit the privilege to legal proceedings. Am I incorrect in this understanding?
TtWD: It would be exactly the same, as far as I am concerned. I argued for the right of Nazis to march through Skokie, and I would argue for that.
Thanks hilzoy, is my question on Posting Rules germane?
hilzoy, I’m glad to read it. When the events in Skokie occurred I sent my first contribution to the ACLU and I have been a (-ahem- card carrying) member ever since.
Getting late, but I’ll add one last riposte:
Timmy:
however sketchy your legal training, it is still far more than mine, which falls under the heading of “what I know about the law is only what I see on television”. I have not the least idea of how the Law interprets the scope of attorney/client privilege: if you do, or can provide a link, please let us all know. However, I would imagine that it is not limited to just “proceedings” as in, say, a courtroom (if that IS your view???)
I have been under the impression that Lynne Stewart’s contacts with Sheikh Omar *were* in the context of legal consultation/representation, (as opposed to just casual visits), which I gather was the root of the whole hullabaloo about the G’s wiretapping of them: If I’m incorrect, I’d like to see a cite.
But I still stick by my opinion of BD’s post as “sucky” – although, I DON’T think he’s ruining the site. (Yet :))
“For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is ‘Why aren’t you, Bob?'”
It had to be done.
I should like to observe wryly that no matter how many times Timmy shows up to wag the blog, I always seem to fall for it.
I expect if enough people join me in my pledge of Feb 1, a more reasonable solution will have been found.
I have my own variation on that pledge: I read but don’t bother to respond. It’s not worth my time.
I expect if enough people join me in my pledge of Feb 1, a more reasonable solution will have been found.
I have my own variation on that pledge: I read but don’t bother to respond. It’s not worth my time.
I’ve been thinking about pledges and I’m beginning to think that it’s necessary to make some pro-forma response to a front page post like this rather than just not read it, or read it and not respond. Thinking about the facts and lacunae marshalled here apparently to mislead, I realize this is not simply a tar-baby post, it’s worse. The following article might appropriately describe this situation. Apologies if this is taken as a posting violation, but I think BD’s post fits under that rubric.
I’m more than a bit worried that this shares the same features as the conservative response to Eason Jordan’s comments, but the inability for Bird Dog (sorry, the Charles mask no longer applies) to update the post with reasonable points made by the commentators (such as the timing of OSI contribution, the fact that the OSI money is not an open-ended committment (which is mentioned in the NRO column, so this post is filtering out everything but the most inflammatory points), Soros’ support of precisely the places that BD claims he does not) but instead misdirect and make points without checking makes me reluctantly and sadly conclude that BD really has no place at a site that seeks to promote dialogue between the left and right.
JayC, this cite explains some of the other problems with the case.
Paul Cella: “We have, in short, always been willing to offer to subversives the choice that Athens gave to Socrates: silence, exile, or death.”
ral: Excuse me, I have a question. Do we think this is a good idea?
Paul Cella: “Yes. A very good idea. Socrates agreed.”
No, he didn’t. It ill becomes you, Paul, to cite Socrates without considering this: From the Apology, 360 BCE:
Paul Cella seems to have picked out “I honor you and I love you” from the whole magnificent Apologia, and ignored the rest.
Paul Cella: Indeed, but he did not begrudge the Athenians when they moved to stop him. That was my point.
Nonsense. Seriously, Paul, this a major twist on the four dialogues that make up the trial and death of Socrates. (The four usually included are Euthyphro, Apology (which is supposed to be the defense Socrates presented at his trial); Crito, post-trial, in which Socrates explains why he isn’t going to try and escape, and Phaedo, which describes Socrates’ death.)
To argue that Socrates thought it “a good idea” that he should be given the choice of silence, exile, or death for saying what he thought, to anyone he thought, is virtually a 180-degree twist on all interpretations I’ve ever seen of those dialogues. Even to argue that he didn’t begrudge the Athenians their right to do it is at least a 95-degree twist on it.
Socrates is condemned to death for corrupting the young with opinions about the gods that are contrary to the beliefs of the majority. In fact, as he says elsewhere in the Apology, he is really being condemned to death for being annoying – being a gadfly. He says, as I quoted above, that he will not accept silence as the price of his life. He’s condemned to death, but he can’t be executed for religious reasons for several weeks. During that time, Crito visits him and urges him to escape. This is his response, speaking as if he were the “laws of Athens”:
(There is an earlier passage, which I won’t quote, having already perhaps quoted too much, where Socrates points out very acutely what life in exile for a man aged seventy is likely to be, and it’s not pretty.)
At no point – literally, at no point – does Socrates say that giving him the choice of silence, exile, or death was right or just. He simply accepts that the Athenians can do it to him, and are doing it to him, and that (especially at his age) he really has no choice: he will not sacrifice his integrity to their demands, and he will not go into exile to escape them, therefore, if they want him to shut up, they must kill him.
I think I am most offended by this argument because I first read these dialogues when I was almost too young to understand them (in English, I’m afraid: I’ve never learned Greek). But I understood that Socrates was standing up for what he believed to be right even at the cost of his own life: and I have understood ever since that this is the right thing to do. To argue that Socrates’ courage and integrity in the face of being told “exile, silence, or death” meant that Socrates thought those choices were “a good idea”, as Paul Cella claims, is to make a mockery of the ideas Socrates explicitly stands for in those four dialogues.
If Paul Cella has never read them, and knows them only by interpretation, I suppose he’s merely misinformed: I can see how “Crito” could be interpreted to mean that a citizen of the state owes complete loyalty to the state even when he disagrees with it. But if Paul has read the dialogues and this is what he’s come up with, I am as unimpressed by this as I am by slaveowners in the 19th century who came up with Biblical quotes to prove that God said slavery was a good thing.
Reading all the arguments about how congress has to right to give advocats of change in the constitution the choice of silence, exile, or death, I start to wonder:
What exactly is the difference to the behaviour of the Iranian mullahs? AFAIK they claim that there once was a referendum which gave legitimacy to the theocratic constitution of Iran. Based to that they claim the right to suppress the political opposition (which actually has the support of the majority by now) which wants to change that constitution.
From a pure legalistic point of view, I really don’t see the difference.
What that paper means is that tyranny must come by a bloody revolution, not by a slow degradation of rights.
One would think so, but the example of Hitler’s Germany, which had far less inherent Constitutional protection than we do, is a fine counterexample. There, I’ve said it. In our own time, the ongoing encroachment of civil liberties post-Patriot Act is another example. (Reason does fine coverage of this every day at their blog.)
bob, how would you think he feels about, say, atheists holding office in America? And proclaiming how their atheism has led to a rich life, or a political decision or appointment?
Paul has already declared publicly that atheists should be excluded from holding public office. (He did it in the comments on this very blog.) He also once insinuated that if religious folk like him continue to get fed up with the path of government and culture they might have to “take matters into their own hands,” wink wink. I guess the first “dangerous idea” we need to ban is Christianity.
“I’ve been thinking about pledges and I’m beginning to think that it’s necessary to make some pro-forma response to a front page post like this rather than just not read it, or read it and not respond.”
I have thought about it as well. I feel duty bound to respond, not merely for the reasons lj cited, to point out how misleading the post is on so many different levels. I am responding because the post offends on a very deep level what I believe are the fundamental values of this country.
I am not sure, as bob mcmanus is, that Paul Cella does not “intend[s] general tyranny or widespread suppression of dissidents.” I think he has advocated a view which can only lead to this. If speech alone, without any threat of violence, can be prohibited, or if groups can be proscribed based on their opinions and not their actions, then the inevitable result is suppression of dissent and tyranny.
What scares me far more than Paul Cella taking these positions is that they seem to me to be the positions of a significant portion of the right wing of this country, including nearly all of the conservative media.
You give Charles and Paul Cella too much benefit in saying their position on dissidents is a philosophical one, though Cella tries to make it look like one by (mis-)citing Socrates’ trial.
A valid philosphical position is one held regardless of which party or person is in power. The RW only want dissidents silenced (if not imprisoned, killed or exiled) when a government to their liking is in power. Their positions do a complete about face when Democrats are in the majority and/or hold the WH.
Someday we’ll all be able to simply discuss things without resorting to excessive and unfounded generalization, Dantheman. Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow… Not saying we over on the right are free from guilt in this matter, but some of you guys are always around to point out those transgressions as well.
Please knock it off, Catsy. If BD’s work is sufficiently flawed, simply pointing out those flaws should suffice. You’ve done this multiple times on this thread, and I’m now asking you to cut it out. It’s got no place here. Calling someone’s work “hackery” and calling them a hack are roughly equivalent, and so just about equally unacceptable.
Slarti: Someday we’ll all be able to simply discuss things without resorting to excessive and unfounded generalization, Dantheman.
Excessive, possibly: judgement call.
Unfounded? Hardly.
Imprecise, then. Unfounded might be out of line, because “a significant portion” could conceivably be defined as “more than one or two”, depending on how flexible the writer is feeling.
“Someday we’ll all be able to simply discuss things without resorting to excessive and unfounded generalization, Dantheman. Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow… Not saying we over on the right are free from guilt in this matter, but some of you guys are always around to point out those transgressions as well.”
I do not for a minute believe my generalization is either excessive or unfounded.
“If BD’s work is sufficiently flawed, simply pointing out those flaws should suffice.”
Not if BD’s response to having those flaws pointed out is not to retract his statements but to compound them by making more fanciful and less supportable allegations (as he did in his updates).
“Paul has already declared publicly that atheists should be excluded from holding public office.”
Sure, I remember this. Mr Cella is not my ally. I definitely want to keep his ideology from power. But there are still two paramount ideas I take from him.
1)Culture matters
2)Politics matters
The simple lesson we on the left should be taking from the last few years is that, with extraordinary rendition an example, the law does not protect us. More laws, or different and better laws, or better lawyers, are not the answer. Power f***ing matters.
Mr Cella, because his ideology is closer to those in power than mine, bears listening to.
1a) Culture matters:The left need to develop a persuasive culture or ideology. Not simply one that is correct, but one that will gain a majority. One that is competitive with traditional values and Christian Conservatism in creating an enthusiastic and committed following.
2a)Politics matters:Success will not be achieved in courts and legislatures and Presidential elections. Success will be achieved in media and streetcorners and blogs and churches and direct mail. We got to get local and talk to people, especially people we are not completely comfortable with.
Mr Cella has a third point I am not completely clear on. When you have an implacable opponent (contradiction coming up) like Mr Cella keeping atheist me from public office(or banning the Communist Party), or Phil banning Christianity or the Shia in Iraq dealing with the Sunnis, you have to deal with the problem. Civil society bends or breaks at this margin. Best may be to contain them without threatening their existence, but it must be recognized that the situation can get ugly or violent. Culture is worth fighting for.
I’m not addressing what you believe. I’m addressing what you’re saying. I have no question that you believe what you’re saying.
Then it should be like shooting fish in a barrel to show him how wrong he is. Not only that, people like me tend to take you more seriously when you do that. But if you’re pandering to those who relish a smackdown over a refutation, I can understand the inclination to indulge.
“Then it should be like shooting fish in a barrel to show him how wrong he is.”
The fishes were duly shot, by myself and others. If you think otherwise, please re-read the thread.
Please knock it off, Catsy. If BD’s work is sufficiently flawed, simply pointing out those flaws should suffice. You’ve done this multiple times on this thread, and I’m now asking you to cut it out. It’s got no place here. Calling someone’s work “hackery” and calling them a hack are roughly equivalent, and so just about equally unacceptable.
With respect, no. They are not equivalent, and we do and always have drawn a firm distinction here between attacking what someone has written and attacking them–and what Charles has written this time is Limbaugh-grade garbage. I unequivocally stand by what I said. I have exhaustively supported it by pointing out where and how this post distorts and omits relevant facts and uses loaded language to smear a man who has done more to promote democracy in this world than BD’s stint in the 101st fighting keyboarders will in a lifetime. BD’s response to this has been not to retract or correct his mistakes, but to avoid addressing them with evasive BS like “you made that connection, not me”, as if anyone with an IQ above room temperature wouldn’t immediately understand what the language in his post insinuates.
The problem with refuting this kind of garbage is that it adds to its legitimacy–particularly when it gains further legitimacy when prominently featured on the front page. Ethical bloggers, when their facts or conclusions are corrected, update their post with front-page corrections so that the average reader who doesn’t read through the scores of comments will not be misled. Charles does not appear to want to do this: he has been corrected, the loaded language and implications of what he wrote have been pointed out to him, but the only update has been to quote a post elsewhere that has nothing to do with the facts he misrepresented, but rather is linked to further cast into doubt the legitimacy of the OSI. I can only conclude that either Charles does not have the time to update his post (but does have the time to respond to comments), or he knows exactly how it comes across and wants it that way.
It is Bird Dog who has no place here at ObWi as a guest poster. His works are a complete embarassment to this community. He needs to go.
It is Bird Dog who has no place here at ObWi as a guest poster. His works are a complete embarassment to this community. He needs to go.
OK folks, this has gone on long enough. Von and I invited Bird Dog, but I’ll speak for myself, supposedly the most left person on the blog.
I respect the writing Charles does, even when it’s inflammatory, and anyone who doesn’t like his posts is welcome to ignore them (or mine or hilzoy’s or whomever’s).
I’ll remind all readers that ObWi attempts to represent the sprectrum of opinions and that effort is guaranteed to annoy some folks from time to time. We’re all thinking adults here, though, we can handle it.
Really, skip a writer’s posts if you don’t want to read them, but don’t argue anyone should be denied a voice. That’s not even remotely a position I’d support.
A few folks have asked that we put bylines at the top of the threads, and I think that’s a good idea. I’ll ask all ObWi writers here to start doing that (it will need to be manual, though, as I don’t know how to do it automatically).
In return, I’d ask that readers try to understand we’re not attempting to please everyone here…we’re trying to present a wider variety of opinions, even unpopular ones.
The personal attacks have got to end though. They contribute nothing.
Edward
Great! Then your work is done, here.
If the more permanent folks here think his posts aren’t up to snuff, I’m sure they’ll take it up with him. Speaking for myself, this sort of gotcha blogging has little attraction, but I wouldn’t presume to speak for the rest of the readers.
In the meantime, please keep it civil.
“A few folks have asked that we put bylines at the top of the threads, and I think that’s a good idea. I’ll ask all ObWi writers here to start doing that (it will need to be manual, though, as I don’t know how to do it automatically).”
Can we also ask that there be a policy on when writers need to update a post (especially when their arguments have been repeated proved to be factually unsupported)?
Oops. As usual, Edward said it better.
And there’s my byline.
“repeated” should be “repeatedly”.
Bob,
You are simply repeating yourself. Saying that there are bad judges interpreting it is just another way of saying it is not perfect protection. Saying we need to do more than rely on it is just saying it is not perfect protection.
But that does not mean it is useless. It does not mean that it is not worth valuing highly. It does not mean that it is not an important part of our political structure. Not all cases are marginal cases. Even bad judges will sometimes have to rule that the Amendment protects certain actions.
Cella doesn’t seem to think the First Amendment protects anything valuable, though I admit I’m not 100% sure what he is saying.
Maybe his whole point is that, after all, given big enough majorities in Congress and control of enough state legislatures, it would be possible to repeal the amendment, or declare Zoroastrianism the national religion. My, my, what an insight.
Or maybe he thinks, as I interpret him, the First Amendment should be repealed, or severely restricted in its application, so that Congress could criminalize speech at its whim. Now, that strikes me as a terrible idea, and to claim that it would be in accord with “American tradition,” and to criticize Soros for thinking it would be a terrible idea, is utterly wrongheaded.
Sure, he can cite the Alien and Sedition Acts, and some other items, and selctively quote Socrates, but so what?
I do not, however think Mr Cella intends general tyranny or widespread suppression of dissidents.
Not sure I agree, but again, so what. He is clearly willing to tolerate widespread suppression of dissidents, so long as Frist and Hastert think it’s a good idea. What is there that makes you think otherwise?
Edward: and anyone who doesn’t like his posts is welcome to ignore them (or mine or hilzoy’s or whomever’s).
Fine. To make this easier, could we have the byline at the top of the post, instead of the bottom? Same for comments, if possible.
Sorry for the last comment – I hadn’t realised Edward had already agreed. *slaps wrist*
It ought to be possible to do it automatically, I think: I know TalkLeft switched around by popular demand.
Can we also ask that there be a policy on when writers need to update a post (especially when their arguments have been repeated proved to be factually unsupported)?
I think that begins to demand a jury of sorts, because I’ve had threads in which folks have declared they proved me wrong and I was still unconvinced. I have updated posts when I felt it appropriate, but I don’t like the idea I’m somehow bound to that. In the end, the respect readers have for a writer is based in part on such updates and readers will ignore those writers they don’t respect, but let’s not make this an official policy. Readers can move on if they’re satisfied they’ve debunked an assertion.
Fine. To make this easier, could we have the byline at the top of the post, instead of the bottom? Same for comments, if possible.
Jes, I noted in the comment I think this is a good idea and we’ll start doing this manually (I’m not sure how to do it behind the scenes automatically…if anyone familiar with Typepad knows it can be done, please share).
Regarding the same for comments, again, good idea, but I’m not sure how to do that…advice welcome.
“The fishes were duly shot, by myself and others.
Great! Then your work is done, here.”
No, there is still the necessary step which preceded this exchange, to wit:
“Not if BD’s response to having those flaws pointed out is not to retract his statements but to compound them by making more fanciful and less supportable allegations (as he did in his updates).
Then it should be like shooting fish in a barrel to show him how wrong he is.”
But I suspect your memory is good enough to recall that already, as it only occurred in the last 2 hours.
Can we also ask that there be a policy on when writers need to update a post (especially when their arguments have been repeated proved to be factually unsupported)?
I’d like to second that. In this case, as has been pointed out several times, Soros’ contribution came in the form of support for a campaign to raise awareness of the notion that all defendants are entitled to a defense, that the contribution came early enough that it should not have been taken as ‘supporting’ Islamic terror, that it was not an open-ended contribution to Stewart’s defense (a fact noted in the link that is cited in the post), that Soros has demonstrably donated money far in excess of this donation to precisely the list of countries and causes that were listed. Furthermore, the original post argues that the Open Society Institute is not being true to its goals, yet the update then argues that those goals are incompatible with an American notion of society and jurisprudence. Omitting Paul Cella’s defense of his own notions, I have seen no comment refuting any of the other points.
If it would be too embarrassing for BD to make these points within another update, the alternative would be to simply strike this post. Please remember that a front page post is not automatically connected to the comments. BD himself has acknowledged that when he updated his post on Rachel’s Corrie’s presence on the Washington State voter rolls: that the same principle applies here should be taken as a given.
In other words, your terms for stopping making a nuisance of yourself are that Charles does X. Furthermore, you’re going to insist on being unpleasant to me until Charles agrees to your demands. Well: declined; I don’t have any control at all over Charles. If you truly have issues with Charles, take them to email. You can find his address with a minimal amount of searching over at Redstate.
Really, this is getting tedious.
I suppose when Joseph Welch asked Senator McCarthy if he had any sense of decency, he was violating the posting rules too?
This post reflects the sad state of the broader body politic, and it’s time people stood up and said “no more”.
everything to do with a transparent and dishonest attempt to smear Soros by insinuating a Bush/bin Laden-style connection between he and someone convicted of aiding terrorists.
Your interpretation of this post as a smear is your problem, Catsy. The facts are what they are. I don’t know why you’re sensitive about a guy like Soros or a gal like Stewart.
“In other words, your terms for stopping making a nuisance of yourself are that Charles does X. Furthermore, you’re going to insist on being unpleasant to me until Charles agrees to your demands. Well: declined; I don’t have any control at all over Charles.”
Pot, meet kettle on the subject of nuisances. But then why are you telling me my work is done? It will not be done until Bird Dog corrects his misstatements.
“If you truly have issues with Charles, take them to email.”
Declined for 2 reasons:
1. I like my anonymity.
2. If his post is here, and the comments refuting it are here, why should requests to correct misstatements not be here, as well?
I don’t know why you’re sensitive about a guy like Soros or a gal like Stewart.
Oh dear. My Respect For Charles meter just dropped significantly.
What I think is most interesting is that BD cannot give a good reason as to why he hates Soros. Those reasons that he has posted seem like complete BS and were ripped apart by the information Ted and Hilzoy posted. So why does BD hate Soros so much?
I could respect someone simply saying “I just don’t like him”, after all opinions are opinions and everyone is entitled to one, but to insult our intelligence by cherry picking data points about Soros and ignoring any good Soros does is simply, well insulting.
I suspect that BD simply hates Soros becuase he knows he is supposed to hate Soros. Just like the two minute hate from 1984, he doesn’t know why he hates, only that he must to properly love Big Brother, so he will find the reasons somewhere.
Charles: I don’t know why you’re sensitive about a guy like Soros or a gal like Stewart.
Because Soros has done more to help the cause of democracy and free speech than everyone on Obsidian Wings put together?
Because Stewart’s “crime” was to be a zealous defense attorney?
Because you’ve chosen to lie and sneer about them in your post, and have not bothered to correct your lies?
Charles, as much as I dislike the tone of the responses here, and object to the language, I’m a little at a loss to see what purpose the demonization of George Soros serves, here. And certainly the cause-and-effect cart is being set before the horse, as his contribution to her defense fund took place over two years prior to a determination of guilt. Is it really your case that one ought not contribute to the defense of someone that might be found guilty, years later?
“Because you’ve chosen to lie and sneer about them in your post, and have not bothered to correct your lies?”
Please, Jes, take it to the powers if you can’t just walk away. Don’t put me on CB‘s side of this.
Dan: “1. I like my anonymity.”
Get a one-off hotmail account and identify yourself – though I’m leery about the whole enterprise if you won’t trust the powers to the extent of using your real email. (Anyway, they’ve got your IP, which is I suspect as identifying).
Indeed. Tell me if you can figure out who I am, by my email.
Indeed. Tell me if you can figure out who I am, by my email.
I think there are ways actually…for the more clever Googlers out there…
Crap. You can reach me at shortfatbaldguywithglasses@yahoo.com, which tells you next to nothing about who I am.
As if I cared, even if it did.
I don’t know why you’re sensitive about a guy like Soros or a gal like Stewart.
Oh dear. My Respect For Charles meter just dropped significantly.
Indeed. Why should readers respect the posting rules when Charles abuses them?
I’m in no mood to be Googled, Edward.
From Update III: If he really wanted to expand and grow his open societies, he’d be marshaling 94.2% of said resources to the partially free and unfree nations, and send the 3.0% to the U.S.
Hogwash. If he really wanted to expand and grow open societies, he’d give money where he sees it serving that purpose, not where you see it serving that purpose. It’s his money — he doesn’t have to take your opinions into consideration, especially since your opinions on where the money should go appear to be rather fickle.
Update III can basically be summarized as: “Burma and Turkmenistan were so ten minutes ago.”
First thing to do is stop digging. I look forward to Update IV.
Ahem, slumgullion: posting rules, counter to my preference, don’t apply to comments made about anyone who’s never come by to comment. If they did, some regulars here just might have their heads explode.
I’m in no mood to be Googled, Edward.
Yeah, I hear ya. All that Googling can dehydrate a person. 😉
I’ve heard that if you read the Bible diagonal-like, in Hebrew, there’s very clear cautions against unauthorized Googling. Self-Googling is outright proscribed, unless it’s accidental.
Accidental Self-Googlers. Next on Jerry Springer!
Rilkefan: Please, Jes, take it to the powers if you can’t just walk away. Don’t put me on CB’s side of this.
As far as I know, Rilkefan, just as Bird Dog didn’t break the posting rules by sneering at/lying about Soros and Stewart in his post, neither do I, by defending them.
Jes, even if you think CB is obviously lying, the posting rules prohibit you from giving him the lie – the correct forum for which, in my opinion, is email to the kitten.
Rilkefan: the posting rules prohibit you from giving him the lie
Do they? I went back and read them, just to be sure.
Bird Dog said stuff about George Soros and Lynne Stewart that wasn’t true. Whether he knew what he was saying wasn’t true when he wrote it, he knows now, having had it pointed out to him in the comments.
Neither Soros nor Stewart post/comment here, so it’s not the business of the kitten that Bird Dog is telling sneering lies about them here: he was recruited to be a very, very right-wing commentator, and “the kitten” appears to be happy that with this post and with others, he’s doing what he was recruited to do.
It seems to me that it would be the business of the kitten if I called Bird Dog a liar. (I have not.) It is not the business of the kitten if I point out when Bird Dog is telling lies.
If I’m wrong about this, of course, I accept correction from the kitten.
“America-hating communists such as Lynne Stewart”
any evidence that she’s a communist?
regarding the New Sysiphus link, you’re aware that it links to the indictment, and that a number of charges were thrown out by the judge?
defense counsel on a daily basis defend the unpopular, using the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments as their basic tools. they are america-lovers, for the most part, proud defenders of some of the most important values set forth in the bill of rights.
america-hater my a**
francis
Charles,
If he really wanted to expand and grow his open societies, he’d be marshaling 94.2% of said resources to the partially free and unfree nations, and send the 3.0% to the U.S.
What happened to the other 2.8%?
More seriously, Gromit gets it right. You don’t think Soros’ contributions match his rhetoric? Too bad. I’ll mention it to him at lunch tomorrow. See what he says.
Further, your percentages prove nothing. There are organizations in the US that work in other countries. Just because Soros donated money to an organization headquartered here doesn’ mean the money wasn’t spent elsewhere. As another example, he seems to donate money for scholarships for foreign students to study in the US.
Finally, I am one of those who is sensitive about Soros. He’s been the object of several right-wing smears, and I don’t doubt for a second that Byron York’s article is part of the same program. I wish you hadn’t endorsed it.
What’s particularly odd is the lack of faith in the market shown by Bird, et. al. After all, individuals spending their own money in the way they see fit is the way things work.
Right?
Bernard, I didn’t forget you I just kinda wore out. I think we talking past each other anyway.
I thought things were getting really ugly here at Wings, until this post over at Tac discussing my good friend Armando who is engaged in a steel cage match over at the Kingdom of Kos.
Yikes is all I can say.
supposedly the most left person on the blog
Eddie, not even close. 🙂
TtWD – yep, Armando in the hornets’s nest. You may not have seen the previous thread on the same subject in which he declared that he was an “asshole” and that people replying to him should take that into account. I have a great deal of respect for him but on this particular issue I think he’s a) stone cold wrong and b) way too hot-blooded.
Armando has previously commented that he lets his latin blood boil over at Kos but is restrained when speaking to his good buddies, like Timmy, over at Tac.
It must be the water. But more importantly Armando owes me a golf game, so I can only hope he doesn’t pull a muscle.
I’m thinking you could cough a couple of times during his backswings and totally screw his game when he gets incensed, but then you probably don’t need such ruses with your natureal conservative golf advantage…
You know my slice is soooo good my drives sometimes end up behind me.
I am looking for a “George W. Bush is MY PRESIDENT”, golf hat with a happy face on it. Can you help!
“Sometimes my slice is soooo good”
Uhh, I’m a liberal, I know that golf involves swales – important for crosswords and poems. Slices are the things you cut shallots or chayote or mangoes into.
I went to a playoff game in Oakland once. The A’s were facing the Yankees, my team from childhood, and I bought a Yankees cap from a vendor, being young and stupid. The guy cheerfully sold it to me, saying, It’s good for throwing up into too [with the appropriate sound effects]. All of which leads up to saying, Nope, can’t help you there.
Sorry, I haven’t been reading this thread for a while, so I’m late in saying this, but:
Dantheman: you wrote: “Pot, meet kettle on the subject of nuisances” This seems to be addressed to Slarti. He’s a moderator here, and he’s doing his job. If you have a problem with it, you can email us, or me privately if you’d like me to pass on your concerns to others. I will respect your confidentiality. If that’s not good enough, and you don’t want to get a onetime email account somewhere, then I’m not sure how you might communicate with us, but I think I’ll leave it to you to figure that out.
To everyone: if you have a problem with a particular person, I think it would be best to do one of three things: (a) state it as a problem with that person’s arguments, (b) email the kitten, or (c) go off and do some gardening, or whichever activity you find best for getting things out of your system. I’m not directing this at anyone in particular; I’ve just had the sense, for the past week or so, that there’s been a certain amount of jumping all over people, and since I like all of you, it bothers me.
Plus, if it keeps up I might turn into Rodney King and start saying “Can’t we all get along?”, and I’d much rather remain myself. (I used to live near Rodney King, and the thought of becoming him is not particularly pleasant.) And if things get really bad, I might turn into Liberace, and then where would I be?
Dunno, hilzoy, how do you look in sequins?
Is it really your case that one ought not contribute to the defense of someone that might be found guilty, years later?
No. My case is that Soros, of all the choices he had in which to further his open society cause, chose poorly, particularly since Stewart ascribes to a distinctly unopen ideology and she defends those who are similarly unopen.
No. My case is that Soros, of all the choices he had in which to further his open society cause, chose poorly, particularly since Stewart ascribes to a distinctly unopen ideology and she defends those who are similarly unopen.
You keep missing the point, and it’s been pointed out to you so many times that it looks willful. Soros’ contribution to a fund raising visibility for Stewart’s case was not about Stewart–it was about the terrible precedent for attorney-client privilege set by Stewart’s indictment.
You are beating Soros with a strawman argument, and correcting your false premise is becoming very tiresome.
Bird: particularly since Stewart ascribes to a distinctly unopen ideology
Does she? Got any evidence of that? (That is, some public statement she made on her own behalf about her own beliefs?)
and she defends those who are similarly unopen.
Er, she’s a lawyer: her job was to defend someone accused of a crime. If all lawyers were presumed to be guilty of the crimes that those they defended were accused of, you’d get damn few lawyers willing to defend people.
If all lawyers were presumed to be guilty of the crimes that those they defended were accused of
Or even If all lawyers were presumed to be sympathetic with the crimes that those they defended were accused of…
“and she defends those who are similarly unopen” – this charge is absurd, Bird, and you must surely know it. Even making it makes you look like someone who thinks that a defense lawyer for someone accused of child molestation must like paedophiles. Do you really want to stand by it, or would you rather retract it and admit it was a silly thing to say?
What happened to the other 2.8%?
The 2.8% went to the truly unfree countries.
There are organizations in the US that work in other countries.
There are some that serve both the US and other other countries, but not many. There are also scores of individuals listed in other countries who are using the money for endeavors in the US.
You keep missing the point, and it’s been pointed out to you so many times that it looks willful.
Oh, I get the point, Catsy, I just don’t agree with it. One man’s “public education campaign” is another man’s propaganda. Whether the money was actually used for said purposes is another issue.
Does she? Got any evidence of that?
In 1995, she said this to the New York Times: “I don’t believe in anarchistic violence, but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, and sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support.”
Last June, she said this to the WA Post: “I’m not a pacifist,” Stewart said. “I have cried many bitter tears. There is death in history, and it’s not all rosebuds and memorial services. Mao, Fidel, Ho Chi Minh understood this.”
The MSM can call her a “radical”, but given her above statements and her alliances with Ramsey Clark and National Lawyer’s Guild, it looks pretty clear to me.
What are your sources on those numbers? I wanted to look them up…I assume you are getting them from those tax documents behind the link wall, but if so you could still quote more directly from the documents.
Also, as far as Stewart, which comes closest to describing your view?
1) the attorney client privilege issue doesn’t matter because she holds a repellent ideology
2) Soros is lying about his concern for attorney-client privilege
3) Soros is being honest about attorney client privilege mattering to him, and it does matter, but Stewart’s repellent ideology matters more, or
4) Soros is being honest, and attorney client privilege matters more than Stewart’s repellent ideology, but partly on account of Stewart’s repellent ideology, defending attorney client privilege in the U.S. is not the best use of Soros’ money
Applying the same standard you apply to Soros, can I ask why this week you are more concerned with whether George Soros’ donations maximize utility than, say, Darfur or the U.S. interrogation policies or the current bombings in Iraq? Or can I look at your tax returns and financial records and conclude what you wrote about the tsunami is hypocritical and insincere because you spent more on entertainment or a second car or your vacation than you did on tsunami relief? Or would you find that to be annoying and unduly personal?
In 1995, she said this to the New York Times: “I don’t believe in anarchistic violence, but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, and sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support.”
Do you have a context for this? Indeed, do you have a link?
It’s interesting that you chose not to quote the paragraph before the part you chose to quote:
Or indeed this paragraph:
Thanks for linking to the Washington Post article, though. It gives a fair outline of why the case against Stewart is not only unjust, but stupid.
What are your sources on those numbers?
From the 2002 Form 990, Katherine. Registration is free at Guidestar, and I recommend registering. It’s a helluva good resource. As for your four questions, I would rephrase #4: “Soros is being honest, and attorney client privilege matters more than Stewart’s repellent ideology, but defending Stewart is not the best use of Soros’ money”.
can I ask why this week you are more concerned with whether George Soros’ donations maximize utility than, say, Darfur or the U.S. interrogation policies or the current bombings in Iraq?
Just because I didn’t write about them this week doesn’t mean I’m less concerned. On the whole, I’ve written more on those subjects than I have on Soros.
Or can I look at your tax returns and financial records and conclude what you wrote about the tsunami is hypocritical and insincere because you spent more on entertainment or a second car or your vacation than you did on tsunami relief?
What George Soros and I do with our personal funds is our business. If I had the resources to start a tax-exempt foundation, you would be free to look at my Form 990 and criticize it up one side and down the other.
Charles: thanks for the links to your numbers. I had previously tried slogging through the tax forms, but gave up at a certain point on the grounds that there seem to be lots of nested charities among them, which I decided I was never going to puzzle out. Thus my taking the alternative ‘sources I tend to trust’ approach. However: as someone said upthread, the ‘US charities’ seems to mean: charities headquartered in the US. By this measure, probably all of my charitable giving goes to charities in the developed world, like Oxfam UK, for instance. This doesn’t mean, of course, that that’s where the money is spent.
Specifically about Soros: on p. 51 of the pdf 990 form for the Open Society Institute, out of the roughly $120million budget, I find about $75million in donations to other Soros charities, most of whose work seems to take place elsewhere in the world, though they are headquartered in NY. (The Soros Humanitarian Fund, the Soros Economic Development Fund, etc.)
Make that p. 52 of the pdf.
Note to self: preview may have been your friend in the past, but if you keep snubbing it like this, it will turn against you.
hilzoy, the column for the $75 million to the other Soros concerns are the amounts granted (which are spread out over a lengthy span of years). The actual amounts paid in 2002 (which was my reference point) to the Soros Economic Development Fund AND the Soros Humanitarian Foundation were exactly zero. The Open Society branches in other countries received only $226,000 from OSI.
If you go to the Form 990 of the SEDF, you will find that most of the assets are in the Quantum Development Fund, which invests monies “throughout the world”. In the SHF, most of the investments are in Quantum Industrial Holdings and the Quantum Endowment Fund, which invests “both in the U.S. and abroad”.
Update IV: In their FAQ, the OSI proclaims that there is “no monopoly on truth”, but then they proclaim their own truth in the next sentence, that their society is “characterized by a reliance on the rule of law, the existence of a democratically elected government, a diverse and vigorous civil society, and respect for minorities and minority opinions.” So which is it, because apparently a communist’s or a Wahhabi’s truth would not be welcome in a Soros society.
The sentence I have bolded poses a false choice. How do you conclude that a Communist or a Wahhabi would be legally penalized for holding those views in an open society? They would only be penalized for trying to implement those views in contravention of law, as I read it.
Pace Paul Cella, the open society places a great deal of faith in its citizens — it trusts a majority of them to see the inherent value in openness and the free exchange of ideas for themselves, rather than imposing that belief system on them through law, and therefore expects, but does not require, them to ultimately reject closed-society propositions like the one Mr. Cella advances. Does the law itself embody open society values? Of course. But show me where it requires anyone to actually share those values.
I get the ever-growing sense that some folks believe that for a society to tolerate their values, it must endorse those values. The same-sex marriage debate springs to mind. I have heard it argued that for two people of the same sex to marry somehow does violence to those who oppose that marriage. “What about my right to live in a society where such unions are prohibited?” goes the argument. My mind boggles at such a caricature of liberty.
On the subject of the OSI form 990, I find it quite interesting and provocative that Byron York, who started this mess, decided to scour a 308 page tax form in search of some item he could criticize Soros for.
Yes, it’s a public document and he’s entitled to see it. But given previous attacks on Soros it is a bit discomforting, and makes me wonder why exactly York decided to go on that particular fishing expedition.
Mr. Soros at least puts his money where his mouth is. If everyone would ‘contribute’ to the unmasking of the truants who have taken over via this “coup” them maybe just maybe we could here the unfiltered truth now “talking points” or B.S. lines.