As always at the Book Salon, please limit your comments to the discussion at hand. If you have other things you’d like to discuss, feel free to do so in the previous thread.

Dear Mr. Soros:

Thank you for all your efforts promoting democratic ideas across the globe.

Like you I’m a refugee from Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, 1979) and have often wondered why Americans who live in a ‘open society’ have so little understanding of it. Or as you point out “…and even less commitment to it”. It’s a complicated subject that ties directly to why it’s so easy to sell lies like ‘the war on terror’ to many.

For me the best way to remedy this is for someone like you to create a new major network to counter Fox. I think the media is one of the most effective ways to spread ‘open society’ ideas. Since networks are entirely owned by corporations, journalists have very little room to report the news accurately or counter WH propaganda. With proper management, we could see a new crop of investigating journalism.

Have you considered creating a new network or a new newspaper? (it will be awhile the blogs can replace traditional media)

What other progressive capitalist venues can be there to help send the right message to a large audience?

Thank you – Kalina Ivanov

Mr. Soros – thank you so much for joining us today to discuss your latest book. It was an intriguing and impressive read, and a much needed start to a conversation that desperately needs further exploration on so many fronts these days.

The Global War on Terror is being fought at an imbecilic level by the Bush Administration, which has consistently, it seems, selected the wrong choice on just about every turn that has come up in its twisting path. It seems to me that economic support for the hopeless and angry in societies that breed fear and hatred would be a good start, let alone reaching out in terms of human rights and education and other means of support that lift up the people who are turning more and more to the ideology of hatred as a means of gaining any measure of respect, albeit a false one. Surely George Bush has been apprised of foreign policy initiatives that have had longer term success on these issues, and yet he consistently has chosen a path of exclusion and war rather than inclusion and peace. The neocons in this Administration have again and again promoted failed policies that exacerbate the threat posed to the US, and their failures breed more and more hatred toward us. (The current crisis between Israel and Lebanon being no exception.)

Who, in your opinion, has come up with ideas for better solutions? For better security on a long-term model rather than false short-term fallicies?

My question for Mr. Soros, which I have seen echoed elsewhere, is this:

Given the media’s near-absolute control over the narrative, and even the very perception of reality and history, why haven’t you used your money and resources to build a media counterweight to Fox News and, well, everyone else? Is it that it’s something mere money is not sufficient for, or because you feel a left-wing voice (or even an objective one) screaming back counterpoint at the right-wing voice would not be useful or healthy?

Thank you very much for participating in this chat, by the way - I’ve been looking forward to this all day.

Mr.Soros, thank you for spending your time here today. I am a great fan of The Open Society and Sir Popper. I regret that I have not been able to read your book yet as David Miller’s latest explorations of Critical Rationalism, “Out of Error” and Hacohen’s “Karl Popper: The Formative Years” have kept me busy.

My question to you is how I might be able to help create The Open Society. I am a software developer and architect with a long history in the Open Source and Free Software movements although I am employed in the corporate world developing large solutions primarily for banking and insurance companies. In the little spare time I have, I am currently designing, albeit slowly, a system to help organize voters by political boundaries with functionality to make the efforts of groups like America Coming Together more efficient and decentralized, as well as available to any motivated individuals who wish to contribute to creating The Open Society. My vision is to create a networked software suite that will compliment efforts like MIT’s $100 laptop. Building upon Sir Popper and your own ideas that correctly designed institutions are the defenders and incubators of The Open Society, I have pursued Lawrence Lessig’s conjecture that “Code is Law”, thus the idea to create virtual institutions, hopefully with the same pedagogical value as your own Open Society Institutes. In short, I believe that a virtual institution implemented in software can allow a grassroots movement of supporters of The Open Society to realize our shared vision for lasting peace and prosperity. I believe that the current world of Liberal blogs are a start, I wish to see the potential taken to it’s rational limits and bypass the existing media infrastructure that keeps the citizenry from objectively considering solutions to our world’s problems.

I am most definitely guilty of having visions beyond my own resources so I would ask, are there current organizations that would be receptive to assisting in such an effort? My own efforts to navigate existing institutions has been less than fruitful. Again, thank you for your time today and your long history of championing Sir Popper’s ideas. I sincerely hope that the ideas that you have championed become the dominant basis for political discourse in this world. Also thank you for the opportunity to volunteer for ACT in 04, it was a pleasure spending Saturday mornings bringing better political ideas to my neighbors.

Thank you for discussing your text with us, Mr. Soros. And thank you, Jane, for hosting.

I’ve not read this text yet, although it is in my queue to read inside the next two weeks. I have, however, enjoyed the materials I’ve read at OpenSocietyInstitute.org, Mr. Soros’ Soros Foundation-sponsored website wherein a number of inititives and think-tank-like efforts reside. I encourage FireDogLake readers to check out the site and learn about the highly constructive and progressive efforts that OSI supports — and I extend my thanks to Mr. Soros again for investing in OSI and in turn, our communities and our country.

Mr Soros, thank you for putting such a powerful argument forward, and for making many seemingly unrelated topics cohere: global warming, resource curse, energy usage are all interrelated and I found it energizing and exciting to read your book.

I was also very energized to see your discussion of market fundamentalism, it’s relationship to globalism — and how neither adequately addresses the very serious issues raised by externalities (in which pricing does not fully encompass the true costs of a commodity).

Do you find this notion of “externalities” is not at all understood by those who hold views espousing market fundamentalism?

Thanks also to Jane and FDL for hosting!

I’ve been looking forward to it all day too, Eli. I actually liked your comment from last week:

This covers two huge problems in one comment: One is the media’s lack of interest in presenting the truth; the other is a pervasive belief that America is virtuous by definition, so anyone who says America is doing bad things is a crazy unpatriotic America-hater.

That’s decades of baggage in need of overcoming right there.

Thank you for being here today. Is there an answer to counter all the disinformation. As you know, the attention span of the American populace is about two days so it’s easy to lob a big lie out there and by the time it’s disproved it’s old news.

Hello, Mr. Soros and welcome to FDL!

I remember in 2003 and 2004 when the White House Spin Department’s talking point was “war footing”, as in, “We’re putting the nation on a war footing” and the thing that struck me was that in wars prior to Korea and Vietnam, for the United States to go to war, that meant that the entire population was mobilized. Factories stopped making cars and started making armaments and ordnance.

My question is whether you see this kind of mobilization in America’s future. The NeoCon talking heads have been going on for weeks about how the conflict in the Middle East has marked the onset of “World War Three”. Do you feel that there is a risk that the policies instituted by the Bush administration have created a situation where this is possible?

We were sold war at one point in that it was “good for the economy”. Remember that old saw? I don’t see how war as it is being waged in the “war on terror” could possibly be good for the economy unless you’re Dick Cheney. How does this square with war as it is waged today?

Do you really believe that America is unwilling to face unpleasant reality? It seems to me that a part of that equation is that Americans work harder and harder with less “free” time and more and more demands on their time, such that they have become not so much unwilling as reliant on a media that does no longer fulfills its function of supplying information.

When the media and every voice in government are “on message” then what alerts working America to the fact that the message is skewed?

Mr Soros,

I agree with your foreign policy views, in particular the need for strong international institutions. My question to you is this;

People with views similar to yours are portrayed in the media, especially on TV, as “soft on terrorism”, “weak on defense”, “defeatists”, etc. Given the fact that most Americans still get their news from TV, how can progressives get their views across without a hostile, neocon media filter. Most political shows on TV are heavily tilted to the right, with 2-3 foaming at the mouth neocon ideologues “balanced” by a wishy washy centrist. This is a huge challenge for progressives. How can they influence the foreign policy debate in a hostile media environment?

Internet is making a difference but TV is still the main source of news for most people.

Welcome, Mr. Soros. As an observer from the north, I am perplexed by the complete failure of the press and the body politic in the US. Media Matters does a good job of documenting the most egregious lies and slanders, but it doesn’t make a dent in the MSM’s bizzare unwillingness to ask any hard questions or, more significantly, its open hostility to those who do (Feingold, Dean, Gore, bloggers…um…you).

Mexicans took to the streets to try and demand a recount, Hispanic-Americans massed in the tens of thousands to protest an immigration bill, but mainstream America seems willfully uninterested, passive, impotent as the country drifts into autocracy and facism. Coulters book still sells out, O’Reilly still racks up astounding numbers, and AM radios across the country tune in to Rush.

Is America merely getting the government it deserves, or is there some other reason? Why aren’t there general strikes, boycotts, or at least some kind of organized backlash? Other countries rise up against the drift of their government. Why is America (outside the blogosphere) so silent?

Mary 10 — I think that very much goes to the notion outlined in the book of the “Feel Good Society.” (Or as Digby says, the notion of America as a new Sparta is a joke — we’re a nation of flabby shoppers.)

Carter said we had to tighten our energy belts; Reagan said don’t worry, be happy. Reagan won. One of Ned Lamont’s assertions is that after 9/11 there was a moment when the nation would’ve pulled together to conserve energy, but that spirit was squandered by George Bush and his “war on terror.”

I would argue that the willingness of Americans to “face reality” will be concomittant with the deconstruction of this false metaphor.

Jane, I certainly don’t want to go OT, but would like to point out that it appears cjohnson @ 5 and I have similar views — he also mentions Lessig’s “Code Is Law” (which is related to legislating the free flow of ideas and information).

Perhaps to keep it on topic, I could inquire whether Mr Soros and his foundations have much experience in the Open Source software movement? I agree with cjohnson that there are possibilities for Open Source software to lay the infrastructure for some of the NGO and civil society activities Mr Soros references in his book.

However, I realize Mr Soros has many obligations, and would not expect him to be familiar with this movement — but if he is aware of it, I would find his views of the (international) Open Source software movement interesting.

cjohson at 5 - I am putting a note for you at the previous thread re a linux project I am involved in

Hello, Mr. Soros. So interested to see how others respond to the “war on terror” myth you effectively deconstruct in this book. I got so much out of it, myself. It’s a totally wrong way to go about thinking in the modern era. As we look across the Middle East today, Bush’s “war on terror” has proved an erroneous notion.

Also thanks to Michael Vachon who is helping Mr. Soros today. We appreciate both of you being here.

Carter said we had to tighten our energy belts; Reagan said don’t worry, be happy. Reagan won.

I think Americans are willing to heed a message of “We must all make sacrifices in a time of crisis”, but they *prefer* “don’t worry, be happy”.

Although I am a bit surprised that they’re so willing to sacrifice their privacy and civil liberties - that’s not the kind of sacrifice the government usually asks for (then again, I guess they didn’t).

OT with apologies

Can somebody go fix the previous thread?

There’s an error that takes you to a (really cute) picture of a kitten if you try to refresh.

Thanks, and thank you Mr. Soros for all you do and for being here.

I loved some of the metaphors in the book. The comparison of power in society to a game of paper-scissors-rock was perfect. And some sections show how supposedly complicated situations can be explained clearly and simply in a short time. The discussion of domestic power politics in Iran is an example.

Eli 19 — my opinion has always been that people have successfully been convinced that it is only the crooks who are giving up their many civil liberties, and that they had too many any way. One of the great successes of the right wing noise machine, facilitated by the “war on terror” TM.

my opinion has always been that people have successfully been convinced that it is only the crooks who are giving up their many civil liberties, and that they had too many any way.

Absolutely - “You only have to worry if you have something to hide”. It’s part and parcel of the belief that *everyone* we’ve detained, tortured, and murdered was a terrorist, so it’s okay. Presumption of guilt is virtually their entire premise.

Recent events in the Middle East represent a significant escalation. The war on terror has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. What had been a false and misleading metaphor has turned into a real war. We have the Sunni insurrection and the Shiite death squads spawned by the occupation of Iraq, Hamas spawned by the occupation of the West Bank, Hezbollah spawned by the occupation of South Lebanon, not to mention other trouble spots such as Somalia. What more evidence do we need to show that the war on terror has been counter productive. Killing and mistreating civilians creates victims who turn into perpetrators.

The aggression against Israel is real and Israel has an unquestioned right to defend itself and remove Hezbollah from its borders. But using excessive force against civilian targets is counter productive and will have severe adverse consequences. While we must allow Israel to defend itself, unquestioning support for its actions will prove harmful to Israel. I am deeply worried.

Mary 2:13pm — to no small extent, this is where the internet and sites like FireDogLake change the dynamic of an “on message”, bought-and-paid-for corporatist media. One of the problems confronting us has been the lack of a social infrastructure; we’re all of us “bowling alone” in the physical world, and the corporatist media reinforces this with its selling of fear. But in this virtual agora, we can join as a community and check the messages’ validity and veracity.

Mr. Soros’ Soros Foundation, via Open Society Institute, has been facilitated by the internet, but what has been missing is a community that actively promotes and advocates its efforts in such a way that a tipping point “catches”, encouraging a self-perpetuating energy. In other words, even some of the most promising organizations have been “bowling alone”; it’s time for us to connect the dots, provide a network of resources and energy, to make change happen. (Note in particular the media intitiatives at OSI — what would you propose, for example? how could we FDL’rs fit in?)

Eli at 24:

Absolutely, it ties into the fact that most Americans know very little about the Arab world and it’s easy for them to assume that everyone detained is a terrorist…

To the person asking about media– If I owned a network such as Fox I would be no better than Murdoch

Mr. Soros, I believe the url you’ve entered into your login has a typo (or 2).

I fixed Mr. Soros’ url.

thanks

Thanks to Mr. Soros for the extraordinary insights from his philosophical journey and his extraordinary world experience.

In the book, you frequently end a totally depressing chapter with “but I’m still optimistic.” But you’ve essentially concluded that we cannot count on the Democrats to rise above their own fears of being ostracized for challenging the wrong “war against terrorism” metaphor, and you do not cite them as major champions of the institutions and policies needed to rebuild and sustain an “open society.” I suppose there are some, but I think you’re right; they are a near silent minority.

You note also that since Reagan (or before), American politics are designed on selling us the “feel-good” society, and Reagan’s sunny optimism is recalled by the press as his greatest asset as a “canonized” President. You mention McCain once, in the hope that he can be “independent” enough to state the counter metaphor, but of course, the Senator is even more enthralled with the neocon war on terror and fighting it with more troops in Iraq than Bush is.

If the two parties are thus incapable of leading us out of this nightmare, then doesn’t it make sense to treat America as a nation in or about to enter an authoritarian state? Your recipe of what you’ve done successfully in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union then applies.

In other words, how can we ask America to play the responsible role you advocate in the world — the necessary super power that behaves in the international interest — without first reclaiming the country and rebuilding all the institutions of an open society right here? Isn’t that what you’re saying, in the final analysis?

To the person asking about media– If I owned a network such as Fox I would be no better than Murdoch

Can you elaborate on this? What if you owned a network *different* from Fox, with controls in place to ensure fair and accurate (but aggressive) reporting? Even a nonpartisan, objective news network would be a powerful counterweight to Fox and all the rest, and I don’t think it would cost you your soul.

Or do you believe that such a beast is simply impossible to create?

Mr Soros,

Although I’m anxious to read your responses to any of the questions above, I’m most curious about your thoughts on the current crisis in the mid-east and how it relates to this concept of a “war on terror.”

Newsweek’s story today about the G8 conference puts it this way:

While Washington was sleeping the night before, yet another corner of the Middle East had erupted into violence, after Hizbullah launched a deadly ambush on an Israeli patrol. The summit, which was supposed to focus on Iran’s nukes and Russia’s democracy, had just been hijacked by the war on terror.

Has the decades-long Israel/Palestine issue, with all its complicated moveable parts, been successfully absorbed into Bush’s manichean GWOT? The implications of that seem very grave.

Welcome, Mr. Soros.

I am behind in my FDL reading and thus have not yet read The Age of Fallibility, but it is on my list. I enjoyed readint your The Bubble of American Supremacy, which I rushed out and bought the same night I heard you discussing it on TV.

I am here today mostly to listen.

Eli #24: “You only have to worry if you have something to hide”. But when that attitude is coupled with an approach to power that depends on an embattled righteous hero (which is always ‘us’) fighting demons, it becomes unstable. More and more unsuspecting people have to thrown out into demonhood. Look at what is happening on the reactionary wing now. All deviationism is being punished in increasing strident terms. That is how, slowly, everything becomes political and people who thought they had nothing to worry about are caught up. People who thought there were too many rights, suddenly find that they have too few.

What had been a false and misleading metaphor has turned into a real war.

It really has. The hijacking of the discourse, of language itself by the right has had diastrous consequences.

While we must allow Israel to defend itself, unquestioning support for its actions will prove harmful to Israel. I am deeply worried.

I agree. One of the other successful hijackings has been dismissing those who would question Israel’s actions as being anti-Israel, much as those who question US actions are called Anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is because I support Israel and her continued existence, as I do the US, that I question decisions being made by the current leadership.

Equating either of these positions with being “soft on terror” is a bullying tactic meant to silence any kind of opposition. It is all too often successful.

Great to see Mr. Soros here. As a long-time anti-Drug War advocate (until 9/11 blew that off the front pages), I am long familiar with his generosity to progressive virtues.

I would like to second Kalina’s notion that we need alternative media, though you should not carry the whole financial burden yourself (if it is a burden; it could turn out profitable, though there are arguments to which I am sympathic for doing it non-profit. Whatever works, though). Here’s a notion I just came up with (work in progress). Maybe someone else has had a similar idea.

Let’s put together a more or less traditionally styled 24 hour news station that draws on the blogs directly - something lke the “Bloggers News Network”. We could have an editorial board that selects from or edits together items submitted by a pre-screened repository of bloggers. Bloggers could submit pod or video casts, but we could also have newscasters types for people who want to submit text. All the licensing issues and so on are dealt with in advance, so when items hit, it is “all systems go”. Also, methods for instantly licensing material submitted by people who happen to be local to specific events (like national disasters or wars). We could use networks of recommendations to get a large body of pre-screened people, but also disclaimerize material in which we cannot be 100% confident. I see the following attributes:

1) We could produce hard news, I think, just as quickly as CNN, etc. We could, however, surpass them on background and presenting a variety of perspectives. Probably also in entertainment value accruing from satire and such. Local bloggers in extreme situations could also surpass them for footage.

2) Probably we could not do as well at celebrity gossip and suchlike fluff. I say don’t try. I think it is a myth that fluff is necessary. Fox probably has the least fluff (and the most outright BS) of any major for-profit television news source.

3) I think we could do all this much cheaper than the majors. Bloggers could get some money whenever their stuff is used, according to pre-agreed arrangements. It would be nice. But it needn’t be the kind of money the biggies spend. And saying, “Hey, there’s been an Earthquake in Belize! Who has footage?” is much cheaper and faster than flying crews in.

4) We can’t match the mainstream for privileged access to the administration, but once they report whatever has been leaked, well, it’s public, so we can present it too, from our own perspective.

5) We could start just sending this out on the web, and get it into broadcast as we can. Gives us a chance to iron out the bugs, and means we could attract more money as we prove ourselves.

What do people think?

Welcome, Mr Soros –

At every opportunity, I point out that your Civil Society investments in Eastern Europe did as much to end Communism as anything done by the Reagan Administration — and if the impact is considered by the dollars invested, you had 100 times the impact with the photo copiers you purchased.

Other commenters have noted the adverse influence of the Right Wing control of Corporate Media.

The problem can be seen in what happened to Robert Parry; he accurately reported on the Central American Death Squads, and other effects of the Iran Contra policies — for his pains, he was shown the door at Newsweek.

The blogs in particular and the internet in general provide a cost effective counter balance to the Traditional Print and Broadcast Media, but we do so with limited support and uncertain impact on the paid media.

Have you considered directing resources of the Open Society Institute, to support alternative media in the USA, and websites like Robert Parry’s Consortium News?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/

Equating either of these positions with being “soft on terror” is a bullying tactic meant to silence any kind of opposition. It is all too often successful.

Anything less than maximum force and brutality is considered “soft” now. Amazing that the discource could ever become so depraved.

challenging a “false metaphor” such as the “war on terror” is so threatening to everything the power structure of the Bush administration has been erected upon that to do so will certainly draw down the full force of the right-wing bullies.”

Yes. Right-wing bullies. And let’s also talk money because Mr. Soros derives some respect on the right because he has made a lot of it.

Right-wing bullies are paid full time to be bullies. Paid by think tanks funded by corporations. Paid for by advertisers that see bullies as a way to reach consumers.

When we say media we must also include now the 13 million Rush listeners and 12 million Hannity listeners who are the ones pushing the charges of “anti-Americanism” and “soft on terror” to anyone who disagrees.

Multiple methods are underway to address these bullies but in their medium good speech does NOT drive out bad. They literally own the airwaves. The work of Media Matters is very important, but pushing back at them is often rendered ineffective when they are supported by millions of dollars and the full force of a Republican Noise Machine as Brock as documented.

What is the best way to beat down their dangerous, destructive narrative when most of the tools in the past (like the fairness doctrine and diversity through multiple ownership rules) have been removed?

The two ways to take down a “false metaphor” are either by (a) replacing it in one fell swoop with a spectacularly effective true metaphor, or (b) eroding it, day after day, week after week, with relentless public questioning and critique. Wanting to follow in the “Deep Throat” school of journalism, winning success with one big story, many reporters seem to wait and wait for choice (a) above to fall into their laps. That might be more spectacular, but choice (b) is perhaps more likely to happen - if someone would set up and actually give it a try.

Dan Froomkin, on more than one occasion, has expressed his disbelief that no major media outlet has a reporter on the “terror beat.” The media senses, I think, that the war on terror doesn’t begin to describe reality. They fear being painted as partisans, however, and either pull punches or hold back. (How long did the NYT sit on their NSA eavesdropping story? Over a year? But I digress . . . ) At some level of the company, the editors are also afraid of the wrath of shareholders/stock brokers/money managers. Rock the boat too much, and the advertisers will bail, the subscribers will vanish, or the viewers will click away.

NEWSFLASH #1: Don’t rock the boat at all, while you show us the latest hunt for the missing white women, and you won’t have to worry about the advertisers, subscribers, and viewers either. “No news here” is no way to run a news operation.

NEWSFLASH #2: It’s not too late to back off from newsflash #1.

There’s nothing better for restoring a damaged reputation than a little contrition and penance. “We missed it on the run up to Iraq. We missed it on the ongoing end runs around the constitution. We missed it on those stories and a dozen others - but we’re not going to miss it again. Meet the folks on the terror beat.”

Props to the Boston Globe for going after the signing statements, day after day after day.

Props to FDL, for following the Valerie Plame scandal, day after day after day.

And props to whichever media outlet wants to step up next.

You’ve got a whole range of scandals to choose from: lack of accountability with regard to contracts to support the Iraq invasion, the failure of Congressional oversight of the executive branch, the effects of the outrageous legal views pushed by Addington, Yoo, et al, etc., et cetera., et f****** cetera!

So media folks: step right up - there’s no waiting. In fact, time’s a-wasting.

And for us non-media folks - we’ve got to hold them accountable, for not holding the White House accountable. Step right up . . .

Jane 15 @ 2:20 — “I would argue that the willingness of Americans to ‘face reality’ will be concomittant with the deconstruction of this false metaphor.”

I’d say they go hand in hand. As properly in awe as we all are at the Rovian message machine & its death grip on the media, the polls show that reality is sinking in — just as with Katrina, the mess in Iraq is unavoidable and undeniable.

The challenge for progressives/Democrats is to make reality our friend … to leverage it to pry people away from the War on Terror™ narrative (“Look at the papers. Look at the TV news. Do you feel safer?”), and to reinforce the notion that being reality-based is a good thing.

The underlying GOP sales pitch, regardless of issues, is for voters to put their trust in strong-daddy authority and “values” instead of the facts that are right in front of their eyes. The first step in reclaiming both the discourse and political influence is to make people realize that it’s OK to recognize the facts right in front of us.

Martin @39:

I like the idea of increased blogger input into the media, but I don’t think it necessarily needs to be 100% of the content.

george soros says
July 23rd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Recent events in the Middle East represent a significant escalation. The war on terror has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The painful thing is that this ironic turn of events was ‘prophesized’ by lots of commentators. While the White House and neo-con pundits predicted American soldiers being welcomed as liberators, and Iraq as the claim-stake of Middle Eastern democracy, there were lots of folks on hand, with plenty of bona fides, predicting exactly the outcome we are all now facing.

It’s why I once suggested, after days of watching Scott Ritter ignored and dismissed by the MSM, that…

There should be a blog/website solely to collate the real pundits who have been accurate, prescient, and both rigorous and thorough in their analysis and predictions.

The site could be called American Oracles and, as at Media Matters, it could be searchable by name (The Oracles) or by topic.

The idea would be to establish their bona fides as reliable authorities and trusted sources of information/predictions/advice by proving their track records with a one-stop-source for links.

It would be a non-partisan site and would include anyone whose record proved them to be worthy of the public’s ear.

If the site needed an edge, there could also be a list on “Non-Oracles” who had a proven record of being wrong - again from both sides of the aisle.

I know this information is out there on the internet and in the blogosphere, but I think it might be useful to be able to go to a single site and say, “Hmmm, I wonder what Al Gore’s track record is on all subjects?” and then scroll down through a list of links.

There is a lot of cogent analysis being done, but it is swamped by the bloviating of blowhards.

Is this a viable and useful concept, or is it already covered sufficiently by the current blogorati?

This is tangentially related to Digby’s comments and questions at comment #34…

In Chapter 6, where you discuss exploring alternatives to American hegemony in the wake of the disastrous Bush Administration policies that have weakened our influence throughout the globe, you point to the EU as a potential successor organization. I have noticed over the last few months, especially, that the cumulative failures of the disastrous Bush foreign policy choices have strengthened the European coalition. (And how ironic that the EU’s cooperation may increase as a direct result of the ineptitude of Bush and the neocons.)

The loss of influence – both in economic and philosophic terms – for the United States is disastrous for those of us who live here as a long-term political crisis. We often talk about the importance of the November elections in reversing course by helping the Democrats to win back one or both houses of Congress. But beyond that, what is the next step? And the next? How can we help to keep the conversation going about the need for change in America’s policies and a desperate need for long-term strategic thinking instead of short-term political gamesmanship?

The bottom line: is it possible to force a society which has acted like a child for so long to grow up and begin looking at itself and the world through the eyes of a mature adult? And if so, how?

Wow, that’s a lot of questions for Mr. Soros. We greatly appreciate your willingness, Mr. Soros, to catch as many of these as you can. As you can see, we have a very passionate, informed, engaged community here.

I’m curious about Mr. Soros’ comment that he would be ‘as bad’ as Murdoch’ (!) if he had a network. Quite an admission. But that is what some people have hoped for, including me -some counterbalance. I would like to hear Mr. Soros elaborate on that, and what an effective counterbalance to Murdoch and Fox etc would be.

Eli 33 and Mr. Soros

I, myself, am no more interested in having liberal news pushed at me than I am having corporatist-slanted news.

I long for accuracy and truth, where the truth can be ascertained.

There are thousands of stories out there, that can be told accurately and even interestingly, if someone just will do it.

One of the ways the Establishment Media controls things is by limiting what they do cover to such a very few subjects.

Over the front of the main building where I went to college, is proclaimed “Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free.”

I looked at this every day for five years, and I believed it then and I believe it now.

What can we do to get more Truth out there, especially on the televised media?

re: the metaphor of the “war on terror” — I have often pointed out that the phrase is a problem, since it means fighting against a method, a ‘means’ if you will, rather than an identified enemy or ‘ends’. Unfortunately, the MSM and the American people seem wedded to this misnomer.

Can you elaborate on what this country should be combatting? (hopefully, this is a softball question.)

Two points.
1. The “authoritarian personality” as discussed in John Dean’s new book believes in the status quo, a hierarchial society and is unwilling or afraid to listen to other information. So, trying to reach these people by reasoned arguments is ineffective. We need another approach, but I have no idea what it might be. (Neither do a lot of other people, judging from the number giving “advice” to democrats).

2. Much of the problems of the world these days can be traced back to the excessive use of resources and manufactured goods consumed by the US and other industrialized countries. We have not shown any willingness to scale back our life styles, even to the extent of raising taxes to pay for the current wars. As resources continue to become more scarce this imbalance can only lead to the need for an even larger military sector and the associated loss of civil rights at home.

We have to own up to our own greed, if things are really going to change.

like everyone i imagine, i remember every moment of that fateful day in september. i was near the end of my work day, and i could not wait to get home to hug my family. even though i was a thousand miles away from the event it impacted me deeply, and i knew america would change, forever. but i was not as much afraid of the perpetrators as i was this administration, and what they would do with the event.

i called my buddy, just a golf caddy, but a pretty bright guy, and his comment was “they are going to wire it all down” which instinctively i guess we all knew, and to some extent is appropriate, but i firmly believe secret government is bad. if i’m not mistaken one of al qaeda’s stated goals, i reckon the goal of any terror, is to get the population to “freak out” and act against their own interests.

any way i have not read your book george, it’s not likely i will until i find a job. and i don’t have a question, just wanted to add my 2 cents. thanks for speaking out about this. please keep doing that.

maybe i do have a question. how do we get our soul back? how do we make it clear that the raw sensitive emotion we all felt that day was used against us for cheap political gain, and to create what is increasingly looking like an authoritarian cult? which is to say, i do not support torture, or spying on private citizens, and i don’t want to live in an america that does. to me, that means the terrorists won.

Mr. Soros, I appreciate the integrity of declining to own an entire network outright, a la Murdock. But what if you just provided seed capital for a broader, probably non-profit, endevor? All of us have biases, so we need to keep a broad base?

Along the same lines as the question about creating a media conglomeration, I often wonder why the George Soros’ and Bill Gates’ of the world aren’t all over creating an alternative-energy giant? Someone is going to get very wealthy meeting our energy needs post-oil.

At every opportunity, I point out that your Civil Society investments in Eastern Europe did as much to end Communism as anything done by the Reagan Administration

I second this, I used to know someone who worked in the Moscow office and I have heard great things.

Also second CK’s sentiments about Consortium News.

Also, were you taken aback by the reaction to your support of Kerry and progressive organizations? I have to say I was truly shocked by the things said about you. You really were out there by yourself. Thanks.

We also can tie the War on Terror into the now calling this WWIII. When the talking heads went overboard with its WWIII meme

Silence on the “Murdoch” question so far, so I’ll put this out there. I’m assuming it’s a reference to the corrosive nature of power. We often fool ourselves into thinking “our” side can handle it. It can’t. The only answer is to keep it as attenuated as possible.
Mr. Soros, please correct me if I got that wrong.

Mr. Soros :: any comments on the Senatorial kerfuffle in Connecticut ? ( Go Ned! )

Katymine at 59 — I like the “Bush and Gingrich honorary Republican-sponsored WWIII,” but maybe that’s just me.

The Bush/Rice dallying re the current ME crisis is a perfect example of the collapse of the Bush metaphor that Mr. Soros predicts, even those chapters were written several months ago — before the major current Lebanese crisis and the major deterioration in Iraq. What seems distressing is there appear to be not major public officials in the US, either party, calling directly for the parties it simply stop the killing as a first principle. Arguments about past abuses and rights to defend against attack are always mentioned, but not this fundamental principle. Yet that is the basis for Annan’s UN intervention and appears to be the basis for the European Union’s response. Moreover, I’ve yet to hear any credible analysts in the US describe the scenario whereby what is happening now turns out well later. No one has explained how destroying the infrastructure and authority of the Lebanese government helps create a strong neighbor in the region capable of moving forward.

To add a thought to my post #56: the obvious foreigh policy effects of weaning ourselves off the oil spigot would be tremendously positive.

Eli at 45,

Thanks. Yes, there could be a mixture. I’m trying to develop the idea in pure form. Mixing it with more traditional approaches once it is concieved would be less difficult, I think.

You answered my question before I even asked it.

I think everyone who is looking at this from outside the neocon bubble are deeply worried. Condi Rice describes this conflagration as “birth pangs” which is a very odd way to characterize a situation in which the disproportionate killing of civilians is likely to create the very thing it wishes to eliminate. It’s birthing a monster.

I wonder if this GWOT metaphor might just be turned around a bit now. Instead of a “War on Terror” perhaps the reality is that we are now fighting a “War with Terror.” Considering events in Iraq as well as Lebanon and Israel, isn’t that more accurate?

There are a lot of questions here, and I don’t think I will be able to answer them all, but I am reading all the posts. Tea Leaves, regarding your comment on externalities, you’re right on.

Swopa — it is a sales pitch. Tell me again how I’m supposed to benefit from signing all my worldly goods over to you so you’ll protect me, Mr. Soprano?

*ilson — It’s my understanding Mr. Soros has been very supportive of Ned Lamont.

Martin Bento #39 I like it!

WOW. what a situation/opportunity we have here. Amazing. thank you to all participating. re: bentos remark… when cnn first went on the air, it was a total breakthrough in the whole idea of “news.” god, do we need such a breakthrough again. just some people speaking the straight truth- minus all the PR firms expensive baloney. COMMON SENSE. please.

george soros says
July 23rd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Recent events in the Middle East represent a significant escalation. The war on terror has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Mr. Soros, do you see a societal war-effort on the horizon? From what you see in global industry and the rising tensions around the world, is it within the realm of possibility that we will see the kind of hands-on war effort that our parents and grandparents saw in the world wars of the 20th century?

This is John Amato from Crooksandliars, welcome aboard Mr Soros.

The neocons are trying to hijack what’s happening in Lebanon and as you’ve seen-the nutjobs are calling for all out war with Iran.

So sad…

martin at 39:

I agree, it’s a good idea…

Speaking from Connecticut, it’s Jane and Markos who have upended our political structure here. We have gone from having a Fairfield U. professor with no political experience test the uphill waters against Lieberman, then having the blogs see our plight, to seeing Lamont surge against Joe in the polls.
The fight against the current structure must come from the ground up - because the Incumbency (hello, President Clinton and Barbara Boxer) will continue to protect itself.
Thank you Jane, and thank you Mr. Soros. The word is starting to get out.
By the way, Lamont’s Norwalk headquarters was filled today (Sunday) with young kids working the phones. The next generation.

This may be a bit of topic drift, but I don’t think the current situation can be really understood without reference to the eschatological ideas held by some of the extremists of all three major religions involved. As soon as Putin starting talking troops, I could hear the Christians going “here’s comes Magog!”. My biggest fear is the influence that has been gained by those who in fact want to end the world. And I think it is important that their ideas get discussed in the major media. They cannot be debunked without being discussed, and the silence reinforces their sense of being in a different reality, and therefore not having to be bound by a shared set of beliefs with the secular folks.

Charley at 55 — one of the things that I have found helpful on the days when I get so overwhelmed by the nastiness in the news — I do a google search in the images section of the world response to 9/11. And take a peek at all that support that we had from everywhere “we are all Americans now” from all over the globe.

Not only does it give me hope, in terms of where we could be in the years after the Bush Administration finishes, but it also stiffens my resolve. Because that goodwill was squandered within months by the neocons — and that, as much as anything else, strengthens my firm need to boot these people, and their enablers, from office. If it is the last thing I do.

On Open Source Software: my foundation has an information program and they are very interested. You can find out more by visiting www.soros.org, the foundation website.

Digby @ 64 - I’ve always thought of it as a war with terrorism. But if you look at the generals who oppposed Bush’s “war on terror” terminology, like former Joint Chief Meyers, he pushes back because he believes it suggests a military solution. Maybe the context of using the word “war” at all is where the problem resides. But at this juncture, since everyone has taken up the “war” campaign, it’s hard to know how we get out of it.

Christy Hardin Smith says
July 23rd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
(snip) The bottom line: is it possible to force a society which has acted like a child for so long to grow up and begin looking at itself and the world through the eyes of a mature adult? And if so, how?

An interesting start might be a full museum about and memorial to the victims of slavery. It has always seemed odd to me that there is a Holocaust Museum in DC, but nothing to formally acknowledge and document the abuses of slavery…and what came after.

How many Americans really know about the Jim Crow laws?

In the myth, American pregressed from slavery to segregation to civil rights. It might help if the mythmakers spent some time explaining how African-Americans went from freedom backwards to segregation over a 60-year period.

I think the “metaphor” that Mr. Soros addresses has sway because so little American history (even its 20th Century involvement with Bin Laden, Saddam, and the Shah) is acknowledged or explained.

So, start at the birth of the nation and begin to address all the past “metaphors” that have kept the culture, as Christy suggests, immature.

Digby @ 65

Amen!

You can even document the atrocities weapons of terror being used. Here’s a fast three, off the top of my head: torture of detainees in our control; extraordinary rendition to other nations; and
lack of any semblance of legal due process to sort out truly dangerous detainees from those innocents inadvertently swept up in a massive dragnet.

It’s a war with terror, all right. To paraphrase Monty Python’s Cardinal Richelieu, “Our two chief weapons are fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to Bush. No wait, our three chief weapons are . . . “

Please, we’re ready - more than ready - for something completely different.

I’ve always thought of it as a war with terrorism. But if you look at the generals who oppposed Bush’s “war on terror” terminology, like former Joint Chief Meyers, he pushes back because he believes it suggests a military solution.

I don’t really think “war on terror” is that unacceptable a phrase. It’s imprecise, but not completely inapt: We *are* in a conflict against an enemy who relies extensively on terror, and I think “war on terror” is an acceptable shorthand for that.

The problem is that that’s not actually the war we’re fighting. If anything, we’re fighting the “war on not enough terror”.

The Harper’s Stabbed In The Back article has been very interesting reading this week –

http://harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html

I’ve been struck by how durable and insidious this metaphor is — the Nazis used to mobilized Germany for a genocidal and ultimately self destructive war against their neighbors and the “Other” — the Post War Republicans used it in the McCarthy witch hunts, to demonize Democrats and Communists; the Bush Administration uses it to demonize those who dare to criticize the “War on Terror.”

I feel this goes to the innate psychological predispositions of humans — we are hard wired for tribal identity, which includes paranoid fear of outsiders and the “Other.”

Even within the Anti-Communist movements of Eastern Europe, groups like Solidarity gave people an opportunity for a tribal identity in opposition to the repressive state.

Here is the question — do we need to use group identities to counter the “War on Terror” group think, or can we overcome it with rationality?

Or do we need to do both?

Mr. Soros :: any comments concerning Valerie Plame and her lovely husband, the Ambassador?