You can argue that if George Soros didn’t personally sign checks on which James Hansen was the payee, then zero money was given to Hansen by Soros. As a public service to those who might be so inclined, today’s word is “fungible,” brought to you - in the spirit of diversity - by the letter “H.” “H” as in Hsu and Holy Land Foundation.
These H's illustrate why contributions to an intermediary, which subsequently pays for services on behalf of a third party, are equivalent to giving the money directly to the third party. Our examples:
It is true that Norman Hsu, currently a guest of the state of California, did not sign the vast majority of checks he bundled into contributions to Hillary Clinton's campaigns. It is also true that these checks were not written payable to Hillary Clinton personally. However, no one doubts she benefited. Least of all Herself, She’s getting rid of the money.
It is true that when the Holy Land Foundation, currently in hiding, sent checks to terrorist organizations the payees were not literally Hamas, Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad. However, the United States and the European Union have no doubt jihadist organizations like those received HLF funds.
So let us not pretend that money can't be laundered.
As to the significance of the amount, the Investor's Business Daily report does indeed say “up to” $720,000. Could be lots less. So, what if the Soros' grantee, Government Accountability Project, only spent $72,000 on
Man, “Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?”
Woman, “Well, for that much money… I suppose I would.”
Man, “O.K, will you sleep with me for five dollars?”
Woman, “What kind of woman do you think I am?!?”
Man, “I think we’ve established what kind of woman you are; now we are just haggling over the price.”
Some clue as to Hansen's price, since no “Open” detail is forthcoming from Soros, GAP or Hansen, can be found at the Government Accountability Project's website:
GAP Staff Attorney Tarek Maassarani [conducted, on Hansen's behalf,] a year-long investigation that found objectionable and possibly illegal restrictions on the communication of scientific information to the media.Though Mr. Maassarani is a staff lawyer, and probably did not work exclusively on Mr. Hansen's case for twelve months, such “advice” from lawyers is not inexpensive. Media advisors who get you 1,400 MSM interviews, especially while you're being censored by the President, don't come cheap either. James Hansen didn't pay for these services. George Soros certainly paid for some part of them.
Given that the “central focus” of Soros’ life of late is to bring down George Bush, and that he’d already spent $15 million by 2004 in the attempt, it is reasonable to assume he would use Hansen if he had an opportunity.
Indeed, the Open Society Institute's Web site claims that Soros takes an abiding, detailed interest in its activities:
Despite the breadth of his endeavors, Soros is personally involved in planning and implementing many of the foundation network's projects.Lacking openness from the payers regarding how much Hansen benefited from Soros' money, I think we can depend on Henry David Thoreau to summarize: "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
Still, the evidence is more than circumstantial. That Soros' organization took an active interest in Hansen’s press campaign, and that at least some of the money went to help Hansen is a bragging point for soros.org. The SOROS FOUNDATIONS NETWORK REPORT 2006 says this about it on page 123:
Scientist Protests NASA’sNo doubt.
James E. Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview. The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen’s defense by providing legal and media advice. The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.
Apparently forgoing the advice to which he has become accustomed, James Hansen has this response to others' discovery (Hansen claims he does not know if any money came from Soros) that Soros was his benefactor.
You decide if Hansen adequately addresses the ethical issues. Before you decide, you might also wish to check how he has previously responded to his own error.
James Hansen is to George Soros as Cindy Sheehan was to MoveOn/CodePink/ANSWER/Kos manipulators.
In Hansen's case, his celebrity is only protected as long as Anthropomorphic Global WarmingTM is an issue. George Soros will only be interested as long as the issue provides a stick with which to beat on Western capitalist values (How strange is that in a currency speculation multi-billionaire? But see Soros' network below.) That Soros has severely damaged millions of people in his pursuit of profit seems not to bother him in the least.
Hansen is a tiny invertebrate in a swamp barely large enough to contain him, and he will, if more slowly, assume the same public-consciousness room-temperature as Sheehan. Hansen dares not question Global WarmingTM. Without it, he's toast.
The real issue here is George Soros' attempts to manipulate public opinion. Hansen is a pathetic supporting actor.
Other resources: Less Than Full Disclosure from Jim Hansen? Or Right Wing Smear?
Soros network. Here.