[Vision2020] More on Dees/SPLC
Tim Lohrmann
timlohr@yahoo.com
Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:42:51 -0800 (PST)
--0-1302874282-1067492571=:49794
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Amy,
Where did the articles reveal that the SPLC was operated for anyone's personal enrichment? That's pretty much what both articles are about. Open your eyes. Look at the salaries and the huge amount of wealth that Dees and his lieutenants has accumulated and the fact that a large percentage of the contributions go towards raising yet more money.
I asked whether you believed these folks were racist, anti-semitic and etc. because you said that you questioned their motives in criticizing the SPLC. I was trying to understand what you believed their real motives were. (It had nothing to do with any "frantic margin" whatever that is and whereever it came from. :) If you question their motives, then you must suspect a hidden agenda in their criticism and investigation of the SPLC. Otherwise, why are their motives even in question? After all a motive is just a reason for doing something.
Their motives are in question and they are criticizing the financial operations of an organization that purports to do battle against racist and anti-semitic organizations, right? Hmmm...
It appears that you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the issue of the accumulation of funds by the SPLC. And that's OK. I don't agree that a person who solicits money for doing good works should be driving a Rolls Royce, living in a mansion, working in a palatial headquarters building and etc. Neither do I agree that, lawyer or not, such a person should be paid $25,000 a month out of what are supposed to be charitable contributions. (A fee, by the way, that I would be willing to bet is not inclusive of considerable benefits, expenses, and etc.) Ask any of the attorneys on this list how many attorneys make anything approaching Dees' salary. I'd guess it would put him in the upper 10% of all attorneys nationally. No wonder his whole legal staff resigned in the late-80's.
I guess I'm just old fashioned, but I consider such wealth from the pockets of the well-meaning plain disgusting. You apparently believe it's either fine--because you believe us plain old middle class types should continue to write the checks to support it. Or, alternatively, you believe that something should be done about it.
You've been unclear on that.
In any event if not for the articles and investigations whose motives you criticize, those who, like myself, resent the Jimmy Swaggart-Jim/Tammy Faye Bakker-Oral Roberts-Morris Dees school of fundraising techniques would never know about what the money was really being spent on.
It's interesting how you would demand that Cockburn should prove a negative in the involvement of racists in the anti-globalization protests. The burden normally is on the person or the entity making the assertion---here Dees' fundraising efforts---to prove that the assertion is true. What was said in the articles is that there was no evidence presented by Dees that any infiltration of any of the major organized anti-globalization groups. You mention that you found a white supremacist website in which some of the nazis criticize globalization as proof that the SPLC might be correct. That the anti globalist groups might be chock full of racists.
Well, let's look at what you and I both know is true--that anyone even muttering racist sentiments under their breath at a meeting of any of the anti-globalization groups would be soundly and permanently ostracized.
Maybe some of the nazis you studied on whatever website are opposed to the WTO as well. I guess these freaks have opinions on a variety of topics for whatever reasons. Does that mean that they are infiltrating or playing any role whatsoever in the anti-globalization movements a whole? I understand the Revolutionary Communist Party believes in higher wages for workers too, but that doesn't mean that they're welcome down at the local Carpenter's Union hall.
Come on, you and Morris know better. But at least you didn't try to get contributions by peddling hysteria trying to make people believe it.
TL
You also wrote:
"Do you believe that Cockburn is a racist? How about Ken Silverstein--an anti-semite? "
Uh no, I haven't drawn any such conclusions, and I don't even see how that question relates to the discussion of Dees, Cockburn and SPLC. I am trying to discuss the complex topic of how to criticize a valuable community organization without irresponsibly destroying it. Let's stick to the topic and stay away from the frantic margins, ok?
You continued:
"Do you also question the motives of those who investigate organizations or individuals with which you disagree? How about the NY Timeses and Wash. Post reporters who are investigating Rumsfeld, leaking his memos, and suggesting that the Iraqi war is going very poorly? What would you say about their motives? Are they Al-Qaida linked? Or are they just doing what investigative journalists do. Looking for the truth about the powerful so that the general public is informed? "
Yep, I do sometimes question the motives of folks who discredit people or organizations with whom I disagree. In fact, I think that Cockburn and others should investigate and challenge what SPLC does, but as he's done so in what I think is an irresponsible way--threatening instead of challenging the SPLC--I am criticizing him.
In your original post, you were questioning whether SPLC should be considered "an authority" on issues of race, hate, etc, and you further said you "don't think so," and posted "Cockburn's take on Dees' empire." to support your conclusion. I'm saying Cockburn's take does not discredit the SPLC, nor the work it has done, and the SPLC should continue and do more good work. The center is much more than a "sham vehicle for amassing wealth." Dees' salary (reported in the Harpers article) is below $300,000, which isn't unusual for a director of a large non-profit, especially a lawyer. Cockburn talks about Dees early life-- a penchant for making money and building tennis courts. No one has ever said that money raised by SPLC becomes Dees' personal wealth. Sure he and the SPLC board and officers control those assets, but he has not embezzled or misused those funds. As far as I can tell, the problem is that the organization is collecting, but not spending, the money. The criticism of!
you,
Cockburn and others is greatly distorted and misleading.
Also from you:
"As for Dees' criticism and suspicion about anti-globalization activists, the point is that he published these allegations without any evidence that they were true. And not only that he did so in order to raise even more money.
. . . As I mentioned above, the SPLC suggested that racists were involved in infiltrating the anti-globalization movement, esp. in Seattle.
If you question the criticism of Dees when ample figures and examples are given, don't you question the SPLC's motives since they have been unable to provide any proof?"
I am not defending Dees, but I am defending the SPLC.
Please show me that you, or Cockburn, asked for proof about the anti-globalization movement? You are assuming the claim is untrue and unsubstantiated. In my second post, I showed you a sample of proof that I found on a large white supremicist website, and a corroborating report from the ADL. SPLC monitors those sites, people and activities. I think SPLC is an authority, and that the assertions are accurate. I agree with Cockburn's point that SPLC uses people's fears to raise money--and with his ethical concerns because the money isn't being spent in ways responsive to minority communities' issues. However, Cockburn certainly has neither demonstrated nor proved that the anti-globalization movement has not attracted and involved white supremicists, and I've seen lots of information that confirms the SPLC's account.
Amy Smoucha
---------------------------------
Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
--0-1302874282-1067492571=:49794
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>Amy,</DIV>
<DIV> Where did the articles reveal that the SPLC was operated for anyone's personal enrichment? That's pretty much what both articles are about. Open your eyes. Look at the salaries and the huge amount of wealth that Dees and his lieutenants has accumulated and the fact that a large percentage of the contributions go towards raising yet more money. <BR></DIV>
<DIV> I asked whether you believed these folks were racist, anti-semitic and etc. because you said that you questioned their motives in criticizing the SPLC. I was trying to understand what you believed their real motives were. (It had nothing to do with any "frantic margin" whatever that is and whereever it came from. :) If you question their motives, then you must suspect a hidden agenda in their criticism and investigation of the SPLC. Otherwise, why are their motives even in question? After all a motive is just a reason for doing something. </DIV>
<DIV>Their motives are in question and they are criticizing the financial operations of an organization that purports to do battle against racist and anti-semitic organizations, right? Hmmm...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>It appears that you and I have a fundamental disagreement on the issue of the accumulation of funds by the SPLC. And that's OK. I don't agree that a person who solicits money for doing good works should be driving a Rolls Royce, living in a mansion, working in a palatial headquarters building and etc. Neither do I agree that, lawyer or not, such a person should be paid $25,000 a month out of what are supposed to be charitable contributions. (A fee, by the way, that I would be willing to bet is not inclusive of considerable benefits, expenses, and etc.) Ask any of the attorneys on this list how many attorneys make anything approaching Dees' salary. I'd guess it would put him in the upper 10% of all attorneys nationally. No wonder his whole legal staff resigned in the late-80's.</DIV>
<DIV>I guess I'm just old fashioned, but I consider such wealth from the pockets of the well-meaning plain disgusting. You apparently believe it's either fine--because you believe us plain old middle class types should continue to write the checks to support it. Or, alternatively, you believe that something should be done about it. </DIV>
<DIV>You've been unclear on that. </DIV>
<DIV>In any event if not for the articles and investigations whose motives you criticize, those who, like myself, resent the Jimmy Swaggart-Jim/Tammy Faye Bakker-Oral Roberts-Morris Dees school of fundraising techniques would never know about what the money was really being spent on. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It's interesting how you would demand that Cockburn should prove a negative in the involvement of racists in the anti-globalization protests. The burden normally is on the person or the entity making the assertion---here Dees' fundraising efforts---to prove that the assertion is true. What was said in the articles is that there was no evidence presented by Dees that any infiltration of any of the major organized anti-globalization groups. You mention that you found a white supremacist website in which some of the nazis criticize globalization as proof that the SPLC might be correct. That the anti globalist groups might be chock full of racists. </DIV>
<DIV>Well, let's look at what you and I both know is true--that anyone even muttering racist sentiments under their breath at a meeting of any of the anti-globalization groups would be soundly and permanently ostracized. </DIV>
<DIV>Maybe some of the nazis you studied on whatever website are opposed to the WTO as well. I guess these freaks have opinions on a variety of topics for whatever reasons. Does that mean that they are infiltrating or playing any role whatsoever in the anti-globalization movements a whole? I understand the Revolutionary Communist Party believes in higher wages for workers too, but that doesn't mean that they're welcome down at the local Carpenter's Union hall. </DIV>
<DIV>Come on, you and Morris know better. But at least you didn't try to get contributions by peddling hysteria trying to make people believe it. </DIV>
<DIV> TL </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV>
<P>You also wrote: </P>
<DIV></DIV>"<EM>Do you believe that Cockburn is a racist? How about Ken Silverstein--an anti-semite? " </EM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Uh no, I haven't drawn any such conclusions, and I don't even see how that question relates to the discussion of Dees, Cockburn and SPLC. I am trying to discuss the complex topic of how to criticize a valuable community organization without irresponsibly destroying it. Let's stick to the topic and stay away from the frantic margins, ok?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<P>You continued: </P>
<DIV></DIV><EM>"Do you also question the motives of those who investigate organizations or individuals with which you disagree? How about the NY Timeses and Wash. Post reporters who are investigating Rumsfeld, leaking his memos, and suggesting that the Iraqi war is going very poorly? What would you say about their motives? Are they Al-Qaida linked? Or are they just doing what investigative journalists do. Looking for the truth about the powerful so that the general public is informed? " </EM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<P>Yep, I do sometimes question the motives of folks who discredit people or organizations with whom I disagree. In fact, I think that Cockburn and others should investigate and challenge what SPLC does, but as he's done so in what I think is an irresponsible way--threatening instead of challenging the SPLC--I am criticizing him. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>In your original post, you were questioning whether SPLC should be considered "an authority" on issues of race, hate, etc, and you further said you "don't think so," and posted "Cockburn's take on Dees' empire." to support your conclusion. I'm saying Cockburn's take does not discredit the SPLC, nor the work it has done, and the SPLC should continue and do more good work. The center is much more than a "sham vehicle for amassing wealth." Dees' salary (reported in the Harpers article) is below $300,000, which isn't unusual for a director of a large non-profit, especially a lawyer. Cockburn talks about Dees early life-- a penchant for making money and building tennis courts. No one has ever said that money raised by SPLC becomes Dees' personal wealth. Sure he and the SPLC board and officers control those assets, but he has not embezzled or misused those funds. As far as I can tell, the problem is that the organization is collecting, but not spending, the money. The c!
riticism
of you, Cockburn and others is greatly distorted and misleading.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<P>Also from you: </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><EM>"As for Dees' criticism and suspicion about anti-globalization activists, the point is that he published these allegations without any evidence that they were true. And not only that he did so in order to raise even more money. </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>. . . As I mentioned above, the SPLC suggested that racists were involved in infiltrating the anti-globalization movement, esp. in Seattle. </EM>
<DIV></DIV><EM>If you question the criticism of Dees when ample figures and examples are given, don't you question the SPLC's motives since they have been unable to provide any proof?" </EM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I am not defending Dees, but I am defending the SPLC.</P>
<P>Please show me that you, or Cockburn, asked for proof about the anti-globalization movement? You are assuming the claim is untrue and unsubstantiated. In my second post, I showed you a sample of proof that I found on a large white supremicist website, and a corroborating report from the ADL. SPLC monitors those sites, people and activities. I think SPLC is an authority, and that the assertions are accurate. I agree with Cockburn's point that SPLC uses people's fears to raise money--and with his ethical concerns because the money isn't being spent in ways responsive to minority communities' issues. However, Cockburn certainly has neither demonstrated nor proved that the anti-globalization movement has not attracted and involved white supremicists, and I've seen lots of information that confirms the SPLC's account. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Amy Smoucha
<DIV></DIV></DIV><BR clear=all>
<HR>
<A href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2755??PS=">Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.</A> </BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
Exclusive Video Premiere - <a href="http://launch.yahoo.com/video/?1093432&fs=1&redirectURL=http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/">Britney Spears</a>
--0-1302874282-1067492571=:49794--