Unversity cancels Michael Moore speech

[transplant99]

He may not get the $35,000 fee for speaking, but he plans to go and do his thing anyway.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...re_university_3

[Flame On]

"Tax money is being spent poorly, and for partisan purposes,"
Gee where else is tax money being spent poorly hmmmm

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 1 2004, 03:53 PM
He may not get the $35,000 fee for speaking, but he plans to go and do his thing anyway.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...re_university_3

What the story doesn't tell us is whether or not paying someone $35,000 to speak is a common practice for the university.

If it is, then I don't have a problem with it, particularly if they're selling tickets and recouping the cost and actually making money off it.

If it isn't a common practice and there are no plans to recoup the cost then I would say the senator, although partisan, has a point.

But we don't have enough information to render a judgement.

Interesting to note that Moore is now willing to speak for free. Maybe they're onto something. Book him, then cancel him, then book him for free.

Cowperson

[Daradon]

While you sepak the truth Cow (not enough info to make an accurate judgement) the way the article is written and the few facts it does state, it appears it's more of a bullying tactic.

Course that could just be the liberal media bias...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 1 2004, 04:30 PM
What the story doesn't tell us is whether or not paying someone $35,000 to speak is a common practice for the university.

This is common practice. My wife has booked speakers in the past and it can get costly. Kevin Smith was supposed to go to USF in Tampa and speak, for a cool $10,000, but changed the schedule because he got a better offer elsewhere. The Students Union, the ones who make the money off of speaking engagements like this, were hung out to dry. It happens regularly though.

This also isn't the first time that the Republicans have killed a Moore speaking engagement. One of the University of Califormnia campuses has Moore booked and were forced to cancel when they were pressured by the state Republicans for equal time. Unfortunately the school couldn't find a speaker who would satisfy the Republicans and the whole engagement was cancelled. The only ones this hurt was the Student's Union. So go life in American Universities.

[FlamesAddiction]

David Suzuki got paid something like $50,000 to do a lecture at UBC before.

[RougeUnderoos]

Ruben "Hurricane" Carter got paid a fortune to speak at the UofL a few years ago. Maybe not 50 grand, but it was a lot of money. It was right around the time that movie came out about him.

I think the organizers expected him to go on some sort of anti-authority rant, but instead he was like a motivational speaker, referring to Jesus pretty much constantly (at least for the 5 minutes that I watched through the window into the gym).

[Thunderball]

To be real blunt, I don't think Universities should be paying for people of the ilk of Michael Moore anyway... Universities are supposed to be places of higher learning, not someone who can manipulate facts. People like Noam Chomsky (though I don't agree with him), etc... scholarly people.

[moon]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Oct 1 2004, 05:55 PM
To be real blunt, I don't think Universities should be paying for people of the ilk of Michael Moore anyway... Universities are supposed to be places of higher learning, not someone who can manipulate facts. People like Noam Chomsky (though I don't agree with him), etc... scholarly people.

You say that as if you don't think that Chomsky doesn't manipulate facts? That is the whole basis of his crack pot ideas is to misrepresent facts.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by moon+Oct 1 2004, 07:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Oct 1 2004, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Oct 1 2004, 05:55 PM
To be real blunt, I don't think Universities should be paying for people of the ilk of Michael Moore anyway... Universities are supposed to be places of higher learning, not someone who can manipulate facts. People like Noam Chomsky (though I don't agree with him), etc... scholarly people.

You say that as if you don't think that Chomsky doesn't manipulate facts? That is the whole basis of his crack pot ideas is to misrepresent facts. [/b][/quote]
I don't like him, and he does BS a lot, but he's still got more education, experience and respect on his pinky finger than Moore has in aggregate. That makes him a Scholarly voice to present... of course I think for every left wing nut, we should bring in a right wing zealot... you know, balance things out.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

James Cameron did my convocation at the U of C in 1993. He directed Titanic, and also had some speaking engagement at the time IIRC.

From the standpoint of documentary film, few folks outside of Errol Morris and Hirokazu Koreeda (also a movie director) come even close to skill in that. If the director of Titanic and Moonstruck can speak at the U of C, than MM can at least get his foot in the door as a very accomplished director.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Thunderball+Oct 2 2004, 01:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunderball @ Oct 2 2004, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You say that as if you don't think that Chomsky doesn't manipulate facts? That is the whole basis of his crack pot ideas is to misrepresent facts.

I don't like him, and he does BS a lot, but he's still got more education, experience and respect on his pinky finger than Moore has in aggregate. That makes him a Scholarly voice to present... of course I think for every left wing nut, we should bring in a right wing zealot... you know, balance things out.[/b][/quote]
Right or Wrong, Chomsky is one brilliant individual. He could absolutely destroy any poster on this board on any political topic of your choosing. Agree with him or not, I respect the hell out of this guy for tackling the issues he does.

He's a professor at MIT, obviously the system has some respect for what he's saying... unless MIT is a pro-liberal Kennedy think-tank.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Oct 2 2004, 02:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Oct 2 2004, 02:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I don't like him, and he does BS a lot, but he's still got more education, experience and respect on his pinky finger than Moore has in aggregate. That makes him a Scholarly voice to present... of course I think for every left wing nut, we should bring in a right wing zealot... you know, balance things out.

Right or Wrong, Chomsky is one brilliant individual. He could absolutely destroy any poster on this board on any political topic of your choosing. Agree with him or not, I respect the hell out of this guy for tackling the issues he does.

He's a professor at MIT, obviously the system has some respect for what he's saying... unless MIT is a pro-liberal Kennedy think-tank. [/b][/quote]
He may be brilliant in an academic way, but i believe he is a no more than a spin master when it comes to politics. Seriously, I believe he is literally listed as a professor of linguistics and semnatics. Big deal.

I will say this however, he has the ear of a majority of youth in academia, but only because he oreaches a message they want to believe, not necessarily because its the truth. And thats OK too.


IMO of course.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 2 2004, 07:27 PM
He may be brilliant in an academic way, but i believe he is a no more than a spin master when it comes to politics. Seriously, I believe he is literally listed as a professor of linguistics and semnatics. Big deal.

I will say this however, he has the ear of a majority of youth in academia, but only because he oreaches a message they want to believe, not necessarily because its the truth. And thats OK too.


IMO of course.

Lol, 'professor of linguistics and semantics. Big deal.'

I'm pretty sure he's regarded as THE guy in the field of linguistics, sort of like Einstein and the Atomic theory back in the 30's 40's. The most impressive thing about Chomsky is that politics isn't even his main focus, linguistic structure, syntax, and theory are his academic pursuits.

Also, he's probably the most 'sourced' writer I've ever read, meaning he tends to have as many pages of footnotes in his books as actual writing. That definitely appeals to me, as he validates basically everything he says using 'other side's' words.

If anyone out there hasn't read any Chomsky, I'd suggest you take a look. You might be surprised at how un-Radical and common sense his political theories are.

[transplant99]

I'm pretty sure he's regarded as THE guy in the field of linguistics,

Great...good for him. That means squat when it comes to his POLITICAL ramblings. Nothing at all.

He is a spin master, but a very good one, and there is nothing wrong with that. I am not doubting that he is likely the most accomplished guy in his field, and that is saying something. Doesnt mean his point of view is any more valid than anyone elses however.

I was looking for his official title and found it.


Institute Professor; Professor of Linguistics
Linguistic Theory, Syntax, Semantics, Philosophy of Language

Theory, syntax and semantics. Doesn't that SCREAM spin-master? Or a better way of putting it.... the guy is a master of saying the same thing a dozen different ways, or taking something and using language to change its meaning completely. Its a talent, but hardly a useful one in reality.

I bet Michael Moore reads this guys books religiously. Again, nothing wrong with that.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 2 2004, 01:45 PM

Great...good for him. That means squat when it comes to his POLITICAL ramblings. Nothing at all.

He is a spin master, but a very good one, and there is nothing wrong with that. I am not doubting that he is likely the most accomplished guy in his field, and that is saying something. Doesnt mean his point of view is any more valid than anyone elses however.

I was looking for his official title and found it.


Institute Professor; Professor of Linguistics
Linguistic Theory, Syntax, Semantics, Philosophy of Language

Theory, syntax and semantics. Doesn't that SCREAM spin-master? Or a better way of putting it.... the guy is a master of saying the same thing a dozen different ways, or taking something and using language to change its meaning completely. Its a talent, but hardly a useful one in reality.

I bet Michael Moore reads this guys books religiously. Again, nothing wrong with that.

Well if you'd like, we could easily cobble together a list of 10 political scientists and historians who share his particular viewpoint.

Are they qualified?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 2 2004, 07:45 PM

Great...good for him. That means squat when it comes to his POLITICAL ramblings. Nothing at all.

He is a spin master, but a very good one, and there is nothing wrong with that. I am not doubting that he is likely the most accomplished guy in his field, and that is saying something. Doesnt mean his point of view is any more valid than anyone elses however.

I was looking for his official title and found it.


Institute Professor; Professor of Linguistics
Linguistic Theory, Syntax, Semantics, Philosophy of Language

Theory, syntax and semantics. Doesn't that SCREAM spin-master? Or a better way of putting it.... the guy is a master of saying the same thing a dozen different ways, or taking something and using language to change its meaning completely. Its a talent, but hardly a useful one in reality.

I bet Michael Moore reads this guys books religiously. Again, nothing wrong with that.

Interesting. I guess it depends on what your natural political bent is as to how you'd view him. Seeing as Chomsky basically has nothing to gain (except prestige, I suppose, but if that was his goal, why not mainstream it a bit?) I have a much easier time buying into what he says than a government bureaucrat, political appointee, politician, or media source.

Also, funny to see that you interpret his 'semantic' expertise as meaning he is a 'spinner'. I'd argue that his intense experience and education in 'spinning' is what makes him a fantastic source on identifying and uncovering government disingenuity or outright coverups (spin).

His piece on the Pentagon Papers is amazing, basically re-writes the history of the way the US conducted the Vietnam war.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 2 2004, 07:34 PM

Noam Chomsky: professor of semantics.

That definitely appeals to me, as he validates basically everything he says using 'other side's' words.

Yes he is brilliant at that. He takes words right out of the horses mouth and places in a context unrelated to it's original meaning or the author's intent.

A simple example of Chomsky's style:

I have said this....

Killing and repressing Black people in South Africa is a good thing and should be supported

... I will not deny it. What a frothing, maniacal racist eh? Obviously I have some agenda against Blacks, especiallly in South Africa! It would certainly looks that way.

But then if you look at it in a full quote and in light of context it was said.....

A discussion about South Africa and Apartied:
If you are a white supremist or at the top of the ladder in South Africa...Killing and repressing Black people in South Africa is a good thing and should be supported! Otherwise you are looking at sharing or, most likely, losing control to people you despise. The worst possible outcome if you are those types of people


His ultimate arrogant stance...and it only can come from someone too long in the ivory tower of academia....THAT...

If you don't think like me you are dupe and non-independant thinker

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by HOZ+Oct 2 2004, 02:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HOZ @ Oct 2 2004, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@Oct 2 2004, 07:34 PM

Noam Chomsky: professor of semantics.

That definitely appeals to me, as he validates basically everything he says using 'other side's' words.

Yes he is brilliant at that. He takes words right out of the horses mouth and places in a context unrelated to it's original meaning or the author's intent.

A simple example of Chomsky's style:

I have said this....

Killing and repressing Black people in South Africa is a good thing and should be supported

... I will not deny it. What a frothing, maniacal racist eh? Obviously I have some agenda against Blacks, especiallly in South Africa! It would certainly looks that way.

But then if you look at it in a full quote and in light of context it was said.....

A discussion about South Africa and Apartied:
If you are a white supremist or at the top of the ladder in South Africa...Killing and repressing Black people in South Africa is a good thing and should be supported! Otherwise you are looking at sharing or, most likely, sharing power with people you despise. The worst possible outcome if you are those types of people


His ultimate arrogant stance...and it only can come from someone too long in the ivory tower of academia....THAT...

If you don't think like me you are dupe and non-independant thinker [/b][/quote]
What you have demonstrated, HOZ, is that you know how to take things out of context. Maybe present some evidence that Chomsky does it and that will be relevant.

If that is his preferred method of doing things, I think it will be quite easy for you to prove it.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 2 2004, 08:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 2 2004, 08:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Yes he is brilliant at that. He takes words right out of the horses mouth and places in a context unrelated to it's original meaning or the author's intent.

A simple example of Chomsky's style:

I have said this....

Killing and repressing Black people in South Africa is a good thing and should be supported

... I will not deny it. What a frothing, maniacal racist eh? Obviously I have some agenda against Blacks, especiallly in South Africa! It would certainly looks that way.

But then if you look at it in a full quote and in light of context it was said.....

A discussion about South Africa and Apartied:
If you are a white supremist or at the top of the ladder in South Africa...Killing and repressing Black people in South Africa is a good thing and should be supported! Otherwise you are looking at sharing or, most likely, sharing power with people you despise. The worst possible outcome if you are those types of people


His ultimate arrogant stance...and it only can come from someone too long in the ivory tower of academia....THAT...

If you don't think like me you are dupe and non-independant thinker

What you have demonstrated, HOZ, is that you know how to take things out of context. Maybe present some evidence that Chomsky does it and that will be relevant.

If that is his preferred method of doing things, I think it will be quite easy for you to prove it. [/b][/quote]
Out of context? What did I take out of context there Underwear? My own quote?

As for the evidence....hmm...lets see here, right in the old pack pocket.

Haven't read Chomsky in years now and to do the research through his volumous writing and reference his quotes will take.....time. A little more than the 10-50 second of writing up a post.