Left wing speakers/educators hypocritical? --- George Tenet resigns...
Someone left me a link to an article that explains what some famous left-wing names charge to come speak at venues, namely universities in the US...some speakers mentioned were Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson. It is here if one is interested. Apparently these liberal activists charge quite the fee for their presence, with Al Franken charging $25,000 for his words. A few things came up in my mind as I was reading this. First, the obvious one. How the hell could these people be "speaking out" against things that they are a part of themselves? That wouldn't be very prudent.
Why don't we see too many conservative speakers on campuses? I'm sure they are there, but speaking from the standpoint of the college I attend, I don't recall many. Though I can think of a few liberal speakers that have been here...Ludacris, Michael Moore, Darrel Bodley, but this may also be due to my not noticing conservative activities on campus, though I am pretty sure I would have. So why do they charge so much? Did Michael Moore really charge 15,000 to come to this school? Did this school pay him that? I don't know...but I can't imagine they would have, it was free to students. Maybe...who knows. Assuming he did, what are the implications? He clearly doesn't need 15,000 dollars to come here...maybe a thousand, to be comfortable. Should liberal activists live up to their apparent criticisms and try to avoid capitalism? It would only seem fair to practice what one preaches. I guess I might say that these people are trying to point out some pitfalls of capitalism and the mass pools of power that can be concentrated as a result. Maybe people like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore are trying to compete, as one is forced to naturally, in a brutal world, where 10% of the people have copiously large amounts of money and 15,000 dollars dosn't mean much. Now that's a lot to me, and it does seem a bit strange that they would have to charge that much, but would they be heard without the money? The one who has money is sometimes the one who has prominence in this sea of people. It seems that those with the most resources tend to have the most influence. I don't think it is capitalism, per se that Noam and Mike (Not mentioning Jesse Jackson because I don't know what to think of him) are speaking out against, but more about what can happen if "the machine" isn't kept in check somehow. Orwell's 1984 is a compelling example of a possible end result of capitalism. And in this world where one isn't heard unless they have adequate resources, aka:money, even the liberal minded have to compete. In any case, definitely something to think about.
IN OTHER PLACES...
GEORGE Tenet announced his resignation from the CIA today...hmmm. What's going on around here? Personal reasons apparently...his son's in college and his wife wants him home...I wonder if he had thought about that when he became THE director of the CIA. Not to criticize, maybe that is the case, just odd timing wouldn't you say?
posted by TheZenFly at 5:50 PM
4 Comments:
As far as the question, "If you could command $15,000 for telling a group of people your thoughts wouldn't you therefore charge $15,000?" You might want to add that the people who would ultimately be paying your bill, will have no say in wether or not they want to purchase your hypocritical statements. As far as it being a "free world" and being a part of a person's career - this is true, but it's not a question of wether they have a right to do so, it's a question of wether one thinks it is morally correct.
POSTED BY PHILIP MORRIS
While some at universities may not have a say when it comes to who the school brings to speak, I'm not sure that their statements are hypocritical. I assume that the money contributed to such events would go under "student fees" or something--included with other college expenses. Personally, I am sure that I haven't utilized all the resources that are available to me under these fees. So on that note, there is a lot that I didn't necessarily ask for, but pay for anyway with my college expenses. Of course I don't want to pay for hypocritical statements, but again, I'm not sure that these figures really offer hypocritical statements as they are against corporate crime and greedy, money hungry jerks, not "capitalism"...the issue is how the economic/social system of capitalism can create such jerks and how this must be kept under control. They aren't saying, "don't make money", they are saying, "don't use money to mislead and manipulate people".
POSTED BY LUKE SKYWALKER
Definition of the “proper” use of capitalism: “when I apply my energy and talents to make money”. Definition of greedy, money hungry jerks: “when other people use their energy and talents to make money.”
Michael Moore along with all other liberal or conservative individuals who are publicly recognized, have put themselves in a position where their speaking services are valuable. Colleges and universities recognize that exposure to different viewpoints via these speakers is essential to the learning that goes at these places of education. They get paid what the market deems they are worth. Who determines the market? You and me. If we didn’t go to the movies, watch them on T.V., buy the books, etc., their speaking services would not be solicited, let alone rewarded so highly.
I’m not sure if it is possible to live in a free-market society and denounce and criticize capitalism without being a hypocrite. I can’t think of any job in this country that does not have some moral baggage attached to it. What is worse: making money as a public speaker or making money as a telemarketer, a butcher, or an insurance salesman?…it depends on who you ask. Isn’t asking Michael Moore to take less than what he is worth for a public speaking engagement the same as asking the vegetarian who stocks shelves in the grocery store to take less than what they are worth because grocery stores get some of their profits from selling meat products? If salaries were not determined by a free market system who would decide them, the government?
I would agree that liberal public speakers that take everything they can from their speaking engagements are hypocrites, but I’ve never met anyone that could not be considered hypocritical. Is it possible for someone to have strong beliefs about anything without being a hypocrite? What is worse being a hypocrite or believing so strongly in your version of reality (based on your specific experiences and mental models) that you are willing to die and kill for your beliefs? Personally, I’d rather live next-door to the hypocrite.
I wonder what the ratio is for right wing speakers vs. left wing speakers at American universities. Or, how many professors attempt to persuade students with their personal political views during class lectures, in so called non-political courses? Here is some enigmatic wry Scottish wit for you: "I had a very likable and intelligent professor who told me in private about these machines called COMPUTERS which could revolutionize human existence for the better, but very few people know what they are. Help me spread the word to the ignorant."
Mr. Skywalker had a good point about "student fees", it seems that college is just like the rest of our lives - if you don't actively participate in political offices, complaining about the decisions that get made is like being a Monday morning quarterback. Rare exceptions excluded. Despite the constant bombardment and misrepresentation of the American Dream, most of us will never become a celebrity or person of mass influence.
At what point does a person feel that they have enough money? What I mean is, if you no longer have any trouble paying your bills, would you still feel the need to demand highest billing. In the case of a speaker, they might want more money, so they can get their message out to more people, but isn't that a never ending process? Is this any worse than a rich land owner underpaying her/his farmers so she/he can buy more land, afterall they are in the business of buying more land, and they firmly believe it is in the best interest of the farmers. Who is to say one is more rightous than the other; one would have to experience the lives of both to make a fairly unbiased judgement. Sound like a proposterous comparison? Spend two months alone in Japan and suddenly you might decide that purchasing sex from a girl who was sold into slavery is a good way to help the girl. Spend a month with Charles Manson and killing might seem the proper action to take. Grow up in a real ghetto and stealing might feel like a liberal movement. It's amazing how much our views are subconsciously affected by those around us. I'd like to see a speaker on campus discuss mob mentality and group conscious. Some scientists believe our environment makes up only a small portion of what we do and believe, the rest is programmed into our DNA as a way of attaining the best possible mate for reproduction and programming of young DNA. Attaining/attracting the best possible partner would include an importance on status, wealth, appearance, etc., and status itself would include opinions and affiliations. Any major deviation from this might be considered a misprint in the individual's blueprint, much like a disease. If this is the case, am I wasting time by letting my emotions battle with my natural instincts? Should I just LET GO and BE, or should I FIGHT THE PROGRAM and say POWER TO THE DISEASE!?
POSTED BY THE AD COUNCIL FOR GREEDY MONEY HUNGRY JERKS
Post a Comment
<< Home