Politicization of JREF

[Drysdale]

Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?
First it's the Gore film and now it's the NRA as in this weeks comments contains this statement,

"The question of gun ownership by U.S. citizens, not so incidentally, is also something most of Europe and rest of the very puzzled “free world” now seems to be asking about a seemingly politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy America."

I understand if Randi's a democrat thats his choice. But are we gonna start getting political talking points in commentary now? I'd prefer to keep subject on topic instead of now espousing political or social views.

Geez, cant we just stick to the debauchery stuff?

 

[Cleon]

First it's the Gore film

OK, let me just stop you right here.

Global warming is a scientific issue, not political. It is definitely on-topic for an organization based on critical thought and science. People make it political because the concept is ideologically problematic for those who think the free market knows all and sees all.

I understand if Randi's a democrat thats his choice. But are we gonna start getting political talking points in commentary now? I'd prefer to keep subject on topic instead of now espousing political or social views.

Do you extend the same criticism towards, say, Penn & Teller, or Michael Shermer, whose presentation at TAM purported to be a "scientific" validation of libertarian political philosophy?

And for the record, I support gun rights (though not the NRA specifically). However, my experience has been that those who complain the loudest about people making supposedly "inappropriate" political comments only seem to have a problem when they disagree with those comments.

 

[Fnord]

Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?

So effing what? I see the situation, but I do not see a problem

If you have opinions, then you have politics.
If you are an American, then you can express those opinions.
If you own a website, then you can express those opinins on that website.

Nuff Sed!

 

[Oualawouzou]

Besides, it's nothing new. Since I'm a newcomer, I still have a lot of catching up to do. I'm up to the 2003 commentaries now, and they routinely include political criticism. *shrug*

 

[Pipirr]

The gun ownership quote was from an 'anonymous reader'. Randi appeared to be quoting the reader's letter in full.

You may take that to be tacit acceptance on Randi's part for that political sentiment, but I don't. It's not clear enough that he shared that particular point of view.

Anyway, so what? The commentaries do usually tend to be apolitical, but I don't see why he must expunge all mention of politics, real world events or scientific issues, for fear of offence.

 

[Horatius]

This is one of the things that bugs me. Why can we apply skepticism to every question except the political ones? Aren't they the ones that need it most?

What we need to do is try to apply it fairly - if you're going to call one party on their illogical conclusions, try to call all the other parties, too.

 

[Drysdale]

Maybe the Gore film was'nt a good example but it is a political issue for what it's worth. You can scream all you want it's not and should'nt be but it is.

And I know there's been political views before but the gun control statement just touched a nerve. I'm just tired of the trying to rewrite the constituion ideology that permeates from both parties. Just happened to be gun control this particular time.

I just like to read the commentary to escape from the political world.
If I want political views I'll head to the political section which I do.

Will I quit reading it? No, just would like it to be less political sometimes, and that's my view I'm espousing via my constitutional rights

 

[BrianSI]

Will I quit reading it? No, just would like it to be less political sometimes, and that's my view I'm espousing via my constitutional rights

I'm not debating your opinion, but to be technical, your ability to post your opinion on this forum has nothing to do with the constitution. It's because the JREF has allowed you to.

 

[Cleon]

Maybe the Gore film was'nt a good example but it is a political issue for what it's worth. You can scream all you want it's not and should'nt be but it is.

That was "screaming?" You are new around here, aren't you.

In any event, my point remains--at it's heart, it's a scientific issue, and definitely on-topic for JREF. Just as the subject of creationism often crosses into politics--and I doubt anyone here complains when Randi trounces the subject of teaching creationism in schools.

At a certain point, every subject matter has a political aspect. Global warming, creationism, alternative "medicine," you name it.

And I know there's been political views before but the gun control statement just touched a nerve. I'm just tired of the trying to rewrite the constituion ideology that permeates from both parties. Just happened to be gun control this particular time.

This sort of backs up my observation that often the complaint about "inappropriate" political commentary is more often than not merely disagreement with the view espoused. If you disagree with Randi's observations, that's fine--Randi has never claimed to speak for anyone but himself.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

If you disagree with Randi's observations, that's fine--Randi has never claimed to speak for anyone but himself.

I think that sums up the issue nicely. The commentary is exactly that, Randi expressing his opinions about things.

It's much more entertaining to read it that way, than to expect Randi to scrub his commentary clean of all potentially political references, and subjects that other may deem to not be 'on topic'.

I don't always agree with his opinions. So what? I still find his commentary entertaining to read. Let's not ever forget that first and foremost, Randi is an entertainer.

 

[Horatius]

Will I quit reading it? No, just would like it to be less political sometimes, and that's my view I'm espousing via my constitutional rights

Great, now that's another one we'll have to re-write.

 

[Moochie]

Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?
First it's the Gore film and now it's the NRA as in this weeks comments contains this statement,

"The question of gun ownership by U.S. citizens, not so incidentally, is also something most of Europe and rest of the very puzzled “free world” now seems to be asking about a seemingly politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy America."

I understand if Randi's a democrat thats his choice. But are we gonna start getting political talking points in commentary now? I'd prefer to keep subject on topic instead of now espousing political or social views.

Geez, cant we just stick to the debauchery stuff?

Perhaps it's because wonky thinking extends into our everyday life?

Think about it.

M.

BTW, I read that article, too.

 

[BillyJoe]

Drysdale just went off half-cocked and now his head hangs apologetically.

 

[CFLarsen]

This is one of the things that bugs me. Why can we apply skepticism to every question except the political ones? Aren't they the ones that need it most?

What we need to do is try to apply it fairly - if you're going to call one party on their illogical conclusions, try to call all the other parties, too.

Of course we can apply skepticism to political questions.

What we can't do is validate a specific political agenda skeptically.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'd be happy if he left politics out of the commentary. But then again, I'd be happy if everyone left politics out of everything.

~~ Paul

 

[TsarBomba]

I'd be happy if he left politics out of the commentary. But then again, I'd be happy if everyone left politics out of everything.

~~ Paul

This is the forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation. Randi has his own weekly web page and can say anything he wants, as long as it does not violate IRS regulations about that a 501(c)(3) can do--and frankly he can even violate the IRS regs if he wants, but will then have to live witht the financial consequences. If you disagre with Randi on political issues, I would only say that the Amazing One has just as much of a right to be an idiot about some issues as the next man does.

 

[BillyJoe]

Randi has his own weekly web page and can say anything he wants...

And Paul can say anything he wants about what Randi says on his web page.

If you disagre with Randi on political issues, I would only say that the Amazing One has just as much of a right to be an idiot about some issues as the next man does.

I think what Paul was saying is that he is not interested in reading about Rand's political view, not that he disagrees with it.

 

[Lonewulf]

This is the forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation. Randi has his own weekly web page and can say anything he wants, as long as it does not violate IRS regulations about that a 501(c)(3) can do--and frankly he can even violate the IRS regs if he wants, but will then have to live witht the financial consequences. If you disagre with Randi on political issues, I would only say that the Amazing One has just as much of a right to be an idiot about some issues as the next man does.

And I have just as much a right to question said idiocy.

Also: Just because you have a right (or at least, no legal restrictions) to do something, doesn't mean you should.

 

[K-W]

First off, this newsletter and this community has been political for as far back as I’ve read the commentaries. Calling for laws to protect people against fraud and criticizing politicians and governments for endorsing flim flam is 100% political. So what Drysdale was actually reacting to was not politics in the newsletter; as others have pointed out pretty much everything that affects human beings relates to politics. Drystdale was reacting to the inclusion of an opinion in the commentary that he does not agree with.

And this is echoed throughout the rhetoric of keeping politics out of discussions so concisely described here:

I'd be happy if he left politics out of the commentary. But then again, I'd be happy if everyone left politics out of everything.

~~ Paul

In this weeks commentary Randi follows up on a frequent topic in recent weeks, governmental officials endorsing scam cures for HIV/AIDS. This is clearly a political issue, does it not belong in the JREF?

Should the JREF not criticize branches of government for funding unscientific or unnecessary research into the paranormal because government funding is a political issue?

Perhaps you do think that JREF should never deal with anything political, but I would guess that for most people who decry politicization the issue is not politics in general but certain issues and opinions that are controversial within the community.

Its one thing to take on a health minister who thinks prayer cures aids, it is another thing to take on/support a US politician who is a member of a party that some members of this community support/hate. It is one thing to demand laws that ensure that consumers can differentiate between scientifically proven medicine and elaborately packaged water, another to include comments that suggest there is a gun control problem.

This is a problem that plagues our society and I refuse to believe that the answer to controversy and polarization is to ignore disagreements. This is a community based around the idea that we can learn about our world and our selves through scientific analysis and critical thinking. Yet some suggest that when it comes to controversial issues, issues that bring their political beliefs into play, we should forget about analysis and thinking and declare so-called politics off limits for discussion and consideration.

I think its great that Randy included that letter. The overall thrust of the letter, as Randi framed it, is that in the face of a tragedy we should be focusing on reality, not on feel good mumbo jumbo. I don’t agree with what seems to be the writers opinion on gun control either, but it doesn’t bother me to read opinions I disagree with and I certainly would never suggest that JREF edit out any opinions I might disagree with from its newsletter.

 

[Moochie]

Well put, K-W. It's always bothered me that there are those who would limit discussion to what they deem acceptable. Certainly, engaging in such discussion whilst pissed as a newt ought to be avoided, but avoiding discussion of contentious issues is, IMO, not the skeptics' way. Like religion, politics ought most definitely to be on the agenda.

M.