Do tell us what words will be acceptable, then.
Hi Drysdale,
If you'd like to submit a list, feel free to do so and I'll look up those words too. For now, I looked at the following words that were suggested to me:
bush
clinton
congress
democracy
democrat
election
federal
government
jurisdiction
law
legislature
political
politics
president
republican
senate
for the years 1992 to present.
The total number of keywords by year are:
word: 1992 count, 1993 count, ..., 2007 count
bush: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 8, 18, 16, 22, 8
clinton: 1, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1
congress: 0, 0, 0, 3, 11, 2, 0, 1, 4, 10, 7, 4, 11, 4, 7, 5
democracy: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 2, 4, 0, 1
democrat: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0
election: 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 3, 4, 19, 1, 4, 5
federal: 0, 4, 8, 4, 4, 2, 2, 3, 12, 18, 36, 28, 16, 30, 25, 7
government: 0, 2, 3, 3, 6, 4, 2, 5, 9, 56, 40, 41, 59, 56, 40, 22
jurisdiction: 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0
law: 3, 4, 3, 5, 7, 5, 1, 2, 8, 30, 55, 47, 54, 56, 59, 8
legislature: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1, 0
political: 1, 0, 1, 4, 4, 0, 5, 3, 1, 12, 13, 10, 18, 33, 24, 8
politics: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 3, 1, 7, 1, 13, 21, 21, 3
president: 1, 1, 0, 2, 4, 2, 6, 3, 12, 24, 22, 28, 51, 52, 33, 27
republican: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 5, 4, 1, 3
senate: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 2, 2, 0
Some years of Commentary have more total words than others. Dividing each of the counts above by the respective total words for that year, which are
1992: 5979
1993: 8891
1994: 26201
1995: 31241
1996: 49338
1997: 32490
1998: 24658
1999: 12585
2000: 85774
2001: 163936
2002: 267184
2003: 232090
2004: 278496
2005: 304084
2006: 253106
2007: 83362
and making a graph of these 'standardized' values, the increasing trends that stand out are:
-government
-law
-president
If you'd like to submit a list, feel free to do so and I'll look up those words too. For now, I looked at the following words that were suggested to me:
bush
clinton
congress
democracy
democrat
election
federal
government
jurisdiction
law
legislature
political
politics
president
republican
senate
for the years 1992 to present.
The total number of keywords by year are:
word: 1992 count, 1993 count, ..., 2007 count
bush: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 8, 18, 16, 22, 8
clinton: 1, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1
congress: 0, 0, 0, 3, 11, 2, 0, 1, 4, 10, 7, 4, 11, 4, 7, 5
democracy: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 2, 4, 0, 1
democrat: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0
election: 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 3, 4, 19, 1, 4, 5
federal: 0, 4, 8, 4, 4, 2, 2, 3, 12, 18, 36, 28, 16, 30, 25, 7
government: 0, 2, 3, 3, 6, 4, 2, 5, 9, 56, 40, 41, 59, 56, 40, 22
jurisdiction: 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0
law: 3, 4, 3, 5, 7, 5, 1, 2, 8, 30, 55, 47, 54, 56, 59, 8
legislature: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1, 0
political: 1, 0, 1, 4, 4, 0, 5, 3, 1, 12, 13, 10, 18, 33, 24, 8
politics: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 3, 1, 7, 1, 13, 21, 21, 3
president: 1, 1, 0, 2, 4, 2, 6, 3, 12, 24, 22, 28, 51, 52, 33, 27
republican: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 5, 4, 1, 3
senate: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 2, 2, 0
Some years of Commentary have more total words than others. Dividing each of the counts above by the respective total words for that year, which are
1992: 5979
1993: 8891
1994: 26201
1995: 31241
1996: 49338
1997: 32490
1998: 24658
1999: 12585
2000: 85774
2001: 163936
2002: 267184
2003: 232090
2004: 278496
2005: 304084
2006: 253106
2007: 83362
and making a graph of these 'standardized' values, the increasing trends that stand out are:
-government
-law
-president
Last edited:
And what do you conclude from these numbers?
Disagreement with the American method (or lack thereof) of gun control is not necessarily arrogance.
Even gross misconceptions about your culture are not necessary the result of arrogance.
You seem to be blatantly oblivious of what goes on in Europe as well, I don't think this is out of arrogance, I assume simple ignorance.
We are not saying that America is gun-ho etc, merely that it IS the prevalent public opinion in a significant part of the "free world". Wether this is based on truth, the way America presents itself to the rest of the world, media bias in European countries or even something else completely, it is outright stupid to deny that it is the prevalent opinion.
If you are in America you have almost no way to assess how your country is perceived outside of America and calling us arrogant because we claim to know the public opinion in our own country is below the standards I've become used to on these boards.
Also claiming to not wanting to have to do anything with a whole country based on the posts of two people, could by some people be perceived as arrogance.
Last edited:
I have to agree 100%. And that said, all this just goes to show that mr Randi's comment was fair and on the spot regarding the worlds view of the US, right or wrong.
Not stumped -- just mildly discombobulated at the thought of a "skeptical movement" being led. Ever tried to herd cats?
M.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
I never claimed that it was.
Fair enough
Yeah, I mean, I was just born in Germany, and raised there for quite a few years.
(Admittedly, I was pretty young while raised, but I was responding to someone claiming that "free world" was talking about us arrogant gun-ho stupid Americans. I was also using a form of exaggeration based on that argument, and not because I actually think Europe is a certain way, but basing it on what people are CLAIMING Europe is like.)
To call a group of people "gun-ho cowboys" confers a smug sense of superiority. We are better than you are. We have better laws, we know more than you silly Americans. That's the arrogance that I see. Want examples? View any number of posts by Larsen, or Danish Dynamite. Those are the types that I think about when I think of arrogance. I do not judge Europe based on them, however. I was responding to a particular claim about how Europe thought and was like. And suggesting that the "rest of the free world" knows something that we don't know still confers a sense of superiority, in the same sense as any Argumentum Ad Populum does. Although such a claim does depend on context.
You are not saying that. The person quoted in the explained that viewpoint, and further seemed to even be hinting that he followed that line of thought -- though I will hold back on judgment. And a couple of posters in this thread are remarking that that's what the "rest of the Free World" thinks, and are defending that argument.
Fair enough.
Alright, so it's prevalent opinion. Europeans, in general, see Americans as gun-ho savages. I'm still iffy on that.
I did not accuse posters here of arrogance (though I would accuse CFLarsen of such, from past experience and based on his behavior).
Also, I only spent some of my life in America. Most were in Korea or Germany. I've only recently actually come back to the U.S. And yes, I know what Korean students (not the elderly) think of Americans; as savages that are coming in and destroying their culture.
(The elderly more of remember American assistance during the Korean War; there is a rift in public opinion).
My claim of arrogance is not knowing public opinion, it is the claim that Americans are somehow "lesser", or do not know how to enact REAL policy, whereas those great Europeans sure showed us.
Please read what I was responding to. I was responding to claims of what an entire country thinks.
Judging an entire country by what an entire country thinks is kinda par for the course, don't you think? Note that I don't think that Europe is actually Denmark or any one country (and I never claimed that it was). Others claimed that the ENTIRE REST OF THE FREE WORLD thought a certain way, and brought up a few countries as an example. I responded to the claim. CFLarsen does not understand this.
I was not serious, anyways. But going by what people are claiming about Europe, I'm not even sure that I would even be accepted, being the gun-ho evil American that I am.
I like how you worded that.
Last edited:
Unfamiliarity or being unaware doesn't remove the fact that many skeptics in the skeptical movement, some the most influential and charismatic, are the ones using the term. It is not a t'ai chi invention.
For example:
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html
http://skepdic.com/refuge/getinvolved.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-58545667.html
Which skeptical movement would that be?
Who are you talking about?
What do you conclude from the numbers on "government", "law" and "president"?
No, just reading along. Still havent changed my view that the commentary be less political.
Wow Tai Chi, that must have taken a lot of work. Thx for that.
But that doesnt really address the issue of the context of each column.
Maybe I'll go back and read over a few.
Guess my point is if Randi is continually espousing a liberal view I'd be disappointed I guess. I'd think Randi would be a little more unbiased in his columns as to me that is a more skeptical outlook. Just my feelings on it.
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,729
And there we have the crux. It's not the political content in toto, it's the particular political stance you have a problem with!
No, it's that particular political view on that particular subject mainly.
But if he is a far left liberal yea it is the stance.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
I'd have a problem if he continually espoused a conservative view, especially an extremist conservative view.
I don't know if it's ever been made clear whether Randi speaks for himself in his commentaries, or on behalf of the JREF. It seems to me he does both, which often makes it difficult to distinguish when he is expressing a personal view and when he is expressing an official JREF position.
That said, I disagree that taking a political position (whether it is Randi's personal view or an official stance taken by the JREF) makes Randi's commentaries "biased" and have a "less skeptical outlook." Political positions can be examined and defended utilizing the "skeptical toolkit," but due to the more philosophical nature of politics, the range of justifiable conclusions on a political issue is much greater than, say, whether Sylvia Browne is psychic.
Randi is entitled to reach his own conclusions regarding political matters...as is Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, or anyone else. Whether Randi expressing those opinions on the JREF website is a good idea or not, I won't opine at the moment. CFI regularly takes political positions, from the perspective an organization devoted to skepticism, science, and reason. Randi and the JREF can do the same. Possibly at the cost of losing some supporters, possibly with the benefit of gaining some supporters.
Hi Drysdale, all very true what you say.
First, the question of 'getting more political' which might be unanswerable as stated was broken down to a simpler answerable question of 'are some words typically used in talking about politics being used more frequently?' and it doesn't address whether they are Randi's views alone- just if they are presented in general in the Commentary more.