more on (if this comment is right - shades of Rimm d jf) Nearly half of Americans wou ldrestrictMuslimAmericans Civil Rights

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Sobczynski <tsobczynski () mac com>
Date: December 19, 2004 10:55:06 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: bamford () oz net
Subject: Re: [IP] (if this comment is right - shades of Rimm d jf) 
Nearly half of Americans wou ldrestrictMuslimAmericans Civil Rights

Dave, for IP if you wish.



Cliff,

It's always nice to see people such as yourself questioning sources and 
methodologies, so thank you for trying to maintain an analytical 
component to this discussion even as emotions are understandably 
running hot.

I do disagree with your bottom line that the poll is very nearly 
meaningless.  Regardless of the bias built into the framing of the 
questions, citizens of a healthy democracy should reflexively recoil in 
horror at the merest suggestion of curtailing liberties and persecuting 
minorities.  What you seem to be arguing is that it's unclear just how 
sick we are; it may be more than or less than half of the population 
that wishes to revisit internment or tap the phones of Muslims.

However, let me point out that the numbers in this poll closely follow 
the results of the Presidential election, in which approximately half 
of voters supported the President despite--or perhaps due to--his 
eagerness to curtail liberties.

Your speculation about Muslim beliefs in the last couple of paragraphs 
is not the least bit germane to the discussion.  Cornell conducted a 
survey of Americans as a whole, so in calling out Muslims you are 
falling prey to the same bias for which you proclaim such disdain.

Ever the optimist,
Tom Sobczynski


David Farber wrote:
> _______________ Forward Header _______________
> Subject:	For IP: re Be Very Afraid: Nearly half of Americans wou 
> ldrestrictMuslimAmericans Civil Rights
> Author: Cliff Bamford <bamford () oz net>
> Date:           19th December 2004 1:00:57 pm
> Oh Puhleeeze.  I would have thought the readership of this list was 
> smart
> enough to know polls like this have very low credibility.  In my 
> opinion, this one started out with a conclusion in mind and (guess
> what) found that the data supported it.  This is NOT the same thing as
> formulating a hypothesis and honestly trying to refute it.  If you 
> don't
> understand this distinction, or if you haven't read the original paper 
> at http://www.comm.cornell.edu/msrg/report1a.pdf then perhaps you'd be
> considerate enough to inform yourself before contributing further
> commentary.
> First I'd like to address the methodology and credibility of the poll:
> 1. The undergraduate students of the Cornell Course 282 -- 
> Communication
> Industry Research, participating in a Survey Research Institute 
> program,
> were instrumental in collecting the survey data in the report. From 
> the SRI
> description of this program: The SRI staff provides in-class 
> instruction,
> and training within the survey facility, on the theory and practice of
> survey research and telephone interviewing. Each student then conducts 
> ten
> real survey interviews on an annual national telephone social survey.
> So this wasn't a peer-reviewed research study, it was a class 
> exercise, at
> least in part.  Conducted by young men and women who are 
> conventionally more
> renowned for their fervor than for their fastidiousness.  There were
> certainly no mechanisms evident to control for interviewer group bias 
> or
> desire to achieve newsworthy results.
> 2. More importantly, several questions in the poll were about 
> terrorism, and
> civil liberty issues relevant thereto.  Other questions involved Muslim
> Americans and similar issues.  I saw no evidence of mechanism to 
> control for
> interviewee confusion between the two terms.
> 3. I have many other indictments of the poll's significance and 
> methodology,
> should anyone like to discuss them offline.   My bottom line is: this 
> poll
> is very nearly meaningless.
> As to the more important question of Muslim-American civil rights and
> obligations: There is value in remembering that a significant number of
> Muslims have announced support for the idea that it is an act of aposty
> against Islam to cooperate with civilian authorities against any other
> Muslims --- terrorist or otherwise.  Sheikh Omar Bakri of 
> Al-Muhajiroun is
> possibly the best-known proponent of this admittedly minority opinion. 
> However, there is a pile of other evidence that suggests that the 
> Muslim
> religion is intrinsically at odds with secular governments in the USA 
> or
> anywhere else. If I'm wrong about this, Muslim Americans do indeed 
> have a PR
> problem, because many Americans of good will worry about it.  If I'm 
> right,
> and there is indeed an Islamic religious barrier to participation in
> pluralistic secular democracies, then the parameters and implications 
> of
> those barriers need to be more widely and deeply understood.
> Cringing in anticipation of the outraged and poorly-argued abuse that 
> is
> about to come my way.
> Cliff Bamford
> Bang Tao, a Muslim neighborhood in
> Thailand
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as tcs () alum mit edu
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> Archives at: 
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/