<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

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



Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Sobczynski <tsobczynski@xxxxxxx>
Date: December 19, 2004 10:55:06 AM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bamford@xxxxxx
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@xxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

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