[Peace-discuss] Fw: Fwd: CNN HCR poll

[C. G. Estabrook]

Yes.  We don't know what someone really means when s/he says black.  Or white.

  "If I tell someone 'Stand roughly here'--may not this explanation work 
perfectly? And cannot every other one fail too?
  "But isn't it an inexact explanation?--Yes; why shouldn't we call it 
'inexact'? Only let us understand what "inexact" means. For it does not mean 
'unusable'."
	--Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations I.88

Laurie Solomon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> That is bull Carl.  Something can be seen as too liberal but still find it
>> acceptable considering other alternatives to favor it despite its being too
>> liberal for ones tastes and druthers.  We are again engaged in a semantics
>> game.  In point of fact, it is pure speculation what the findings of that
>> poll really mean, what their significance is, or the sampling and polling
>> methodology used was so as to determine what might or might not be
>> artifacts of the methods.  Can you or anyone else document and
>> definespecifically what the respondents considered "liberal" to mean when
>> answering questions that probably asked them to classify themselves in
>> categories that the pollster labeled using the term liberal in the label in
>> accordance with the pollsters definition and use of the term, which is left
>>  unspecified?
>> 
>> The same can be said about polls and claims made as to the publics position
>> on the wars and on foreign policy.  Nowhere does anyone give or cite any
>> specifics or evidence as to exactly what the respondents mean by "against
>> the war" or "in support of the war" when they answer polls and interviews.
>> Being in support or against something is not an all or nothing proposition;
>> there are levels and degrees of support and opposition as well as varying
>> conditions under which differing strength of feelings and degrees fo
>> support or non-support apply.  It may be a black and white issue for you;
>> but it probably is not for many of the unwashed populace. Again the same
>> holds for the issues of racism, ethinc biases, religious intolerance, and
>> sexist prejudices.
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------- From: "C. G. Estabrook"
>> <galliher at illinois.edu> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:44 PM To: "John W."
>> <jbw292002 at gmail.com> Cc: "Peace-discuss List"
>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: CNN
>> HCR poll
>> 
>>> Come on, John.  Favor + too liberal is a contradiction (if it's "too 
>>> liberal," you don't favor it); favor + not liberal enough is not.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> John W. wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM, C. G. Estabrook 
>>>> <galliher at illinois.edu <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Glad you saw it.  At least this much & more was wanted.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, by 52% of the sample.  But 82% wanted this much or LESS, according
>>>> to the poll you cited.  I'm still waiting for your point.  Not that I 
>>>> place a great deal of trust in polls, or indeed in "democracy" as we
>>>> see it in practice.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> John W. wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
>>>>  <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu 
>>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> CNN has a new poll on health care reform, taken over the weekend:
>>>> 
>>>> <http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf>
>>>> 
>>>> Results:
>>>> 
>>>> 39%   Favor 43%   Oppose, too liberal 13%   Oppose, not liberal enough
>>>> 5% No opinion
>>>> 
>>>> So, in favor + not liberal enough = 52%.
>>>> 
>>>> [From Doug Henwood at Left Business Observer.  --CGE]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On the other hand, Favor + too liberal = 82%.  But I'm sure you have a
>>>> point somewhere.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.