Debate post-mortems

The post-mortems on the first presidential debate provided me with first-hand experience of something that I had previously only read about, which was that the reactions of actual viewers of such debates immediately after watching them can differ quite widely from the media consensus generated afterwards. The things that we are told were significant events in past debates tend to be things that many viewers did not even notice in real time but were created as part of the post-debate narrative. [Read more…]

The New York subway ‘jihad poster’ fracas

Some of you may have been following the controversy involving posters in the subways. Pamela Geller, who sees the threat of Sharia under every bed, wanted to place signs in the subway stations of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) of New York that said “In any war between civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” The odd wording derives from something that Ayn Rand once said. [Read more…]

Racial integration at ‘Ole Miss’

NPR had a couple of interesting items yesterday to commemorate the 50th anniversary of James Meredith enrolling at the University of Mississippi (popularly referred to as ‘Ole Miss’), a landmark event in breaking the segregation barrier in the south. He had to do so in the teeth of widespread opposition that went all the way up to the governor and that led to riots and deaths. [Read more…]

The Obama-Romney debate and the polls

I almost never watch the political ‘debates’ since their carefully choreographed format makes them more like joint press conferences, where the candidates regurgitate the closest prepared and rehearsed responses to whatever question is posed to them, than authentic debates. The ‘town hall’ format where audience members ask questions are more fun since the general public is less predictable in their questions than mainstream journalists. [Read more…]

Getting angry with allies

We are at that stage in the election campaign where nerves are getting frayed, people are getting testy, and sharp lines are being drawn. The question “Which side are you on?” in the form of “Who are you going to vote for?” is being posed with greater frequency and sharpness, and whips are being cracked to bring people into line. One of the things that puzzles me is the way partisans of one major party or the other react when other people say they will not vote for their preferred candidate. The most venom is directed against those who people think should vote with them but say they are going to vote for someone else. [Read more…]