Category Archives: Sociology

Kennedy/Nixon debate fanfare overblown?

Posted on by

Fifty years ago yesterday, John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon faced off in the first televised presidential debate. The debate supposedly “changed the world” and the narrative of the Kennedy win has long been part of history:

It’s now common knowledge that without the nation’s first televised debate – fifty years ago Sunday – Kennedy would never have been president. But beyond securing his presidential career, the 60-minute duel between the handsome Irish-American senator and Vice President Richard Nixon fundamentally altered political campaigns, television media and America’s political history. “It’s one of those unusual points on the timeline of history where you can say things changed very dramatically – in this case, in a single night,” says Alan Schroeder, a media historian and associate professor at Northeastern University, who authored the book, Presidential Debates: Forty Years of High-Risk TV.

But after reading and reviewing the book Getting It Wrong, I’m a little more skeptical of these claims. So let me be the contrarian for a moment and suggest why this media moment from 1960 is overhyped:

1. It is part of the lore of JFK. It was in this moment that the country saw his youthful charm and in contrast, Nixon’s shadiness. JFK’s image fit television perfectly and the media has since played up the Kennedy family as American political royalty. Of course, JFK’s charm was likely evident elsewhere and Nixon was still elected president twice (after having served as vice-president under Eisenhower).

2. It suggests televised debates, in general, are critically important for elections. I’m not sure about this – I think the media thinks they are more important than they are. By always looking for a “winner” and “loser,” candidates are set up to succeed or fail. Television doesn’t lend itself to nuanced debates about critical issues; it is perfect for sound-bites and unflappable dispositions. If the voters care about debates, it is because they have been told that such debates matter.

3. Overall, it suggests TV can be an important contributor to democracy rather than just the source of junk television shows. This is debatable.

Freight trains vs. high-speed rail

Posted on by

The proposals for high-speed rail in the United States include running most high-speed trains on tracks owned by freight train companies. These companies are not thrilled about this arrangement:

But Norfolk Southern Corp., Union Pacific Corp. and other railroad companies are balking at sharing their tracks or rights-of-way with trains that would run between 90 and 200-plus miles an hour. They argue that mixing high-speed passenger trains with slower freight trains would create safety risks, prevent future expansion and cause congestion.

Cargo would be pushed to their competitors—trucking firms—the railroads argue, just as freight loads are picking up after the recession. Weekly average carloads in August were the highest since November 2008, according to the Association of American Railroads, the industry’s main trade group.

My first two thoughts:

1. Is this safety claim legitimate or just a smoke-screen? A lot of arguments about “what the public needs” are often couched in terms of safety to make the argument more appealing.

2. It sounds like the freight companies are protecting their business interests. How does high-speed passenger rail help them? Since they control the necessary infrastructure (the railroad tracks), they have some leverage at this point. Perhaps the two best weapons the federal government has to fight back: public pressure (if the freight companies are seen to be holding this up and this is what the public and/or lots of politicians want, then they will look bad) or perhaps financial incentives (tax breaks?).

Gender bias in the application of the death penalty?

Posted on by

The Atlantic provides a round-up of opinions about gender bias and the death penalty. The collection of stories is prompted by recent events in Virginia:

On Thursday night, Virginia executed 41-year-old Teresa Lewis. It was the first time a woman was executed in the state since 1912 and the first time any woman was executed in the U.S. in five years.

Overall, the death penalty issue seems to be low on the list of priorities these days. How many politicians this election season will be running on platforms based on crime and law and order issues?

Maps of race in American cities

Posted on by

The Daily Mail has some maps based on the new 2010 Census data that shows where people of different races live in some of the largest American cities. The article emphasizes the easy-to-see racial divides.

An innovative revenue stream for suburbs: exclusive advertisements on city property

Posted on by

Naperville, Illinois is considering a new tactic to provide for funds for the city’s coffers as there is nearly a $5 million budget shortfall projected for next year:

Naperville is considering an unusual option for long-term revenue: giving corporations exclusive rights to advertise on city property.

In a memo to the City Council this month, finance director Karen DeAngelis cited several examples of how this could work, including a program in which KFC pays for pothole repairs in cash-strapped cities in exchange for stamping the fresh asphalt with the chicken chain’s logo.

Naperville also could sell the naming rights of buildings or allow companies to advertise their products as “the official drink” or “the official burger” of the suburb for a fee, DeAngelis said.

“It’s not something we’ve done before, so we would be on the leading edge and we would need to be careful,” she said in an interview.

This might lead to some very interesting scenes – “Naperville City Hall, brought to you by Geico.” I imagine such ads might be attractive to businesses for the amount of people who might see them, particularly in a vibrant downtown Naperville.

Would a majority of suburban residents go for this? As one expert suggests in the story, this could lead to some negative repercussions and a process of “NASCAR-ization.”

If the city of Naperville couldn’t raise a significant amount of money with a program like this, would it be worth doing it on a small scale or would it just lead to more trouble than its worth?

How much income one needs to be considered rich

Posted on by

Americans tend to think of themselves as middle-class, even wealthy and poor Americans who objectively are in the upper or lower ranks of income. So this question occasionally arises: how much income does one have to be earn to be considered “rich”?

The current case in the news:

Todd Henderson feels like he’s barely making ends meet. He’s a law professor at the University of Chicago. His wife’s a doctor at the school’s hospital. Their combined income exceeds $250,000. They have a nice house, a nanny, kids in private school, a retirement account and a lawn guy…

“A quick look at our family budget, which I will happily share with the White House, will show him that, like many Americans, we are just getting by despite seeming to be rich. We aren’t,” Henderson wrote on the blog “Truth on the Market.”

While Henderson meant for his posting to encourage a debate about taxes, it turned into a public flogging, characterizing him as out of touch or arrogant. More broadly, it has provoked a discussion about what it means to be rich, particularly in an economy where many people are suffering.

Henderson’s no longer part of the conversation, though. The firestorm of online hostility compelled him to delete his essay and declare on Tuesday that he will no longer blog. He declined to comment Thursday. Even his wife is angry at him, he acknowledged in a follow-up blog post.

A few thoughts on this:

1. The Chicago Tribune article cites someone saying earning $250,000 a year is in the top 3 percent of American incomes.

2. At the same time, incomes can vary in their purchasing power in different areas. A $150,000 income living in Manhattan can lead to different things than living with that income in Atlanta.

3. Is this a microcosm of how Internet “discussion” works? It seems like a perfect storm of bad economic times plus widespread attention leads to a bad outcome for having made this argument.

4. Perhaps the real issue is whether people making $250,000 feel like they can live the lifestyle that is associated with such income levels. If they feel like they have to pinch pennies or a lot of the money is taken out in taxes, they might not “feel rich.” From those with lower incomes, this seems absurd: just think what could be done with that money. But having certain incomes leads to certain ideas about what that level of income looks like or how it is to be experienced.

UPDATE 9/24/10 3:36 PM: A piece from the Wall Street Journal fits in with my idea about the income and lifestyle not matching up. The overall idea seems to be that people who make this kind of money may not think they have to or don’t want to reign in their spending.

Current-day Muslims and 19th century Catholics following same path in America?

Posted on by

A history professor at Northwestern College in Minnesota suggests the position of Muslims in America today may be similar to the position of Catholics in 19th century America.

Opinions on science derailed by poor online sample?

Posted on by

Scientific American and Nature recently joined forces to poll readers around the world about their opinions of science. The findings include opinions about science and politics, climate denial, nuclear power, the flu and more.

While this data seems interesting, it might be questionable due to the sample:

More than 21,000 people responded via the Web sites of Nature and of Scientific American and its international editions. As expected, it was a supportive and science-literate crowd—19 percent identified themselves as Ph.Ds. But attitudes differed widely depending on particular issues—climate, evolution, technology—and on whether respondents live in the U.S., Europe or Asia.

So the findings may really be about the opinions of a more “supportive and science-literate crowd” rather than a true representation of international opinion. This is a common issue with open online surveys: it is very difficult to get a sample that is representative of a larger population.

Trying to give people warm feelings about traffic tickets

Posted on by

I think it is safe to say most people don’t like receiving traffic or moving violation tickets. Could there be a way to help people feel better about receiving these tickets? Cambridge, Massachusetts is trying to improve the image of driving tickets:

But the city of Cambridge, Mass., is looking to cultivate a Zen-like demeanor among parking offenders with the New Age-themed tickets it’s handing out these days.

“It’s trying to debunk the idea that all parking tickets are a hostile action, because I don’t think they are,” Susan E. Clippinger, the city’s transportation chief, told the Boston Herald.

According to the Herald, the parking ticket makeover in Cambridge — home to Harvard and MIT — is part of public art project by the city’s artist-in-residence, Daniel Peltz. In addition to the 40,000 new parking tickets Cambridge printed, the city is incorporating mood-enhancing imagery in its approach to parking enforcement, as the Herald notes: “There are new street signs explaining traffic rules in offbeat ways; ‘10,000 Excuses,’ a mural of excuses given by ticketed drivers; and plush, stuffed ‘soft-boots’ to give the ultimate parking penalty a warmer, fuzzier feel.”

An interesting program. One thing that may work in their favor: changing up the signage and typical protocol might shake people out of their complacent driving behaviors.

What about trying another tact: framing the tickets as part of a larger campaign of public safety. Could drivers be placated a little if the tickets came with an explanation about how driving within/at the rules saved lives, injuries, and money (and tax dollars)? This would give the often solitary activity of driving a more communal focus: we need people to obey the traffic laws and regulations to help everyone get where they need to go safely. If you break the rules, it is not a “victimless crime.”