YouTube Puts Some Life into Democratic Debate

In the beginning of the summer, for one of my first posts on this blog, I categorically bashed the planned YouTube Democratic Debate. I really enjoy watching political debates, and I thought the YouTube videos would get in the way. It thought it was too informal. Some how, I figured, it was too Democratic.

Tonight's YouTube debate was not a great debate. I got that part right. But it was great entertainment, and I'm glad they had it.

This format should not become the norm, but it is an excellent complement to the typical, more formal debates.

The YouTube debate did not uncover much about the candidates polices that we hadn't already heard. But it gave us a unusually large glimpse into the President's personalities. This is very important.

Above all else, you want to vote for a Presidential candidate that you can trust. This trust can only be established when you get to know the candidates and see who they really are. If you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, you can do this in a diner or corn field. If you live in Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Minnesota, you have to find other ways.

The YouTube debate made the candidates as unscripted as they're ever going to get on TV. Yes, the majority of responses were the typical stock answers, but there was verve and personality mixed in much more often than usual. Biden joked about the "baby" turned gun. Dodd joked about his hair. Hillary joked about her sex.

Edwards was put on the spot as to how he didn't separate religion from politics, and his response failed miserably. Gravel was challenged about his quote that American soldiers in Vietnam died in vain, and his answer hopelessly meandered to something about to ice cream (with sprinkles?).

Just as importantly, the YouTube debate was great for attracting young voters, like me. I watched the debate in a room filled with college students, and we were laughing half the time. Sometimes because of the candidates asinine answers, but more often because of their humor, or the humor of the YouTube videos. It's not often that you're going hear candidates joke about each other's wives.

As with past debates, I still cannot understand why candidates continue to completely ignore questions to instead get in their scripted B.S. The voters realize what they're doing and certainly don't like it. When at the table with Vladamir Putin, and asked a tough question on Nuclear Disarmament, do we want President Dodd to start blabbing about immigration reform? Or President Edwards to go off about wicked big business?

Part of being a great leader is responding promptly and appropriately to any situation that may arise, no matter how unpredictable it may be. By skirting around questions or completely ignoring them, the candidates do not convey a sense of leadership. Why don't they understand this and just answer the darn question? I'd rather hear a somewhat unsatisfactory answer to a question than a completely scripted response that fails to address the question at all.

Some other thoughts:

Obama Won.

Dodd, Edwards, and Richardson Lost.

Gravel, please leave.

Biden. I really like you. But just take a deep breath and calm down.

Why were so many of the questions from the East Coast? It seemed like at least 75% of the clips were from the Eastern U.S.

The opening bit, showing the YouTube videos that didn't make the cut was completely unnecessary. If they didn't make the cut, why show them? Let's hear from the candidates, not rejected YouTubers.

This feels just like ranking Super Bowl Commercials, but I'm going to have to say my favorite YouTube clip was this one:



(Image from Washingtonpost.com)

Trash Talk

Garbage is flooding the streets of Naples, yet again. In 1994, a state of emergency was declared to combat the masses of rubbish accumulating in the southern Italian city. This summer is providing a repeat performance.

The last legally available Neapolitan landfill was topped off in May. Soon after, the construction of two large incinerators fell through when politicians balked at local protests. Surrounding towns refused to accomodate the city's refuse. There was no other option than to heap waste in the gutter, like a medieval village.

Small-scale incineration became widespread. Over a hundred fires are found burning on some nights, adding toxic gases to the smog that already blankets the city.

As the temperature hit 104 degrees by the end of June, Naples's malodorous predicament let loose an international stink. The European Union Enivornment Commissioner released a statement on June 27. "The television reports we have all seen showing piles of garbage rotting in the streets of Campania or set on fire by angry residents have been truly shocking. I urge the Italian authorities to act urgently to bring waste management facilities in the Campania region up to standard so that waste is collected and disposed of without endangering human health or the environment, as European law requires." The United States embassy in Rome just issued an advisory note warning American travelers of the potential health hazard and public demonstrations. Now, not only is the respiratory health of Neapolitans at stake, but "the image of the country," to quote Italy's President.

Neighboring towns were quickly forced into opening their dumps, and one local landfill technically at capacity was reopened for 20 days. A new incinerator will be completed in the coming weeks.

The garbage is slowly centralizing. Over a week ago, the Neapolitan government reported that only 400 tons of trash remains to be collected, but many of the trash mountains have not yet diminished into molehills, especially in poor areas of town.

Already controlling much of the city's garbage pickup service, organized crime is providing a solution through illegal dumping sites. Although they are a favorable alternative to decomposing streetcorner heaps, the camorra's dumps do not meet high health and environmental standards.

Long-term solutions require the construction of landfills in outlying towns. Unfortunately, the populations of those communities fail to support necessary relief. In one small town a temporary dump was established to alleviate the current emergency. The International Herald Tribune reports that, "Nearly every day, protesters have lain in the road to block garbage trucks. Trash was thrown in the mayor's yard."

Outsourcing offers a secondary solution in addition to the construction of a domestic infrastructure capable of handling Naples's waste. As the crisis escalated in May, the Italian government petitioned Romania to accept Neapolitan garbage. The Romanian Environment Minister submitted a curt reply. "Our stance is clear: We are not allowing Italian waste on Romanian territory. Our infrastructure is not developed enough to handle our own waste. If someone lets garbage into Romania, they will suffer the consequences of Romanian law."

Campania's endemic trash epidemic highlights the backward state of southern Italy. For many centuries, the industrial north has prospered while the agrarian south has languished. National authorities consistently turn a blind eye to the inequity. I hope that this recent humiliation helps spur the Italian government into cleaning up its act.

YouTube Takes over Democratic Debate

YouTube is great.

It's a conversation starter, an outlet for bored people across the World who don't want to blog, a democratic movie production studio.

Yet, has its reach extended too far, too fast?

An article on The New York Times website this afternoon described how YouTube will be integrated into the July 23 democratic presidential debate in South Carolina. "New Presidential Debate Site? Clearly YouTube," said that the debate, which will be broadcasted on CNN with Anderson Cooper at the helm, will allow viewers to ask questions via YouTube.

Author of the article Katherine Q. Seelye writes:

Now imagine a kid in jeans and a T-shirt asking a question, less reverentially, more pointedly and using powerful visual images to underscore the point. Maybe he or she will ask about the war in Iraq — and show clips from a soldier’s funeral. Or a mushroom cloud. If global warming is the issue, the videographer might photoshop himself or herself onto a melting glacier. The question might come in the form of a rap song or through spliced images of a candidate’s contradictory statements.

When I first glanced at the article, I probably had the same reaction as many--I have a chance to ask a question at a presidential debate! Where can I get video equipment!

Yet, when I thought about it more, I realized that I'm not thrilled at all with the YouTube takeover. I think it is a bad idea. This is a presidential debate we're talking about, and it is being turned into American Idol.

Ever since I was little, I've loved watching presidential debates. When I was young, it was to laugh at the goofy ears of Ross Perot. Now that I'm old enough to vote, the debates are a prime outlet for me to zero in on the candidates. Even though so much is rehearsed, over the course of a two hour debate, much can be drawn out of the candidates.

The best part about these debates is that all attention is put on the candidates. There are no intermediates to interpret what is being said--I can tune into CNN later for that if I want. While the debate is ongoing, I have to draw all conclusions on my own without any analysts help. I get to have a dialogue with the candidates, and no one can interfere with it. The information is coming straight from the candidates mouth into my TV room.

The YouTubing of the debate is inappropriately shifting the focus from the debaters to the viewers. I'll no longer be able to have an unbiased conversation with the candidates; I'll have to watch some graphic-filled video with a clear slant to it.

While watching debates, I often think debate moderators can do a better job of phrasing questions and giving all the candidates a fair say. However, I suspect that I will be yearning for the moderators of yesteryear when watching the YouTubed debate.

I suppose the only positive to come out of this is that more people will watch. Many people who would have otherwise watched American Inventor or America's Got Talent, will watch the debate. Essentially, the debate is being turned into the shows they love to watch--the viewer is getting an equal part to the performers. This YouTube debate will certainly be more exciting than those of the past.

However, when it comes to presidential debates, the barrier between viewer and performer should stay. Debates aren't supposed to be all that exciting. Let the YouTube videos remain on-line, where people have to search to find them, and don't force them upon viewers of a national debate.

The viewers have always had a chance to play a part in the election process--it comes on Election Day.

Life Is Unfair

The breakdown in games for the NBA finals is 2 home games, 3 away games, and 2 home games. This is unfair. The team with the worse regular season record can win in five games, having played more games at home than the team with the better record.

Speaking of unfair, lets address the Democratic Debate this past Sunday. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were stage center, flanked by Dodd, Biden, and Richardson, with the other two candidates virtually out of sight (that's why I don't know how to spell their names). The polls should not dictate debate seating arrangements. There is no reason they should not be seating random;y. If you think otherwise, please let me know. CNN should do what it can to give each candidate a fair shot, and it did not. Both the unequal speaking time given to each candidate, and the flawed seating arrangement, gave the frontrunners an unfair advantage.