Looking through the New York Times on-line this morning, I discovered “Bloggingheads”: a library of videos featuring a split screen discussion between two people. The feature is not unique to the NYT, but comes from a Blogginghead’s web-site.

I’m thinking that this general format could be used in political campaigns. I’d like to see candidates for political office engage each other in web-based discussions.  In fact, I think it would be great, if we could Bring Back Lincoln Douglas Style Debates To Today’s Campaigns using this technology.

I want to investigate how DaytonOS might organize on-line debates for local candidates in this election — candidates for the State Assembly, County Sheriff, County Commission, and U.S. Congress. Posting a debate on-line would give the opportunity for extended dialogue between the debate participants and viewers.

Here is what Wikipedia says:  “Bloggingheads.tv is a political, world events, philosophy, and science video blog discussion site in which the participants take part in an active back and forth conversation via webcam which is then broadcast online to viewers. The site was started by the journalist Robert Wright (The Moral Animal) and the blogger and former journalist Mickey Kaus on November 1, 2005.[1] (Kaus has since dropped out of operational duties of the site as he didn’t want his frequent linking to be seen as a conflict of interest.[2]) Most of the earlier discussions posted to the site involved one or both of those individuals, but since has grown to include a total of more than 150 other individual contributors, mostly journalists, scientists, authors, well known political bloggers, and other notable individuals.

“Unregistered users are able to view all of the videos which are contained on the site, while free registration is required to comment on the individual discussions, or participate in the forums.”

Robert Wright, left, of Bloggingheads.tv and Daniel Gross of Newsweek debate whether homebuyers can be protected from their own bad judgment.

The New York Times today quoted Bill Maher about his new movie, “Religulous,” due to start on October 3.  Maher says,   “I truly believe that unless we shed this skin, mankind is playing with real fire here.  Because there’s nuclear weapons in the world and because there are suicide bombers and there are so many people who are anxious to get to that next world. They don’t look at the end of the world as a bad thing. That’s pretty scary. Until rationality is enshrined again and this magical thinking is marginalized, I’m a little nervous.”

The Times review summary describes “Religulous” like this: “Borat director Larry Charles follows host Bill Maher as he travels the continents interviewing various subjects about God and religion.”

After its premiere at the recent Toronto International Film Festival, Variety critic Robert Koehler wrote: “To the film’s credit, Maher never engages in Michael Moore-style gotcha tactics, but rather asks questions that raise more questions, in the form of a Socratic dialogue. To believers expecting a blind hatchet job, this will prove both thought-provoking and a bit disarming.”

Progress Ohio is reporting that “Stealing America One Vote At a Time,” a new documentary film by Dorothy Fadiman, will be shown at the Neon Theater in Dayton next Wednesday, October 1, at 7:30PM. Cost of each ticket is $5.00.  The Neon Theater is located at 103 East 5th Street in Dayton.

Here is one description of the movie:

“For more than thirty years, exit polls accurately predicted election results. Over the last ten years that reliability has disappeared. What’s going on? The last two presidential elections both came down to a relatively small number of votes, and in both elections the integrity of the voting process has been called into question. With the upcoming election looking to be similarly close, the time has come to ask the questions: What happened in 2000 and 2004? What, if anything, has changed since? And what can be done to ensure a fair and honest tabulation of votes in 2008?

“This film brings together behind-the-scenes perspectives from the U.S presidential election of 2004 – plus startling stories from key races in 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2006. The film sheds light on a decade of vote counts that don’t match votes cast – uncounted ballots, vote switching, under-votes, an many other examples of election totals that warrant serious investigation. This film unveils patterns of anomalies at every level of the electoral process. Controversial partnerships perpetuate a secretive environment, as relevant facts and figures remain hidden from view. As a result, most Americans have no real sense of the threat to fair elections. As seemingly unrelated pieces of the puzzle come together, a chilling picture emerges: of widespread, artfully crafted “glitches” that, in the final tallies, have the capacity to alter election results.”