Real life vs. Television

I just watched most of the episode of The West Wing where Alan Alda (as Vinick) and Jimmy Smits (as Santos) have a debate as presidential hopefuls. Having just seen a million other real debates, this was kind of cool to watch. It was filmed as a real live debate with the camera style and angles as they should be. There was a deviance from this when both candidates grabbed wireless microphones and walked around a little more (this was not supposed to be a town meeting style debate), but it was fine. I have to say that even though this aired two years ago, the debate topics sounded like they were this year’s topics (illegal immigration and nuclear energy, for example). I wish I had kept up with the show better, but it was nice to catch this episode at least.

Zombie Apocalypse or Nuclear Apocalypse?

Which would you prefer? It might help to clarify whether the zombie apocalypse is based on an airborne virus or transmitted through contact. For argument's sake, let's say it was through contact. I think that makes the case pretty clear for the zombie apocalypse. With nuclear, there are issues with radiation and the world being messed up as a result. For the zombie apocalypse, watch "I am Legend" or "28 Days Later" and you get an idea of what things might be like. I planned to make a better case for it, but I'd hope for the zombies