Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2009

*GRAPHIC LANGUAGE* - On the Iraqi Beratement Video

The following is the much talked about YouTube video from Iraq, where a US Serviceman gives the Iraqi Police Force a tongue lashing due to their lack of action in securing their country. I warn you, the language is fit only for sailors and bikers...



All I have to say is HOORAH!

This is the tough talk that we need out on capitol hill!

It is unfortunate that the Obama administration will most likely, behind closed doors, identify this leader and flog him harming the US image abroad.

In Other News - I have not gone away. I have been holed up with a sick kiddo and now am sick myself (not swine flu). When I am ready to climb out of the cave, I will get back to the action.

In the mean time, take a day and make it your own... as for me, I need to get back to sleep!

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Imagine... Humans on Mars

To my loyal readers, I apologize for the recent bombardment with space exploration topics! I try to keep things changed up and interesting here, but since the debate question aired I have been in a space frenzy.

I created a new video for the Mars Society and wanted some feedback. Check it out, share it, and let me know what you think (either here or on the video itself!).



Thanks! And have a great weekend!

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Seriously Discussing Space Travel

While growing up, I wanted nothing more than to explore space... be it by telescopes or riding my own rocket... I was dreaming big even as a child. Now, working for the Human Space Programs, and previously for military satellites, I am constantly reminded of my dream, and as my mousepad states, that "the voyage must continue".

Last Wednesday, my question was aired on the CNN/YouTube debates for the GOP candidates, which discussed the issue of space exploration, specifically if a candidate was prepared to change the Vision of Space Exploration set forth by President Bush and declare that they will be sending a human to Mars. Since that question, I have been fielding e-mails and phone calls from family, friends, blog-mates, YouTubers, the Mars Society, Technical Newspapers, etc... and it has seriously been a re-ignition of my drive for space exploration interests. This is why I would like to take a moment to discuss the Mars Society, and Space Exploration in general.

To find out more about the Mars Society, their homepage is full of content sure to keep you busy reading for hours! But in short, their goal is to bring the discussion of Human to Mars exploration into the public arena. They want to broaden the discussion by providing an alternative outlook on Mars Exploration to the general public, who may not know much about exploration otherwise. As well, they are petitioning world governments to collaborate in sending humans to Mars, as well as focusing on private companies willing to unite and take on the task. They were founded by Robert Zubrin, who also founded Pioneer Astronautics, and are working on a series of technological advancements which will change the way that we can explore Mars... for example, in-suto technologies which make it possible to use Mars' Carbon Dioxide atmosphere to create Methane for Rocket Fuel, and thus not needing to bring the fuel with you, just fill up while you are on Mars. The most important aspect is that they are thinking outside the box. Science today is cluttered with the "no-can-do-ers", who say that going to Mars requires trillions of dollars, decades, and giant battle-star type ships... But a little forward thinking goes a long way!

As far as space exploration in general... well, I am torn between my more Libertarian tendencies of saying that all endeavors should be free from government intervention, and thus the only way that we should be exploring space is via the private sector... and my out-of-the-box thinking that NASA and other space agencies can be a great tool for collective science. NASA, who has had a 50 year budget of around $612 Billion, has provided a means to farm out the collective money for advancements in space science across the board, from life support systems, propulsion systems, to robots and nano-technologies. Of course the NASA Juggernaut should not be our only means of research and exploration, but they are vital to the cause of space exploration, as a beacon of hope, innovation, and inspiration... which is essential for popular support.

Imagine for a moment, if tomorrow NASA ceased to exist. The message being sent would be that the US, as a whole, no longer supports human space exploration... this would be a blow to the entire world... Of course, the private sector would surely step up to fill the gap, thus declaring that we are still engaged.. but with the apparent lack of total US support for space, getting investors and funds would be instantly more difficult.

Now imagine for a moment that NASA announced a change in their vision for space exploration, and suggested that the private sector should focus on Human to Mars technology, backed by an X-Prize style of competition... It would show that NASA is using the free market system to encourage growth in the private sector for space exploration, and ensuring that there is a perfect balance between the government and private industry, as well as ensuring that the private sector gets the public support necessary for independent financial support from the free market.

The long and the short of it is that we need, in my humblest of opinions, to continue space exploration. We learn so much from necessity... If we NEED a new technology due to exploration, then one is surely created. Without pushing the boundaries, we lose the need for innovation. So be it by the government, free market, or a mix of the two, the continuation of Human Space Exploration is a must.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

CNN YouTube Debate Question - Update

What an honor! The question, as I have discussed time and again, is a very timely and valid question, especially in the face of Obama threatening to cancel Human Space Flight in the US and redirect the money to a socialized education plan.

To be perfectly honest with you, I did not even hear Huckabee's response because my phone went crazy as I started getting calls left and right... But I did catch Tancredo angrily nailing me to the wall... I will have to sit down with him and talk space...He is, afterall, my congressman... and I have met him a few times (we run in the same crowds)...

Here is the video:



I know that some folks that I have discussed this issue with have stated that Space Exploration is bottom of their Totem... but Space Exploration demands innovation, technological advancements, and the inspiration to dream bigger than what we already have. Human exploration of Mars may even answer the questions of "are we unique" and "can we survive without the protection of earth".

Thoughts?

---Update---
The transcript is as follows:
Steve Nielson: My name is Steve Nielson. And this question comes to you from Denver, Colorado.
JFK's vision put a man on the moon from a nonexistent space program in about seven years. The new vision for space exploration has provided about 15 years for that same feat.
Meanwhile, Congress is pulling funding for human-to-Mars research altogether.
Is there a candidate amongst you willing to take a pledge on behalf of the Mars Society of sending an American to the surface of Mars by 2020? If not, what is your vision for human space exploration?


Cooper: Governor Huckabee?
NASA pumps some -- let's see, how many -- $5 billion into Florida's economy.

Huckabee: Whether we ought to go to Mars is not a decision that I would want to make, but I would certainly want to make sure that we expand the space program, because every one of us who are sitting here tonight have our lives dramatically improved because there was a space program -- whether it's these screens that we see or the incredible electronics that we use, including the GPS systems that got many of you to this arena tonight.
(Laughter)
Some of you were late because you didn't have one, by the way. Or whether it's the medical technologies that saved many of our lives or the lives or our families, it's the direct result of the space program, and we need to put more money into science and technology and exploration.
Now, whether we need to send somebody to Mars, I don't know. But I'll tell you what: If we do, I've got a few suggestions, and maybe Hillary could be on the first rocket to Mars.
(Laughter)

Cooper: Congressman Tancredo, 30 seconds, please.

Tancredo: The question is a serious one and it deserves a serious answer, and that is this: Look, we've been -- how many times up here, how many questions have dealt with the issue of deficit spending, the debt out of control? And yet, we have somebody saying, "But would you spend more money on going to Mars?"
And the suggestion that we need to spend more money on space exploration. This is it, folks. That's why we have such incredible problems with our debt, because everybody's trying to be everything to all people.
We can't afford some things, and by the way, going to Mars is one of them.

---Further Commentary---
And my response to the candidates who answered my question last night...

Tancredo showed his inability to see past immigration, and his general anger towards NASA. What he fails to see is that NASA, regardless of being a government department, has had the most profoundly positive impact to our way of life. And the idea that removal of the space program to cut government budget would be effectiv is ludacris! NASA's budget is 0.6% of the total national budget. In fact, the ENTIRE funding of NASA since it's inception in 1958 (adjusted for current dollar value) has been $618.4 Billion...

That is right... Nearly the same amount of money that we have spent in 4 years on the Iraq war (currently at $450 Billion).

So Tancredo, who wants to continue a combat presence indefinately says that we cannot afford to spend pennies over the course of many years to inspire, innovate, and explore? But we surely have the money to wage war, which gobbles up HUGE amounts of money in a very short time period!

I think we, as intelligent beings, need to get our priorities straight! And I think Tom Tancredo needs to start thinking about more than just the border!

My Video Response to CNN/YouTube:

CNN / YouTube Debate Tonight

At 8 PM Eastern, the GOP Candidates will face off against one another, against citizen videos, and I am sure that they will be faced with the likes of talking snowmen!

I have watched a large number of the nearly 5000 submitted videos on YouTube, and most of them are hate-filled slams at Republicans by ignorant fools... but there are some that address the key issues. So I ask, what purpose does this debate serve if the same questions will be asked... just because it is coming from a normal citizen it is somehow more compelling?

Listen... these debate questions need to be different... questions that the candidates may have not had to face before... or perhaps questions that are rarely asked at these debates. THAT would be a ground breaking debate... Alas, we can expect to hear questions on Iraq, Gay Marriage, Iran, Taxes, and Immigration... it may be the case that little is said in the area of education, space exploration, federal infrastructure, energy independence (except in the form of a Global Warming question by a talking snowman).

I recommend that you tune in... But in the case that you don't, I am sure that you can check in tomorrow on this site and hear what I thought about the format, questions, and most importantly... the responses!

BTW, I read this morning that Alan Keyes has not been invited to this debate... Though he is a non contender, it would answer some of the mud that the left is slinging with respect to the "all white panel of GOP candidates"... not that Keyes is a prop for racist left comments... but it should be known nationally that the GOP has a black candidate who is struggling only because of a late start to the race... I think his message is fairly sound.

Friday, August 3, 2007

CNN/YouTube Debate, Part II - Republicans

In July, the Democratic Presidential Candidates did their best to answer questions posed by average everyday Americans... and some snowmen. These were questions that had mostly been asked in some form before, but in a very personal way... as if saying, "Hey, I am an American... answer me!"

And on September 17th, the Republicans will have their chance to answer the voting public... or will they?

Recent events have unfolded to the affect that Rudy and Romney have declined to be involved in such a low quality event as having to answer the people of the US directly... Now their response to the declined offer is that of too busy of a schedule for such an event, or that the president shouldn't have to answer questions from "snowmen"... My response is that it is NOT A REAL SNOWMAN! The question was from an American, a person, done in a way to ensure that the question made it onto the debate and was answered.

So what we are seeing is an "elitist" mentality... here are two candidates either not willing to listen to the questions of the masses, or far to superior to answer an animated individual asking a question. The position of the President of the United States must NOT be allowed to be a pillar of elitist rule... it should be an office held by the people, for the people...

To the candidates who are serious about winning the White House, I say to you... Come, let us reason together... We are the citizens of the United States, and we want to talk about your upcoming job...

Rudy and Mitt... your arrogance reflects your unwillingness to reason with the people, or to truly mingle with us "common folk". I, for one, look forward to your absence in the debates... perhaps it will lend itself to more camera and speaking time to candidates who are serious about making a change in America for the better, not marching us down a path to 1984.

God Bless!

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Democrats Debate... YouTube Style...

Last night, America watched as the much hyped CNN/YouTube debate unfolded... The first 5 minutes were used to discuss which videos were not chosen, and why, what the format was supposed to be, and to once again claim the debate's innovative nature.

I took notes during the entire debate... what was the question, who answered, and did I consider it a positive or a negative response (not down political lines, but rather in the candidates body language, knowledge of the topic, and comfort in talking "face to face" with the everyday American)

I am not going to go through my notes line by line, but I am going to hit a few highlights...

Anderson Cooper, the moderator, is OBVIOUSLY an Obama supporter. Cooper would direct general questions to the candidates, and for the first 35 minutes, Obama fielded twice as many questions as Hillary or Edwards... Mike Gravel fielded one question in the first 35 minute segment, and stopped the debate to complain about it... Cooper gave him more time later on... It took Cooper 20 minutes to FINALLY ask Bill Richardson a question... By that time Obama had answered three... In short, Cooper needs to determine a better way to distribute the questions... though by the third segment, he gave all the candidates 3-4 questions evenly... so he found his rhythm...

The questions covered the main-stream issues... but there were a few "dinner table" questions, and definitely a more personalized way of asking some of the mainstream questions... I appreciated the human-factor... as opposed to the Wolf Blitzer Robotic debate, where if you don't answer correctly Wolf will keep grilling you until you answer his question his way (like he did to Huckabee on creationism)... There were awkward moments like the candidates fielding question from snowmen... but in all, the idea was to keep the questions in a very YouTube-esque manner... It worked.

The winners? John Edwards did a great job challenging Obama and Clinton, and I think showed his compassion towards women's issues... and definitely out shined Clinton on the women's issues question. Gravel angrily came out against Clinton and Obama, using what little time he has left on the stage to make some deep wounds... and Biden almost made it into this category, right up until the end...

The losers? Biden... he had a lot of momentum, until he called the gun owner a mental wack-job just because he referred to his AR-15 as "his baby"... he even went as far as saying that the video submitter was most likely not mentally capable of owning his weapon, and suggested that he may be a danger to society... Mr Biden... The only danger is you, my friend. Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson really needed to break out, and they didn't. This may be the last debate with them in it. Richardson has one of the best messages on Energy Independence, but he just can't seem to be "interesting". Clinton yells... a lot! And it is really hard to think that she is a compassionate person when all she does is yell... strike-out in my book... Dennis Kucinch needed to shine, and this was supposed to be his format... he did alright, but it was just shy of being put in the winner's block... and the loserest loser of all the losers... Barack Hussein Obama... in any given answer there were 15-20 "Umm", "Uh", and other fumbles as he looked for the right thing... his inexperience was in full swing, and though his answers may have been on message, they lacked the ease and intelligence that our next president needs to have.

If I had to call it, I would say that we are looking at the fall of Clinton/Obama, and the rise of Edwards/Biden (but Biden needs to make ammends with the gun-owners of the world)... Perhaps Richardson is going to be a VP pick... so we may see Edwards/Richardson as the democratic ticket for the general election...

Though my question was not picked, the very first question was mine but asked by someone else... I am going to focus on submitting a few perfect videos for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate in September... Hopefully Huckabee is still in the running, and gaining more momentum!

God Bless!