Congresswoman DeGette,
I recently read a press release from your office touting the Passing of the Mathew Shepard Hate Crime Act. I would like to take a moment to express my absolute puzzlement as to how you, or any other member of congress can so boldly and proudly claim victory in the passage of a bill that you chose to sneak in between pages of another, completely un-related bill.
To make matters worse, congresswoman, you chose to hide this abomination inside a military appropriations bill! This makes the disdain you feel towards our men and women in uniform painfully obvious. The willingness you have shown to use our military personnel as political human shields underscores your level of corruption and incompetence in the office you so undeservedly hold. I can tolerate many things in quiet frustration, congresswoman, but the manipulation of our military to move your political agenda forward is more than I can bear. I promise to actively work against your re-election during your next campaign, and will tout this bill as evidence of the type of deceit that you are capable of.
Ryan Tuleja
Arvada, CO
This page will be a running record of what goes on in my head. Most of it will be gibberish with no value whatsoever, and the rest will be garbage with no value whatsoever.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
hate crime legislation hidden in the military budget
Looking through the news, I have been seeing a trend in Washington that I find both appalling, and terrifying. The dishonesty and inconsideration for the will of the American people are becoming increasingly evident by the day.
In a recent move, congressional Democrats have pulled an incredibly disgraceful move, by attaching hate crime legislation to the 2010 military appropriations bill. What does that mean, you ask? Well, by putting this legislation INSIDE the militaries' budget (see division E, aka the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act), they have made it impossible for any representative to vote against the bill without being accused of standing against the better interests of Americas finest. This is political sleaze at it's most ugly and depraved, and I simply cannot see how we the people can stand to have these kinds of tactics used by either side ever again! The very concept of rider bills is so despicable that several states (including my own) have laws against such dishonest and underhanded tactics.
Things have to change. We, the people of the United States of America, can not sit idly by and watch as these bureaucrats, liars and thieves use our military men and woman as political human shields to achieve their ideological goals. Please join us here and help to make the changes that we can actually believe in.
In a recent move, congressional Democrats have pulled an incredibly disgraceful move, by attaching hate crime legislation to the 2010 military appropriations bill. What does that mean, you ask? Well, by putting this legislation INSIDE the militaries' budget (see division E, aka the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act), they have made it impossible for any representative to vote against the bill without being accused of standing against the better interests of Americas finest. This is political sleaze at it's most ugly and depraved, and I simply cannot see how we the people can stand to have these kinds of tactics used by either side ever again! The very concept of rider bills is so despicable that several states (including my own) have laws against such dishonest and underhanded tactics.
Things have to change. We, the people of the United States of America, can not sit idly by and watch as these bureaucrats, liars and thieves use our military men and woman as political human shields to achieve their ideological goals. Please join us here and help to make the changes that we can actually believe in.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The DOW climbs to 10,000
Today the DOW climbed over 10,000 for the first time in over a year, and Americans are understandably pretty excited about it. Reporters are interviewing experts who proclaim that the recession is over, and that we can credit it all to the stimulus bill that President Barak Obama so wisely signed into law at the beginning of his term in office, nine months ago.
On the surface, this seems like great news, and we should all be out in the streets celebrating such wonderful news. Ticker tape parades should be littering the streets and we should all find ourselves on shopping sprees that would make Paris Hilton look like a pauper...But we aren't.
We aren't, because something doesn't add up, and we the American people know it. We remember that the government printed money to the tune of a trillion dollars, a number so large that we choose to spell it, rather than use digits. A trillion dollars that largely went to the very same companies who's stock prices have been rising since. Companies that needed the money due to their own incompetence. Companies that, according to the national unemployment rate 9.8% still aren't hiring. Companies that, according to our government, saw lower that expected sales this quarter for something like the millionth quarter straight.
So how do companies that are not selling their products and show no sign of growth have stock prices climbing? You guessed it! With the stimulus money!! So before you run out and start buying stock again, think it through, because as in almost everything else these days, things arent quite what they appear.
On the surface, this seems like great news, and we should all be out in the streets celebrating such wonderful news. Ticker tape parades should be littering the streets and we should all find ourselves on shopping sprees that would make Paris Hilton look like a pauper...But we aren't.
We aren't, because something doesn't add up, and we the American people know it. We remember that the government printed money to the tune of a trillion dollars, a number so large that we choose to spell it, rather than use digits. A trillion dollars that largely went to the very same companies who's stock prices have been rising since. Companies that needed the money due to their own incompetence. Companies that, according to the national unemployment rate 9.8% still aren't hiring. Companies that, according to our government, saw lower that expected sales this quarter for something like the millionth quarter straight.
So how do companies that are not selling their products and show no sign of growth have stock prices climbing? You guessed it! With the stimulus money!! So before you run out and start buying stock again, think it through, because as in almost everything else these days, things arent quite what they appear.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
I am the reason you are dying
Dear Media,
You dont know me very well, but I have seen you around over the years, and have become pretty aware of who you are and what you are capable of. I remember, somewhat vaguely, how you were once very powerful and influencial in all the happenings of my childhood era, but that was before.
I remember when people would repeat things that were spoken by your anchor men about the important topics of the day. I remember when your writers still had the integrity to report news as if it was...well...news. But again, that was before.
"Before what?" you may ask. Before me.Before you became so impressed with your own influence that you forgot that your job was to report the news, rather that dictate what the news should be.
I would like to take a moment to tell you a little about myself, and the reason you should care who I am.
I am the reason you are dying. I refuse to blindly accept one sided stories that only recognise one side of the political spectrum.
I am the reason you are dying. I believe that when thousands of people march on the capital of Denver, or hundreds of thousands march on Washington DC, it is a story worth covering.
I am the reason you are dying. I believe that media can and should remain neutral, but if you are going to take sides it should be on the side of the American people, rather than the side of those who come here illegaly and steal jobs and services that could otherwise go to my..no, YOUR countrymen.
I am the reason you are dying. I believe that you have become a bully and your size and age likens you to the schoolyard kid that got held back a couple times and wants to take out his anger on the nearest member of the chess club.
I am the reason you are dying. I am the generation you once deemed "X" and I dont need you.
You dont know me very well, but I have seen you around over the years, and have become pretty aware of who you are and what you are capable of. I remember, somewhat vaguely, how you were once very powerful and influencial in all the happenings of my childhood era, but that was before.
I remember when people would repeat things that were spoken by your anchor men about the important topics of the day. I remember when your writers still had the integrity to report news as if it was...well...news. But again, that was before.
"Before what?" you may ask. Before me.Before you became so impressed with your own influence that you forgot that your job was to report the news, rather that dictate what the news should be.
I would like to take a moment to tell you a little about myself, and the reason you should care who I am.
I am the reason you are dying. I refuse to blindly accept one sided stories that only recognise one side of the political spectrum.
I am the reason you are dying. I believe that when thousands of people march on the capital of Denver, or hundreds of thousands march on Washington DC, it is a story worth covering.
I am the reason you are dying. I believe that media can and should remain neutral, but if you are going to take sides it should be on the side of the American people, rather than the side of those who come here illegaly and steal jobs and services that could otherwise go to my..no, YOUR countrymen.
I am the reason you are dying. I believe that you have become a bully and your size and age likens you to the schoolyard kid that got held back a couple times and wants to take out his anger on the nearest member of the chess club.
I am the reason you are dying. I am the generation you once deemed "X" and I dont need you.
Friday, September 25, 2009
As of the last several months, I have been on a reading tear that I think may be unmatched in my life previously. In an effort to make up for my educational shortcomings, I have been making an effort to read as many of the greatest books in history as I can get my hands on. Now the books I have chosen have been referred to me through various sources including word of mouth, press articles and by simply holding the status of "classic".
It is a very interesting thing to note how ones thought processes begin to change and the paradigms shift as the mind expands to accomidate new ideas. It is also quite interesting to note how some of the ideas that once changed the world due to their insight or originality, are now common place thoughts and it is pretty hard to see them as anything other than basics.
It is a very interesting thing to note how ones thought processes begin to change and the paradigms shift as the mind expands to accomidate new ideas. It is also quite interesting to note how some of the ideas that once changed the world due to their insight or originality, are now common place thoughts and it is pretty hard to see them as anything other than basics.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Why didnt I preach for a third party when Bush was president?
Lately, I have been very vocal about the political climate in this country. During a recent conversation, I was asked why I never touted a third party back when Bush was President. As a reply, I would like to re-post a blog I wrote in April of 2007.
Third party
Flip to just about any of the major news networks and chances are, on any given day, you will see a member of either major political party being exposed for some disgraceful activity. From the virtual vacuum of new ideas and strong leadership in the Democratic party, to the unbelievable levels of arrogance and corruption of the Republicans, we can clearly see a problem with the current two-party system.
Talk to just about anyone on the street, at school, or at work, and chances are, you will find them to be of relatively moderate opinions on many of the major political issues of the day. Why then, do we see only staunch ideologues take positions of authority in either party? For instance, John Kerry is often considered to be the second-most liberal Senator (second only to his Massachusetts colleague Robert Kennedy) in the country, yet he is considered to be one of the dominant members of his party.
Another very big, and little discussed issue is cronyism, the appointing of friends, family and big donators to key positions. An example of this would be the recent debacle around the presidential appointment of Robert Brown to the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Mr. Brown, or “Brownie,” as president Bush so fondly referred to him, has no real credentials to land him in this prestigious position. As a matter of fact, his only “real” job was as president of a horse association, a position from which he was fired. Prior to this, Mr. brown was a non-practicing lawyer whose only qualifications for the FEMA position were connections. It can be reasonably assumed that people died during the complete mishandling of the hurricane Katrina emergency due to this man’s incompetence and the presidents embarrassing decision to hire him.
Many people will say the existence and general failure of the Green and Libertarian parties are proof that alternatives do exist, and they are simply not of any real value. The major flaw of this idea is simple. Both of these parties are even more extreme Left and Right, respectively, of their mainstream counterparts. The Green parties affiliation with radical environmentalism and the Libertarians isolationist concepts tend to be too much for the average citizen. How, then, can we actually consider these two groups to be realistic alternatives?
Perhaps changing the major parties from the inside could be an option, but at what point do we decide to just tear up the page and head back to the drawing board? As the young up and coming members of either party begin making a name for themselves and rising to the upper echelons of their caucuses, party rhetoric and propaganda become the only tools available for further advancement. To speak of change or to go against the senior members by trying to “fight the tide” would only be political suicide. And those members with enough seniority and clout to feel confident in their ability to speak their minds have already become vested in the current stance of their political allies.
Many subjects such as: marijuana legalization, gay marriage, oil drilling in sensitive areas, affirmative action, and taxation are issues where a seemingly ever-increasing portion of our country are crossing party lines in both directions. As our leadership continues to lean farther and farther apart, the chasm of moderation between them grows exponentially larger. Where, then, is the representation for the average citizen? Are we to hope and pray that these men and women with such fringe positions and ideas are going to set aside their personal beliefs and work to achieve some compromise? Or do we simply accept that the career politicians who occupy our representative seats have become so far removed from the common citizen that we can no longer trust them to use common sense? In order for our government to be a body by the people and for the people, it needs, once again, to be of the people.
There is a saying, which states; if the people will lead, the leaders will follow. The time for the people to lead is now. By forming a third party and taking the power out of the hands of those who have abused it for so long, we will once again hold the reigns and control the direction in which our country moves. A party, which, instead of taking the most extreme stance on every position, tries to find ways to compromise and actually achieve progress. A party that recognizes cooperation as a key to social and fiscal progress. And most importantly, a party which can actually claim to be made up of the working class which the other guys so laughably claim to represent.
Third party
Flip to just about any of the major news networks and chances are, on any given day, you will see a member of either major political party being exposed for some disgraceful activity. From the virtual vacuum of new ideas and strong leadership in the Democratic party, to the unbelievable levels of arrogance and corruption of the Republicans, we can clearly see a problem with the current two-party system.
Talk to just about anyone on the street, at school, or at work, and chances are, you will find them to be of relatively moderate opinions on many of the major political issues of the day. Why then, do we see only staunch ideologues take positions of authority in either party? For instance, John Kerry is often considered to be the second-most liberal Senator (second only to his Massachusetts colleague Robert Kennedy) in the country, yet he is considered to be one of the dominant members of his party.
Another very big, and little discussed issue is cronyism, the appointing of friends, family and big donators to key positions. An example of this would be the recent debacle around the presidential appointment of Robert Brown to the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Mr. Brown, or “Brownie,” as president Bush so fondly referred to him, has no real credentials to land him in this prestigious position. As a matter of fact, his only “real” job was as president of a horse association, a position from which he was fired. Prior to this, Mr. brown was a non-practicing lawyer whose only qualifications for the FEMA position were connections. It can be reasonably assumed that people died during the complete mishandling of the hurricane Katrina emergency due to this man’s incompetence and the presidents embarrassing decision to hire him.
Many people will say the existence and general failure of the Green and Libertarian parties are proof that alternatives do exist, and they are simply not of any real value. The major flaw of this idea is simple. Both of these parties are even more extreme Left and Right, respectively, of their mainstream counterparts. The Green parties affiliation with radical environmentalism and the Libertarians isolationist concepts tend to be too much for the average citizen. How, then, can we actually consider these two groups to be realistic alternatives?
Perhaps changing the major parties from the inside could be an option, but at what point do we decide to just tear up the page and head back to the drawing board? As the young up and coming members of either party begin making a name for themselves and rising to the upper echelons of their caucuses, party rhetoric and propaganda become the only tools available for further advancement. To speak of change or to go against the senior members by trying to “fight the tide” would only be political suicide. And those members with enough seniority and clout to feel confident in their ability to speak their minds have already become vested in the current stance of their political allies.
Many subjects such as: marijuana legalization, gay marriage, oil drilling in sensitive areas, affirmative action, and taxation are issues where a seemingly ever-increasing portion of our country are crossing party lines in both directions. As our leadership continues to lean farther and farther apart, the chasm of moderation between them grows exponentially larger. Where, then, is the representation for the average citizen? Are we to hope and pray that these men and women with such fringe positions and ideas are going to set aside their personal beliefs and work to achieve some compromise? Or do we simply accept that the career politicians who occupy our representative seats have become so far removed from the common citizen that we can no longer trust them to use common sense? In order for our government to be a body by the people and for the people, it needs, once again, to be of the people.
There is a saying, which states; if the people will lead, the leaders will follow. The time for the people to lead is now. By forming a third party and taking the power out of the hands of those who have abused it for so long, we will once again hold the reigns and control the direction in which our country moves. A party, which, instead of taking the most extreme stance on every position, tries to find ways to compromise and actually achieve progress. A party that recognizes cooperation as a key to social and fiscal progress. And most importantly, a party which can actually claim to be made up of the working class which the other guys so laughably claim to represent.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
some conservative approaches to health care
After having many conversations about health care in the recent past, I seem to continually run into the same, baseless argument over and over again in defence of the socialised systems being proposed today. Generally the argument sounds like this, "I know the current proposals have some flaws, but at least the Democrats are trying. What have the Republicans done other than 'just say no'?"
Now the first issue I take with this question in simple. While buying a new car is indeed one way to fix a flat tire, it is not really the most economical or intelligent way of operating, and that is what the current plans (including what I have seen of the Baucus bill) are proposing. The fact of the matter is that we as Americans enjoy the worlds longest survival rates for most of the common types of cancer among many other terminal illnesses, and the ideas being debated today would put that at risk so that less than 10% of our population can have an option other than the emergency room!
Next off, lets talk about why we don't hear any ideas coming from the conservative camp. We currently have large Democrat majorities in both the house and senate. Period. The majority position has the ability to control the dialogue in congress, in terms of which bills get brought forward for discussion and, ultimately, the vote.
Lastly, I would like to touch on a couple of the ideas I have heard, so that any of you who are truly interested in free market solution can see that some interesting possibilities exist.
1-REMOVE LEGISLATION THAT PROHIBITS INTER-STATE COMPETITION.
The first idea that out there is also my favorite. During a recent speech before a joint session of congress, President Obama spoke of how wrong it was for one or two insurance companies to be able to monopolize an entire state. This practice stifles competition, and allows the companies to raise rates with absolute certainty that no other company will come in and take away their business. Mr Obama was right. The issue here, is what our Dear Leader did not say. He did not say that it is Government regulation that outlaws competition between insurance companies from different states. Let me make that more clear. THE GOVERNMENT OUTLAWS COMPETITION IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Removal of this legislation would be relatively inexpensive, require no intrusion on the lives of the citizens, and foster the spirit of competition that has the folks in the auto insurance industry practically fighting each other for your business.
2-TORT REFORM
In every industry, liability insurance is a big expense that is considered part of the cost of doing business. This expense is added into things like rent, utilities and salaries to make up what is known as overhead. This overhead is then divided up by the hours of anticipated work for a given period of time, and the result is an amount, sometimes called a margin, that makes up a portion of the bill which is presented to the customer.
Do to the general litigiousness of our society, these insurance costs are disproportionate in the medical Field. Allowing the government to institute some protections for the medical industry against frivolous lawsuits would help to lower insurance premiums, and therefore, the bills that eventually end up in the hands of the consumer.
3-GIVE INDIVIDUALS THE SAME TAX BENEFITS FOR PURCHASING INSURANCE AS BUSINESSES GET
To date, I have still not heard a single reasonable answer to my question of why we as individuals cannot purchase our own insurance, and utilize the same tax write-offs as businesses do. While this option would not apply to everyone, it would ABSOLUTELY benefit the young and healthy who are generally in need of little more than catastrophic coverage. By covering just one individual or even a family, the insurance company has the ability to gauge the risk of that customer and adjust it's prices accordingly, without needing to consider the overweight or sickly that would otherwise be part of any larger group plan.
Now the first issue I take with this question in simple. While buying a new car is indeed one way to fix a flat tire, it is not really the most economical or intelligent way of operating, and that is what the current plans (including what I have seen of the Baucus bill) are proposing. The fact of the matter is that we as Americans enjoy the worlds longest survival rates for most of the common types of cancer among many other terminal illnesses, and the ideas being debated today would put that at risk so that less than 10% of our population can have an option other than the emergency room!
Next off, lets talk about why we don't hear any ideas coming from the conservative camp. We currently have large Democrat majorities in both the house and senate. Period. The majority position has the ability to control the dialogue in congress, in terms of which bills get brought forward for discussion and, ultimately, the vote.
Lastly, I would like to touch on a couple of the ideas I have heard, so that any of you who are truly interested in free market solution can see that some interesting possibilities exist.
1-REMOVE LEGISLATION THAT PROHIBITS INTER-STATE COMPETITION.
The first idea that out there is also my favorite. During a recent speech before a joint session of congress, President Obama spoke of how wrong it was for one or two insurance companies to be able to monopolize an entire state. This practice stifles competition, and allows the companies to raise rates with absolute certainty that no other company will come in and take away their business. Mr Obama was right. The issue here, is what our Dear Leader did not say. He did not say that it is Government regulation that outlaws competition between insurance companies from different states. Let me make that more clear. THE GOVERNMENT OUTLAWS COMPETITION IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Removal of this legislation would be relatively inexpensive, require no intrusion on the lives of the citizens, and foster the spirit of competition that has the folks in the auto insurance industry practically fighting each other for your business.
2-TORT REFORM
In every industry, liability insurance is a big expense that is considered part of the cost of doing business. This expense is added into things like rent, utilities and salaries to make up what is known as overhead. This overhead is then divided up by the hours of anticipated work for a given period of time, and the result is an amount, sometimes called a margin, that makes up a portion of the bill which is presented to the customer.
Do to the general litigiousness of our society, these insurance costs are disproportionate in the medical Field. Allowing the government to institute some protections for the medical industry against frivolous lawsuits would help to lower insurance premiums, and therefore, the bills that eventually end up in the hands of the consumer.
3-GIVE INDIVIDUALS THE SAME TAX BENEFITS FOR PURCHASING INSURANCE AS BUSINESSES GET
To date, I have still not heard a single reasonable answer to my question of why we as individuals cannot purchase our own insurance, and utilize the same tax write-offs as businesses do. While this option would not apply to everyone, it would ABSOLUTELY benefit the young and healthy who are generally in need of little more than catastrophic coverage. By covering just one individual or even a family, the insurance company has the ability to gauge the risk of that customer and adjust it's prices accordingly, without needing to consider the overweight or sickly that would otherwise be part of any larger group plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Counter
