Monday, November 23, 2009

If you are a Republican, this is what you believe. This is why you should not be a Republican.

Text from Jim Bopp's resolution, as circulated among several RNC members (annotations by a box of rain pointing out that only millionaires and racists need apply):

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill (i.e. we support increasing social stratification, we don't support opportunity creation for minorities or the poor, and we think that somehow benefits for the rich are in the interest of the middle class. We are blind to the fact that these policies destroyed our economy changing it from the best ever to the worst ever during the eight years of the Bush administration. We believe that markets can survive without a viable consumer class.);
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare (i.e. we believe that as government employees we are entitled to better health care than our constituents. We believe that health insurance should continue to become more costly, executive compensation at the health insurance companies should rise while the quality of medical care decreases. We believe that costs of health insurance should exceed the costs of home ownership. We believe that it is okay for our children to go to school with children who's parents can't afford health insurance and who thus spread their easily treated diseases to our children unnecessarily.);
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation (i.e., we support a complete lack of environmental controls. Cap and trade BY DEFINITION is the market based energy reform. By creating a market in allowable pollutants, the MARKET creates the incentive to limit pollution. By market based, perhaps the writers of this resolution mean laissez faire. In other words eventually businesses will discover that it is in their own best interests to control their polluting. This is just plain retarded.);
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check (i.e. we support effectively putting an end to Labor Unions. Hmmm, I know lots of Republicans who belong to and rely on their labor Unions. They certainly wouldn't vote for a candidate who supported this proposition. Here's an idea: make the language regarding this resolution so obscure that blue collar workers can't understand it; then make the language regarding opposing gun control really clear. That way the labor class, assuming they are as stupid as we think they are, will still vote for us even though we have declared our intention to destroy their livelihoods.);
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants (i.e. we support closed borders and the no immigration at all. The fallacy in this resolution is that there is no current system in place for legal immigration. The reason that we have illegal immigration is because there is no practical method for becoming a resident of the United States unless (1) you have an employer is unable to fill a position with a current resident or citizen and can hold that position open for the 5 or more years it takes to hire foreign labor; (2) you already have a relative who is a resident or a citizen of the United States and you are willing to wait up to 20 years for a visa to become available; or (3) you have $1,000,000 to invest--Anyone care to challenge me on this?);
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act (i.e. we support discrimination against people who are different from us. We believe our religious views take precedence over our obligations to protect the liberties of our constituents.);
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion (i.e. we support a system in which rich people have excellent health care and everyone else has no healthcare. Instead of providing decent, if not excellent health care to everyone, we would rather see half of the population denied access to any health care at all.); and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership (i.e. this ought to keep the farmers, the workers, and the illiterate mountain folk voting for us, even though our interests and their could not be further removed..); and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN

Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Demetra Demonte NCW IL
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KA
Solomon Yue NCM OR"
(Remember these names and don't say I didn't warn you! Ed.)

Friday, November 20, 2009

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Monday, November 2, 2009

Phish performs... Avinu Malkeinu ?!

Just like in shul, except for the lights, the musical instruments, and the huge crowd.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Why are you opposed to the House Bill?

The House bill would impose a surcharge on individuals who make more than $500,000 and couples who make more than $1 million. The previous House bill would have imposed the surcharge on individuals who make $280,000 and families that make $350,000. The current bill also would impose a tax of 2.5% of income for those who make more than $250,000 and fail to purchase health insurance.

If I hear one more working shlub complain about the public option, which is an absolutely necessary part of health care reform, because, "it's gonna raise my taxes," I think my head will explode. SERIOUSLY man, wake up and smell the reality here. The only people who have any right to oppose this plan are:

  1. the insurance companies who will lose their anti-trust exemption and have to compete fairly by actually providing value;*
  2. individuals who report over $500,000 in personal net income and couples who report over $1,000,000 in personal net income (i.e. those with actual incomes in the 1-5 million dollar a year range); and
  3. people who believe that "trickle-down" economics was anything other than an experiment that failed faster and more spectacularly than Soviet Communism and who actually believe they benefited by excessive executive compensation, outsourcing of labor jobs, and unequaled wealth stratification (aka "idiots").

* This week I had to cancel a doctor's appointment. I am insured with Kaiser Permanente at a cost of over $850 per month for my family of four as I am self-employed. After 21 minutes on hold to give them the courtesy of a cancellation call, I was rescheduled for: December 21, 2009! The first available appointment for a member paying $850/month was nearly two months away (my $30/visit co-pay actually raises the cost of medical care to my family to nearly $1,000/month). I could understand this kind of delay if the appointment were just some kind of annual physical or something, but this appointment is about a problem with a complication from a medication I am taking! Trust me, the government cannot do worse. I have had to receive medical care in both Canada and Israel. Believe me, we MUST have a public option when people like me are seriously considering the benefits of being uninsured.