I have a hard time getting beyond your reasons: you cited her assurances about fairness and applying settled law.  What about past actions that do shed some light on her character?  For instance, her manipulation of the case before the Supreme Court on partial birth abortion.

(From the Clinton Presidential Library)
ELENA KAGAN:  “Todd Stern Just Discovered That The American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists (ACOG) Is Thinking About Issuing A Statement (Attached) That Includes The Following Sentence: ‘[A] Select Panel Convened By ACOG Could Identify No Circumstances Under Which [The Partial-Birth] Procedure … Would Be The Only Option To Save The Life Or Preserve The Health Of The Woman.’ This, Of Course, Would Be Disaster  – not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation. … they may try, however, to do something that sounds even stricter. Daschle’s staff hopes that this proposal will provide cover for pro-choice Senators (who can be expected to support it) and that it will refocus the debate from the partial-birth procedure to late-term abortions generally.” (Elena Kagan, Memo For Jack Quinn And Kathy Wallman, RE: Partial-Birth Abortion, KCL – 0090912, Clinton Presidential Library, 12/14/96)

Any reasonable person can determine that Kagan submitted a redrafted version that was submitted to the Supreme Court as a scientific opinion.  This unethical action does not spring from an ethical, impartial, non-partisan person.

I know I am probably just “spitting in the wind” but please reconsider your support for Kagan.

Sincerely,
Fran Simmler
Bath, ME

Frustrated and counting down the days until your terms end,

Fran Simmler,

Bath, ME

WSJ Story

His “Debt Truck” was in Bath, ME today.  It looks like it used to be an old U Haul Truck.  I hope it gets used to move Dean to Washington D.C.!

Here are some pics: (Click for larger image)

May 27, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Senate Armed Services Committee today voted 16-12 in favor of an amendment to begin the process of a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy contingent upon the findings of a Pentagon review, which is due in December.  Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Committee, released this statement:“Society has changed a great deal since President Clinton signed the current law, Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, back in 1993. I agree with Admiral Michael Mullen, our nation’s highest ranking military official, that this law should be changed, but we should do so with care, taking into account the demands on our military forces, the challenges of instituting major policy changes during wartime, and the input provided by military leaders and personnel. The compromise proposal announced this week is contingent upon the results of a thorough review currently being conducted by the Pentagon, and would not go into effect until the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President certify that the new policy would not have an adverse effect on military readiness, recruitment, and retention. This is a reasonable compromise.”

Dear Senator Collins,
I am OUTRAGED that you would cast support in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!” I read your statement and it sounds very nice, thoughtful and politically correct.

As a military member (18+ years), I view this as another way to debase the military and bring it down to the level of populous pablum and pandering to, at best, 3% of the population that might be homosexual.

To be frank, it is one thing to sleep, shower and share a foxhole with someone and be blissfully unaware that they are gay; than to know they are gay and view any actions, speech or inferences in the perspective that they might be attracted to you.

Before you write me off as a “homophobe,” I can choose my associations in the civilian world. If I know someone is a professed homosexual, I am courteous and will be circumspect in my interactions with them. However, in the military, you do not have that choice. It is hard enough for persons without extra labels to form a cohesive unit, let alone add the decisive dynamic of sexuality.

If DADT is reversed, I am seriously considering ending my career at 20 and I will not advocate to anyone to join the military. My two sons that serve in the Maine Guard now, will most likely exit at the earlies opportunity as well.

Your stand on this has given me another reason to actively support a Republican challenger to your seat, in the next election.

Sincerely Distressed!

I am starting to compile a Summer reading list that is heavily influenced by the current political climate and social upheaval that is going on.  I will start and if anyone has suggestions, please send them in.  (Especially some fiction, I can’t think of any relevant ones.)

• The U.S. Constitution - Free copy from the Heritage Foundation
• The Declaration of Independence
• Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
• The Federalist Papers: In Modern Language
• 1776 by David McCullough
• The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcom Gladwell
• Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government by Glenn Beck

When the country was founded, travel was difficult and speedy communication was measured in days.  Our representatives would go to D.C., conduct business, and then go home!  The only long-term denizens of D.C. were the President and the cabinet.  The benefit was that you had to elect somebody based on principles you trusted, and in theory, would represent you and your state’s best interest in literal “incommunicado” of their constituents.  If they made decisions unfavorable, they would hear about it when they got home and/or get voted out; no instant polls, no focus groups and no “banding together” with like-minded party demagogues!

The interesting thing is, as communication and travel have become more convenient, our representatives spend MORE time in D.C., than in their home states.  Also, it is human nature to eventually feel more allegiance to the place you spend your most time and energy, and right now that place is D.C.

Now, I propose that we modernize the way Congress does business.  We pass legislation that mandates Congress use technology to conduct business.  There is no reason that a state of the art video-conferencing network cannot be set up to facilitate the needs of the Congress.  Each representative/senator could have a video-conference setup in their home district’s and/or state office that would be linked to a secure network.  In addition, it could be linked to a bio-metrically controlled voting system.  I have more ideas on some of the particulars, but I would be interested in hearing what others have for ideas.

All that being said, I would like to draft a bill that would mandate Congress to utilize modern technology.  However, where at all possible, consider tradition and parliamentary procedures.  The outcome of the bill would address or result in the following benefits:

• Decrease the use of transportation needs, not only of Congress, but all the staff and associated support persons.  (That should make environmentalists happy)
• Staff reductions.
• Decentralize the power-base of lobbyists.  If you hate special interests, what better way to minimize their influence on YOUR elected official.  If they want something bad enough, make them work for it, state by state.
• Elected representatives would have more time to LISTEN to their constituents.  (Especially since they are not traveling as much and being dined by lobbyists.)
• Raw Feed! All debate and votes could be easily recorded, transmitted and cataloged for posterity.
• Gives Chairpersons better control of committee meetings and floor debates.  If someone is out of line, just use the “MUTE” button!
• Negate the need for travel in order to appear before a congressional or senate committee.
• Give members of Congress more time to actually READ bills before they vote on them.
• Please comment and list some more.

This one is a little different… Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!

All you supporters for LD 1020 would balk if I express my beliefs while citing the Bible. Yet you want me to accept your “belief” that gay & lesbians were born that way, versus a life style choice.

If I express alarm at where this can lead, (polygamy, bestiality, etc.) or potential infringement of my First Amendment Rights, I am labeled a fear-monger.

Perhaps I should reference scientific data related to the increase risk of disease or shortened lifespans for those, that for whatever compulsion engage in homosexual behavior. Every time that tact was taken at the hearing, the bill’s proponents stood with their back to the speakers, symbolizing your unwillingness to face the truth.

This is not an honest debate. In a true contest of point and counter-point; facts and reasoned postulation is presented. When you introduce feelings and emotions, the exchange devolves into a lobbing of rants, clichés and stereotypes.

So, we are at an impasse! I believe that I was born a sinner, you believe you were born gay/lesbian. I want to be rescued from my inherent sinfulness, you want to everyone to “accept” you without condition. I have chosen to change. You all have chosen to be stiff-necked and make an attempt to change society, traditions and other people.

It got me to thinking, what does 60,000 pages look like?  So I started figuring with all the skills my public school education crippled me with. The result is the picture at the end of this post.  Not only is the physical weight of the resultant stack about 300 lbs.  The system is so complicated and burdensome, that even a so-called smart guy like Tim Geitner, was confused and missed paying some taxes!

For those of you that are environmentally sensitive, I did only used recycled paper in my graphic.

Fran

How does the U.S. Tax Code