To the Editor:

I recently questioned the judgment of the Old Lyme Republican Town Committee in its endorsement of candidates to the Board of Education.  I illustrated my concern by highlighting the superior experience of the endorsed Democrats, and juxtaposing that against the anti-vax views expressed by candidate Mona Colwell in her Facebook posts, suggesting such policies are bad for the town.  On October 19, Colwell issued a response in which she accused me of attacking her personally.  I did not.  I have nothing against her as a person.  My concerns regarding Ms. Colwell’s candidacy derive wholly from the positions expressed in her public statements, not from her character.  I think it unwise for someone holding her views to make decisions affecting our children. 

A veritable library of anti-vax rhetoric populates Ms. Colwell’s Facebook page.  Her musings include befuddling assertions that those who support vaccine mandates are akin to “child pedos grooming kids for sex and trafficking,” that the pandemic was created in a “bat lab funded by our own government,” and a video which she notes is “worth the watch and listen maybe a few times over.”  That video’s content? A rambling interview with an “expert” claiming the entire pandemic was staged – by Bill Gates among others – as part of the “Great Reset bringing in the New World Order” which, via “nanotechnology” in vaccines, aims at creating a “perpetual state of slavery that they’re trying to impose on humanity.”  I quote these posts and their content verbatim.  Even my suggestion that Colwell offers “conspiracy theories” derives from her own words.  On her wall, she posts “U.S. facing ‘massive shortage’ of conspiracy theories as all of them have come true” and “Even if you’re not conspiracy minded, something in your soul must be telling you something isn’t right with any of this!”

Colwell is clearly entitled to hold these views and to state them publicly.  She is not, however, entitled to complain when people read them and suggest that they be taken into account.  Indeed, the very fact that Ms. Colwell seems to view criticism of her policy positions as a personal attack is further reason to question the legitimacy of her candidacy.  If every public servant viewed policy disagreements as “personal attacks” debating important issues would be nearly impossible. 

In deciding whether to vote for a candidate, little is more important than understanding their positions, values, and clarity of thought.  It is therefore hard to understand why one would question the relevance or appropriateness of calling the public’s attention to Ms. Colwell’s own statements, which to many reflect counter-factual ideas and irrational thinking. Colwell may be a nice person, but she is not a sound candidate for the Board of Education.

Sincerely,

David Rubino,
Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: The author supplied the link for the video that he mentions. We do not wish to publicize the link to our readers since we find the content disturbing, but will, however, supply it if a request is made by email to editor@lymeline.com`.