Author Archives: David Rubino

Letter to the Editor: ‘How Town Parades Work’

Posted on by

To the Editor:

I read the May 27th letter in your publication by perennial RTC-endorsee Sloan Danenhower, and felt a response, or better yet, a primer, was in order.  So here goes:

 ‘How Town Parades Work’

Most towns in Connecticut, in the U.S… heck in the world, understand that a parade is a time for local citizens to come together around a common community value. On Memorial Day, corrosive politics are set aside so that opposing groups can send the collective message that, while we may disagree on some things, we are together in our support for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. In towns across the state, local Democrat and Republican Town Committees joined their Memorial Day parades, marching shoulder to shoulder as if to say, “I am a Democrat, you are a Republican, but let us not forget that we are all, first and foremost, Americans.” That is why politicians like Devin Carney, and the members of our Board of Selectmen, including Mr. Danenhower’s own wife, marched in the parade this week. Only a truly divisive partisan would accuse them of “campaigning.” They were there, like most others, to show their respect. Similarly, the Democratic Town Committee, a group with veterans among its ranks, chose to set up a table in front of their headquarters on Lyme Street to offer free water, donuts, and flags to people along the route. There were no campaign materials, no candidates, no political messages, and nothing other than a group of proud Old Lymers celebrating the sacrifices of their loved ones. That’s how parades work. And there were many, many organizations there in their official capacity for similar purposes. 

But since this seems to be such a tricky subject for Mr. Danenhower to wrap his mind around, for future reference, here’s a handy list of a few organizations “flying their flag” at the parade and how to view their presence:

1) Girl Scouts: Not there selling cookies, there to commemorate the fallen;

2) Lyme Luggers Ukelele Group: Not there marketing ukulele classes, there to commemorate the fallen;

3) Town Fire Department: Not there soliciting volunteers, there to commemorate the fallen;

4) Old Lyme Senior Center Dancers: Not there offering Macarena lessons, there to commemorate the fallen;

5) Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee: Not there asking for votes, there to commemorate the fallen;

6) Old Lyme Republican Town Committee: Not there.

Call me crazy but if publicly showing support for our fallen heroes draws Mr. Danenhower’s ire, but skipping out completely does not, we clearly have a different definition of “disrespectful.”

Sincerely,

Dave Rubino,
Old Lyme.

Editor’s Note: The author is a member of the Old Lyme Democratic Town Committee.

Letter to the Editor: Banning is on the Ballot

Posted on by
4

To the Editor:

In June, a number of candidates on the current Old Lyme and Lyme RTC slates, including Board of Ed candidates Mary Powell St. Louis and Mike Presti, signed a letter seeking removal of sex ed books from the Young Adult section of the public library.  Surrogates continue this shameless campaign even now, and have gone so far as to publicly call for the resignation of Democrats on the Board of Education who have rejected this censorship. 

So what’s all the fuss about?  Two cartoon sex education books.  Are the books obscene? Unequivocally: no.  From a legal perspective it isn’t even close. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue in Miller v. California. There, the Court noted that in order for a book to be determined obscene, one must review it “taken as a whole” and find that its primary purpose was to appeal to “prurient interests” (i.e. to turn people on). The Court understood that context matters. It understood that historically censorship proponents often cherry-picked “objectionable” out-of-context snippets to the detriment of society.  For example, the previously governing Comstock Laws led to anatomy textbooks being prohibited from being sent to medical students on obscenity grounds. (At least those future doctors didn’t have to see naked people!)

A reasonable person would see that taken as a whole, these books are meant as a form of relatable and informal sex education – a sometimes goofy but genuinely sincere attempt to answer the very real questions that might stem from an often confusing and clinical school curriculum.

Unless they are your own kids, attempting to “hide” that resource from teens who seek it out isn’t just wrong, it’s unconstitutional.  The federal court in a case called Sund v. Wichita Falls, found that “the First Amendment to the United States Constitution indisputably protect(s) the right to receive information” and therefore the First Amendment is violated by “the forced removal of children’s books to the adult section of the Library.” Almost a duplicate of the facts here. (But the Court does give a solution, “if a parent wishes to prevent her child from reading a particular book, that parent can and should accompany the child to the Library, and should not prevent all children in the community from gaining access to constitutionally protected materials.”) That should end this. These books are by definition not obscene, and banning them, moving them, or restricting them is unconstitutional censorship. That’s the law.  

So why are we still having this conversation?  Because certain people have made a choice.  They’ve gone “all in.”  They’ve decided that the national Republican Party has cracked the code to victory.  

And that code means book bans are on the ballot. 

Sincerely,

David Rubino,
Old Lyme.

Letter to the Editor: Many Reasons Why Colwell is ‘Not a Sound Candidate for Board of Education’

Posted on by
10

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`.