For further evidence – if any were needed – of who is truly politically disenfranchised in the state of Connecticut, check this out:

Screen shot 2014-02-15 at 9.10.14 AM

In the world of four out of five of our delegates, goofy poses (Chris Murphy coming toward me with a fist and a roll of duct tape is something I hope to never see again, including in nightmares) and goofier platitudes trump the wisdom of centuries, sound logic, and social science.

It probably is overkill to detail every egregious fallacy contained in the post from NoH8, but let me take on this one:

Today we show our gratitude for those in government who use their platform to speak out for the rights of all people.

This is so laughably, patently, transparently false I don’t know how anyone typed this sentence with a straight face. Do any of our delegates really believe they’re speaking for the rights of all people? First of all, they’re certainly not speaking for the rights of children to be raised by their married mother and father. They’re not speaking out for you and me when they won’t defend our position, even when it’s their job. They’re not even speaking out for people in a variety of romantic relationships who see in the language of the post nothing that would specifically exclude them – but actually, our delegates don’t mean them, they’re really only talking about same-sex couples.

How scary is it that every one of them fundamentally misrepresents our motives and intentions? How does one even begin to have a dialogue under such hostile conditions? It would appear that to our representatives, we are the enemy. That is perhaps worse than no representation at all.

5 Responses to “I Sure Didn’t Vote for These Folks”

  1. on 15 Feb 2014 at 4:03 pmVery Concerned

    Thank you for writing this. After hearing Cuomo tell New Yorkers to get out if they don’t think like him, and then seeing Connecticut elected representatives act like WE think like them….I am so sick of it.

    They do not represent the people who elected them. They only represent their extremist agenda of pro-whatever-they-believe in, regardless if it is what I believe! In fact, I should discard my beliefs and adopt theirs in their extremist vision!

  2. on 16 Feb 2014 at 6:15 amMary Nelson

    Go Peter; Delauro and Murphy only care about Delauro and Murphy.

  3. on 17 Feb 2014 at 4:35 pme pluribus unum

    Nitrogen Oxygen Helium 8? What are they trying to say? Whatever it is their graphics could use some tweaking.

  4. on 22 Feb 2014 at 9:46 amWills

    You make some interesting claims here, including that your motives and intentions are being willfully misrepresented. In the interest of clarifying those motives and intentions, I would very much appreciate you answering the following questions, individually and clearly.

    You claim that children have a “right to be raised by their married mother and father” and you seem to be implying that our elected representatives may be denying that right. Please clarify.

    1. Who is denying the “right” of any child to be raised by his/her married mother and father (except in cases where the child’s health and safety are threatened by one or both of those parents)?

    2. Where in the U.S. Constitution or in any law of the U.S. is there a right for children to be “raised by their married mother and father?”

    3. Do you claim that children born to single parents, children of divorced parents, children of widowed parents, children who have been adopted, and children who are raised by grandparents or other relatives, are being denied a right that is guaranteed by the laws of the United States?

    4. Do you claim that children raised by married parents of the same-sex are being denied a right guaranteed by the laws of the United States?

    5. Do you believe that single parents, divorced parents, and parents who are for whatever reason unable to raise their children as a married heterosexual couple are violating the rights of their child as guaranteed by U.S. law?

    6. If the married heterosexual parents of a child are killed by a drunk driver, have the rights of the child been abridged under U.S. law?

    7. Do you believe divorce should be outlawed because it infringes the right of a child to be raised by his/ her married parents?

    7. If the answers to any of the above are “yes,” under which U.S. law or amendment would a child seek relief?

    You further claim that it is the job of your elected representatives to defend your position.

    1. Is it the job of our elected representatives to defend the positions of EVERY constituent?

    2. Within Connecticut we have majorities and minorities across a broad spectrum, many of whom hold positions that are offensive to others, or which may be illegal according to our constitutions and laws. Given that, do our elected representatives have a duty to defend the positions of, among a long list of others, Islamists? Christianists? White supremacists? Anti-Semites? Pro-Palestinians? Pedophiles? Anti-government militias? Pro-Choice advocates? Anti-Choice advocates? Death penalty advocates? Death penalty opponents?

    3. How do you propose that our representatives defend the positions of opposing viewpoints? Should they introduce legislation favorable to one viewpoint on odd days, and legislation favorable to the opposition on even days?

    4. Should our representatives seek to legislate solutions which defend the (legal) positions of all constituents while not infringing on the rights of those who may disagree? Or are they required to adhere to the position of one group even if it denies a guaranteed right to another group?

    5. Do you believe in government wherein citizens exercise their right to vote for representatives who best reflect their positions, with the candidate who receives the majority of the votes being elected to office?

    I’m not naive enough to believe that you will publish this comment, and answer my questions. I don’t believe you have any desire to clarify your positions – you either can’t, or won’t. Much easier to throw out broad, unsupported claims in an effort to gain followers and keep the dollars flowing in. But it would be so nice if, for once, you would engage in a clear and concise discussion of what you believe, and the ramifications of those beliefs, real or imagined.

  5. on 25 Feb 2014 at 12:14 pmNicole

    Dear Wills,

    I can only say right now that hatred of any human being(s) is not among those motives, and I do believe our congressfolk are mentally capable enough to know better, if they wished.

    “For once”? I have hardly been here long enough to establish that kind of relationship with my audience. You may have noticed I have no compunction about preaching to the choir, because I believe our members get something here that no other local outlet provides.

    I could fill many posts with answers to your questions, and may eventually. I’m a very busy girl though and it must be on MY terms; combox interrogators are not at all high among my priorities.

    Any other random interrogator feeling entitled to place demands on my time will either contact my secretary to discuss competitive remuneration, or take a number and get in line. Sorry to disappoint.

Leave a Reply