Local Voting Info - New Milford, CT

Reposted and in light of an email request from a reader for local New Milford, Connecticut, voting info:

Find out where to vote!
For your local polling place...

Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems

According to the information I found there are no local town issues to be voted on. Just the candidates and the two statewide questions. I phoned the town clerk's office to verify this information to be true:

Warning
November 4, 2008

State Election

The electors and taxpayers of the Town of New Milford are hereby warned to meet at the respective polling places in said town on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, for the following purposes:

I. To cast their votes for Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors, Representative in Congress, State Senator, and State Representative.

II To vote on the following questions for the approval or disapproval of a proposed Constitutional convention and proposed AMENDMENT to the Constitution of Connecticut, a vote of “YES” being a vote for approval, and a vote of “NO” being a vote for disapproval:

1. Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?

2. Shall the constitution of the state be amended to permit any person who will have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the day of regular election to vote in the primary for such regular election?

The full text of such proposed questions with explanatory text, printed in accordance with §2-30a of the General Statutes, is available at the Town Clerk’s Office for public distribution.

Notice is hereby given that the location of the polling places is as follows:

Voting District Location of Polling Place
District 1 Northville School, Hipp Road
District 2 Catherine E. Lillis Building, East Street
District 3 Pettibone School, Pickett District Road
District 4 Gaylordsville Fire House
District 5 Schaghticoke School, Hipp Road
District 6 Hill & Plain School, Old Town Park Road
District 7 Sarah Noble School, Sunny Valley Road

Voting machines will be used. The polls will be open at six o’clock in the morning (6:00 a.m. and will remain open until eight o’clock in the evening (8:00 p.m.)

Absentee Ballots for electors and Presidential Ballots will be centrally counted in the Loretta Brickley Room in the basement of the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.

The final tally of the election will be in the E. Paul Martin Room in the the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.

Dated at New Milford, Connecticut, this 17th day of October, 2008.
George C. Buckbee
Town Clerk
New Milford

Please note that if you typically voted at the Lanesville fire department in the past, they have switched that District 7 voting location to Sarah Noble School because of the fact that they dead ended that street.

EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED YET YOU CAN STILL VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN CONNECTICUT! It is the law. Bring your ID to Townhall where they should have special "presidential ballots" for your use. If you are registered to vote in New Milford, read on...

Also, in as far as the two statewide Constitution questions...

On question 1, most of the Democratic leaning Blogs seem to be in agreement that question 1 (having a Constitutional Convention) would be a bad thing and are pushing for a no vote:

The Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) urges a no vote on the question. As one of the organizations that has lead the fights to open up our political process (Direct Primaries, Campaign Finance and Ethics reforms) we believe a convention would be a waste of taxpayers' money and could be corrupted by the same special interests that our new campaign finance reform laws are designed to protect us from.

Proponents of a convention either do not understand the process or are deliberately trying to mislead the public by saying that the vote on November 4th is about initiative and referendum. If the vote passes it is then up to the legislature to determine the process for selecting delegates to the convention. This will likely be done through a costly special election and primaries. The convention is then convened, which will result in additional costs to the state. The delegates may or may not propose amendments to the constitution, which would be subject to a future popular vote. There is no guarantee that what the proponents of the convention are arguing this vote is about will be included these proposals.

It is plausible that many of the proponents of a convention would mask their real motivation due to the unpopularity of some of their ultimate goals. Connecticut does not want to ban a woman's right to choose or to allow discrimination against same sex couples. Advocates of these and other radical positions realize that they cannot win enough legislative races to accomplish their goals so they are trying to push a convention to create a new avenue for their fight. Their gambit will have significant costs for the state at a time we are facing a huge deficit. I am confident their stealth agenda will ultimately be rejected.

There is a high likelihood that the delegate selection process will be driven by lobbying and other big money interest. It is not surprising that special interests are looking for new ways to exert influence as Connecticut embarks on the first election cycle under our public financing system. The new system has been a smashing success with over 75% of candidates voluntarily participating. It has been praised across the country and will result in a state government more accountable to voters not special interests.

Costly to the taxpayers and could potentially run counter to the spirit and idea of the many recent campaign financing rule changes in Connecticut, and never mind the tendency of radical right wing groups, like the Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC), to push costly campaigns on to the ballot that will never pass in the real world. It is no coincidence that the fringe Heritage front group, FIC, is one of the groups pushing this agenda. They have little in state support or participation from Nutmeggers and the FIC is the quintessential example of an Astroturf group. Their sole purpose is to try and create a false perception of "grassroots support" for generally repulsive legislation that the majority does not support. They use money and vocal twits to agitate the process and create those perceptions.

To put it bluntly, FIC has more money... Yet, I have more readers (both in and out of state...) But the FIC uses out of state soft money and out of state sister group members to finance and create a fake movement and to get media access. And they want to amend the Connecticut Constitution?

I suggest using your middle finger on that "Hell NO!" vote for question 1.

When it comes to question 2, on allowing people that will be old enough to vote in the election to vote in the primaries if they are only 17, it seems like a reasonable way to help ensure our younger generation learns the civic responsibility of voting as soon as possible. If they will be able to vote in the elections, they should be able to help pick the candidate they want to vote for.

Those were my long answers... The short of it is to vote:

• NO on question 1
  
• YES on question 2

Just my suggestions and reasoning. :)

[update] I drove around New Milford to check out a couple of polling stations (District 2 Catherine E. Lillis Building, East Street and District 3 Pettibone School, Pickett District Road) this morning to look at the traffic AND there was a little traffic and no real lineups to get into vote this morning. When I stopped to get coffee at the grocery store I reminded everyone I talked with to vote today. One guy said he had already voted at a polling station that I hadn't driven by (District 7 Sarah Noble School, Sunny Valley Road) and he said that voting took less time than paying for his milk and bread at the grocery store. Another young lady that worked at the store said she was excited to be voting for the first time. Much like in the past elections, getting to the New Milford polling stations early will save you a lot of time. Usually, they start to get really busy in the mid-afternoon.

I'll try and update you with more local voting information through the day during the day. HatCityBlog is doing the same thing for the Danbury area.

And from the Working Families Party, a party that you might want to consider supporting because they are issues oriented in darned good way:

Working Families Party Works to Push Candidates Over the Top
Minor Party Pushes Message of Economic Security Across the State

As Election Day begins, Working Families Party volunteers and
canvassers spread out across the state in a final push to make the
difference for Working Families endorsed candidates. Over the last six
weeks, Working Families has knocked on 50,000 doors in an effort to
make the difference for candidates across the state that have pledged
their support for Working Families' priority issues, like affordable
healthcare, good jobs, and reducing taxes on middle class families.

"With everything happening in the economy it's understandable that
voters are angry and frustrated," said Brian Petronella, President of
UFCW Local 371 and a co-founder of the Working Families party in
Connecticut. "Change is the buzz-word this election. But if you want
to vote for change like you really mean it, vote on the Working
Families line."

Established in 2002, the Working Families Party has seen rapid growth
throughout the state by using the unusual strategy of
cross-endorsement. When a major party candidate is cross-endorsed by
Working Families, the candidate's name appears on the ballot twice:
once on the major party line and again on the Working Families line.
Proponents of the strategy say it allows voters to "send a message" to
support the Working Families positions on economic justice issues.

Working Families is supporting more than 85 candidates across the
state – mostly cross-endorsed candidates also being supported by a
major party.

With the nation experiencing one of the worst economic slumps since
the Great Depression, the idea of sending politicians a message to
stand up for working families has widespread appeal – across the
political spectrum.

"I think the Working Families Party offers voters something unique and
appealing in this election – a chance to vote for a party that
champions economic issues that matter to middle class voters while
still supporting a major party candidate – typically a Democrat – who
can really win the election," said Paul Filson, Director of the
Service Employees International Union in Connecticut.

Working Families top priority for Election Day is helping to Democrat
Jim Himes over the top in his hotly contested race against incumbent
Chris Shays. Working Families organizers are hoping to appeal to
voters who are frustrated and worried about the economy and
disappointed with both major parties.

Working Families is a minor political party formed by a coalition of
community organizations, labor unions and neighborhood activists who
united to fight for a fair economy. The Working Families Party was
formed to inject issues like healthcare, quality education, and
livable wages into the public debate, and to hold politicians
accountable on those issues.

[update] I've been going around from polling site to polling site in New Milford. At about 2:30 there was already over 1200 voters in District 2, District 6 had around 1340 by 5:00, District 7 was over 1600 by about 6:00 and all of the other Districts, though I don't have exact voting numbers for them all, are on pace for record voting numbers. At every site there are poll sitters for Murphy and NONE for Cappiello. I have been going from place to place poll sitting with all of them and the "Vote no on question 1" people that are out, as well.

Things are looking good if the large numbers translate into real change...

Prop (H)8 in California

According to skippy the bush kangaroo, California doesn't need to worry as much about Proposition 8 as digby seems to think they should:

let's be clear here: gotv is important, and the anti-prop 8 campaign may very well be having trouble generating excitement (we happen to think the anti-prop 8 commercials are among the worst we've seen). but the latest poll from the field poll online shows it's definitely not a dead heat. california progress report:

the california field poll showing proposition 8 behind with 44% support and 49% opposition that was released earlier today is making the headlines of the state’s newspapers—and in fact is national news. these results are remarkably similar to a poll released last week by the public policy institute of california that showed it with the same 44% support and with a level of opposition--52%--that is within the margin of error of both of these polls. these are the two most respected public polling organizations in the golden state.

Anyone can understand that GOTV is important on an issue like this but I am guessing that GOTV for Obama and other candidates on the left out there in Cali will be enough to kill the (H)8.

More importantly, I think, is that any kind of amendment like the proposed Proposition (H)8 will eventually get killed in the courts as unconstitutional.

It is also important to note that these type of ballot initiatives in California are precisely what worries most of the people fighting against the Connecticut "Constitutional Convention" issue on the ballot here, this year. It paralyzes the ability of legislators to govern, it often creates "laws" that will get kicked back as unconstitutional, and wastes taxpayer money at every turn. And all of this is done as a backhanded way to divide voters on issues, and to feed off of the hate of fringe voters more often than not. And it is often out of state soft money flooding into the state that funds these initiatives through Astroturf groups like the Family Institute of Connecticut.

New Milford Voting - Heads up!

In light of an email request from a reader for local New Milford, Connecticut, voting info:

Find out where to vote!
For your local poll...

According to the information I found there are no local town issues to be voted on. Just the candidates and the two statewide questions. I phoned the town clerk's office to verify this information to be true:

Warning
November 4, 2008

State Election

The electors and taxpayers of the Town of New Milford are hereby warned to meet at the respective polling places in said town on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, for the following purposes:

I. To cast their votes for Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors, Representative in Congress, State Senator, and State Representative.

II To vote on the following questions for the approval or disapproval of a proposed Constitutional convention and proposed AMENDMENT to the Constitution of Connecticut, a vote of “YES” being a vote for approval, and a vote of “NO” being a vote for disapproval:

1. Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?

2. Shall the constitution of the state be amended to permit any person who will have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the day of regular election to vote in the primary for such regular election?

The full text of such proposed questions with explanatory text, printed in accordance with §2-30a of the General Statutes, is available at the Town Clerk’s Office for public distribution.

Notice is hereby given that the location of the polling places is as follows:

Voting District Location of Polling Place
District 1 Northville School, Hipp Road
District 2 Catherine E. Lillis Building, East Street
District 3 Pettibone School, Pickett District Road
District 4 Gaylordsville Fire House
District 5 Schaghticoke School, Hipp Road
District 6 Hill & Plain School, Old Town Park Road
District 7 Sarah Noble School, Sunny Valley Road

Voting machines will be used. The polls will be open at six o’clock in the morning (6:00 a.m. and will remain open until eight o’clock in the evening (8:00 p.m.)

Absentee Ballots for electors and Presidential Ballots will be centrally counted in the Loretta Brickley Room in the basement of the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.

The final tally of the election will be in the E. Paul Martin Room in the the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.

Dated at New Milford, Connecticut, this 17th day of October, 2008.
George C. Buckbee
Town Clerk
New Milford

Please note that if you typically voted at the Lanesville fire department in the past, they have switched that District 7 voting location to Sarah Noble School because of the fact that they dead ended that street.

Also, in as far as the two statewide Constitution questions...

On question 1, most of the Democratic leaning Blogs seem to be in agreement that question 1 (having a Constitutional Convention) would be a bad thing and are pushing for a no vote:

The Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) urges a no vote on the question. As one of the organizations that has lead the fights to open up our political process (Direct Primaries, Campaign Finance and Ethics reforms) we believe a convention would be a waste of taxpayers' money and could be corrupted by the same special interests that our new campaign finance reform laws are designed to protect us from.

Proponents of a convention either do not understand the process or are deliberately trying to mislead the public by saying that the vote on November 4th is about initiative and referendum. If the vote passes it is then up to the legislature to determine the process for selecting delegates to the convention. This will likely be done through a costly special election and primaries. The convention is then convened, which will result in additional costs to the state. The delegates may or may not propose amendments to the constitution, which would be subject to a future popular vote. There is no guarantee that what the proponents of the convention are arguing this vote is about will be included these proposals.

It is plausible that many of the proponents of a convention would mask their real motivation due to the unpopularity of some of their ultimate goals. Connecticut does not want to ban a woman's right to choose or to allow discrimination against same sex couples. Advocates of these and other radical positions realize that they cannot win enough legislative races to accomplish their goals so they are trying to push a convention to create a new avenue for their fight. Their gambit will have significant costs for the state at a time we are facing a huge deficit. I am confident their stealth agenda will ultimately be rejected.

There is a high likelihood that the delegate selection process will be driven by lobbying and other big money interest. It is not surprising that special interests are looking for new ways to exert influence as Connecticut embarks on the first election cycle under our public financing system. The new system has been a smashing success with over 75% of candidates voluntarily participating. It has been praised across the country and will result in a state government more accountable to voters not special interests.

Costly to the taxpayers and could potentially run counter to the spirit and idea of the many recent campaign financing rule changes in Connecticut, and never mind the tendency of radical right wing groups, like the Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC), to push costly campaigns on to the ballot that will never pass in the real world. It is no coincidence that the fringe Heritage front group, FIC, is one of the groups pushing this agenda. They have little in state support or participation from Nutmeggers and the FIC is the quintessential example of an Astroturf group. Their sole purpose is to try and create a false perception of "grassroots support" for generally repulsive legislation that the majority does not support. They use money and vocal twits to agitate the process and create those perceptions.

To put it bluntly, FIC has more money... Yet, I have more readers (both in and out of state...) But the FIC uses out of state soft money and out of state sister group members to finance and create a fake movement and to get media access. And they want to amend the Connecticut Constitution?

I suggest using your middle finger on that "Hell NO!" vote for question 1.

When it comes to question 2, on allowing people that will be old enough to vote in the election to vote in the primaries if they are only 17, it seems like a reasonable way to help ensure our younger generation learns the civic responsibility of voting as soon as possible. If they will be able to vote in the elections, they should be able to help pick the candidate they want to vote for.

Those were my long answers... The short of it is to vote:

• NO on question 1
  
• YES on question 2

Just my suggestions and reasoning. :)

Iowa Judge Rules for Equality

From the Des Moines Register, and via Crooks and Liars:

A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa’s law banning gay marriage.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Julie Haggerty to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.

“It’s a moral victory for equal rights,” said Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson, who represented six gay couples who filed suit after they were denied marriage licenses.

Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, said the ruling requires “full equality for all Iowans including gay and lesbian Iowans and their families.”

“The Iowa Constitution has lived up to its promises of equality for everyone,” she said.

From Love Makes a Family:

Civil unions will provide needed rights and protections for couples and families in our state. But although this law is a step in the right direction, it must not remain the end product. The struggle for marriage equality has always been about more than rights and protections; it is also about dignity and respect and equal treatment under the law. Civil unions create a separate status for one class of people and as long as there remain two lines at the Town Hall—one for same-sex couples and one for everyone else—Love Makes a Family will continue to be here, working towards a day when the final discriminatory barriers to marriage are finally struck down.

The bigoted and overpaid "asparagus-studded choux pastry puffs" at the FIC Blog - A little read offshoot of the disreptuable Family Institute of Connecticut - may not understand the fact that this is just a natural progression of how of the law in an equal society works, so we can only hope that people in this State, people like Jodi Rell, will get over their homophobic tendencies and start thinking about equal rights.

Think Equal.

Conservative Pundit on DC Madam's list

via ThinkProgress:

The prominent conservative pundit and lobbyist, Jack Burkman, was outed yesterday when it was revealed that his phone number “appears in the database of phone records of the ‘DC Madam.’” Previously, Wonkette reported allegations that Burkman may have solicited sex from a young woman who later blogged about it on MySpace.

But not too worry, he is a hypocritical GOP pundit and lobbyist with the money to pay for a Google Adword campaign to fight back against the truth...

Don't be evil, eh?

C&L has something up on Jack the John from 2006:

Remember June 16th, 2006? That’s when Burkman got exposed by a couple of girls on MySpace and posted Crooksandliars graphics of Jack to check him out. Her site is set to private now, but Wonkette still has some info…They called him a “CREEEEP”

Here is a money quote from Burkman on playing the victim card from Scarborough Country:

SCARBOROUGH: Jack Burkman, respond. Does the Republican National Committee have a hit list and is Mr. Clarke on the top of it?

JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Not to my knowledge.

And I‘ll tell you, he‘s learned from Clinton. He‘s already making himself out to be a victim. He‘s playing all the angles.

Too funny, considering Burkman is playing the "vast liberal conspiracy victim card" right now, and is "playing all the angles" himself.

And another money quote via Blue Girl, Red State:

Jack Burkman is the right-wing nutjob who said this: "[T]his issue [gay marriage] and the moral fabric of the country is five times as important as the war on terror and the war in Iraq combined... I mean, if Osama bin Laden thinks he can defeat the United States by knocking over buildings, he's crazy. But where we will fall and where we are falling as a civilization is from within."

Jack Burkman thinks he is the cause of the "falling as a civilization" since he does not respect the institution of marriage. We'll take his word on that one... And just remember who Jack Burkman worked for as a lobbyist:

Family Research Council Personnel:

• Tony Perkins - President
• Chuck Donovan - Executive Vice President
• Tom McClusky - Vice President for Government Affairs
• Paul Tripodi - Vice President for Administration
• Charmaine Yoest - Vice President for Communications
• Robert Morrison - Vice President for Academic Affairs
• Jack Burkman - former Family Research Council lobbyist
• Robert Maginnis-former Vice President for Policy^[30]

And yes... That would be the Dobson group associated with our own local hypocrites, the Family Institute of Connecticut. You know... The FIC Blog with the bloviating hypocrites and Liars that have, to this day, still refused to actually retract and amend their falsehoods. But what can you expect from those that claim religious persecution on many political arguments, but attempt to persecute those with different religious beliefs than theirs in their politics.

Love Makes a Family Flamingo Style

Proving that it is only natural:

A pair of gay flamingos have adopted an abandoned chick, becoming parents after being together for six years, a British conservation organisation said Monday.

snip

"They were rather good at sitting on eggs and hatching them so last week, when a nest was abandoned, it seemed like a good idea to make them surrogate parents."

Gay flamingos are not uncommon, she added.

"If there aren't enough females or they don't hit it off with them, they will pair off with other males," she said.

A truly remarkable convergence of nature and nurture that can and should be replicated in humanity.

We are awaiting the FIC Blogs demand to protest pink flamingo lawn ornaments because of their obvious un-Christian-like behaviour (by their wing-nut standards, at least) and in order to remain as relevant to the debate as they usually are.

FIC Blog Suffering From Stick Envy

Via tessa at MLN:

This just in from the Family Institute:

Tell Your State Senator and State Representative: Vote No on Same-Sex "Marriage"

We hope to see as many of you as possible at our May 23rd Rally and Lobby Day for Marriage, which begins at 10:00 a.m. on the steps of the state capitol in Hartford. Your willingness to fight for the protection of marriage will make the difference between victory and defeat--and pro same-sex "marriage" activists know it.

Then they quote from Love Makes a Family's Anne Stanback (email from Monday, May 7) ---

Here's an excerpt from one of their messages:

Opponents of marriage equality, who are well organized and well funded, have been generating huge numbers of calls and emails and supporters must show our support too.
Pro-family voters are doing such a good job making their voices heard that our opponents are forced into claiming it's because FIC is "well-funded." In fact, we are vastly outfunded by our opposition.

Then it gets funny:

Consider this excerpt from a Courant column on a pro same-sex "marriage" fundraiser held last month:

While those at the Bushnell were getting their groove thing going, Love Makes a Family's "Eat, Drink & Be Married" event had a whole lot of dinner parties going on around town, aimed at raising money to continue efforts toward marriage equality for same-sex couples.

At the West End home of Michael Wilson (Hartford Stage's artistic director) and his partner, Jeff Cowie, the theme was "Let's Stick Together" and dinner did that - literally. From asparagus-studded choux pastry puffs to Korean beef, all of the food was served - you've got it - on a stick.

"The seven cooks in the kitchen has been a challenge," said Wilson, who was more than willing to show off the 105-year-old house that was once the residence of Life magazine photographer Arthur Rickerby and his author wife, Wanda Rickerby.

Unlike our opponents, FIC does not owe its success to an ability to put seven cooks in one kitchen. Whatever we have accomplished we owe to you: your willingness to pray for us, to contact your legislators, to attend our rallies and to donate to our matching grant campaigns.

In fact, the difficulty in meeting our matching grant campaign goal of $50,000 by the end of this month is making it harder for us to stop same-sex "marriage" and other threats to the family. That's why we need your help.

Read More...

Yep!

Some of us are so well funded that we don't get a penny for any of the Blogging and activism we do. Unlike the bigoted and overpaid "asparagus-studded choux pastry puffs" at the FIC Blog that are obviously suffering from stick envy.

Local Cavemen Speak

Caveman O'Brien speaks:

Bill O'Brien, president of Connecticut Right to Life, said the group wants Rell to veto the bill. O'Brien said "the state has no business" telling Catholic hospitals to do something that goes against the church's teachings.

"We can't kill a person that was conceived of rape," O'Brien said.

Nothing like a baby that comes from a good old fashioned clubbing over the head!

Caveman Peter (FIC tribe) speaks:

As we have noted before, the next likely step will be a lawsuit based on the Connecticut Religious Freedom Act. Watch for more information.

Nothing like a caveman starting a lawsuit that will wind up cutting off all state funding to the hospital's medicine man. But that isn't what this post is about.

A quick look at the others that enjoy their women barefoot and pregnant, clubbed and dragged off to be raped and FORCED to bear them children... The leaders an outspoken members of some anti-woman groups as yanked from the FIC Blog:

The Rev. Deacon Tom Davis

Caveman

And JI editor Chris Powell

Caveman

the Catholic Church’s Dave Reynolds

Another caveman

Brian Brown

Might be more closely related to the chimps... But not as honest as his furry brothers.

Reverend James J. Cronin

And another caveman

The bishops of every state but New York fought the sort of law that is being advanced in the Connecticut legislature [emphasis added]. New York, for some reason, was the only state where Catholic lobbyists had no objection to such a law.

A whole lot of cavemen!

Notice a pattern here? I think you do...

(Image via the fat lady sings at My Left Wing)

(Edited with my apologies to Sen. Ed Meyer whose quote I misread when I addedhim here originally and my thanks to Maura! heh)

The Family Institute of Connecticut Would be Proud!

of this Christian family that is taking a stand on the very issues and views that the FIC supports:



The only difference between that whacko family and what FIC espouses is that Family Institute of Connecticut soft peddles their bigoted messages.

Soft peddling their message doesn't make the FIC any less dangerous to this country. It just makes them dangerous AND dishonest about their message. That family is the product of the thinking and messanging put forth by the far-right-wingnuts at the Heritage Foundation and taken to into the relms of their wildest wet dreams.

Like it or not FIC, you should be proud of how your messages have enlightened: That whack-job family is one of yours!

You broke'em, you bought'em.

Equal Rights to Marriage: Far Right Wingnut Editon

This is a bit about Equal Rights, Civil Rights and, more importantly, knowing your wingnut opposition, and who they chose to associate and share political tactics with. (Please bear with me if it seems to meander a little! CM1)

Via tparty at My Left Nutmeg:

"The Courant's editorial page endorses marriage equality

The debate over legalizing gay marriage is as raucous as the reaction to civil unions has been quiet. The recent Judiciary Committee hearing overflowed even the overflow room at the Legislative Office Building. Bloggers and protesters are loudly weighing in on the rights and wrongs of same-sex marriage.

Why push the question? Connecticut has lived with civil unions for a year and a half in utter peace and quiet. Many couples are happy and secure, with virtually all the rights of traditional marriage that the state can confer.

But not happy enough. Gay couples want the real thing. They deserve marriage and the full panoply of legal privileges that accompany it.."

If you want to see what CT politicians and concerned citizens had to say about all of this, ctblogger has a pretty complete look at the hearing they had last week.

Marriage Equality video highlights

And ctblogger has an important sidenote reminding us all what we are up against on almost every issue:

Sidenote

Question: How are [Maggie] Gallagher and conservative lapdog Armstrong Williams related?

Answer: They were both bought and paid for by the Bush Administration.

Maggie Gallagher is actually notorious. Back in the 2005, her and Armstrong Williams (and others) were found to have received money from the Bush administration while claiming to be independent reporters.

It really doesn't matter what the issue is. The incompetent and lying bush administration has no problems with buying propaganda to slip into our News Media everywhere. Add to that, they couple this bought'n'paid-for media PROPAGANDA pressure with co-ordianted efforts at portraying "ground swell support" with front groups in local areas.

The biggest naysayer, bordering on gay bashing, concerning Equal Rights in Marriage in Connecticut is the small and little read FIC Blog, that is associated with the far right wingnut Heritage think tank, which is little more than a bush cheerleading squad, and where any criticism of bush and his policies is a firing offense:

Last month (ed note: First posted on August 7, 2006. CM1) the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, fired John Hulsman. Heritage refuses to say exactly why they let him go, but the New Republic reports the “reasons for Hulsman’s departure” are “perfectly evident”; he criticized the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Hulsman previously had kept his dissent to himself, but “years of insurgency, civil war, and general chaos” in Iraq led him to speak out.

In an essay last year for The National Interest, Hulsman took issue with Bush’s policy in Iraq:

[N]eoconservatives, through their policies of expending blood and treasure for problematic gains such as Iraq, are significantly retarding America’s ability to act against the true barbarians at the gate - Al-Qaeda and Islamist extremists.

And Hulsman criticized the Bush administration’s refusal to talk to regimes it dislikes, specifically Iran:

America, on the other hand, having determined the mullahs in Iran were evil, disdained to engage them. But we cannot only conduct diplomatic relations with Canada; I have always naively thought a major reason for diplomacy was talking to those one didn’t agree with, in an effort to modify their behavior to suit one’s own national interests.

These critiques may seem mild, but as Chris Preble of the Cato Institute explains: “At Heritage, anything that smacks of criticism of Bush will not be tolerated.”

Have a thought that is counterproductive to the neocon agenda and you lose your job at Heritage. That is some quality thinking that Brian and the FIC Blog choses to associate themselves with. Low quality thinking, and kool-aide drinking. The far right skewered Heritage Foundation lists Brian and the FIC as a resource for their far tight wingnut agenda on a couple of issues: Education (much like right wing fanatics across the country, FIC wants to kill the public education system in favor of privatization... See Iraq and Katrina for inevitable results of privatization of our school systems) and, of course, Marriage.

Some of FIC's funding seems to come from sources that finance Heritage and a littany of other far right wingnut organizations. (You can research that one on your own, just know that it is true and would likely take another whole post to dig.) I wonder what would happen to bush poodles like Brian if they actually turned on bush policies? Would the funding for FIC Blog dry up?

FIC's sitemeter proves that his Blog is not read very much by Connecticut residents, so I doubt they are paying his bills. And unless the CT's left Blogosphere links to him, which is why, likely, he tries to pick little arguments with us all the time, he gets little traffic from nutmeggers. (You can see his traffic at sitemeter, and we have already proven this point, much to Brian and the FIC's chagrin)

So... Whomelse is the FIC associated with? People like this:

Jeffrey Satinover:

In cooperation with the Heritage Foundation and under the auspices of the ICQA, Dr. Satinover is overseeing the development of a fully crooss-linked international database of medical, social science and legal citations with associated metanalyses and aggegrated data tables. The purpose of the database is assist concerned scholars, attorneys, social scientists, policy analysts and citizens worldwide in addressing the nearly-universal problem of the embedding in legal documents of gross distortions (or even wholesale inventions) of social science conclusions to make ideologically-driven alterations in public policy appear rationally based.

He speaks widely to both public and professional audiences and is the author of numerous articles, chapters and books on topics ranging from brain neurophysiology to the psychology of narcissism to the breakdown of modern society. Dr. Satinover is a trustee of the Family Institute of Connecticut and on the Board of Directors of Toward Tradition. He serves on the scientific advisory board to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and is a former medical advisor to Focus on the Family,

and:

Kenneth Von Kohorn

Kenneth Von Kohorn is the founder and president of Von Kohorn Research and Advisory, an investment advisory firm located in Westport. He is a graduate of Yale University and Stanford University's Graduate School of Business. In addition to serving on the Yankee board, Kenneth also serves as chairman of the board of the Family Institute of Connecticut and as a board member of the Institute for American Values and of Toward Tradition.

Now, we all know pretty much about Focus on the Family, and we are also familiar with the Heritage Foundation's fanatacism, but it seems that FIC has a link to "Toward Tradition" as well as Heritage:

Toward Tradition is a non-profit (501.c.3), educational organization working to advance our nation toward the traditional Judeo-Christian values that defined America’s creation and became the blueprint for her greatness. We believe that only a new alliance of concerned citizens can re-identify and dramatically strengthen the core values necessary for America to maintain that greatness and moral leadership. These values are: faith-based American principles of constitutional and limited government; the rule of law; representative democracy; free markets; a strong military; and, a moral public culture.

Objectives:
Using both classic and contemporary tools of persuasion, Toward Tradition promotes these positive traditional values while opposing the negative forces of “secular fundamentalism” and anti-religion bigotry. In his best-selling book of the same name, Rabbi Lapin labeled this mission “America’s Real War”

Concerned Jews share this objective with many evangelical and conservative Christians. Working together, they focus on our common cultural, moral, and political goals. The corollary benefit of this alliance is that the majority gentile culture sees that American Jews are not monolithically liberal, and that many of the “progressive” forces in this country are advocating positions that are in fact abhorrent to traditional Judaism.

Just another group hellbent on portraying bush policies as the rightous way and Liberalism as "abhorrent to traditional Judaism." Sounds like he is soft peddling the "anti-semite" label on us, doesn't it? And obviously, against Jews as well:

Why So Many Jews Are Liberal
As a visible, politically conservative rabbi, whose conservatism flows inevitably and directly from his Judaism, I endure a never-ending barrage of attacks. I don’t much mind them as they remind me of my mission—standing astride America’s secular path to decline, decadence, and depravity, but I do feel sorry for the pain these assaults cause my family. Especially so since most of these attacks come from other Jews; indignant Jews outraged by a rabbi who does not subscribe to the principles of liberalism.

Yes... The Liberals, and especially the Jewish Liberals that attack you the most, the one's that are "standing astride America’s secular path to decline, decadence, and depravity" are the cause of all your problems and you are the victim, constantly being attacked by everyone.

Do any of you wingnuts ever stop to think that this barrage comes at you from everywhere because of the load of crap that you spew daily?

In the same way that the rabbi is couching "anti-semitism" (IMHO) in his soft peddling of radical views, the FIC is soft peddling their bigotry against gay and lesbians in their war against Equal Rights in Marriage and couching it in their extremist views of religion and politics. We aren't buying. None of us in CT are buying it.

In other words: If you don't want your FIC Blog to remain in the miniscule minority of the Connecticut Blogosphere Brian:

Stop being such fringe-thinking far right wingnuts. OK? And stop soft peddling a bigoted agenda against Marriage Equality.

FIC and their UNREASONABLE answers

Brian in comments at the FIC Blog:

Spazeboy disagrees with us on broad issues, but on the particular issue we were debating he was the only one who offered a clear solution. Post a screenshot of our statistics. We did that, and it shows clearly that we were not lying about anything.

What you posted proved clearly that you had deceived your readers. Whether through deliberate attempts or ignorance, a deception is a lie. Also, I told you in the comments to put up a public sitemeter to prove me wrong.

If you are not getting page views even close to the 350,000 number it is impossible for you to be getting the hits. Put your sitemeter on the net and let it tell the truth. As For now, the graphics I linked out speak the obvious truth. You don’t have the traffic to support claims of those numbers. In fact the stats suggest your site is in decline. But your post says you are growing? Mighty confusing, eh? Also much of the traffic to your site is the same/similar traffic that goes to all of the “Family Institute” sister sites in other states. Suggesting that much of your traffic is likely from out of State.

I linked out to unbiased Blog tracking sites. Just because you say something does not make it true. Prove me wrong and I will amend or retract the post.

That was a most reasonable answer to your problem. I was correct in everything that I wrote, and yet you don’t consider that reasonable enough for your site?

In that diary you wite after realizing that what I pointed out about your hit counts was correct:

An apology may be in order here. Perhaps he thinks that hits are not the best indicator of readership. The more I learn, the more I agree with that.

Yet, instead of actually making an apology you go into a HUGE BUT BUT BUT:

But, please, don’t accuse someone of lying without taking some basic steps to get your facts straight.

P.S. Drinking Liberally still can’t admit to the fact that he was wrong, plain and simple.

I am therefore including a link to a screenshot of our statistics (following Spazeboy’s advice, who has been the most civil in this discussion) that shows clearly we were not lying. Period. We never lied, attempted to deceive, or distorted the numbers. Drinking Liberally got it completely wrong.

I had my facts straight. Even you had to admit that. I was correct, plain and simple.

I am tempted to say that your embarrassment at having been called out BIG TIME, not just by me but here and here by ConnecticutBLOG and MLN as well by those pesky LIBERAL FACTS, may be what is holding you back from actually making an apology to your readers, and from acknowledging that not only am I an opponent, but in fact a reasonable one. Reasonable enough that I even forewarned you that I would be calling you out on your claimed readership.

This vanity you are exhibiting only further exemplifies the points of what I wrote about your being a pious fraud, etc., something that I told you in the comments I was quite reasonably willing to retract or amend if you could prove me wrong. Something I am still willing to do IF you actually ever make an apology to your readers for the deceptions, and IF you consider ammending the posts that label me as drunk and unreasonable for pointing out these facts about your deceptions.

As ctblogger noted in his update:

Oh man, these guys just don't get it. These guys are opening up a can of worms and I don't think they know how big of a hole they're making for themselves.

Are they aware that they're messing around with the big boys? FIC, I appeal to you to stop before you embarrass yourselves even more.

Now, I know I am not one of the "big boys" of Connecticut political Blogging, but I also know that FIC is digging the hole deeper. Clearly they have not proven me wrong in any of my charges. BUT I am willing to give FIC a SECOND CHANCE to prove me wrong on the points about their character.

It won’t change the fact that I disagree with you on almost every topic you write about - since I am for Marriage Equality, politically Pro-Choice, against public money for private schools, believe strongly in The Wall of Seperation, etc. etc. - but that is a different story…

Does the FIC lie about their readership?

On the announcement of their revamped FIC Blog they tout their great numbers:

Connecticut in the Crosshairs began in 2004 and quickly became one of the most viewed political blogs in the state. The media tried to ignore us and the liberal blogs loved to mock us (which just made us smile and blog more!) but we kept growing until we were receiving over 350,000 hits a month. Given that the technology we were using was, frankly, junk, this was a major coup. But we’ve learned a lot since then and we now have one of the best blogging platforms around. In the future we will be adding even more functionality, with a video and audio podcast already in the works.

I find that number to be impressive if it were true... But is it?

I looked around at some of the more popular Blogs in Connecticut and decided to do a simple comparison. I found that one of ctblogger's site connecticutBLOG generated about 1329 hits in the last week alone... Not bad! He has been averaging somewhere in between 2,500 and 80,000 hits per month in the last year. That is outstanding! Not the most popular Blog in the nation (HuffPo), nor even the most trafficked site in Connecticut, but great numbers for any political Blog.

As outstanding as ctblogger's numbers are, they are still dwarfed by the Family Institute of Connecticut's claimed 350,000 hits per month. Alexa rates connecticutBLOG a very respectable 1,410,658.

Traffic Rank for connecticutblog.blogspot.com: 1,410,658

Considering the millions of Blogs out there that is a very good number ESPECIALLY for a political blog. Not quite up there with the dailyKos (Ranked 1,764) but an awesome ranking all things considered. It lead me to wonder where Alexa would have the FIC Blog ranked...

Traffic Rank for ctfamily.org: 5,553,563

No! That can't be right? The FIC says they get 350,000 hits per month and connecticutBLOG has never had more than 80,000 on it's best month? How could ctblogger's Blog be higher ranked for traffic ranking than the FIC's Blog?

Unless the FIC is lying about their traffic...

Go ahead and look at the comparison of these two sites traffic at Alexa.

Those really high peaks in blue are connecticutBLOG on their best days... Reaching 80,ooo hits AND 100,000 page views in the month of August. Again WOW! As for the really tiny bumps in red... Those are the supposed 350,000 hits per month that are claimed bye the FIC.

Looking at those numbers compared to ctbloggers it is easy to see that it is impossible for the FIC website to have 350,000 hits per month when their ranking is so low and, even on the FIC's best days, they don't even get as many pageviews as connecticutBLOG.

Little wonder why the FIC doesn't have a viewable sitemeter on their website, huh?

I think the Family Institute of Connecticut is lying the big lie. And I think I have proven it. Aren't those great moral values that they want to preach to your families? The FIC site is a pious fraud. Much like the hipocritical Dobsonites, these lying immoral fraudsters should focus on their own damned families.

Note: Those numbers on the Alexa links can fluctuate, but those were the numbers reflected as this was written.

The FIC's Biased Poll

The FIC is mad that some in the corporate owned media doesn't share their radical point of view that gay and lesbian marriages should be banned:

The more the Courant continues in its left-lunacy the more people come to our blog.

Anyway, Sherlock has given us the grand idea of running a poll on this question (on the right of the blog). I think its pretty likely that many of our readers are going to say they have either cancelled their subscription to a major paper because of bias or considered doing so.

First, many come to the Blog simply to point out hipocrisy... And, secondly, the poll question they ask?

Have you cancelled your subscription to the Courant or another state paper because of liberal bias?

* No, the Courant is fair and balanced!
* This is a lame poll, and I refuse to respond!
* Yes, the Courant is way out in left-field!
* No, but I've seriously considered cancelling!

OK... So the second was more of the first!

The FIC poll exposes their site as a pious fraud, most likely by ID (Ignorant Design).

If you wanted an honest poll you would add this choice to it:

NO, I cancelled because the Courant, and the bulk of the MSM, is on right-wing-crack!

But the goal of your FIC site is obviously not to inform people with honest ideas. Your agenda is to perpetrate mass ignorance on society with biased deceptions and myths. In other words: Christianist gay and lesbian bashing done in the name of Jesus, who never preached such hatred.

Instead of looking for dividing factors amongst political and religious factions, any group that claims morality and religion as their compass should be looking more at the issues like poverty and the enviornment that could be uniting factors.

Your sites' agenda exposes the not-so-hidden hate and divide messages that false christians emulate in the political arena. Some moral values...