Official Website of Holly West | Crime Fiction Writer

The Politics of Silence

A few minutes ago I read this post about Meghan McCain's boobs and it got me thinking. Warning--this post is kind of tangental to the post about Meghan, not directly relevant to the original. That's just how I roll.

About a year ago I made a decision to stop posting about politics online. With the exception of very few issues I try to keep quiet about political matters, and increasingly, religious matters. I'm a lot happier because of it.

The problem, as I see it, is that places like Facebook and Twitter don't foster meaningful dialogue about politics. This is especially true of Twitter--140 characters isn't enough to delve into any issue, even if you post a link. Sure, there are conversations that happen there--I've had them myself--but it is easy to take things out of context because it's impossible to follow every thread of every conversation. At some point someone is going to assume you're a jerk based on a snippet of conversation that might not have much bearing on how you actually feel about a subject. How could it when the original conversation originated 24 hours ago, took place between ten people (some of which you don't follow), and began with a link to a relevant blog post or news story, now long buried in a barrage of tweets?

To me, this fosters anger and misunderstanding, and it's ultimately not productive. Unless, of course, your aim is to provoke, and then you become just another asshole on the Internet.

Facebook isn't much better. It's mostly just a place to further the culture of ugly sound bites and noise we are increasingly comfortable with. Unless I'm willing to truly engage, and this means making sure I know exactly what the hell I'm talking about on any social/political issue I post about it, I'm better off keeping my mouth shut.

Otherwise, I'm just another asshole on the Internet.

There are times when I feel like my choice to be silent is a copout, the result of my cowardice and dislike of confrontation. But this doesn't happen very often, and over time, it happens less and less. I'm not a journalist--I don't have time to research even my most heart felt opinions to the degree I feel comfortable shooting off my mouth about them. This might change. I'm a passionate person whose equally passionate about my views. But for now, I need to spend my time on the things that benefit myself and my family the most. It ain't politics, folks.

This isn't meant to be a judgement of my friends and colleagues who do post about political and other somewhat controversial matters. What one does with one's Internet space is up to them and I'm free to follow or friend accordingly. Some people just have stronger stomachs than I do, or are adequately informed and worthy of my attention. Many are not. What's that they say? Don't be that gal.

Don't be just another asshole on the Internet.

I'm curious to hear what you think about this subject. Hit me with some comments, people.

Positivity

Lately I've fallen back into a bad habit. I've been reading the comments posted on news stories--and not just any news stories, the controversial ones. I read the comments on reports I know are going to bring out the crazies (and by crazy I mean anyone who doesn't agree with my point of view). I'm kind of just kidding about what I deem to be crazy but you know what I mean. It's like I'm purposely searching for things that will get my dander up.

In the early days of the Internet, I was naive and earnestly commented on issues that were important to me. I never engaged in spewing hate, but I confess to trying, now and then, to present my argument in a thoughtful way to try to sway other commenters. It wasn't long before I realized that spirited debate was mostly not the point. Comments on news and other stories were and are just an opportunity for the angry, often prejudiced, mob to spread their venom. I quickly learned that message boards and reader comments were not the place for me.

Some people get off on this sort of thing, but I take everything so personally. I recently read a news story about Los Angeles boycotting the state of Arizona in response to their new immigration law and headed straight to the comments because I knew they were going to be rough. A lot of people didn't have very nice things to say about the city I live in and love. And I actually got depressed.

But like I said, this has sort of become a habit with me lately. For the last year or so I've been visiting the website of the Catholic League simply because I know there's going to be something on it that's going to piss me off. That's a little sick, no?

I mostly find that when I'm writing (or editing/revising, as I am now), I tend to get on a roll where the words flow freely and then I suddenly hit a brick wall and I'm stuck (for instance, I'm stuck now and I decided to take a break to write up this post). The first thing I want is distraction, and we all know their ain't nothing more distracting than the Internet. And when I'm finished checking email, CNN, Facebook, etc. and those words still aren't flowing, the next thing I do is feed my compulsion for negativity via blogs, websites, and reader comments that I know will ruffle my feathers.

I am declaring a moratorium, here and now, on this behavior because it serves no purpose other than to upset me. I have enough going on in this head of mine--I definitely don't need to look for negativity elsewhere.

What about you? Are you sometimes drawn to negativity or do you try only to engage in positivity?

Heir to an Execution

On this day in 1951, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were sentenced to death for conspiring to commit espionage for the Soviet Union.

I bring this to your attention not to discuss the guilt or innocence of the Rosenbergs, even though it is clear their trial and subsequent execution was fraught with questions. But if you are at all interested in the story of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, HUAC, or McCarthyism, you should see the documentary "Heir to an Execution."

The documentary was directed by the Rosenberg's granddaughter, Ivy Meerapol, and it's fascinating. It deals with a particularly ugly period of American history, and frankly, one that we all need to understand more about.

I am interested in this story because I had a neighbor and dear friend who was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) around the same time the Rosenbergs were on trial--in fact, when she tried to hire an attorney she was refused by one because he was involved in the Rosenberg trial. My friend was a communist--like so many young people who grew up during the depression, she believed communism brought with it an opportunity for all people to have enough. Enough of everything humans need to survive and lead productive lives. My friend, who passed away at age 91 in 2008, eventually turned away from communism when Stalin's atrocities were brought to light, but she remained committed to the cause of social justice and economic well-being for all humans throughout her life.

I will leave you with this: We hear the words Socialist, Communist, and even Nazi thrown around a lot these days. I will not comment on the labels of Socialist or Communist, even though those who use them to describe our current government and President are misled, at best. I would encourage those who believe these terms are appropriate to study communism and socialism and determine for themselves whether or not the words apply.

Use of the term Nazi to describe our President is shameful and not to be tolerated by anyone, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum. The Nazis murdered upwards of six million people. In light of this, is anyone seriously prepared to justify the label of Nazi for President Obama or anyone associated with him? If so, pull your head out of your ass and put it into a history book instead.

Sunshine Day

Okay, for the most part, I'm thrilled.  So thrilled, I'm gonna make you watch this:

Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I do need to register my utter disgust and dismay that Prop 8 passed in California.  I can't believe anyone would even consider voting for a proposition that begins with the words "Eliminates the right of..." but apparently 52% of California voters saw no problem with that and let this vile Proposition pass.  Congratulations, California.  Now you can tell your children you "protected" them by taking away the rights of others (and for about 10% of them, their own civil rights)--I'm sure they'll thank you for it.  But don't worry, chickens gained civil rights, so I guess we're even.

To be certain, California is not the only state that said a collective "fuck you" to a group of their citizens yesterday.  Florida and Arizona both passed same-sex marriage bans.  Arkansas passed a ban on adoption by same-sex couples.  Even as we were making history by voting in the first African-American president, we were taking huge steps backward in the fight for civil rights.

Read this post.  It's good, and it's written from a perspective I just can't give you.

Now back to Obama.  I think he's going to be a really great president, and not just compared to what we've endured for the last eight years.  I do believe he has an agenda--and that agenda is helping the American people to live happier, healthier, and more prosperous lives.

As Kate Harding so eloquently writes:

"It’s incredibly hopeful to finally be thinking of my new president as a tool in the useful sense, not the slang one."

I especially like the insightful article in The Onion today.

"Carrying a majority of the popular vote, Obama did especially well among women and young voters, who polls showed were particularly sensitive to the current climate of everything being fucked. Another contributing factor to Obama's victory, political experts said, may have been the growing number of Americans who, faced with the complete collapse of their country, were at last able to abandon their preconceptions and cast their vote for a progressive African-American."

"Obama's victory is being called the most significant change in politics since the 1992 election, when a full-scale economic recession led voters to momentarily ignore the fact that candidate Bill Clinton had once smoked marijuana."

More than anything, however, I am glad to be able to go back to posting the things that really matter:  knitting, jewelry, painting, dogs...

NO on Prop 8: Closing Arguments

Are you willing to amend the Constitution of California for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens?

I am voting NO on Prop 8 because I am unwilling to do this.  If Prop 8 passes we are setting a dangerous precedent for the revocation of fundamental rights now and in the future for all citizens of this state.  I am compelled to write this not only because I have friends and loved ones who will be directly effected by this current attempt to discriminate, but also because I believe deeply that we are all diminished when we allow bigotry to flourish.

If Prop 8 passes, Californians will be writing discrimination into our state constitution for the first time.  At a time when it's crucial to move forward from the mistakes of the past, the passage of Prop 8 will be a huge step backward.

If you are considering voting yes on Prop 8, then I imagine there are a few reasons (possibly in combination) for this:

1)  Your religious beliefs and/or church does not support the right of gays and lesbians to marry or your personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong/sinful and should not be validated through marriage.

Arguing against someone's religious or personal beliefs is difficult, especially when I don't share them.  However, I come from a sincere and devout religious background, and at one time I did believe, passionately.

I do understand that many of you are tempted to vote yes on Prop 8 because deep down inside you are not ready to accept that gay and lesbian relationships are equal to relationships between men and women, especially if your church or religious doctrine forbids it.  I actually sympathize with you for that, and understand that you might be having a moral struggle on this issue.  My hope is that before going into that voting booth on Tuesday, you understand that civil marriage has NOTHING to do with your own personal religious beliefs.  To use an example, I am married and I am an atheist, but my marriage is no less legally valid than yours, despite the lack of religion.

2)  The California Supreme Court acted wrongly in over-turning Prop 22, which 61% of the voters approved in 2000. 

Briefly, Prop 22 was an initiative statute that specified in the California Family Code that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."  In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that this statute was unconstitutional, and since June 2008, same-sex couples are allowed to marry in California.

Proponents of Prop 8 argue that the California Supreme Court acted wrongly in "overturning" the will of the people.  However, the truth is that they did their job.  Supreme Court judges are given the task of interpreting and protecting the Constitution, and it is their duty to rule on whether or not a law is unconstitutional.  Just because Prop 22 was passed by a majority vote does not make it constitutional, which the judges' ruling confirmed.

In fact, the California Supreme Court has a history of setting precedents in marriage rights.  In 1948, it recognized marriage as a fundamental right and became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage.

3)  Prop 8 is not discriminatory because California already has domestic partnerships, which offer the same legal benefits as marriage.

It is true that domestic partnerships offer most of the legal benefits of marriage.  There are, however, certain exceptions, mostly with regard to the creation and dissolution of domestic partnerships and some tax issues.

Domestic partnerships, while at the time being a great step forward in the extension of the fundamental rights of same-sex couples, are now recognized as not equal to marriage.  Because they do not have the same social recognition as marriage, same-sex couples are routinely denied important rights in situations where one partner needs medical attention, or when life-or-death decisions have to made.

Gays and lesbians want the same things as heterosexuals:  marriage, family, and social acceptance.  The deserve equal treatment under the law.

4)  You believe the misleading ads of the Yes on Prop 8 campaign and think that children will be taught about homosexuality in schools.

This is simply not true.  California law prohibits children being forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school.  Whether or not these subjects are taught is up to individual school districts, and parents can "opt out" if they wish.

If parental consent laws are not being followed your school district, then do your part to make sure they are followed.  This is important for any subject matter that parents might find objectionable.

5)  My church might be forced to perform marriages for same-sex couples or lose their tax-exempt status.

The California Supreme Court decision overturning Prop 22 specifically states that “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Think about it.  In California, medical professionals are legally able to deny treatment, even if it is deemed life-saving, if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.  In this atmosphere, it is highly unlikely that the state will ever force religious officiants to perform marriages they don't agree with.

**********************************************************************************************************

I hope this has cleared up any questions you might have about Prop 8 and that you will join me in voting NO on this discriminatory and divisive proposition.

NO on Prop 8: Letter to HGTV

As I am in the middle of re-doing and re-organizing parts of my house, I have been watching a lot of HGTV lately.  HGTV has always been one of my favorite channels, and I watch it regularly.  However, over the last week I have seen several of the offensive and misleading commercials in support of Prop 8.  In response, I wrote them the following letter:

To Whom it May Concern:

Over the course of the last week (October 20-25) I have seen several "Yes on Prop 8" commercials on HGTV.  I am extremely disappointed and offended by this.  Prop 8 itself is an attempt to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry--it is a vile attempt by ignorant and intolerant groups to strip people of their rights. 

I have always been struck by the seemingly "gay-friendly" attitude of HGTV as many of its shows feature gay couples, and at least one show features an openly gay host.  It is surprising to me that HGTV would accept advertising dollars from the yes on Prop 8 campaign as is completely at odds with the pledge of inclusion and diversity on the Scripps Network website.

I understand that HGTV and its affiliates derive income from advertisers, but surely there must be some choice of which advertising dollars to take.  I am a very big fan of HGTV but cannot abide by your showing the misleading and offensive commercials that support Prop 8.  Please take these commericals out of your advertising schedule.

Sincerely,
Holly West

It really bothers me that a TV network that boasts of its diversity on its website would accept advertising dollars from the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.

If you see adverts for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign on other TV stations, take a moment to contact them and voice your opinion.

No on Prop 8 - Personal Stories

As you all know by now, I am a strong proponent of the right of same-sex couples to marry.  I am a heterosexual woman who has been married for ten years to a wonderful person named Mick.

By virtue of being heterosexual, my marriage is not at risk from Prop 8, which seeks to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry.  Therefore, my personal story might not have much impact on those who support Prop 8.

What about those people whose marriages are at risk?  How do they feel about it?  How is a civil union different from a marriage, and why isn't it enough?  It boggles my mind that anyone would think it's okay to take away the right of a loving couple to marry.  I hope the stories I've linked to below will help you understand why it is so important that Prop 8 does not pass.

Tom & George
They are a couple together for ten years who had a wedding ceremony seven years ago.  When the California Supreme Court recognized their right to marry in June, they legally married in August.

No On Prop 8 Personal Story
"These have been magical, blessed days for us. Some want to take the marriage away from us, because they don't know us. They hold hatred in their hearts for us. They must. Why else would you take away anyone else's rights? Why deny people their magical, blessed days?"

SF Lesbian Wedding
"They say every woman dreams of her wedding day. As a child, I never did. But if I had, I don’t think I could have imagined a day with more meaning. "

Del Martin & Phyllis Lyons
Del and Phyllis legally married on June 16, 2008 after being together over 50 years.  Del died at age 87 on August 27, 2008.  The groundwork for Del and Phyllis to marry began sixty years ago when 40 states had criminal laws that prohibited whites and blacks from marrying.

CajunBoyLBG says it well when he writes:  This is a stark reminder that someday YOU might be part of a group some deem "less than human" and "unworthy of Constitutional protection". If you don't do the right thing now, will others be there for YOU if the whackjobs come for you?

Indeed.

When you cast your vote on November 4, remember that your vote will effect the rights of real, human, flesh & blood people.  Vote NO on Prop 8.

An Open Letter to Friends & Family Who Support Prop 8

Dear Friends & Family,

 

I am writing this letter to urge you to vote NO on Prop 8, which seeks to eliminate marriage for same-sex couples.

 

Prop 8 will take away the right of same-sex couples to marry in the state of California.  They have had the right to marry in California since June 18, 2008.  Their marriage licenses are valid, legal, and no different than yours and mine. 

Having a marriage recognized by your church or religion is different from civil marriage.  If you attend a specific church, you probably have both a civil marriage and a marriage recognized by the church you attend.  I only have a civil marriage.  Nobody is trying to force any church or religion to marry same-sex couples, nor are they asking churches or religions to recognize civil marriages as fulfilling the requirements of marriage of a particular religion.

 

Taking away the fundamental civil rights of otherwise qualified adults is wrong.  Don't use your religious beliefs, which are arguably the most precious thing in your life, as an excuse to descriminate.  You may not like to hear it, but if you support Prop 8 that is exactly what you're doing.  What if someone was trying to deny you the right to legally marry the person you love because you don't share their religious beliefs or because your marriage is not recognized by any religious body?  Or if you do belong to a specific religion, is my marriage any less valid than yours, just because I am not married in a church?  Or because I don't have children?  Of course not.  In the state of California, my marriage is just as legal and just as valid.  So should it be for same-sex couples, whose relationships deserve the same respect and validation as ours, regardless of religious beliefs.  Marriage brings emotional, social, and financial benefits that are being denied to thousands of American citizens every day.  That descrimination cannot continue.

 

My marriage is the most important thing in my life.  That is why I am so passionately in favor of the rights of same-sex couples to marry if they choose to.  I know how wonderful marriage can be and don't want other loving couples to be denied that right.  I can't imagine how it would feel if someone was trying to take that away from me, can you?  That's exactly what Prop 8 is trying to do to same-sex couples. 

 

I'm asking you to do the right thing and not use your religious beliefs as an excuse to descriminate.  Your beliefs are too important to lessen by doing that.

 

Holly

Don't Eliminate the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry - Vote NO on Prop 8

Now and then I am lulled into the false reality that as a group, humans have acheived some degree of enlightenment.  Then I remember that we are still actively and legally descriminating against each other and I am brought crashing back to earth.  In this case, I'm talking about marriage descrimination, specifically, marriage descrimination for same-sex couples.

Actually, in the state of California, we officially stopped the descrimination on June 17, 2008.  Unfortunately, Prop 8, which seeks to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, will be on the ballot in November.  Eliminating the rights of adults who want to participate in marriage, a legal institution which provides financial, social, and emotional benefits not available through domestic partnerships (which were legalized in 1999), is not only wrong, but morally reprehensible.  Same-sex couples already have the right to marry legally in California, and Prop 8 seeks to eliminate that right. 

Here's the deal.  In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is considered valid and recognized in California."  Despite this, in 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom mandated the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco, which resulted in almost 4000 marriages.   These marriages were later annulled by the California Supreme Court, and the city of San Francisco began a legal challenge on behalf of these couples which led to the May 2008 California Supreme Court ruling that limiting marriage of same-sex couples was unconstitutional.  The court refused to stay its order, and as of June 17, 2008, same-sex couples have the legal right to marry in California.

Between June 17 and September 2008, over 11,000 same-sex couples have legally married in California, and by November, there will be many more.  These marriages are recognized and valid, and they are no different from marriages between opposite-sex couples.  Furthermore, if Prop 8 passes, these marriages will almost certainly remain valid, as constitutional scholars agree that the amendment proposed in Prop 8 will not be retroactive.  That means that even if Prop 8 passes, thousands of same-sex couples who are already legally married in California will remain legally married.  Which is as it should be.

As the election approaches, I will be writing more about this issue, as I am very passionate about it.  Let there be no mistake:  Prop 8 does not protect marriage.  It eliminates the fundamental rights of human beings.

Bejesus Saves

I promise this blog will not be so political or issue driven for very long.  I'm just in the mood to spout opinions, dearies, and I'm going to indulge.  Besides, I have at least three knit projects I need to post, plus several pieces of jewelry.  Oh, and a master bathroom re-do that includes cabinets refinished by moi.  The fluff will return pronto.

Today, however, I want to talk about confidence--specifically, lack thereof.

The idea that John McCain might end up being president (and worse--Sarah Palin might be VP) scares the bejesus out of me.  Frankly, I need my bejesus--it keeps me warm at night, and I don't have a lot to spare right now.

Unfortunately, the last eight years have convinced me that my political views and values are not in sync with the rest of the country.  I first lost confidence in the voting decisions of my fellow Americans on November 7, 2000.  I went to bed that night thinking Al Gore had been elected and woke up to find that George W. Bush was our president.  Whilst this was indeed a grave disappointment, I could forgive them (American voters) for that, because really, what did they know about how the man would govern?  Fast forward to 2004 when George W. Bush was re-elected.  I honestly couldn't believe it.  In just four short years, the man and his administration had lied to us in order to justify an invasion of another country, thus beginning a war that would lead thousands of American troops to their deaths (not to mention Iraqis), all the while stripping away many of the freedoms these men and women were fighting for in the first place.  These are but a few of the Bush Administration's many transgressions, but they are certainly among the worst.

Americans voted him in again anyway.

What is so obvious to me apparently isn't so obvious to other American voters, many of whom continue to support George W. Bush and his corrupt administration.  And while John McCain strikes me as a more sincere politician with some kind of a moral center, choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate was a slap in the face to anyone who has even moderately liberal views, let alone a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-war atheist like me.  Because of these fundamental differences in world and social views, there is really nothing McCain can say or do that would convince me to vote for him.

There are, of course, conservatives just like me who wouldn't vote for Barack Obama if he actually were the second coming of Christ.  There's really nothing I can say about them except we will have to agree to disagree.  The voters I worry about most are the undecided ones who still haven't decided between Obama and McCain.  Voters who are disgusted by the Bush Administration but not ready to vote for a liberal democrat.  Voters who have been scared shitless by terrorism and buy into the claim that we are safer because of George W. Bush and that by extension, only McCain can keep us safe.  And worst of all--lifelong white democrats who would never call themselves racist but just can't stomach putting a black man in the White House.

I can see why a politician like John McCain might appeal to those voters, and since I've been let down by the last two elections, I have no confidence that I won't be let down again.  But I shouldn't say "let down," because American voters were exercising their right to vote as they see fit.  It just saddens me that what they see seems to be so different from what I see. 

A couple of years ago, when I was training for a marathon, every couple of weeks I was updating my running playlist.  One of the songs I ran to for weeks was by Morrissey, called Irish Blood, English Heart: 

I've been dreaming of time when to be English is not to be baneful, to be standing by the flag not feeling shameful, racist or partial.

Substitute American for English, of course, but these lines resonated with me.  I have never been someone who has bought into flag-waving patriotism, but I realized for the first time in my life I was actually ashamed to be an American.  My version:

I am desperate for a time when being American is not to be painful, to be standing by the flag not feeling shameful, racist, or fearful.

I hope that time comes in November.  In the meantime, I will be hording my bejesus so I'll have some in reserve.