Red Brown and Blue » Jake Negovan

Beliefs Are Not Facts

Jake Negovan — Tue, 08 May 2012 18:21:30 +0000

Everyone gets to be right these days. Shaping reality to one’s benefit occurs simply by selecting the audience most likely to accept one’s account of the “facts.” That chosen audience then attaches itself to those facts, becoming emotionally and intellectually beholden to them, and then vigorously defends that version of reality from anyone presenting evidence to the contrary.

Doesn’t that sound crazy? It does. But it happens now and has happened for all of history. History; the recorded account of past events, usually told from the perspective of a conflict’s winner. Control of the public by controlling public information is a tradition that runs from kings and churches through today’s media conglomerates and cable news flavors. But the modern technology of wireless constant connectivity leads each member of the public to believe their individual viewpoints possess unassailable power. At the same time, modern Americans have a soft understanding of their right to intellectual and religious freedom. Those two things together lead many to a misguided notion that their personal beliefs hold the same weight and validity as concrete facts.

Beliefs are not facts. Beliefs are formed by attempts at reasoning without complete information. Facts are demonstrable and repeatable. Facts are measured, beliefs are felt. Beliefs should not be the guiding force of public policy. News, which should be an accounting of and a seeking of factual information, should not come in targeted political varieties. We live in a world where information can be almost instantly verified, if we are only vigilant in protecting truth. But we seem to prefer a world where wee are lied to and manipulated, protecting our own fantasies.

The opinions expressed in this post and throughout RedBrownandBlue.com are intended to encourage civil discussion and invite well-reasoned alternatives. You can participate in the conversation by finding us on Facebook or Twitter. We also encourage you to drop us a line by writing to the Editorial Director at jake@redbrownandblue.com.

Jake Negovan drives Red Brown and Blue to be an outlet for progressive political opinion that leads to the betterment of life for the real, multicultural population of the U.S. and the rest of the world. His columns address the issues faced by our country as we continue growing toward a society of equality. More about Jake can be found on the web at jakejots.com or on Twitter@jakenegovan.

Senators Fail America Again by Not Doing Their Jobs

Jake Negovan — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:24:26 +0000

The “Buffet Rule,” a proposal to ensure the wealthiest one percent of Americans pay federal taxes at a rate of at least thirty percent, failed to get the required votes needed to pass and thus died in the United States Senate.

You already heard about that, right?

Just one problem: the bill did get enough votes to pass. The Democratically-controlled Senate, given a piece of legislation that the Democratic president has featured in speeches for months, took it to vote and achieved a 51-45 victory. The Senate is able to pass legislation with a simple majority, meaning one half of the total Senate body (one hundred members) plus one. Fifty-one votes. Fifty-one votes and the law passes. The Buffet Rule received fifty-one votes. So, what the hell?

Sixty votes are required in the Senate to invoke cloture and end the debate on a bill after 30 hours. Without cloture, debate can continue indefinitely, with opposing senators filling up time in any way they wish (one prominent Senator just a few decades ago was known to read from the phone book). This process is known as the filibuster, and the filibuster has been the lurking boogie man of Congress since the Democrats took control in 2009.

Filibusters are not automatic. They require work and dedication by the party using them. A filibuster can backfire, causing tired, bored senators to switch over and vote in favor of cloture just so they can go home. If the opposition to a bill can’t fill the time on the floor 24 hours a day, every day, debate ends and the Senate votes. Fifty-one votes passes. The Buffet Rule had enough votes to pass.

So when you read or hear that the Buffet Rule didn’t pass, know that you’re being misled. The bill could have passed. The senators who are supposed to be aligned with President Obama, supposed to be aligned with the middle-class base of the Democratic Party, supposed to represent the interests of an American public that supports the Buffet Rule, well, those senators just didn’t feel like trying that hard. Your senators didn’t feel like doing their jobs.

Again.

Justice Comes Late, Victory Escapes

Jake Negovan — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:19:50 +0000

After 45 days of vacation, justice returned to work on April 11 when George Zimmerman was arrested and charged with murder for the gunshot death of Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman’s arrest came far too late for anyone to look at this case as anything but a miscarriage of justice. A man killed a boy then received gentle and almost friendly handling from the police. Those police should have done their jobs in a far more professional manner. Those police should have recognized that the dead kid was the actual victim, not the living man with the deadly weapon. Though he still is entitled to a trial that will determine his ultimate culpability, some facts of the matter are undisputed. Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed teenager. Nothing in that sentence is in question.

I confess to being pleased when the news of Zimmerman’s arrest broke. The chatter surrounding this story reinforced my awareness of the racist attitudes still subtly surviving in our nation, and bewildered me with the lackadaisical concern local law enforcement officials displayed in handling Trayvon’s death. Yesterday’s news felt like a victory, no matter how late-coming.

But then I saw Trayvon Martin’s parents on television.

They expressed gratitude and relief over the arrest. They held hope that justice would prevail in court, and that Trayvon’s legacy would lead to positive change. But as I watched them I was struck by the unchanged fact of their permanent loss. Their son is no more, and Zimmerman’s arrest doesn’t reverse that. Their boy is dead. Always. Forever.

There can be no victory with that realization.

The Silver Lining of the Supreme Court

Jake Negovan — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:53:10 +0000

With the Supreme Court reviewing President Obama’s Health Care law to determine whether the individual mandate to buy insurance is Constitutionally allowable, many progressives and liberals fear a defeat of the program. While a defeat would certainly be a major setback for Barack Obama and threaten his reelection campaign, the death of his plan would not be the worst thing for progressive proponents of health care reform in the United States.

Though they run and hide from any such suggestion now, the principle of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance originated with the Republican Party. They argued its merits vigorously during the mid-90s while President Clinton was in office and Hillary Clinton worked to achieve a national universal health care plan. Republicans insisted at the time that an individual mandate was the preferred alternative to the Clintons’ plan, which the GOP claimed would be too expensive and overly-bureaucratic. Always friends to big business, Republican lawmakers worked to deliver profits to insurance companies more than they worked in the interest of the citizenry.

If the Court finds Obama’s conciliatory appeasement of the insurance industry unconstitutional, Americans may be better positioned to someday achieve the universal health care other, more progressive leaders have worked to deliver. A single-payer health care system similar to those enjoyed by every other modernized nation on the planet could be made real by the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. The Supreme Court reviewed those systems already (fortunately, not the present Justices) and ruled them well within the powers available to our federal government.

Republicans got the health care mandate they always wanted, but their imbecilic insistence to tear down any victory Obama could claim could very well cost them a future case against single-payer.

Shared Knowledge May Not Be Much

Jake Negovan — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:18:42 +0000

Today, large groups of people form opinions based on slanted and limited knowledge which they cull from social networks, television clips, and headlines sans story. These snippets tell less than half the tale, but spread like a disease of dumb. Rather than finding one’s knowledge insufficient to discuss opinions among reasoned adults, people are finding themselves surrounded by others who hold the same limited information, and thus wind up believing their knowledge on a particular subject is complete. The circuit of reports in recent weeks concerning the Kony 2012 viral video produced by Invisible Children, Inc. emphasizes a need for individuals to carefully educate themselves on political matters and other news.

The intentions, motivations, and activities of the Invisible Children group have been scrutinized and called into question. So have the realities of the video’s subject, Joseph Kony. So have the actions of the United States in relation to the political situation in Uganda and neighboring nations. Trouble is, most of the scrutiny didn’t come until after millions of people viewed and shared the video, pledging support for its stated cause. Now confusion reigns among the general public, wondering if the whole thing was a con, a lie, an exaggeration, or a misunderstanding. Even worse, the public waits for the next snippet to arrive and give them the answers.

This abridgment of attention the public gives to matters of national or global concern fosters apathy. Accepting and passing on limited information poisons the mind against processing nuanced, complex political problems requiring nuanced, complex solutions.

We need to learn to seek facts before we share stories.

Killing in Afghanistan

Jake Negovan — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 01:44:19 +0000

One of the first stories coming across the news on Sunday morning told of a murderous spree during the night by a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan. The reports claimed a single soldier, acting on his own, broke into the homes of civilians in the Afghan village of Zangabad and murdered sixteen people, including nine children.

The press reports, built largely from details released by NATO and the U.S. government, urgently point out that the murderer acted alone and “outside his chain of command.” He left his post, noticed by Afghan soldiers who then reported his departure to the American forces, and the Americans went looking for him. At least one local witness, though, claimed to have seen several soldiers involved in the killings and reported that they were acting loud and intoxicated. Afghan officials question the reality of a U.S. soldier being able to stray from his post with such tight security enforced around the military base. Indications that the gunman suffered a “breakdown” arose in some stories while others specified that he had no prior record of mental or emotional difficulties during his time in the military. The bottom line is that we don’t know exactly what happened, and we probably won’t know the truth for a long time, if ever.

What we do know is that Americans have occupied Afghanistan for more than a decade. Many of the soldiers over there now were young children when the conflict began, and know no other condition for the country than as one of America’s remote battle grounds. In a fight that never had clearly defined goals, parameters, or even sides, the purpose of our continued presence blurs more with every passing day. The sanity of it all, sparse to begin with, is eroding, twisting the moral compass of men who expected to be heroes, turning them into monsters.

Reality Check for the Fantasists

Jake Negovan — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:54:31 +0000

Did the Republican Party finally get their fill of crazy in Michigan on Tuesday? Rick Santorum’s defeat in the Michigan and Arizona primaries after nearly a month of front-running momentum seemed to say so. In sports lingo, Santorum went for the “heat check” in the previous week by railing against college educations, JFK, and the separation of church and state. Turns out, he didn’t have the burn he thought he did, and the vote tally ended up pouring cold water over his aspirations of defeating Mitt Romney in Mitt’s home state.

It had been close – polls showed the two men running neck-and-neck until recent days when Santorum’s true colors started pouring out of his mouth. Rick revealed his beliefs that colleges and universities are liberal indoctrination factories populated by “snobs.” He also attacked the impassioned ideals of a man who not only isn’t alive to respond, but remains one of the most popular and beloved U.S. presidents in our history. John F. Kennedy’s words made Rick Santorum want to throw up, he said, because JFK had the audacity to suggest that no church control the American government, and that a man’s religion not be a barrier to participating in that government. Those ideas apparently make Rick Santorum violently ill.

Santorum’s aversion to non-theocratic American law should come as no surprise to anyone at this point. He has been clear and open that his faith is the basis of his world view, and his interpretation of that faith marginalizes women, homosexuals, non-Christians, Christians of non-Santorum-endorsed denominations, blacks, and non-Americans. The only surprising revelation arising recently is that his right-wing fantasies drift much further into the dark than even most Republicans are comfortable with. By attacking higher education, which many Republicans (including Santorum) benefited from, he went beyond attacking the public school system that the GOP has learned to loathe and went after a keystone of American success stories. By attacking Kennedy, he went beyond the dislike of all things Democrat and aimed at fallen president and a genuine American icon whose assassination is still remembered as a live event by many Republican voters.

The question must now be asked, after the voting GOP base has serial-dated a half-dozen hopefuls, if the insincere and out-of-touch Romney succeeds by being the least bizarre Republican candidate. The fantasists who crave a permanent religious conservatism, in which women are enslaved by biology and laws are transcribed from scripture, have now seen the flaws in Rick Santorum. The other handful of hopefuls who have come, gone, or chosen to senselessly linger each also had a moment of fervent support that dissolved once the reality of their own power fantasies came to light. The Republican base is begrudgingly coming to terms with fact that their array of candidates repels much of the general public because those candidates say out loud things intended to be whispered. That’s the reality, and there’s nothing that can change it at this stage.

Romney still hasn’t made a case for his candidacy. He’s letting his opponents do it for him by being themselves.

Should Race Matter to Colleges?

Jake Negovan — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:23:32 +0000

The news broke on Tuesday morning that affirmative action would be challenged again before the Supreme Court of the United States. In Fisher v. University of Texas, the Justices will hear the argument of a white applicant who believes she was denied admission to her college of choice because of her race.

Elevation of this case gives supporters of affirmative action plenty to worry about, considering the conservative bent of the present-day Supreme Court. The expectation/prediction/fear of many is that the Court will overturn their 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger which upheld the use of affirmative action in college admissions to achieve a racially diverse student body, and instead fall more in line with the 2007 decision of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, which claimed achieving racial diversity in the classroom was not the role of the state. Justice Elena Kagan announced she would recuse herself from this case, further diminishing the counterbalance to the modern Court’s inhumane conservatism.

Putting all legal precedents and possible ramifications aside for a moment, this case is an embarrassment to the American justice system. The plaintiff’s core argument is that she should not have been refused admission to the college she wished to attend. The racially charged claim of “reverse discrimination” is a sad excuse used by certain white people who have become accustomed to getting their way too often and then suddenly don’t. What the plaintiff, Abigail Noel Fisher, fails to understand, and what the legal forces propelling this case to the high court refuse to concede, is that being denied because of your race is a different thing than not being accepted in favor of other qualified students who are minorities. The first is racial discrimination. The second is a side-effect of anti-discriminatory policies. Other students were selected, and no more room was left at Miss Fisher’s preferred school. It should be noted that Miss Fisher was in no way denied a college education. She simply didn’t get to go where she really wanted to go. Same story that faces thousands of college applicants every single semester who don’t blame it on black people.

See, Miss Fisher had a way into the school that would have circumvented any involvement of race. The University of Texas employed an admissions policy to automatically admit students who graduated in the top 10% of their respective class, regardless of race or any other consideration. That policy created a means of admission for the majority of freshmen accepted to the school. Unfortunately for Abigail Fisher, her grades placed her in the upper 12% of her class. Close, but no cigar.The remaining slots were distributed at the discretion of the school’s admissions board who, in the interest of creating a diverse student body, considered factors including race, economic background, community involvement, and academic performance. Miss Fisher was not selected.

Without having reviewed elements of the case argued in lower courts, this writer has difficulty believing that Miss Fisher was denied admission BECAUSE of her race. As stated above, being excluded because of one’s race is an entirely different matter than being passed over in favor of someone else who isn’t white. Unless her admission file at UT is stamped explicitly as DENIED, REASON: WHITE PERSON, any number of factors could have led to her exclusion. Under current law, no one in the United States is guaranteed a college education, no matter what preparatory steps one may have taken on the way to high school graduation. Miss Fisher’s suit seems to presume otherwise and, even worse, accuse minorities of stealing her right to choose her collegiate destiny.

The apparent weakness of the plaintiff’s argument combined with the ideological disposition of the Justices raises serious questions about the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case. Rather than a pressing matter of concern for the American people, this looks like an opportunistic stab at affirmative action policies at a time the Court feels it has the votes to kill such policies. The only way for the Court to save face after dignifying this suit with its acknowledgement would be a brutal, shaming defeat of the plaintiff. That appears unlikely to happen. Because of the conservative leaning of the Court and the previous decisions rendered by the sitting Justices, a defeat of the defense seems far more assured.

The education provided by universities today does little to impress. More and more employers report graduates who appear unprepared for employed life. Minds are not tempered or challenged by American universities, but pushed through a systematic exchange of dollars for degrees. Despite the questionable job preparation though, college attendance does provide two important benefits. One is the degree itself, that simple piece of paper that opens the door to elevated incomes. The other is the cultural enrichment created by pooling individuals from different geographic regions, religions, sexual orientations, economic standing, and, yes, races. Eliminating affirmative action programs for college admissions limits minority access to the first of these (perpetuating historically below-average incomes) while also reducing the opportunity for all students to experience the second.

By taking on this case, the Supreme Court is poised to use Miss Fisher’s misguided sense of entitlement as a means of causing further damage to the quality and equality of U.S. education.

War on Religion? Women Aren’t Buying It.

Jake Negovan — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:00:53 +0000

People in the United States who consider themselves religious, particularly women of that group, should be angry with the Republican party. By continuing to equate faith and Biblical adherence with policies that are anti-female, anti-gay, and intolerant of anything outside a very selective and narrow interpretation of scripture, the GOP helps give Christianity a bad reputation. The continued antics of the extreme right paint Christians as unforgiving and completely antonymous with compassion.

Republican mouthpieces are choking the airwaves this week with cries of religious persecution, claiming that President Obama’s mandatory order to extend health insurance coverage of contraceptive medicine for all women violates the right of religious organizations who do not support birth control. The claim is shameful and ridiculous.

The president signed an order taking effect on August 1st which will require all issuers of insurance to provide contraceptive birth control at no out-of-pocket expense to women who choose to use it. Some universities and organizations which are affiliated with the Catholic church or other religious denominations requested an exemption from this rule, citing their philosophical opposition to contraceptive birth control. The Executive Branch denied that request. Republicans immediately jumped into that teapot with their tempest in hand, calling it an attack on religious freedom.

When will dogmatic zealots from the right figure out that religious freedom allows one to believe and worship as they choose, but does not allow one to impose those beliefs on others? Why is that so difficult to understand? Conservatives have tried using the same “religious freedom” argument for a long time to justify their discrimination against gays, and use it constantly to defend the hostile antics of anti-abortion activists. Now the target is birth control, which makes no sense at all because the 1950s ended 53 years ago. Members of a religion which does not believe in contraception do not have to use contraception. That is their freedom. However, they do not have the right to prevent others from using contraception, even if those others are members of their own faith, students at their school, employees of their business, or members of an affiliated organization. That is an imposition on the rights of the individual, and against the principals of individual freedom. Insisting that your special club shouldn’t have to follow the rules because of your beliefs is not a defense of your right to believe; it’s an insistence that others be punished if they don’t believe as you do. Yes, a woman is free to choose another school, another job, or even another church, but she should not have to choose between these things or controlling her own reproductive health.

Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the gang (even some weak-willed Democrats) are demanding a reversal of the president’s order. They’ve gone on television to decry his War on Religion, aided by the media’s appetite for overblown buzzwords and catch-phrases. If Obama is smart, he’ll stand his ground. The public supports his policy. Catholics support his policy. Women support his policy. The recent outcry over the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s rift with Planned Parenthood should have been a warning to the GOP. They should recognize that women are politically educated and active, and when you have a president offering to save women money while also protecting their health, parading a bunch of men across the television screen who insist women should have less control over their reproductive interests is a bone-headed, short-sighted move.

As much as Republicans enjoy having wars on things, pitting themselves against women’s rights is a suicide mission. The men at the top of the party are leading the charge. Who are they expecting will follow?

Santorum and Synchronicity

Jake Negovan — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:29:25 +0000

Religious Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum won nomination contests in three states on Tuesday night, just a few hours after a federal appeals court in California overturned controversial ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had prevented gay and lesbian couples from legally marrying. His victories also come on the same day the Susan G. Komen organization lost a key executive, who resigned under a cloud of public criticism for allowing conservative, anti-woman political agendas to end their partnership with Planned Parenthood. The synchronicity of these happenings form an ironic juxtaposition, because while each Republican hopeful espouses roll-backs in women’s reproductive rights and champions continued discrimination against homosexuals, Santorum is the most strident on both fronts.

Comments in the past from Rick Santorum compared gay relationships to the terrorist attacks of 2001, bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery, and, of course, bestiality. He makes it very clear that he sees homosexuality as a choice made by depraved individuals without any sense of morality. By extension, he implicitly makes clear that gay Americans would continue living as second-class citizens at best under his presidency, while at worst would find themselves subject to increased discrimination and mistreatment made law of the land.

The rebuke of Prop 8 in California marks the continued progress of civil rights for all Americans. Santorum and the rest of the Republican field distance themselves from both the future and from the growing consensus of human decency in our country by attaching themselves to policies of discrimination. Embracing social conservatism may win Bible-belt states in the current political climate, but no political cause promoting exclusion and bigotry ever endures, anywhere in the world. The elevation of anti-gay politics within the GOP and the ascension of staunchly anti-gay Santorum shows a party becoming more extreme, and less appealing to the masses.

As if coming right out and telling gay Americans that no place for them exists in the Republican party wasn’t enough, the GOP also appears determined to excise women from their ranks. The right’s insistence to reverse Roe vs. Wade has grown to such an illogical obsession for conservatives that they fail to see the forest for the trees until those trees are falling on them. By installing a pro-life ideologue as an Executive VP, the Komen Foundation succumbed to political hijacking. Their appeasement of social conservatives backfired explosively when they severed ties with Planned Parenthood, and it’s likely the PR fallout will permanently depress the coffers of the once-respected charity. Extreme conservatives within the organization failed to recognize the powerful resistance growing among Americans where reproductive health rights are concerned.

Santorum epitomizes the “men-know-what’s-best-for-women” mindset that comes from social conservatives regarding women’s health. Claiming that President Obama has overstepped his authority and attacked the rights of religious organizations, Rick stands against women’s right to contraception coverage through health insurance providers. It matters not to him that 98% of all sexually active women in the U.S. have used birth control at some point in their lives and, obviously, felt it was an important safeguard on their personal well-being. He wants women to feel the punitive sting of paying for that protection out of pocket. Claiming the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, Rick stands against abortion in all cases, including instances of rape or incest, or when carrying the pregnancy to term endangers the health of the mother. Life is life, and under no circumstance does he feel women are justified in terminating a pregnancy. Oh, except for that time the mother in danger was his wife. That time, it was justified.

Rick Santorum won the Missouri primary, Colorado caucus, and Minnesota caucus on Tuesday. The win can be partly attributed to his extremely conservative views on social issues and the two-steps-behind mentality of rural Republicans, but more accurately reinforces how dissatisfied the GOP base is with their options. They are grasping at straws. Santorum is not Romney and not Newt. Tuesday, that was good enough for a few wins. But it’s far from good enough for our country, and the signs today from California and from Komen show that the American people won’t find social conservatism good enough for the nation this November.