The Alligator

There has been a drum beat around the country lately to put pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to begin the process of Impeachment against President George W. Bush. There are interesting reasons to consider this and actually REAL reasons that have to do with protecting the country’s future than in trying to bring down a President through a “legal coup”.

No real discussion of impeachment can really occur unless the pink elephant in the room is addressed first” The impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. So let’s do a brief synopsis:

The charges arose from an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General Janet Reno, expanded his investigation into Clinton’s conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. In a sworn deposition for this case, Clinton denied having “sexual relations” or a “sexual affair” with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. At the deposition, the judge ordered a precise legal definition of the term “sexual relations” that Clinton claims to have construed to mean only vaginal intercourse.

A much-quoted statement from Clinton’s grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word “is.” Clinton said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement”. Linda Tripp, one of Lewinsky’s confidantes, provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Lewinsky discussed having oral sex with Clinton. Based on these tapes, Starr concluded that Clinton had committed perjury.

There are several defenses: Lewinsky may have exaggerated her testimony, or Starr may have coerced it. Another possibility, implied by Clinton himself, is that he did not touch her with “an intent to arouse or gratify.” He may have been “hands on,” but it might have been for his pleasure, not hers. In that case, his answers are still legally accurate. Again, this may make him sexually selfish, but that is not illegal. For critics to prove perjury, they must somehow enter Clinton’s head and prove that he did not intend to sexually gratify Ms. Lewinsky. Which, of course, is clearly impossible. Clinton may have even made a mistake by interpreting the definition too narrowly, but that is not the same thing as lying. The bottom line is that the definition crafted by the Jones’ team was deeply flawed, and allowed Clinton to make legally accurate answers in spite of what actually happened. And therefore he was not guilty of perjury in this writer’s estimation.

It is clear that an investigation that began to look into alleged questionable business dealings in a failed deal which went no where and ended up looking into the President’s bedroom was the work of an overzealous prosecutor and a coterie of Republicans who were determined to bring down the President at any cost. Pure partisan politics at its core and an abuse of Congress’s Constitutional duty to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors. “Lying” about a sexual liaison and it is debatable that Clinton’s statement was technically a lie, does not rise at all to any serious or grave enough level intended by the founders to have impeachment to address. The proceedings against President Clinton were clearly political and were clearly not constitutional.

So the real question that arises is, after such a blatantly political abuse of the power to impeach would the nation be circumspect of new impeachment proceedings against President George Walker Bush, even if those proceedings were completely justified. Is the nation weary of the politics of impeachment and would the very serious matter addressed in an impeachment proceeding against President Bush have the effect of diminishing their troubling and heinous nature by relegating them to the dustbin of partisanship- which clearly the American people have developed a pronounced ennui.

Is there some sort of immunity from impeachment that President Bush has because he and his administration know bank on the fact it is unlikely the American people would want to live through 2 Impeachments within a decade? I fear it may be so.

But let’s look at the reasons that impeaching President Bush makes sense:

Recently a segment on the PBS Bill “Moyers Journal” was devoted to the subject of impeaching Bush. Conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein, an official in the Reagan Justice Department, and John Nichols, the chief Washington correspondent for The Nation come from different points on the ideological spectrum, but agreed that the Founders intended impeachment less as a punishment for officeholders than as a protection against the dangerous expansion of executive authority.

If abuse of the system of checks and balances, lies about war, approval of illegal spying and torture, signing statements that improperly arrogate legislative powers to the executive branch, schemes to punish political foes and refusals to cooperate with congressional inquiries are not judged as high crimes, the next president, no matter from which party, will assume the authority to exercise some or all of these illegitimate powers.

Let’s look at those abuses and actions that the Bush administration took within the legal context of Fein’s and Nichols rubric.

The U.S. Constitution provides for impeachment of any President or Vice President who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

This applies to any serious abuses of power, whether or not they are actually crimes, but President Bush and Vice President Cheney have clearly committed numerous specific federal crimes while in office.

Let’s first focus first on a Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371).

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States is a specific federal crime prohibited by Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Put simply, it is an agreement to use deceit and misrepresentation to “obstruct or impair” the normal functioning of government. It has been charged numerous times, including against defendants in the Watergate case and the Iran/contra scandal.

Let’s go through this step by step:

How do you prove a criminal conspiracy?

A criminal conspiracy is defined in the law as simply an agreement to commit a crime, but you don’t have to show that people wrote out an agreement or even explicitly said, “let’s do this criminal act…” Conspiracies are proved by evidence of what people do and say, both publicly and behind the scenes.

Isn’t that “circumstantial evidence?”

Yes it is and, as judges tell juries in courtrooms around the country every day, circumstantial evidence is just as important as direct evidence.

What does it mean “to defraud?”

To defraud means to attempt to influence people to go along with your proposal by using deceit. The attempt does not actually have to succeed. The crime is complete once a person uses misrepresentation with the intent to provide a false picture. “Fraud” includes deliberate misrepresentations, outright lies, half-truths and statements made with reckless disregard for the truth. Bush and Cheney used all of these methods to convince the public and Congress to agree to their plan to invade Iraq.

What are some examples of Bush’s and Cheney’s misrepresentations?

Bush, Cheney and their top aides made hundreds of misrepresentations to deceitfully convince people to accept their plan to invade Iraq. Here are a few examples:

1. Deliberate Misrepresentation- The linking of Iraq and 9/11

A deliberate misrepresentation is a statement or set of statements that might not be false in and of themselves, but are presented so as to give a false impression. In the case of the Bush/Cheney conspiracy to defraud, the best example of this is their repeated linking of Saddam or Iraq to the “lessons of 9/11.” The Bush administration used this device so often that it’s clear that it was a calculated and deliberate effort to provide a false impression that the two were linked — even though, as Bush has admitted, they knew there was no link. It is no defense to a charge of fraud based on deliberate misrepresentation that the person’s statement was not literally false.

2. Outright Lie- “Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in.”

Before the war, and as recently as March 21, 2006, President Bush said we invaded Iraq because “Saddam would not let the UN inspectors in.” That is an outright lie. The UN inspectors reported to the Security Council on March 7, 2003 that, although the process was not perfect, Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the inspections, the UN team thought the process was working, and they wanted to complete it. President Bush told the UN inspectors to leave within 48 hours on March 16, 2003.

3. Half-truth- “Saddam’s son-in-law told us about biological and chemical Weapons.”

One of the half-truths most often repeated by Cheney, in particular, was that “we” (the U.S.) knew there were biological and chemical weapons, because Saddam’s son-in-law, Kamel Hussein, told U.S. agents about them when he defected. Apart from the fact that Kamel made these statements in 1995, so they proved nothing about the existence of weapons in 2003, Cheney only told half the story. The other half was that Kamel had said that they had destroyed the weapons, a fact confirmed by U.N. and U.S. inspectors.

4. Reckless Disregard - “Iraq is a Grave and Gathering Danger”

In criminal law, statements made with reckless disregard as to whether they are true or false are considered fraudulent. In other words, the law imposes a duty upon people who are trying to influence others to make important life decisions — such as investments, large purchases, medical decisions, or, of course, agreeing to a war — to make assertions only if they are actually backed up by facts, especially when the people speaking are seen as authority figures, such as the President and Vice President. So every time Bush and Cheney made statements such as “Iraq is a grave and gathering danger” or “We know there are weapons of mass destruction,” they were speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. If they had done their due diligence and examined the reports of our own intelligence community, they would have known that these statements were seriously in question, if not outright false. If they did not complete any due diligence before making the statements, they were speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. Either way it’s fraud.

Does it Matter Whether Bush and Cheney actually believed there were WMD?

No, in criminal law it is not a defense to fraud that a person subjectively, that is, in his own mind, believed that the scheme would all work out, if he makes fraudulent misrepresentations in order to get people to go along with it. In other words, you can’t trick people into going along with your ideas, just because you think the ideas are good.

How was government “impaired and obstructed?”

Bush and Cheney’s fraudulent misrepresentations about the true state of affairs in Iraq was designed to convince the public to believe that Iraq presented an imminent threat. They needed to convince the public that there was a dire emergency in order to convince Congress to authorize funds for the war. This scheme of misrepresentation obstructed the workings of government in a critical way — it caused the most serious of governmental decisions to be made upon false information.

Second let’s look at violations of US Law and International Law- most specifically- violations of the Geneva Convention by condoning torture.

On 6/22/04 Bush said “We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being.” Is that true?

The evidence below shows that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales are guilty of violating “Federal Torture Act” Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention by ordering and condoning the use of torture. Many prisoners have died as a result.

1. 1/25/02 - White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo advising the President of “the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,” a federal statute, for torturing prisoners. He advised Bush to invent a legal technicality –declaring detainees in the “war on terror” to be outside the Geneva Conventions –which, he said, “substantially reduces” the chance of prosecution. Gonzales was later promoted to US Attorney General. [Nation]

2. 2/7/02 - Bush took Gonzales’ advice and signed an order declaring that members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not covered by the Geneva Convention. The memo requires that “detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.” While seeming to call for humane treatment, it is carefully worded to allow for violations of the Geneva Convention when necessary.

3. Bush moves prisoners to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and holds them for years without charges, trials, or access to lawyers. This is ruled illegal by a Federal Judge on Jan 31, 2005.

4. Bush sets up secret prisons run by the CIA in foreign countries to escape US laws against torture. Rice claims European countries supported this plan. [Washington Post] [CNN] [FindLaw]

5. 9/26/02 - Canadian Maher Arar was arrested at JFK airport and sent to secret prison in Syria for torture under “extraordinary rendition” program. He was released a year later without charges. He sued the US government but the suit was dismissed by a federal judge David Trager on 2/17/06 citing the need for secrecy. He wrote, “One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar’s removal to Syria.” Thus the reason for the secrecy is not for national security but simply to avoid embarassing guilty parties in government. This sets a dangerous precedent that may allow Bush to kidnap and torture anyone he pleases. On 1/26/07 the Canadian government apologized and awarded Arar compensation. [Wikipedia]

6. Dec ‘02 - Alberto J. Mora, the general counsel of the United States Navy, tried to halt what he saw as a disastrous and unlawful policy of authorizing cruelty toward terror suspects. His 2004 memo details his unsuccessful struggle with the White House to stop the torture. [New Yorker]

7. 12/31/03 - German national Khaled al-Masri says he was abducted by the CIA arrested in Macedonia and flown to Afghanistan. He was then tortured for five months and released. CIA has admitted making a mistake in this case.

8. April 2004, photos of prisoners being tortured at Abu Ghraib prison make headlines around the world. Low ranking soldiers are convicted of torture charges, falling on their swords for the White House. [Wikipedia] [New Yorker]

9. 5/24/04 - Seymour Hersh releases article detailing how Rumsfeld’s program encouraged torture. “President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, the former intelligence official said.” [New Yorker]

10. October 2005, Senator McCain adds an amendment to a defense bill that would outlaw torture by the United States. Bush and Cheney fight this tooth and nail to block this amendment but eventually give in after the McCain amendment is weakened by the Graham-Levin amendment. When Bush signs the bill he adds a signing statement that basically says he can ignore the prohibition against torture under his powers as “unitary executive” and “Commander in Chief “.

11. 6/29/06 - Supreme Court rules in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Geneva Convention applies to prisoners at Guantanamo.

Now let’s look at illegal wiretapping. While the US Congress has recently expanded the President’s powers to continue this practice in a short term 6 month authorized bill, the President had no such authority before this legislation was enacted.

Bush has admitted to authorizing the NSA, a secretive spy agency, to conduct warrantless wire taps on American citizens. The spying even extends to postal mail. The NSA has also been collecting phone records in an attempt to build a database of every phone call that is made.

1. The Bush wiretaps violated US law because he was required to get approval from FISA. He can start a wiretap of a suspected terrorist at any time but must then seek approval to continue within 72 hours.

2. Attorney General Gonzales claims HJR114 gave Bush authority to conduct the wiretaps. But HJR114 only grants use of the “Armed Forces”. HJR114 does not explicitly suspend the Constitution. Also HJR114 requires “The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3″. Congress was not notified of these wiretaps. [HJR114]

3. Bush may have bypassed FISA because he wanted to listen to and analyze all international signals, not just those of suspected terrorists. He knew this was blatantly illegal so he hid it. Bush says “We use FISA still. But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.” Then later “There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it’s important to note the distinction between the two.” The distinction is that “detecting” requires listening to lots of calls with a computer to see if someone says certain keywords like “bomb” in Arabic, or maybe even “impeach Bush” in English. Monitoring is listening to a specific suspected terrorist. The problem with detection is that you have to listen to all calls, including yours and mine. [This NY Times article confirms this interpretation. Also CNN.]

4. More evidence that Bush wants to listen to all signals is in Bob Woodward’s book “Bush at War,” on page 303. ” Bush summarized his strategy: ‘Listen to every phone call and close them down and protect the innocents.’” [WaPost]

5. James B. Comey, acting Attorney General, refused to sign an authorization for the NSA program because it “did not comply with the law”. On March 10th, 2004, Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card tried to bypass Comey be getting a disoriented John Ashcroft to sign an authorization from his hospital bed. Comey rushed to the hospital to stop them. On March 11th, Bush intervened personally to get the Justice Department to authorize the program. [NYTimes]

6. Investigators may have found that Bush applied for an expansion of wiretap capability from FISA, was rejected, and then went ahead and did it anyway. [FindLaw] [FAS]

7. Bush claims going through FISA is too slow but legal emergency wiretaps helped capture terrorist Mosquera.

8. According to a report in USA Today, the NSA is collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans - most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders. The stated goal is to be able to identify who is involved in a network of terrorists. But this same technique can be used to determine who is involved in a network of political activists who might, for example, oppose the Bush administration. Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers’ calling habits. All of the major telecommunications companies cooperated with this program except for Qwest. Joe Nacchio, CEO of Qwest, was troubled by the fact that there was no FISA approval and that the program was so pervasive.

9. 8/18/06 - In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that the wiretaps are unconstitutional.

There seems to be a grassroots swell for impeachment making it very different that the “in side the beltway” game that the Republicans played with President Clinton. More and more local jurisdictions are voting for resolutions calling for impeachment. This is the people talking, not the Washington insiders and the punditry.

The burgeoning movement for impeachment is a rational response to a moment when polls tell us that roughly three-quarters of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. This administration has not just let Americans down; it has frightened them. A great many understand, intuitively or explicitly, that we are experiencing a constitutional crisis and that impeachment proceedings are the proper tonic. Unfortunately, key Democrats continue to mistake the medicine for the disease.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still keeps impeachment “off the table”; she and her advisers fear that if they allow Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to open impeachment hearings, it will rally the Republican base in defense of Bush and Cheney. History suggests she’s wrong: Opposition parties that have pursued impeachment in a high-minded manner have, in every instance, maintained or improved their position in Congress and have usually won the presidency in the next election.

Pelosi should step out of the way and let her colleagues restore the rule of law. More than a dozen have shown their desire to do so by co-sponsoring Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment against Cheney.

Clearly, impeachment is not just around the corner; even Sen. Russ Feingold’s “relatively modest response” to the crisis — censure resolutions against Bush and Cheney –faces an uphill struggle. At this late stage, it will be difficult to turn the need for accountability into action on Capitol Hill. But even an impeachment effort that falls short lays down a historical marker; it tells Bush and Cheney and all those who succeed them that an executive branch that imagines itself superior to Congress and the rule of law will arouse popular fury.
Let’s face it the Republicans are the sultans of spin and know the right buttons to push to scare the American people. You have heard the arguments from them about impeachment— partisan (excuse me? do you remember the Clinton impeachment) and a diversion from the real business of the American people.

I’ve already addressed the partisan issue. Republicans using this argument should just be ashamed of themselves- or they have suddenly developed Alzheimer’s. But let’s talk about the “real business of the American people”. Sure Congress needs to tackle issues like health care, terrorism (in a way that makes sense- not Bush’s strategy), the economy, the ever increasing violence in the country, and a myriad of social ills that should be addressed. But I posit that none of these issues can truly be addressed appropriately unless the Congress does it’s duty to protect the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States.

In my desire to be a pragmatic Democrat I have looked at impeachment talk as unrealistic and politically dangerous. After all in 2008 I would like to see a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House. Would impeachment compromise the possibility of that dream? A year ago I would have said yes. Now I say no. The American people are hungering for leadership and for a way out of the mess. With an approval rating of 18% what does Congress have to risk?

The people are craving action and it is time for our leaders in Congress to do the right thing, show some backbone and hold the President accountable. There is a tightrope politicians walk in politics- how vigilantly do they hold to their convictions and how much are they willing to compromise those convictions to get something done. Governing is often seen as compromise and that is fine most of the time. Compromise has its own sort of accountability to the nation. But there are times when compromise is just a cop out and is a sign of weakness and is dangerous for the nation. This is one of those times.

It is time for the United States House of Representatives to do the right thing- it is time for Speaker Pelosi to put the impeachment option back on the table. After all there is nothing less than the future of our Constitution at stake.

A year ago today- July 9, 2006 I began writing pieces for “The Alligator”. I was never quite sure why I started. I think originally it was a way for me to impart some of my views with friends and family but not force it upon them through emails. Writing a blog seemed somewhat less “in your face” since someone who might wish to read something would have to actively go to my blog rather than be confronted with my viewpoint in their in-box. It seemed good manners. 

That might have been the initial impetus, but it is not why I blog now. It is clear to me that my blog is more an internal process for me than it is an external process focused on ”talking” to others. That might sound odd since inherent to blogging is that whatever you write is accessible to everyone in the world with access to the internet and is hardly the same as a hand written diary that is latched, locked and hidden in a personal drawer.

Some of my earlier blog pieces were more snarky editorials than thoughtful policy analysis- but I think that the blog has evolved over the year.  “The Alligator” has turned into an excuse for me to research issues that have piqued my interest. There have been a few primary inspirations that get my mind going and inspire me to find out as much as I can about an issue and a few things I don’t want this blog to be. 

One thing that I don’t want to do is to spout off about things just for the sake of spouting off (admitedly -some of my earlier pieces were in the vein).  But nothing irritates me more than people who hold a political view and cannot tell you why or cannot defend it with anything but propaganda that has been doled out by some group or party (liberal or conservative). There are a couple of my family members who invariably drive me up wall in this regard. I remember having a “discussion” about Hillary Clinton with one of them (he happens to be a Republican). I mentioned to him that I have no idea who I will support for President in 2008 but Hillary Clinton interested me and she was not off my list.  His response was “She’s a disaster!” “Why do you think she is a disaster?” I asked. “She’s a disaster,” he reiterated without any further explanation.

This is the sort of politics I cannot stand. If he had said that he disagreed with her views on the war or health care or he wasn’t happy with her as a New York Senator or he hated the health initiative she developed under President Clinton’s administration- I would have respected that. But to just not like her- because-  well- she is Hillary, just seemed inane and not what I think political discourse should be.

Too often on blogs I see people spouting off about a politician or an issue where they have swallowed someone else’s language- a political party, a talk radio personality or a pundit – but they haven’t come to the conclusion based on their own research into the issue or the politician. I have no patience with this, just like I had no patience with my relative who described Senator Clinton as a “disaster” without ever being able to explain what that meant.

I won’t say that I come to an issue with a blank slate. I usually have a preconceived position on the issue but I want to see if the real facts hold up my position. I try and look for information on issues from unbiased sources and I have an internal agreement with myself that if my research doesn’t hold up my initial position, than the position needs to be re-examined.  Therefore the positions that are taken here are based, I believe, on some sound research and analysis. 

So writing these blog pieces have been an exercise in crafting my own views on policy and politics- giving me the arsenal to back up the positions that I take.  As a political junkie and an unrepentant policy wonk- research and analysis is fun and gives me joy.

I am not writing to hear the sound of my own voice nor so others listen to me drone on about my point of view. Quite frankly I hope I never get to the level of arrogance where I think people should change their view because it is different than mine.  I am writing to codify my thoughts and develop my positions based on more than just being a bloviating windbag.  Ideally if others are interested in the research and my analysis of the facts that I have found along the way- that’s wonderful. But “The Alligator” is about personal learning and growth. My blog has been a way for me to learn, to exercise my brain muscle, and to challenge the “truth” as pontificated by the punditry by teasing out the reality of the rhetoric.  

True sometimes I reflect on an issues such as hate speech or about faith in the political arena that are opinion pieces rather than academic examination of an issue like my piece on immigration. But as I write my opinion pieces I still explore the issue with academic research so the opinion is backed by some concrete historical or scientific facts.  In my piece where I posited that morality and ethics should inform politics and not faith, I went as far as exploring the etymology of the word “faith” and what that has meant in modern history in order to frame the issue cogently rather than to just add some fuel to an already incendiary issue.   I want to see the issue in that fire, not the flames around it.

For my own edification I want to get into the meat of an issue. Sometimes researching one thing will raise questions for me elsewhere.  This excites me.   I will not hold a position just because my party or my friends or my family think it is the right position. I also will not take a position just because it sounds right- I want to know that it IS right based on some facts that I can back it up.  That is really all I wish to accomplish with this blog. If others find my research and analysis useful in their own thinking- whether or not the agree with me- than that is a bonus.  Some of my writing might seem provactive- but it is meant to provoke my own brain.  Some of it can sound emotional- especially about the war and about the President- and it is,  but I try to take that emotion and harness it with some thinking.  Emotion is good in politics as a catalyst not as a finale. 

How I get to writing a piece is an interesting process but probably not any different than most writers of policy opinion pieces. I will be talking to my partner about some conversation I had or an article in the New York Times or one of the other publications I read – “The New Yorker”, “Atlantic Monthly”, “The New Republic” and occasionally my local paper “The San Francisco Chronicle”- will seep into my brain and I will think about it and eventually want to know more.

And quite often friends with differing politics will say something or write something in an email that will get me going. I have a couple of friends that I disagree with a lot about politics, but I respect them both a great deal and I think that they are good, caring and very compassionate people. Every once in a while one of them will say something that just seems incongruous with what “I assume” the position of a caring and good person “should” be. Because I love these two women like sisters they turn my own preconceived notions on their heads.  Invariably this leads me to needing to know more about the issue and why they might hold a position so contrary to my own. Admittedly, my research rarely supports their views 100% but it does often give me insight as to why these caring and compassionate people might hold a view point that is antithetical to mine and which I historicially would have dismissed as reactionary, uncaring and lacking compassion. 

I know that good people can disagree about important issues- but in this highly partisan world, we often forget that.  My two friends have reminded me about this and inspired me to really dive into an issue where I know we disagree. 

Blogging has been an interesting journey for me. It has been an intensely personal journey in a very public setting. My blogging has given me clarity on my own positions while also giving me more respect for views that are counter to my own. Moreover- I have found some of the responses to my blog pieces that have been posted here to be provocative and they  have made me think my positions and opinions even more- always further defining my own my mind.

Over the past year, I have posted tens of thousands of words in 83 articles (including this one) and have had more than 70 comments posted from various readers- some supportive of my views, others that aren’t and some that are quasi-supportive. There have been over 7,100 hits and I think that the article with the most readership has been Hate Speech and Prejudice in America: The Famous and the Media- Hypocrisy, Hype and Nothing Accomplished with well over 500 readers of that specific piece.  I have no real expectations for developiong a regular readership, but I am honored that I have developed some tiny group of folks who regularly read my writing on this site.

Occasionally I have ventured into topics that are not political- such as opera and (shocking to those who know me) World Cup Soccer! A few posts were in my area of expertise of HIV/AIDS issues and a few were personal reflections stemming from my own life. But by in large- issues that have been covered in the news media are the central focus on this blog.

I hope that The Alligator has been able to be provocative for those that visit the site. I know that for me- it has been and continues to be an exercise in developing my own viewpoints and exercising my brain and providing me the sense of grounded decision making regarding my own politics.

When asked to reflect on her challenging life and remarkable career, in a 2005 Time interview, Beverly Sills used the oft quoted Yiddish quip “Man plans, God laughs,” to summarize some of her own feelings about her tumultuous and amazing life.

If God is laughing it is because he is so pleased with himself for creating such a fine creature as Beverly Sills. I am nearly 50 years old and truly missed most of Ms. Sills’ operatic triumphs as a coloratura. Along with Callas and Sutherland there were no better Bel Canto canaries in the post war revival of Bel Canto.

As a young opera buff in training, I got to see two of my idols in the 1970’s- Beverly Sills in a production of Rossini’s “The Siege of Corinth” at the Met and Leontyne Price in recital at Cornell University. For a budding opera queen these were cherished moments. But by the time I familiarized myself with Ms. Sills- her voice was already declining. But she never declined. She was one tenacious woman- Diva, General Manager of the New York City Opera, Chair of Lincoln Center and Chair of the Metropolitan Opera. WOW- What a career!

Her family issues make me think of Beethoven. Beethoven was a composer who became deaf and couldn’t hear some of his late compositions played by the orchestras he conducted; he could only hear the music in his head. Beverly Sills too was dealt an ironic and profoundly sad blow. Her daughter was deaf and her son profoundly retarded. When I hear recordings of Sills in her prime I cannot help but think how difficult it must be to have such an amazing gift that your children will either never hear or never comprehend. To add to the level of this tragedy was that she and her husband found out about their daughter’s deafness and their son’s disability within a 6 week time frame. I cannot imagine how that sort of thing shakes one’s universe. In that 2005 interview for Time, Ms. Sills said “I have never considered myself a happy woman. How could I, with all that’s happened to me. But I’m a cheerful woman. Work keeps me going.”

Not long ago I heard a recording of what is considered by many to be Sills’ most triumphant role as Cleopatra in Handel’s “Giulio Ceasare” and I was mesmerized; tears rolled down my face in awe of the artistry and beauty.

I was not aware, until I read a lengthy New York Times obituary yesterday how Sills got that role. She had been a handful of artists that came together to keep the New York City Opera afloat and when the role came up- she wanted it and felt that she deserved it. She had political capital and planned on using it. But- she was turned down by Julius Rundel, the New York City Opera General manager who she had been instrumental in convincing the Board of Directors to hire and who had coaxed her back into singing after the tragic news about her children. She wanted that role and told Rundel that if she did not get it that her husband Peter Greenough (a wealthy Boston Brahmin descendant of John Adams) would bankroll a concert at Carnegie Hall where she would sing five arias from the opera and said “Your going to look sick.” Now that is the personification of Diva behavior and thank God she evoked that inner Diva!

It seems fateful that Sills sang that role. The New York City Opera was considered a second tier company and was not on the radar of the international opera circuit. However at the same time Sills played Handel’s Cleopatra at New York City Opera across the brand new Lincoln Center plaza at the Metropolitan Opera Barber’s “Antony and Cleopatra” was being sung to open the new opera house. As fate would have it – critics there for the Met’s opening crossed over to the City Opera and heard a performance that was then feted throughout the world as remarkable. This is one of those amazing true legends of opera history in which opera fans like me revel.

After Sills retired from singing she became a formidable administrator in the arts for the City Opera, Lincoln Center and finally the Met. This again is another one of those opera stories that brings a grin to my face. During the tenure of the Met’s leader- the legendary Rudolf Bing – Sills never sang at the Met. Bing was a snob about the City Opera and about American singers in general. It was not until 3 years after Bing departed that Sills made her very late Met début at the age of 36.  I chuckle when I think that the house where Bing closed her out was the same house that she eventually ran!

Beverly Sills (Bubbles Sliverman) was a child star who appeared on such shows as Major Bowes and was the daughter of a consummate stage mother. I think that this background gave her tenacity and a common touch that allowed her to connect with the general public.

Face it- before Beverly Sills, opera prided itself on its inaccessibility to the general public in this country (not so true in Italy where fights break out in bars over diva allegiance). Sills had fun with opera. Her hamming it up with Carol Burnett, appearing with Kermit on the Muppets and hosting the Tonight Show were gigs that would have made most Divas faint in horror. But not Sills- her background and her being an all-American Diva (all her training was in the USA) touched audiences. She brought opera to people. Beverly Sills single handedly kept the arts afloat during difficult times and brought a new generation to opera- like me.

I often remember the collaboration between Sills and legendary opera conductor Sarah Caldwell. It was hearing about some of Caldwell’s productions that really peaked my interest in opera. Of course it didn’t hurt that I was impressed by women taking on opera in ways they never had before. Sills and Caldwell exerted their influence as business women not just as artists.

I will end by taking the quote that started this tribute and making it my way of remembering Beverly Sills. “The woman sang and God applauded”.

Don Imus’s recent outrageous remarks about the women’s basketball team from Rutgers’s University is just the latest chapter in outrage remarks made by public figures and getting play “ad infinitum” on the media. I have to admit to being even more outraged that some news shows (including “The Today Show”) actually played the clip of the remarks rather than just referring to them. Isn’t that just sensationalizing and capitalizing on those remarks and actually a cynical play on racism?

I am purposely using the term hate speech here because it isn’t just racism that is the problem lately, it is sexism, it is homophobia, it is anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic.

Let’s be clear that I am sickened by the tirades (they are not just off-handed remarks) from the likes of  Mr. Imus, the so-called comedian- former “Seinfeld” star- Michael Richards, “Grey’s Anatomy” star Isaiah Washington, super-star Mel Gibson, and basketball star Tim Hardaway.

The list goes on. Do the media help create a dialogue to discuss these remarks that are indicative of a larger societal ill or do they use these remarks for their salacious ratings bonanza? This morning “The Today Show’ devoted most of it’s first hour on the issue- more than it ever devotes to a post mortem of “The State of the Union Address” the day after that annual important speech by the President of the United States. Maybe the producers and co-anchors,Ms. Viera and Mr. Lauer, envisioned a debate about the issues but instead it became the usual accusatory, vilifying talking heads yelling over one another and not listening - the swamp where these “conversations” inevitably devolve.

But I have to admit to being equally outraged by the hypocrisy and double standard emanating from the mouths of self righteous men like the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Mind you- I admire much of the work of both of these men, but it isn’t that long ago that they were race baiting and making remarks equally offensive.

Let’s look at Al Sharpton. He was the defining figure in the Crown Heights Riot that occurred after a car accident involving the motorcade for the Lubavitcher Rebbe killed a young boy named Gavin Cato. A riot was sparked after a private Hasidic ambulance came to the scene and, on the orders of a police officer, removed the Hasidic driver from the scene. Gavin Cato and his cousin Angela were picked up soon after by a city ambulance. Caribbean-American and African-American residents of the neighborhood then rioted for four consecutive days fueled by rumors (in part driven by Sharpton) that the private ambulance had refused to treat Cato. Sharpton became the de-facto representative for the Cato family. During the funeral he referred to “diamond merchants” considered a code word for Hasidic Jews for shedding “the blood of innocent babies” leading marchers shouting “No Justice No Peace”. Sharpton did not start the riots but his rhetoric was seen as inflammatory and unhelpful in easing the tension between the black and Jewish communities. A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29 years old, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting “Kill the Jew”. Mr. Sharpton’s remarks AND actions were not only inflamatory- but incendiary.

What about Jesse Jackson? Jackson has been criticized for some of the remarks he has made about Jews and Jewish issues: that Nixon was less attentive to poverty in the U.S. because “four out of five of Nixon’s top advisors are German Jews and their priorities are on Europe and Asia”; that he was “sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust”; that there are “very few Jewish reporters that have the capacity to be objective about Arab affairs”; In addition Rev. Jackson had referred to Jews as “Hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown” in January 1984 during a conversation with Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman.

Just because Reverends Sharpton and Jackson made anti-Semitic remarks does not mean that they cannot be offended by Mr. Imus’s remarks- they should be. But they should not be sitting in godlike judgment over Mr. Imus with such righteous indignation. That is just hypocrisy. It seems that prejudice lurks in their hearts as well. On “The Today Show”, Ms. Viera asked Reverend Jackson to balance the Imus issue with his own “Hymietown” comment. He changed the subject. If Reverend Jackson was truly concerned about a real dialogue on hate and prejudice he would have addressed this issue and admitted that the issue of prejudice is endemic to the fabric of this country and we should address this larger issue.

Oddly enough the one glaring omission in all of the accusations and mea culpas going on due to the Imus fracas is the horribly sexist context of Mr. Imus’s remarks. Everyone has picked up on the racism but the misogyny that oozed from these remarks has been virtually ignored! It saddens me, but doesn’t surprise me that the misogyny is not being addressed.

Let’s be honest. Hate is part of the fabric of this country and sadly the world. People should be held accountable for their speech, but speech comes from something deep within that we are not addressing when we simply wag fingers with sanctimonious judgment at offensive speech. Beyond the unconstitutionality of it- banning hateful speech or being required to use the absurd “N word” as opposed to “nigger” when reporting an incident where the real word was used, is like putting a band aid on a severed aorta. Our society- the whole world, for that matter- needs to have a dialogue about why our hearts go there- not why our mouths go there.

If we could figure why our hearts hold these feelings and were able to fix that- we wouldn’t have civil strife or war and I don’t see those being eradicated anytime in my life time or any lifetime in the future. So much of our prejudice comes from our hardwired distrust of the unknown- those that aren’t part of our tribe, or our pack- ”the other”.  That’s from our reptilian brain’s need to survive and be on guard when anything that isn’t part of our experience comes into our lives. But we are more than our reptilian brains- we have a brain that is capable of comprehending that attempting to understand the unknown and acceptance of the “other” is more likely to achieve survival than the distrust associated with our more animal instincts.

But we won’t get to that level of discussion as long as we vilify each other for our remarks rather than talk about WHY we all have hearts that make our mouths capable of saying such heinous things.

Yes those are the words from the big show stopper in the play, now movie, “Dreamgirls”.  This is the story of an extraordinarily talented singer who is cast aside for a marketable lowest common denominator alternative singer.  Sure the alternative has a good enough voice- but it is her marketability that elevates her to stardom and gives the true talent the boot.

“Dreamgirls” is an allegory for our present society where we prize celebrity, marketing and profitability over talent and merit.  And if you don’t believe me- just look at the marketing of the movie itself.

 Before I continue, I have to admit that it is not usual for me to write about movies on this space or to review them and I do not intend to do that here.  I saw four movies over the holiday season and I found each one interesting in its own way- “The Good Shepherd”, “Children of Men”, “Notes on a Scandal” and “Dreamgirls” but I will leave the reviewing to those that have a better knack at that than I.  But- I don’t think that it is an opinion or a review to say that “Dreamgirls” is Jennifer Hudson’s movie.  More to the point, Jennifer Holiday who played the same role, Effie, on Broadway was nominated and won the Tony for Best Actress in a Musical. 

Given that the movie is dominated by Ms. Hudson and her Broadway counterpart was “Best Actress”, where is she in the marketing of the movie?  All of the advertisements for the movie have big font print and “starring status” for Beyoncé Knowles, Eddie Murphy and Jamie Foxx and leave Ms. Hudson in some small font somewhere else in the ad.  And what about the round of early morning news shows, afternoon talk shows as well as Leno and Letterman?  It was Ms. Knowles, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Foxx.  Are the producers of the movie that immune to the movie’s own message?  I reiterate that I am not a critic and I am not at all making any judgment on the performances of these three stars.   But my goodness- the irony is clear even to someone who considers blunt force trauma to the head to be subtlety.

It so blows me away that the film itself is guilty of the warnings in the film that I was initially astounded.  But should I be?  …Probably not. 

Our culture has become one of marketability and not of merit.  The idea of a society based on merit was introduced by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government and was a huge influence on founding father Thomas Jefferson.  A society where success is derived from merit- hard work and talent- is the hallmark of our nation’s founding.  Capitalism is also a hallmark of our nation’s founding.  But somewhere Capitalism turned to marketing and saw that in order to garner the most dollars it needed the largest group of consumers and therefore it was important to appeal to the broadest number of people.  Some refer to this as “dumbing down” or “appealing to the lowest common denominator”.  

What is even more distressing is that our political process has been a victim of marketing.  Marketing is so important that obscene amounts of dollars are poured into 30 second commercials that appeal to the fears of the largest number of people.

I do not mean to elevate a film that is good entertainment to something prophetic.  But the film and its own deafness to its message about mediocrity is an allegory for our society where we celebrate market over merit.

While the first use of the word “meritocracy” was negative due to it first appearing in in Michael Young’s 1958 book “Rise of the Meritocracy”, which is set in a dystopian future in which one’s social place is determined by IQ plus effort.  In the book, this social system ultimately leads to a social revolution in which the masses overthrow the elite, who have become arrogant and disconnected from the feelings of the public.  I use the term in the true Lockean sense – where merit is rewarded and mediocrity is not.   

That being said- it seems sad that we are not a “meritocracy” but more of a “marketocracy” – our culture and our political process seem to be governed by marketing not by merit. And I am telling you- that saddens me.   

So here we are just four days before Christmas and what’s up in the news?  Here are what I believe are the 12 stories of Christmas that are emblematic of where our country is at the finale of 2006.

1. A president who is delusional about the situation in Iraq and who is backing away from taking advice from military leaders because their view doesn’t jive with his.
2. A White House that is touting that the rank and file troops are telling Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that they want more troops there to achieve victory which differs from their leaders. 
3. A fight between “The Donald” and Rosie O’Donnell that is both ugly and a BIG “Who cares?”  But I have to admit that “The Donald” is just a nasty, nasty man!  The personal attacks were those of a 2 year old.  Geez Donald – Get over it- you are reacting to what a comedian said about you?  I think you are just looking for earned media just before the premier of your tired old show “The Apprentice”.  If someone would just fire Donald! At least Rosie is bringing ratings (for whatever reason) to “The View”.
4. American consumers are spending close to $1,000 per person during this holiday season.  Much of it due to irresistible bargains that are driving up personal debt.
5. The total retail number for the American holiday season is projected to be $457.4 billion.  Remember the  1947 movie- “Miracle on34^th Street”?  The theme was that too much commercialism was part of Christmas.  I guess we didn’t heed the warning.
6. Americans have given $260 billion to charity for the entire year of 2006 – compare that to the $457.4 billion that we’re spending on goodies for the holidays.   Makes you think doesn’t it?
7. The American Episcopal Church is on the verge of the biggest schism it has seen since Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church.  What a lovely Christmas message- if you don’t discriminate against gays, lesbians and women we want to pick up our marbles and your real estate and answer to some Ethiopian Bishop.  Talk about Christian Charity.
8. Although it is tragic that the hikers in Oregon have all been lost, it seems odd that so much money is spent on search and rescue for three white men who voluntarily went mountain climbing at a very precarious time (i.e., winter weather) and New Orleans is still in ruins.
9. The number of uninsured in the United States has reached an embarrassing high of 46 million Americans.
10. Teenage girls are the most likely candidates to begin smoking because it curbs their appetites!  Thank goodness we have so many positive role models for real life female body image!
11. In the  USA education funding shorts low-income children.   Alabama’s low-income students are not receiving as much federal money for education as those from higher-income areas, according to a report released by the nonprofit Education Trust that criticizes the U.S. government’s funding process. The report, which was released Wednesday, shows how the funding process benefits wealthier states and systems.  “In America, we say you can be anything you want to be if you work hard and stay in school,” Education Trust President Kati Haycock said. “But while we say that to kids, we are essentially sucker-punching them at the same time.” The U.S. government provides money for schools based on the number and concentration of low-income children in a state and on the state’s average per-student spending as outlined in Title I of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The study shows that the state expenditure factor skews the distribution to benefit wealthier states.
12. The media replay OJ Simpson news and JonBet Ramsey news until we are ready to vomit.  And this is CNN not E!  What has happened to the television news media in this country?  I guess Edward R. Murrow and Fred Friendly are spinning in their respective graves.

Let’s hope we do better in 2007.  I pray that this country wakes up and get back on track.  I am not being cynical- just realistic and hopeful.  I’ll be posting again after the New Year begins.