Colin Powell on The Huffington Post

Agnes Gund: Art, Design and How We Learn

2009-11-16T15:59:52Z

There's a lot to be learned from visiting art museums - walking their corridors, perusing exhibitions, looking at the varied work on the walls. We know, when we are inside MoMA or the Met or any of the other great museums in this country, that we are experiencing art; no doubt about it. What is less clear to us, perhaps, is that we are also experiencing art when we wander the avenues and alleys, the gardens and parks in our neighborhoods, and when we enter or walk by the buildings around us. In fact, architecture, landscape, the surroundings and objects of everyday life, are as artful as paintings and sculpture. Though we tend to call what is on the walls "art," and the walkways of our day-to-day lives "design," they are really a lot less separable than that.

Experiencing and assessing what is actual and all around us can make us better artists, better art lovers and - most important - better citizens. This way of looking at art and at design came clear to me, for example, this summer when I visited the Queens Museum of Art in the borough of Queens, New York City. The Queens Museum has programs enabling young people and their families to help create and locate art on the streets of Corona, their neighborhood - to use and value the parks, participate in street festivals of food and music, to make art in and about their community. Under the aegis of the museum, but way beyond its walls, the children and their families make creative excursions into their environs, finding art everywhere. The children learn not only to paint and draw their buildings and streets and parks but to enter them, evaluate them, experience them as art. They learn to think about the objects and artifacts of their lives, judging their worth, their beauty or lack of it, their usefulness.

I gained another lesson about design at the Queens Museum. At the time I visited, the Museum was hosting a group of inner-city high school students who were teaching art to children as part of a Studio in a School summer program. (Studio is a non-profit organization that provides art instruction in New York City public schools.) The high school students were interacting with Dorothea Rockburne, a New York artist, as she created inside the museum a 41-foot high painting of the sky, the Milky Way, over the island of Jamaica, as an homage to Colin Powell. The completed work - to be mounted in the United States embassy in Jamaica through FAPE - shows the sky as it was on the night of Powell's birth. Intrigued and stimulated by Rockburne's vision, the students determined to design their own homages to place, to look into space in their own way, drawing on new design techniques and media resources to make their own works. Rockburne tracked the sky in paint; the students flew through cyber space, digitizing images and transferring them by computer, in their parallel initiatives.

First, they looked at Google Maps, and at "Street Views" on Google Maps, to locate specific buildings or boulevards or even benches that they liked in locations around the world. Then they created works of art of their own, photographed them digitally, and - also digitally - synthesized them with the images they had selected from faraway places. Their own works of art, synthesized with these locations, became ways of connecting with other people, other places, other experiences, just as Rockburne's mural connects the U.S. with Jamaica, and a U.S. citizen with the world beyond the U.S.. In the very presence of Rockburne's tribute to Powell, to space, to connectivity, the students designed their versions of her truths. The results are design magic - the students' sculpture appears digitally on an apartment building in Madrid; their paintings show up at a park and on a sidewalk in London and on the sides of houses in Barcelona; a mural glows on the façade of the Forbidden City in Beijing. With these instruments of design, the students achieved - as Rockburne did in paint - new contexts, unexpected connections and cosmopolitan goals. The sky, space itself, became a tool.

This is just one particular instance of the many many ways in which art and design can interact and affect understanding of the world we live in. But I think it demonstrates the spirit of inquiry and the ability to imagine that can grow in young people who are encouraged to really see into their own living spaces and places, and who are encouraged to use the tools and techniques of contemporary design to express their ideas.

There are cultures, and museums, in which art and design quite naturally cohere and from which we can also learn a lot. Textiles and tools in the National Museum of the American Indian, for instance, or the wonderful pots and household objects in New York's Hispanic Society are not singled out into rooms designated for "design." These objects are integral in their cultures and in these collections; they are art in the same way that portraits or landscapes or statues are. In that same spirit, when our children appreciate the contours of a pond or a playground or the arch of a Vaux bridge, or when they despise waste or refuse imperfect merchandise, they are connecting art and the everyday in the best ways.

A new museum space with a provocative name opened in New York last year - the Museum of Arts and Design. In that space, the prevailing concept is precisely that art and design are inseparable, equally meritorious. The opening exhibition, called "Second Lives - Remixing the Ordinary," featured established and emerging visual artists from around the world whose work in this exhibition is made of everyday objects reused, reconstructed, reconnected to reality in their "second lives." The relationships between art and design, between aesthetics and the ordinary, become startlingly clear in these works - a sculpture made of plastic buttons, a portrait of a factory worker "painted" in the labels of the clothing that she sews, a room-sized "quilt" made of cans. The art is "high," and the materials are "low" - spools of thread, spoons and forks, handgun triggers, coins, shoes, milk cartons, teacups, plastic bags are the materials... and the message is inescapable. The everyday is celebrated with wit and wisdom and with a challenge to its viewers - the challenge to creatively see, use and evaluate what is real and around us all the time.

Our museums and our cultural institutions, and our schools, do so much good when they push learning out into public places, when they include design in lesson plans, when they educate children to use their own creative senses and develop their own critical reactions to the world immediately around them. The enchantment of "design" is that it enchants the everyday.

Colin Powell To Obama On Afghanistan Troop Decision: "Take Your Time"

2009-11-12T03:41:56Z

In an interview with Roland Martin on the Tom Joyner Morning Show this morning, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell revealed that he recently advised President Obama to take his time in devising his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Harry Shearer: Afghanistan--A Voice for the Choice Obama Has Rejected

2009-10-29T05:02:45Z

In case you haven't noticed, the "debate" about Afghanistan going on inside the White House (thanks for the transparency) has already been decided, and the answer is: we're staying. The remaining question being considered is: how many troops? The question not being considered, if leaks are any indication, is why?

If there's any consistency to the foreign-policy mistakes of America in the post-World War Two era, it's the saga of brilliant men deciding upon wars in countries they barely understand, countries whose history they ignore--at our peril. That was the story of Vietnam, of Iraq, and it's now being repeated. It's also the story of a policy becoming hostage to notions of our "credibility" as a world power, as if being trapped in a debilitating struggle with enemies who aren't leaving (and who know we are) is good for the ol' image.

But, and I'm anticipating two-thirds of your comments, I'm "just" a funny person. You bet. That's why I pay attention to the people who know what they're talking about on this issue, and here's one of them--Matthew Hoh, who had the guts Colin Powell wishes he'd had, who resigned his State Department job rather than continue to promote a failing, misguided, doomed policy. Read Hoh's online chat. He's not kidding.

Hoyt Hilsman: A Regional Summit on the War in Afghanistan?

2009-10-15T11:58:03Z

As President Obama and his advisors debate a strategic change in the war in Afghanistan, it has become increasingly clear that this war has become a regional conflict that stretches into Pakistan, and even India and beyond. While the original rationale for the war was the elimination of a sanctuary for Al Qaeda, the conflict has now broadened into threats presented by a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and, even more ominously, by a nuclear-armed and destabilized Pakistan.

While the recommendation by General Stanley McChrystal to bolster the counterinsurgency effort represents an advance in tactical military thinking, it ignores some of the fundamental political realities of the conflict. A lengthy and focused counterinsurgency effort might eventually produce results, but its chances of success are greatly diminished by the political climate in Afghanistan. Given the difficult choice between a Taliban that offers security and justice in countryside - albeit in the most harsh and backward forms - and a central government that is distant and corrupt, most Afghans outside of Kabul are forced to choose the Taliban. No foreign counterinsurgency effort can combat that kind of logic, especially when classic counterinsurgency tactics would call for more than 600,000 troops to do the job, a level that few Americans would support.

One of the early mistakes, among many, of the Bush administration in its invasion of Iraq was the failure to develop an international and regional consensus for action. The rationale was that most nations would not support the invasion, and it was a waste of time to focus on international cooperation. Thanks in large part to the insistence of Colin Powell, the Bush administration did take its case to the United Nations, where Powell presented trumped-up intelligence to sell the UN on the Bush plan. However, history has shown that no sincere effort was ever made to include our allies or the nations in the region in the decision to go to war.

As the years have gone by - Afghanistan is now the longest war in American history - it has become clear that the stakes are no longer the continued existence of Al Qaeda or even the stability of Afghanistan, but rather the dangers presented by a crumbling, nuclear-armed Pakistani state. To complicate matters further, the Pakistanis themselves have not - until very recently - perceived Afghanistan and the Taliban as a regional threat. In fact, elements of the Pakistani government, including the ISI intelligence service, have continued to provide strategic support to the Taliban insurgency.

Before the United States implements a unilateral change in military and political strategy in Afghanistan, wouldn't it be a good idea to seek regional cooperation for the strategy? This means not only Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also India, China and Russia. Certainly there are dangers in a regional summit, and it clearly should not be a public summit. But the idea that the United States can go it alone yet again without some kind of regional support is highly doubtful. Can't the Obama administration - with all its powerful persuasive tools - hold the feet of the regional players to the fire and mold a common strategy? Perhaps not, but without some consensus, the chances of failure in our longest war are even greater.

Jamal Dajani: Israel vs. Iran: The Writing Is on the Wall

2009-10-02T11:02:29Z

Iran has agreed to allow international nuclear inspectors to view its recently revealed uranium enrichment plant near the city of Qom, and President Obama has called talks between U.S. diplomats and their Iranian counterparts about the country's nuclear program a "constructive beginning."

However, recent events and heated rhetoric concerning Iran's nuclear program are reminiscent of the final days that lead to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 when then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the United Nations Security Council on February 5th of that year with what he called "solid" evidence that showed Iraq had still not complied with resolutions calling for it to disarm and was maintaining a secret WMD program. It seems that history is repeating itself.

Unlike what happened to Iraq in 2003, an invasion of Iran is not on the horizon; however, the prospect of targeting its nuclear facilities is more real than ever. More so than during the Bush Administration. The reason is simple: no amount of pressure or sanctions will force Iran to abandon what it perceives as its "unalienable right" to pursue its nuclear ambitions.

In an article in June, I outlined the drive behind Iran's nuclear ambition, and this has not changed. But most importantly the Obama Administration, although pursuing diplomatic means, seems to be convinced that the Iranians are conducting a clandestine nuclear program parallel to the public one. The aim of this, though of course not admitted by the Iranians, is clearly the acquisition of nuclear weapons. This position is shared by Israel, which will most likely get the green light to attack Iran's nuclear facilities by spring of 2010 when all negotiations with Iran will have hit a dead end.

Since April of this year, the Israeli military has been preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities. The United States and Israel have recently conducted their most complex military exercise ever, jointly testing three ballistic missile defense systems. Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

The Israeli Air Force has recently been conducting training exercises involving F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refueling tankers flying to distances of more than 870 miles: the distance between Israel and Iran. Among recent preparations by the air force was the Israeli attack of a weapons convoy in Sudan allegedly bound for militants in the Gaza Strip.

A recent article in the British Daily Express reported that Israeli fighter jets have been allowed to use Saudi airspace to launch go-it-alone air strikes on Iranian nuclear installations. The issue has been discussed in a closed-door meeting in London, where British Intelligence Chief Sir John Scarlett, his Israeli counterpart Meir Dagan, and a Saudi official were present. According to the report, Scarlett has been told that Saudi airspace would be at Israel's disposal should Tel Aviv decide to move forward with his military plans against Iran. The Saudis have denied such claims; however, for the past few weeks Saudi-sponsored media has been raising concern over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. No mention of Israel's 200 plus nuclear warheads.

A survey just released by the American Jewish Committee reports that for the first time ever, a majority of American Jews support using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Fifty-six percent of American Jews think U.S. should strike Iran, while sixty-six percent of Israeli Jews back such an attack.

How many Americans support an attack on Iran?

Fifty-seven percent of American voters say Israel would be justified in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, given that Iran has publicly threatened to annihilate Israel, according to a McLaughlin poll conducted on May 8-9.

I am not being an alarmist, but the writing is on the wall.

Watch Video

Joe Peyronnin: Anger in America

2009-09-17T17:43:27Z

Former President Jimmy Carter has always had a knack to say things that are uncomfortable and ill-timed. With his remarks to NBC News, and repeated yesterday, he has highlighted a problem as old as America itself and, in so doing, has complicated the debate over President Obama's agenda.

At issue has been the growing lack of civility in protests across the country and before a joint session of Congress directed at President Obama and the U.S. Government. Most appalling examples include signs carried by protesters comparing President Obama a monkey or a Nazi, or Congressman Joe Wilson's inappropriate outburst on the floor of the House calling the president a liar. They also include multimedia entertainer Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist toward whites, or radio show host Rush Limbaugh saying the president's birthplace is Kenya. Some of these acts and comments are so outrageous that they turn off many Americans, even conservative Republicans. So to broadly paint all dissenters with the malignant brush of racism will only drive the country further apart.

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," President Carter said. "And I think it's bubbled up to the surface, because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."

Sadly there remain plenty of people in the United States who are racists. And the fact that President Obama received less that 15% of the white vote in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is troubling. But it is a mistake to suggest that most of the 75,000 protesters who gathered in Washington last weekend were racists. It is equally wrong to say that most protesters who attended the recent "tea parties" were all racists.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell also sees it differently than President Carter. "The issue is not race, it's civility," Powell said, "This is not to say that we are suddenly racially pure, but constantly talking about it and reducing everything to black versus white is not helpful to the cause of restoring civility to public dialog."

President Obama made history when he became the first African American elected to the nation's top office with 53% of the vote, or nearly 67 million voters. Early on in his presidency he enjoyed a 70% approval rating. That number has now fallen to about 50%. Is President Carter suggesting that the defectors are largely racists?

The simple fact is that there is a lot of anger and frustration out there aimed squarely at Washington, and with good reason. Unemployment continues to grow, although the rate of increase is slowing. But unemployment is on track to surpass 10% in the very near future and many economists predict the nation is most likely to have a "jobless" recovery. At the same time the government has rescued the U.S. automobile industry with billions of American taxpayer dollars.

One year ago Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail and then the world economy collapsed. Government regulators missed all of the obvious warning signs, as bankers over-leveraged their companies and were richly paid in return. This forced the government to pump billions of taxpayer dollars into the financial industry. Today the financial industry is stable, bankers are being paid bonuses (Goldman Sachs paid out $11 billion) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average is approaching 10,000. But most banks are sitting on their toxic assets, there has been no meaningful regulatory reform and some experts warn we a poised for another economic crisis. Meanwhile, comparatively little help has made it to the people on main streets where stores are boarded up and business is awful. And a frighteningly huge number of homes face foreclosure across the country. Millions of Americans are "under water."

As Rome burns members of Congress are mud wrestling over health care. Many proposals are confusing and complicated; take end of life counseling or a "public option." They lend themselves to demagoguery and preposterous claims, like "death panels," government run health care and cuts in Medicare services. Everyone agrees that health care costs are out of control, but insurance companies and their lobbyists are fiercely fighting to protect their profit margins. Adding to the noise and mendacity Glenn Beck accuses President Obama of favoring "eugenics" and Rush Limbaugh calls him a "Nazi."

But it is "the economy stupid." Deficits from growing health care costs, government stimulus packages, bank and auto bailouts, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are adding trillions to the national debt. The last President to have a budget surplus was Bill Clinton and it there is no plan in place to repeat that rare feat.

Can you name a single president who has actually made substantial cuts to the federal budget? They always speak of "waste, fraud and abuse" but nothing happens. Why do we still have troops based all over the world? Why do we still pay out so much in foreign aid? Huge deficits are likely to lead to serious inflation and higher taxes. They are being underwritten by China and Japan, and threaten to severely weaken America globally. Our children and grandchildren will be left with a legacy of debt and serious problems.

"The gap between our citizens and our Government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual." So said President Carter in a speech to the nation in July 1979. It was his so-called "malaise" speech, a word he never used but was successfully pinned to it by candidate Ronald Reagan. Nonetheless, rather than talking about racism, President Carter might have been more constructive if he pointed to his comments given in that summer of long gas lines and high inflation. For instance:

"What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends."

Yes, sadly racism is alive in America and we have a long way to go, but conditions for most people of all races have improved and, with more minorities achieving influential positions, it will thankfully continue to do so.

On the other hand Washington hasn't changed. It's the same old smash mouth politics. In fact, the explosion of media outlets, multi-platform distribution and instant bloggers and Twitterers has exacerbated the problem. Politicians are too focused on scoring short term political points and securing corporate donations for their campaign. This is the most serious political problem facing our nation today, and there is no incentive or willingness to change the status quo. No wonder everyone is so angry.

Parvez Ahmed: More Americans Empathize with Muslims

2009-09-10T21:15:08Z

The latest survey from the Pew Research Center for People and the Press shows an unmistakable trend of Americans slowly but surely beginning to appreciate the challenges and aspirations of their fellow Muslim citizens. Perhaps this trend is a result of nearly half of Americans saying that they personally know someone who is a Muslim. The fact that so many Americans profess knowing a Muslim is surprising given the fact that American Muslims makeup fewer than 2 percent of the overall U.S. population. The latest Pew poll shows the percentage of Americans who view Islam to be a violent religion is at its lowest level in recent years, although not lower than the 25 percent mark recorded in the first Pew poll on this subject shortly after the terrorist attacks on September 11. The biggest change in attitude came, surprisingly, among conservative Republicans, a 13 point decrease in the view that Islam is violent.

Coinciding with this positive trend are the findings that show more Americans, nearly 6 in 10, saying that Muslims are subject, "to a lot of discrimination." While the empathy factor for Muslims have increased, knowledge about Islam and Muslims remain pitifully low. Two-thirds of people who are not Muslims find Islam to be "very different or somewhat different" from their faiths. The Pew report states that, "slim majorities of the public are able to correctly answer questions about the name Muslims use to refer to God (53%) and the name of Islam's sacred text (52%)." Only four-in-ten correctly answered both "Allah" and "the Quran." Those who know a Muslim are least likely to see Islam as encouraging of violence and most likely to express favorable views of Muslims.

The change in attitude towards Islam and Muslims are undoubtedly the result of more American Muslims than ever before taking the time and making the effort to reach out to their neighbors and colleagues, trying to explain away the misunderstandings about their faith. In recent days and months, major American leaders have also taken extraordinary steps in reminding fellow Americans about the valuable contributions being made by American Muslims.

I saw....a photo essay ...of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave....you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards -- Purple Heart, Bronze Star -- showed that he died in Iraq..... He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone .... it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. ..... He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life.

So observed General Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State, while being interviewed on Meet the Press.

More recently President Barack Obama, speaking at a Ramadan iftar noted,

And like the broader American citizenry, the American Muslim community is one of extraordinary dynamism and diversity -- with families that stretch back generations and more recent immigrants; with Muslims of countless races and ethnicities, and with roots in every corner of the world. Indeed, the contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country. American Muslims are successful in business and entertainment; in the arts and athletics; in science and in medicine. Above all, they are successful parents, good neighbors, and active citizens.

Perhaps the President stated the obvious, but if more American opinion leaders find the courage to do just that then the trend towards a more positive view Islam and Muslims will undoubtedly accelerate. And America will be better for that.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently noted that U.S. military is bungling its outreach to the Muslim world and squandering good will by failing to live up to its promises. Adm. Mullen's views are backed by data that shows opinions about America and America's intentions remain alarmingly poor in much of the Muslim world. To change the hearts and mind, American rhetoric will have to be backed by American action. Adm. Mullen went on to say, "Our messages lack credibility because we haven't invested enough in building trust and relationships, and we haven't always delivered on promises." One reason we have failed to build trust relationships with the Muslim world is because so few Americans understand Islam and Muslims.

American Muslims will have to increase their efforts to reach out to their neighbors and colleagues. Americans of other faiths will have to reciprocate. Undoubtedly understanding is a two-way street. Muslims must also increase their efforts to understand the faiths of other people. Given today's global political tensions, economic unease, and ecological concerns, the need for identifying our common ground and working together for the common good is urgent.

Parvez Ahmed, Ph.D. is currently a U.S. Fulbright Scholar visiting Bangladesh. He is associate professor of finance at the University of North Florida. He is also a frequent commentator on Islam and the American Muslim experience. To read his articles, visit http://drparvezahmed.blogspot.com/.

Jarrett Murphy: Colin Powell Endorses Bloomberg. Honest!

2009-09-10T09:32:51Z

The news yesterday was that "Yankees power couple" Jorge and Laura Posada have endorsed Mayor Michael Bloomberg for re-election. It's unclear whether the rest of the Bombers' lineup will weigh in on the race. (Joba Chamberlain makes his endorsements in the fifth inning, and who knows when he'll see that again?) But hopefully the nod from the Yankees backstop marks the end of the silly season of dueling endorsements between Bloomberg and his likely Democratic opponent, Bill Thompson.

It's not obvious why any individuals' political endorsements matter. But it's a complete mystery why we should care that Dr. Steve Gounardes, the former head of the New York State Dental Association, has thrown his support behind Comptroller Thompson, or that Bloomberg has in his corner Jose Feliciano, the guitar legend whom Ed Sullivan once cringingly introduced with the words: "He's blind—and he's Puerto Rican!" The mayor's campaign has hyped endorsements of questionable significance for months, apparently in an effort to suggest that a groundswell of support is building for their man—a groundswell populated by major unions but also the "Panamanian and Ethnic American Voters Political Action Committee," which does not appear to be a registered political committee at the local, state or federal level. For his part, Thompson actually publicizes the backing he has from Kendall Stewart and Maria Baez, two City Council members with records so troubled they might actually lose their seats despite the advantage of incumbency.

But Monday we learned that former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell had endorsed Bloomberg. The mayor said: "Colin Powell is a man of ability, he is a man of integrity, and he's a man of independence." It's been said before, and it will be said again, regardless of what Powell's record actually suggests.

When he was a young staff officer in Vietnam, Powell was the first to investigate reports of a massacre in a village called My Lai. He dismissed the claims of atrocity. His evidence? "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."

Powell was a top Pentagon staffer during the Reagan administration. "As [Defense Secretary Caspar] Weinberger's senior military assistant from 1983 until March 1986, General Powell was one of the handful of senior DoD officials who were privy to detailed information regarding arms shipments to Iran during 1985 and 1986," read the final report by Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh. Powell was cleared of wrongdoing in the report. He was just a guy who happened to be in the room when wrongdoing was contemplated, as Weinberger's diary indicated with several entries like: "Met with Colin Powell + Rich Armitage—re NSC Plan to let Israelis give Iranians 50 Hawks + 3300 TOWs in return for 5 hostages."

In the administration that followed, under the elder Bush, Powell rose to be Joint Chiefs chairman, a position which lacks any operational command over U.S. forces but plays an advisory role to the president. To his credit, Powell apparently prevented the U.S. from intervening militarily in the Philippines during a brief period of unrest there. Powell was also the media point man for the first war in Iraq. After the war, reports emerged that General Barry McCaffrey had ordered armored forces under his command to launch a ferocious attack on retreating Iraqi forces after the ceasefire had been declared, killing an unknown number of troops and civilians. Some of McCaffrey's own men doubted that the American assault had been provoked. Asked about the incident, Powell told the press: "[The Iraqis] fired on us. It was their mistake," neglecting the twin pillars of the law of war—that an armed response is supposed to discriminate between aggressors and bystanders and be proportionate to the aggression (if any) that prompts it.

In the mid-1990s, Powell retired to civilian life, founded an organization to advocate for America's youth and joined the board of AOL, picking up millions of dollars' worth of AOL stock. His son Michael Powell then became head of the Federal Communications Commission. When Time Warner and AOL in 2000 proposed a merger that would result in a massive concentration of media power, the FCC had to sign off on it. Michael Powell didn't bother with the trouble of recusing himself and cast a hearty "yes" vote.

Later that year, Powell endorsed George W. Bush for president. At the Republican National Convention, Powell told delegates: "Whether it's economic policy or military strategy or seeing what we can do to make our American family more inclusive, [Bush] will always try to do what is good and right for America." A few months later, Powell became Bush's secretary of state. That put Powell in the chair in the U.N. Security Council chamber on February 5, 2003, to deliver a lengthy argument for military intervention in Iraq—an argument based on flawed intelligence and bad foreign policy. Powell supposedly received CIA assurances that the information he was to present was sound. But Powell's own intelligence advisers stripped out at least 30 CIA claims from early drafts of the speech because they were unfounded. That might have made Powell suspicious about the quality of the rest of his talk. But he kept any suspicions to himself, and lent his remarkably durable credibility to perhaps the nation's gravest military blunder, saying: "Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction."

Powell's fans have dismissed his errors by portraying him as "the good soldier"—always loyal, always following orders. But his military reticence vanished when Bill Clinton became president and sought to eliminate the military's ban on gays and lesbians. Powell said the move "would be prejudicial to good order and discipline," and his opposition, despite breaching the etiquette that has military officers are subordinate to civilian control, helped torpedo the proposed change and politically wounded a young president. Instead of repeal, the military got "don't ask, don't tell" which continued to maintain good order and discipline by preventing gays and lesbians from serving their country or at least doing so outside the closet. Powell now says that policy ought to be "reviewed."

These days, Powell makes a living giving speeches. His fee is reported to be in the low six figures. He recently headlined a "Get Motivated" seminar in Hartford that also featured Rudy Giuliani, Laura Bush, Steve Forbes and Joe Montana. He and Bloomberg sometimes move in the same social circles: Both were at buyout big-shot Stephen Schwarzman's 2007 birthday bash. Last year when Powell endorsed Barack Obama, it was as if the Desert Storm-era image of Powell, erect and impressive in his four-star dress greens as he coolly talked America through its self-esteem building victory over Saddam, was the only scene in the Colin Powell movie. The vial of anthrax? Eh…

Now Powell is supporting Mayor Bloomberg. To many people who backed the Iraq war, Powell's debacle at the U.N. was no big deal. Bloomberg in 2004 said of the Iraq affair: "Don't forget that the war started not very many blocks from here," referring to Ground Zero, which—don't forget—had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. The mayor's position on the war since then has not been clear. What is clear is that the fighting in Iraq is not as disconnected from city policy and politics as one might think.

Hundreds of billions of dollars that might have gone to Bloomberg's infrastructure, environmental or anti-poverty crusades have instead been spent in Iraq. Sixty-three New York City residents have died there. When tens of thousands of New Yorkers came to the city to protest the war on its eve in 2003, the Bloomberg administration prevented a march, blocking thousands from attending the demonstration because there wasn't room for them. When tens of thousands more came during the Republican National Convention in 2004, the Bloomberg administration denied them access to Central Park and arrested 1,800 who marched elsewhere.

The Bloomberg campaign apparently did not solicit Powell's endorsement. But he gave it anyway. "Endorsements are important, but New Yorkers should also look at the record of the individual," Powell said in a statement released by the Bloomberg campaign. "They should look at Mike's performance in the years that he has been mayor, and then they should vote on that performance and also on the potential of what he can do for the next four years. I endorse him, and I hope he'll win."

Colin Powell Endorses Mayor Bloomberg At Brooklyn's West Indian American Day Parade

2009-09-08T08:29:11Z

NEW YORK -- Tens of thousands of revelers gathered in Brooklyn to celebrate Caribbean culture Monday at the West Indian American Day Parade, as bright beaded costumes and feather headdresses also provided a lively backdrop for New York City politicking.

With elections around the corner, politicians took advantage of the festivities to push their candidacies. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, running for a third term after laws were changed to allow it, led the parade with former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was grand marshal and donned a blue sash. The retired four-star U.S. Army general endorsed the mayor's re-election bid at a news conference before the parade.

"I hope he'll win," said Powell, a native New Yorker of Jamaican descent.

The mayor, wearing a bright pink sweater, cut the ribbon to officially kick off the celebration. The annual parade takes place on Labor Day but is modeled on traditional pre-Lenten Carnival festivities.

City Comptroller William Thompson Jr., a Democratic mayoral candidate, marched behind with Gov. David Paterson, with supporters chanting "No third term."

Other candidates for city council and public advocate handed out fliers and shook hands with spectators who waved the flags of a dozen nations as they waited for the parade to move slowly down Eastern Parkway from Crown Heights to Grand Army Plaza.

"There are more and more dignitaries," said Lenny Smith, who comes to the party every year to celebrate his Jamaican heritage. "I think many of us would like to see the costumes."

Brooklyn's borough president, Marty Markowitz, rode on a float thumping with music. "Brooklyn! The Caribbean capital of the U.S.!" he yelled to the cheering crowd.

More than 600,000 of West Indian origin live in the city, according to census estimates.

Revelers decked out in sequins, glitter and feathers danced to music from competing sound systems as the crowds cheered.

Nayadez Week wore a yellow bikini adorned in black beads and a yellow feather headdress with black sequins, and said she felt like a queen in her outfit. "I love how it fits me," she said, also wearing a "Miss Panama, US" sash.

The thick smell of grilled meats and curry wafted from the food stalls lining the parade route. Vendors hawked West Indian specialties like jerk chicken, curried goat and ox tail. There were red velvet cakes, sorrel tea, pig's feet and coconuts hacked in half.

While there was no official crowd estimate, the parade is one of the largest in the city.

In previous years, the event has been marred by tragedy. In 1999, two children died when they were pinned between floats, and hours later a man was run over by a float and killed. In 2005, a man was shot to death.

There were no immediate reports of violence Monday.

Steve Clemons: Which Communities Are Still in High Sizzle Support Mode for Barack Obama?

2009-09-02T10:43:58Z

We suspect that Rick Warren probably still is buddies with President Obama and keeps the photos of his big day offering Barack Obama's Inauguration day prayer prominently in his office, his home, his wallet, maybe on the dashboard of his car.

I know that there are a lot of folks out there who are as grateful today for Barack Obama running the nation as they were in January -- but we aren't hearing much from them of late. According to new Zogby numbers, Obama's numbers are down in nearly every category of voter.

The "Republicans for Obama" crowd led by folks like former Senator Lincoln Chafee, former House International Relations Committee Chairman Jim Leach, philanthropist and lawyer Rita Hauser, and Ike granddaughter and national security policy expert Susan Eisenhower seem to me less enthused for Obama today as they watch with dismay the Obama team make some of the mistakes in Afghanistan that the Bush administration made in Iraq. Men, women, resources, drones, aid, all pumping into the AfPak region without a clear strategy with benchmarks for achievement.

The progressive left is having a tough time with Obama's seemingly trigger-finger readiness to drop what progressives most want in a health care, or stimulus package, or other legislative efforts in order to satisfy a Republican right that keeps spitting on the president's plans.

Thus far, Obama's economic recovery efforts have kept more Goldman Sachs employees in their third Hamptons homes mortgages than average Americans in their homes and in their jobs.

And the gay community -- despite the very best efforts of "out" Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry to assure otherwise -- is doubting Barack Obama's resolve to change the administration's positions on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and to reverse the toxic impact of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

President Obama had a swell cocktail gathering at the White House for leaders of the gay community -- and called out a whole slew of gay leader's names no doubt making them feel pretty good. But the bottom line is that moving issues important to the gay community is a low-ish priority for the President and his team. Because it's clear that Obama just isn't spending capital moving those issues.

To date, he has not asked the Joint Chiefs for the "policy review" he feels is necessary to move the Pentagon forward on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Colin Powell has publicly stated that it is time for such a policy review. Even the once Salem Witch Trial style anti-gay paranoiac Senator Sam Nunn -- who once fired two of his own staff for being gay and worrying about their threat to national security -- has said times have changed and believes it is time for a "policy review." But Obama has not asked for it.

Cocktail parties are not enough. As NPR's Liz Halloran outlines, the gay community is vexed with the lack of action by the Obama administration. When John Berry powerfully and forcefully said at a recent Gay Pride Festival in Washington that "before the sun sets on the Obama administration, President Obama will reverse the Defense of Marriage Act and will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell", it didn't send a message of commitment.

Instead, these statements by the OPM Director, who is a fantastic guy and good friend, conveyed the political reality that the gay community is possibly in nearly last place when it comes to policy priorities.

When the sun sets is not soon enough.

Which communities are still in high sizzle mode for the Obama administration?

Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Menachem Rosensaft: GOP Must Repudiate Limbaugh or Be Defined by Him

2009-08-18T06:14:24Z

One stark difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats appear to be far more willing to confront and publicly denounce bigots and extremists in their own fold. This has been highlighted by the GOP leadership's failure to condemn Rush Limbaugh's divisive, race-baiting diatribes.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama unambiguously rejected and repudiated Louis Farrakhan, calling the Nation of Islam leader's anti-Israel and anti-Jewish tirades "unacceptable and reprehensible." Despite a very real concern that distancing himself from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright risked alienating a significant part of the Democratic base, Obama also condemned as "ridiculous" and "divisive" what he described as his former pastor's "rants that aren't grounded in truth."

Similarly, in a June 1992 speech to the Rainbow Coalition, presidential candidate Bill Clinton denounced the incendiary anti-white rhetoric of the hip-hop rap artist, Sister Souljah, thereby incurring the Rev. Jesse Jackson's wrath.

In sharp contrast and with rare exceptions, the Republican leadership consistently refuses to even address, let alone condemn, Limbaugh's inflammatory, offensive and vitriol-laced radio broadcasts, either because they condone his sentiments or because they are terrified of losing the votes of his millions of faithful listeners.

Most recently, Limbaugh not only listed "the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi Party in Germany," but compared President Obama to Adolf Hitler.

Here's what Limbaugh told his nationwide audience: "Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook"; "Obama is asking citizens to rat each other out like Hitler did"; the president "is sending out his brownshirts to head up opposition to genuine American citizens who want no part of what Barack Obama stands for and is trying to stuff down our throats"; and "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate."

Limbaugh has a long history of inciting the far-right grass-roots against any political figures who do not reflect his white, fundamentalist Christian, conservative, anti-minority, anti-pluralistic, anti-egalitarian view of the world.

He considers feminists to be "feminazis," dismissed Justice Sonia Sotomayor as a "hack" and a "reverse racist," and was outraged when President Obama declared in his April address to the Turkish Parliament that one of the "great strengths of the United States" is that although "we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Limbaugh further appealed to his followers' most xenophobic instincts by telling them that that it is "really uncool to be a white male today," and that U.S. Rep. David Scott or one of his supporters, rather than a Ku Klux Klan wannabe, most probably had painted a large swastika on a sign outside the African-American congressman's Georgia district office.

For Holocaust survivors and their families in particular, Limbaugh's demagogic screeds have ominous overtones with which we are all too familiar.

One would have expected Republican Party leaders who purport to be in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt to speak out against Limbaugh's hate mongering. Instead, Colin Powell has been one of the very few prominent Republicans with the integrity to take on Limbaugh.

"The problem I have with the [Republican] party right now," Powell told Larry King last month, is that when Limbaugh "says things that I consider to be completely outrageous, and I respond to it, I would like to see other members of the party do likewise. But they don't."

Indeed, John McCain considers Limbaugh to be "a voice of a significant portion of our conservative movement in America" who "has a lot of people who listen very carefully to him." Mitt Romney calls Limbaugh "a very powerful voice among conservatives. And I listen to him." Rudy Giuliani has said that "to the extent that Rush Limbaugh energizes the base of the Republican Party, he's a very valuable and important voice." And House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, believes that "Rush has got ideas. He's got a following. He believes in the conservative principles that many of us believe in."

By tolerating and encouraging Limbaugh, the Republican leadership is fomenting racial and ethnic hatred that could have disastrous consequences for our country. Limbaugh's extremist rhetoric is transforming the Republican side of the American political discourse from one of legitimate political and ideological disagreement among fellow citizens into a demonization of the "other," that is, everyone who is non-white, non-fundamentalist Christian and non-conservative.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann regularly refers to Limbaugh as a "comedian." That's a mistake. Limbaugh may have an act, a "shtick," as it were, but there is nothing funny or entertaining about him. As McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Cantor all acknowledge, Limbaugh wields a great deal of influence in both the Republican Party and the conservative movement. That makes him a dangerous, destructive cancer on both the Republican Party and the American body politic.

The GOP's leaders now have to make a choice: They can either allow themselves and their party to be defined by Rush Limbaugh, or they must denounce and renounce him once and for all.

Menachem Z. Rosensaft is Adjunct Professor of Law at the Cornell University Law School and Vice President of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants

(This article was first published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

Daniel Bruno Sanz: The Gates Affair: Why We Care

2009-08-10T18:02:39Z

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

-- 4th Amendment to the The Constitution of the United States of America

I'll never forget that hot, sticky Sunday afternoon at twilight. I was sitting alone in my old Chevy C- 10 panel truck in the trash-strewn parking lot of Church's Fried Chicken on Mount Pleasant Street on May 5, 1991. My Sunday routine was to drive up to Glen Bernie, Maryland for a night of dancing and buffet food for the five-dollar admission at Cancun Cantina and I was getting ready to depart. I didn't live in Mt. Pleasant and I don't remember why I was there that day, but that night would be unlike any other and my trip was not to be.

In the days before gentrification, Mount Pleasant Street was a slum where Central American immigrants dwelled in overcrowded apartments. During the 1980s hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans and Nicaraguans descended on the area around Washington, DC via the porous Mexican border in the belief that the capital city would hold the greatest opportunity. They wanted to escape the bloody civil wars between the Left and Right in their home countries; wars fueled on one side by Ronald Reagan's foreign policy even as U.S. law prohibited it. It made sense that male immigrants outnumbered women ten to one since women were neither combatants nor breadwinners in most cases. The men were typically Brown and barrel-chested with black mustaches, stubby calloused hands and gold teeth. They wore cheap gold chains and wore bedroom slippers in the street, white socks with black Payless dress shoes to be cool and leather cowboy belts, boots and hats to show the world they had truly arrived. Men took child brides. A pickup truck was their ultimate ride and they drove without insurance or a U.S. driver's license.

Their musical patron saints were the Mexican Don Vicente Fernandez and Los Tigres del Norte, who sang ballads about wetbacks and wily bandits and sang odes to Pancho Villa accompanied by accordions and squeaky violins. Watching these men on the street was like envisioning the cast of extras for Ruben Blades's Pedro Navaja set to Mariachi music. They could neither read nor write in Spanish, let alone English, and they were all here illegally except for a few Nicaraguans who had been granted asylum. The men spoke the countrified Spanish of hicks from the remote hills of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere where indoor plumbing and electricity are still goals for future generations. "Va pue' " they would say, meaning ok, its all good. They were illiterate but had infantry training or combat experience and could work like oxen under punishing conditions while subsisting day to day on a poor peasant's ration of corn tortillas, rice and beans. American employers were eager to hire them and they displaced Anglophones Black and White, causing great resentment. The few housewives and babies they brought with them led a sheltered, sedentary lifestyle and quickly turned into flesh-and-blood Botero sculptures.

When the weekend rolled around it was time to dress up and get sloppy drunk, just like in the old country. The streets of Mount Pleasant flowed with alcohol and urine. Crowds of men in Cowboy hats and baseball caps congregated on peeling tenement stoops to escape the heat and loitered in front of convenience stores because there was no place else to go. Drunken brawls ensued. They settled scores with machetes and passed out disheveled and intoxicated in vestibules and redbrick alleyways. Citizens complained. The new arrivals were on a collision course with the District of Columbia Police Department and the feculent streets of Mt. Pleasant would soon mix eddies of high BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) blood to the beer and piss on the pavement.

My education in the unwritten codes of conduct with a cop started in the 80s during the (Mayor for Life) Barry years. I was like a fly on the wall as I watched the cops I knew, Black Vietnam veterans all, shoot the breeze on Park Road about how many enemies they took out over there and how many knuckleheads they stomped out over here. I quickly understood that these were men to be avoided if you valued your life and liberty and all that nonsense about the scales of justice was a crock. If they liked you, they might sell you a .32 you could hide in your pocket and feel like a man with, DC's gun ban be damned. If they didn't like you, you could be killed and no one would be the wiser or inquire because you would be just one more stat. Chocolate City's coroner was working overtime but still couldn't keep up with the bodies arriving at the morgue. It was a scandal and the Washington, DC basketball team abandoned the name Bullets because of it. But Hizzoner reassured us that "If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very, very low crime rate."

Bad Cop, No Donut

I had spoken with the Mayor for Life a few years back at a community gathering of worried citizens at an upscale restaurant in Adams Morgan. He had an electrifying personality and I understood why he was popular, but the allegations against him in the Washington Post were eye-popping and causing an international uproar. The city was in a fiscal crisis and Congress would neither meet the city's budget needs nor permit a commuter tax, so the city starved for cash like a banana republic whose U.S. aid gets cut for bad behavior. It was the federal government's way of pressuring Washingtonians to get rid of Mayor Barry. To this day Washingtonians do not have a voice in Congress, and its residents hear the echo of Jim Crow disenfranchisement loud and clear. As with everything else of significance concerning people of color in America, the issues of representation in Congress and Mayor Barry's competency degenerated into a racial poker game cloaked in language that strenuously avoids mention of race until the endgame, when the race card may or may not be played in a gambit to win by either side.

D.C. city government was mostly Black, rude and dysfunctional and tried to even the score with Congress and suburbanite commuters via fifteen-minute timers on greedy parking meters, exorbitant and aggressive parking tickets and orange car boots. Vehicles with out-of-state tags were prime targets in a new sort of profiling: parking while from out of town. Cars were impounded and fees accumulated so quickly that many people just abandoned their vehicles to the city. City governments around the world looked on in awe as the Barry Administration raised hundreds of millions of dollars this way, and they sent delegations of their own police brass to learn how it was done. What they didn't know was that "Operation Revenue" required an expansion of police power that is always accompanied by abuse regardless of the cop's race, a theme I will return to shortly. Corrupt cops were emboldened, towed people's cars away and sold them to chop shops. In response, somebody went berserk and decapitated hundreds of parking meters across miles of Washington's potholed streets, creating instant free parking and a lot of chuckles. Then it dawned on city government that harassment of motorists might drive city retailers' revenue down and cause sales tax receipts to fall. This is exactly what happened.

The Criminal Just Us System

On January 18, 1990, Mayor Marion Barry was covertly filmed smoking crack cocaine in a hotel suite with a female government informant and was pounced on by FBI agents hiding in the next room. His first reaction was, "the bitch set me up."

The shame he brought on the African-American community is indescribable. Black talk radio wept and WPFW was in mourning while whites un-popped bottles of champagne and Latinos were smug. How could Washington blame Columbia, a Latin country, for America's drug problem when the mayor of its capital city was a user himself? Pablo Escobar laughed up his sleeve.

Barry would go on to be tried and convicted and served six months in prison. He got paid $.65 an hour while he worked in the prison woodshop and joined the 50%+ of Black men caught up in the criminal Just Us system, a problem more severe now than ever. The United States imprisons and executes more people per capita than Iran, China, Cuba or Russia. Most inmates, like Troy Davis, are Black or Brown. In America, race heavily influences who gets arrested but the race of the accused determines trial and sentence outcome far less than the race of the victim.

Mayor Barry had indeed been targeted and set up, but America's instruments of coercion and its massive prison industrial complex are hemmed in by public opinion and the democratic traditions, due process of law and constitution of the United States. This is why Abu-Ghraib is such a scandal and Gitmo is a conundrum. Not coincidentally, a number of the U.S. soldiers accused of abominable behavior at Abu-Ghraib are career law enforcement officers and prison guards in the United States. What kind of horrors have Americans been subjected to at their sick and sadistic hand?

Arrest and detention in America is skewed towards the Black, the Brown and the poor, especially in combination, but it is not arbitrary, nor is it under the direct command of a central authority. The spigot of prisoners is not controlled by dictate, as in an authoritarian society, but by debate amongst people who count and the appropriations they influence. In America, there is no knock on the door in the middle of the night, there's an arrest warrant duly served. In the case of Dr. Gates, the "disorderly conduct" charge, a catchall for the cops to seize whomever they want on the spot, was his unexpected knock in the middle of the night... in broad daylight. In a free and legally de-segregated society based on truth and justice for all but awash in guns, where colored people can no longer be required to carry papers to justify their presence or prove their right to be out and about, arrest and incarceration must follow protocol, e.g. seatbelt law violations. It is no coincidence that thousands of new laws have been enacted and police powers and budgets have mushroomed since the 1960s as the Civil Rights struggle forced change onto American society.

In my previous life as a shopkeeper, I was accosted on the street by a Black cop who demanded my I.D. I told him I had no I.D. on my person and he had no constitutional right to make such a demand. Enraged, he followed me on foot for forty-five minutes while I kept my lawyer live on my cell phone to hear what was going on. The cop then attempted to have my car towed away even though it was on my own property in a ploy to force me to produce I.D. No tow trucks were available. A week later, he and other officers conducted a stakeout of the property and pounced on a group of my employees, including a manager in his sixties, as they left the property one night. The manager called me at 1:00 AM and wailed "I didn't know Blacks could still be treated this way by the police." He was traumatized by the experience and quit.

What all people but especially men of color in the United States must know and openly discuss is that the Just Us system needs passive cooperation to work. It is racist but not random. Mayor Barry, a man smart enough to get a Ph.D in chemistry, knew he had powerful enemies but was reckless and careless anyway. He set himself up to be set up. He played an essential role in his own downfall and some people enjoy watching this happen because it is confirmation of an ideology that is on the defensive. The only way to survive is to deprive friend and foe alike of any opportunity to take you down, be it on the corner, on the job, in a hotel room or in the Oval Office. Just ask Bill Clinton, our first Black president.

American society works this way everyday and it doesn't make the evening news... Colored students are written off to fail and get in trouble with the police at a young age. Mediocrity and a checkered past is their lot. This tired script was written long ago and you can either accept it or manifest your own destiny against the expectations of strangers, family and peers.

That Sunday night in Mount Pleasant, a Black police officer shot and wounded a drunken Salvadoran man for resisting arrest on a disorderly conduct charge. Word quickly spread that he had been killed and the community exploded like a Molotov cocktail. A torrent of pent-up rage built up over years of slights and manhandling by the police had been unleashed. Hundreds of enraged men picked up bricks and cinder blocks and turned them into projectiles. The police retreated in terror. The mob's military training kicked in and they instinctively formed barricades with dumpsters and overturned cars. The cops called for backup but were shut out. Clouds of thick black smoke rose into the haze high over the city. Over sixty police vehicles and city buses were attacked, turned over or set alight. As nighttime descended, I saw a thousand Black and Latino youth, their faces covered in bandannas, make common cause with the Central American men on Mount Pleasant St. as they chanted "F*** the police!" over and over and over again. They smashed scores of shop windows all up and down Columbia Road. The police fired teargas canisters and the youth tossed them right back at the police. I caught a whiff and gagged. Armed men in helicopters with bright searchlights flew just overhead. On the ground, the police abandoned the area, a curfew was set and Mayor Sharon Pratt Dixon, a colored woman, declared a state of emergency. The city hadn't seen anything like it since 1968 when Martin Luther King was assassinated. The irony was overwhelming.

On April 29, 1992, almost a year to the day of the Mount Pleasant riots, Los Angeles exploded in an orgy of deadly violence after White L.A. cops were acquitted of the brutal tasering and beating of a Black motorist on March 31 of the previous year. The awful pummeling was caught on videotape in what would become the most prominent case of inverse surveillance to date. The grainy amateur video was obtained by news agencies around the world and showed Rodney King supine as police broke bones in his face and leg after a high-speed chase. Mayor Bradley, also a Black man and theoretically the boss and backer of every L.A. police officer but sensitive to the views of all his constituents, declared that the disgraced officers had no right to wear the uniform of the LAPD... Without that seventy-five second videotape, no one would've cared about Rodney King; but the video was real. It was shockingly graphic and damned the LAPD to instant condemnation by any objective observer. Their acquittal was proof that the Just Us system is rigged against people of color of modest means, but also against anybody in a dispute involving the police. Rodney King's beating would have been no more acceptable had some or all of the cops been Black. Big city police of all backgrounds abuse people of all backgrounds, while their superiors, police chiefs and officials at City Hall are often Black themselves. Rodney King symbolized the bottled-up frustrations of millions of ordinary people in Los Angeles and across the country who had not been fortunate enough to have their own ordeal immortalized by a bystander; it is doubtful that many of them actually felt empathy for Rodney King. The outrageous arrest of Dr. Gates in his own home in 2009 in a state where the governor is Black and even the president of the United States is Black strikes a similar chord in millions of people of color today, but the old paradigms no longer apply because the country has changed too much since the days of Bull Conner. Whites across the blogosphere are baffled by the allegations of racial profiling against Officer Crowley because they miss the essential element of the controversy: is an American citizen of any color required to be obsequious to the police, even in his own home? Is that the land of the free and the home of the brave? The only thing black and white about this question is the answer: democratic societies do not behave that way.

For people of color and African-Americans in particular, all that's needed is to change the circumstances, names, places and dates and we have all been in Dr. Gates's shoes; hence the public's fascination with the arrest even to the detriment of the national debate on healthcare, an issue affecting hundreds of millions and linked to the untimely death of thousands every year. Forced to comment on the matter, President Obama correctly used the adverb "stupidly" to describe the actions of the Cambridge Police Department but did not call the police department stupid. Nevertheless, the remark hit a raw nerve, the Cambridge Police Department took it very harshly and felt compelled to go on the defensive and stand by their man against the ultimate law enforcement official of the United States himself. Presidential involvement like this in a local misdemeanor arrest is unprecedented and proof of the symbolic, even historic importance of the incident. It is indeed a teachable moment. Like the surprise videotape of the Rodney King beating, Dr. Gates's unusual access and connections have shed the national spotlight on what would have otherwise been just another law-abiding person humiliated or beaten, booked, fingerprinted, strip searched and released within seventy-two hours; something repeated so often every day that it is not newsworthy. But it's not just people of color taking a beating and it's not only White cops who harass, arrest, injure and kill Black civilians and others in the interminable wars on crime, drugs and terror. We now live in a complex society that sends 18-year-olds of any race and immigrants hoping for permanent U.S. residency to kill and be killed in Iraq while 20-year-olds can't buy a beer and illegal immigrants that do jobs Americans don't want cannot get a driver's license to drive to work.

Like the army, police departments across the country are equal opportunity employers and equal opportunity heroes or abusers. But cops, like criminals, are opportunists, and there is more opportunity to arrest Blacks than Whites and a better chance of conviction if the accused is Black. This is racial profiling today and it need not be intentional or conscious on the part of the arresting officer, any more than it was Officer James Crowley's intention that his very name smacks of Jim (James) Crow (Crowley).

Theory and Practice Lag Behind the New Reality

I know my country well and I firmly believe that had Dr. Gates been the spitting image of absent-minded Albert Einstein or befuddled Mr. McGoo locked out of his own home no one would have thought to call the police in the first place and had they been called no I.D. would have been required and an arrest would never have occurred, everything else being equal.

But everything is not equal and to pretend that it is is to live in denial. In the choreography of American life at the close of the first decade of the 21st century, a casual observer might see a few discrepancies like these: a bailout is White but a handout is Black. Fashion magazine covers are White and mug shots are Black. The family vacation to Disneyland is White and the three-hour Saturday bus ride to visit daddy at the state pen is Black. Inheritance is White, poor credit scores, Black. A missing woman is White and a fugitive on the loose is Black. Nose candy and ecstasy at posh nightspots are White while drug busts, plea-bargains and drug-free school zones are Black. Pounds of pot at a Grateful Dead concert are White but undercover drug stings for grams of crack are Black. A suspended sentence is White and a threat to the community is Black. A White man with a gun is exercising his Second Amendment rights but a Black man with a gun is shot dead whether or not he had a gun. Driving under the influence is White and driving while Black is still Black, even without a car. Centuries of White privilege are a free market and fair elections and forty years of affirmative action are reverse racism. Finally, an IPO that raises hundreds of millions of dollars for a company that will buy distressed mortgages on the cheap then make a killing when the market recovers (PennyMac) is White but the Cleveland boyhood home of Langston Hughes in foreclosure and sold for $14,000 in 2009 is Black. Now here's the confusing part: sometimes White is Black and increasingly Black is White, including the White House. When Black and White converge this way, Americans' eyes cross and they get a headache.

If only James Baldwin were here to bear witness! The election of 2008 crossed the eyes of African-Americans and many withheld support of Barack Obama until after he won the Iowa primaries...long after many White youth were already committed to his triumph. I saw this with my own eyes. People clung to hackneyed half-truths until the Iowa wake-up call. Now the Gatesgate sounds the tocsin of change to boundaries of police power, thanks to our dear POTUS! We need new ideological software to understand contemporary American life!

Not Going Back to the Future

Our view of what occurred to Dr. Gates in Cambridge is a generation behind the times but our outrage is right on schedule. It's not too hard to guess why: the assassinations of Malcolm and Martin.

Malcolm became El-Hajj and was transformed. He abandoned the personality cult and bizarre theories of Elijah Mohammed then took the road to pan-Africanism and internationalism. Broadly speaking, he represented one school of thought of the African American body politic. His intellectual journey mirrored similar processes occurring in the minds of masses of Black people as they came out of their stupor. They looked to him for guidance and he eclipsed Elijah Mohammed, who had him killed.

Dr. King had come a long way between his 1963 I Have a Dream Speech and the speech against the Vietnam War in July 1967. He had gone far beyond the mere desegregation of city buses and lunch counters in the South and was moving towards Liberation Theology and anti-Imperialism, global themes that transcend American race relations. By the late 1970s his unparalleled personality could have led a coalition movement of millions that could have shook the foundations of the established order of American politics, changed election patterns and forced philosophical and practical changes on the policies of the United States at home and abroad. The powers that be could not tolerate this, and he too was killed.

Both men were assassinated before they were forty, just over forty years ago. Its leadership decapitated, African American thought froze over as the new generation was left with bow ties, bean pies, grainy re-runs of I have a Dream and the subliminal underscore that those who challenge the system will be martyred. The new focus was reduced to the creation of a federal holiday honoring Dr. King as sports idols and entertainers became the new leaders of Black America. In 1986 the Greaseman said, "Kill four more and we can get a whole week off."

Brilliant personalities like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan tried to fill the void but were unsuccessful. As time moved on, conditions changed and the era of mass incarceration took off in earnest but African American prescriptions remained mired in the past. This created a window of opportunity for astute Black conservatives like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice and explains the racial tinge to the Gates affair when it is, as we have seen, an all-around American problem that is informed by race but no longer limited to it. A Black cop could have been the arresting officer...would that be Black on Black profiling? Should it be called Blue on Black profiling? Indeed, a smirking Black cop, hands on hips, was present as Gates was pushed out of his home and conspicuously present at the Cambridge Police Department's press conference, held in the shadow of the hall where an authority on the subject electrified Harvard seminary students half a century ago. His name was Malcolm X, and it is this generation of Americans' task to complete the journey he started.

Aubrey Sarvis: Slogging Towards Repeal

2009-08-06T15:12:00Z

The House broke a record last month when 18 more Members signed on to co-sponsor the bill to repeal, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that Patrick Murphy, two-term Democrat from Pennsylvania and the first Iraq war veteran to be elected to Congress, is quarterbacking through the House. The bill, H.R. 1283, now has 168 co-sponsors, a new high since repeal was first introduced five years ago. We can thank Congressman Murphy for that monthly record and those 168 co-sponsors. Fifty more and it's ready. But hold the cheers. The game won't be over.

Advocates of repeal couldn't have asked for a more impassioned supporter or a better quarterback. Anyone who saw his last appearance on Rachel Maddow's show knows that, and if you didn't see it, you can watch it here. You'll be glad you did. After you've listened to Rep. Murphy, you'll know exactly why DADT has to be repealed by Congress, which passed the law in the first place, the same year that Patrick Murphy, following in the footsteps of numerous family members, signed up. The nation's armed forces are stretched thin, very thin. Repeal of DADT is a national security issue, first and last.

"It's our job as a Congress to get a backbone, to have the courage to get [repeal] passed," he told Rachel Maddow. "Now is the time to repeal it." It would be hard to doubt that he means it. He's served with gay men and women. He's seen gays discharged for one reason alone, because of who they are, not for what they did, because they did nothing but their duty. What a waste!

No one could question the Congressman's credentials -- Captain in the elite 82nd Airborne Division, a Bronze Star on his chest, former professor at West Point, husband and father. Forget apple pie, the apple-cheeked Congressman is as American as the Fourth of July. And, as he says, "If you are American you've got to believe in equality -- for everybody."

Oops! I spoke too soon. I forgot the unforgettable Elaine Donnelly, who could (and does) question not only the Congressman's credentials but disparages his military record and derisively refers to H.R. 1283 as "Murphy's New LGBT Law." You can get the details at Human Events.com, the self-described "Headquarters of the Conservative Underground" and also home to "the peerless Ann Coulter."

In Washington we measure out our progress in incremental steps. Blustering and finger-pointing, posturing and dramatic gestures seldom carry the day. Remember the tortoise and the hare? The race is not to the swift. The race is to those who do the real legwork, the foundation-building, and, yes, the sometimes firm cajoling that bring in the votes. It's a long hard slog to the finish line. It's not glamorous, it doesn't often get your name in headlines, and there's a lot of drudgery involved. It works by fits and starts -- but it works. Eventually.

We saw some of that before the House fled the Capital for their August recess. Two Young Turks, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Rep. Patrick Murphy, actually engaged House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton in a discussion on the House floor about repealing DADT. While Mr. Skelton didn't appear all that eager to take part in the conversation, he did make a commitment to his younger colleagues that his committee would conduct another much-needed hearing on DADT this year.

Mr. Skelton wants to hear from the as yet unnamed Deputy Secretary for Personnel and Readiness in the Department of Defense because that person will ultimately be responsible for making the sale to Congress and then implementing the new policy in the military. Chairman Skelton also wants to hear from Defense Secretary Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen. That's a given.

In the Senate, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has committed to the first Senate hearings on DADT in 16 years. He's got a number of powerful allies who are ready for action, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Dan Inouye. And he's got the President asking Congress to send him a bill that he can sign.

There are growing signs that the Obama Administration is bracing itself for the hearings, which are sure to be televised live by C-SPAN and possibly other networks as well. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen know the hour is coming. I don't think we will hear Admiral Mullen making the case his predecessor in that job, Colin Powell, made in 1993, that being gay or lesbian is not compatible with military service. Admiral Mullen graduated from the Naval Academy in 1968, one year after the "Summer of Love," the year that Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy showed President Johnson the handwriting on the election wall, and shortly after Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated, followed two months later by Robert Kennedy himself. Having lived through those turbulent times as a young man, I suspect that Admiral Mullen, like most Americans, will not be fazed by gays serving openly under his command.

August is quiet in Washington, though a lot of heat will be generated in the hustings as House and Senate members head home to hear what the men and women who elected them are saying. But all of them, including the President, need a summer break. It's been a tough few months and the forecast is for a hot, tough autumn on the Hill.

David A. Harris: Comical Posturing on Israel

2009-08-02T23:29:40Z

We've seen a growing chorus of voices recently questioning the direction of American foreign policy when it comes to Israel. A number of these voices -- including some recent editorials -- appear disconnected from the facts; they seem to ignore President Obama's commitment in word and deed to our strong U.S.-Israel relationship as this administration thoughtfully pursues peace. But others willfully and hypocritically distort this administration's stance on Israel to drive a wedge in the Jewish community, and to peel off support from this overwhelmingly Democratic voting demographic. And that just makes me crazy.

Enter Reps. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Jim Jordan (R-OH). They circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter this week expressing their supposed "deep concerns" about President Obama's commitment to foreign aid for Israel, which has regularly been deemed a key vote by the American Jewish community. In total, 23 House Republicans signed the letter. The only problem? Like more than half of House Republicans, just a few weeks ago these two voted against foreign aid, including $2.2 billion in aid to Israel -- a measure which the administration supported, along with 95 percent of House Democrats. So they're hypocritically circulating heart-wrenching "Dear Colleague" letters, warning the President darkly that on his watch, "foreign assistance to Israel may be in danger." Yet most of the Republicans signing the letter just got done doing their best to kill the bill. It is in fact comically hypocritical; do they think nobody is watching or keeping track?

As it so happens, the very voting block they're cynically targeting -- the American Jewish community -- does notice these things. Between votes and letters like these and the broad common ground between most American Jews and the policies of House and Senate Democrats and this White House, it's no surprise that Jews continue voting so reliably for Democrats. It's also no surprise that of the dozens of members of Congress who are Jewish, only one is Republican -- Eric Cantor (R-VA). He told the Israeli English-language newspaper Haaretz this weekend, "My sense is that we need the Sarah Palins, Dick Cheneys, Rush Limbaughs, the Colin Powells.... We need all of them."

Keep talking, Mr. Cantor. You're just helping to keep Jews pulling the lever for Democrats.

This is crossposted on Politico's Arena.

Colin Powell Endorses NYC Mayor Bloomberg's Re-Election Bid

2009-07-29T14:02:00Z

NEW YORK — Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's re-election bid.

Powell offered the endorsement Tuesday during a taping of the "Larry King Live" show on CNN. He calls Bloomberg a great candidate and an "independent guy who is always trying to solve problems."

Colin Powell Suggests Republicans Are Afraid Of Rush Limbaugh, Says Sarah Palin Not Ready To Be President (VIDEO)

2009-07-28T20:26:41Z

Colin Powell, in an appearance on Larry King tonight, said that Rush Limbaugh is entitled to say anything he wants, and that he doesn't take "umbrage" with any of the remarks Limbaugh directs at him because he "can handle his criticism. However, Powell warns that

the problem I have with the party right now is when [Limbaugh] says things that I consider to be completely outrageous, and I respond to it, I would like to see other members of the party do likewise. But they don't.

When King asks if he thinks GOP members are afraid to take him on, Powell responds,

I know of several instances where sitting members in Congress or elsewhere in positions of responsibility in the party made like criticisms of Rush and within 24 hours they were backing away because there is a strong base of support for Mr. Limbaugh.

WATCH:

Powell also talked about Sarah Palin, calling her an "accomplished woman," but not one who is ready to be President of the United States.

WATCH: (Video courtesy of Media Monitor D.J.)

Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team.

Powell On Gates: I've Been Racially Profiled "Many Times"

2009-07-28T17:26:01Z

In an interview with CNN's Larry King, former Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested that both the Cambridge police and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates were to blame for last week's incident.

Saying he has suffered from racial profiling "many times," the general suggested that Gates could have handled the situation differently. He urged young people confronted by the police to "cooperate. Don't make the situation more difficult."

Powell later added, "Do you get angry? Yes. Do you manifest that anger? You protest, you try to get things fixed, but it's kind of a better course of action to take it easy and don't let your anger make the current situation worse.

Watch:

The full exchange on Gates:

KING: You're saying Gates was wrong?

POWELL: I'm saying that Skip, perhaps in this instance, might have waited a while, come outside, talked to the officer, and that might have been the end of it. I think he should have reflected on whether or not this was the time to make that big a deal. But, he's just home from China, just home from New York. All he wanted to do was get to bed.

His door was jammed. And so he was in a mood where...

KING: What about those who say he brings the whole history into that body of a black movement?

(CROSSTALK)

POWELL: That may well be the case. But I still think that it might well have been resolved in a different manner if we didn't have this verbal altercation between the two of them.

So, my first teaching point for young people, especially, not for Dr. Gates, that the young people, especially, is, when the police are looking into something, and if you're involved in it in one way or another, cooperate. Don't make the situation more difficult. And I think in this case, the situation was made more difficult.

And you could part on the part of the Cambridge Police Department. Once they felt they had to bring Dr. Gates out of the house and to handcuff him, I would have thought at that point some adult supervision would have stepped in and said, OK, look, it is his house. Come on, let's not take this any further. Take the handcuffs off. Goodnight, Dr. Gates.

And on racial profiling:

KING: Were you ever racially profiled?

POWELL: Yes, many times.

KING: And didn't you ever bring anger to it?

POWELL: Of course. But, you know, anger is best controlled. And sure I got mad.

I got mad when I, as a national security adviser to the president of the United States, I went down to meet somebody at Reagan National Airport and nobody recognized -- nobody thought I could possibly be the national security adviser to the president. I was just a black guy at Reagan National Airport.

And it was only when I went up to the counter and said, "Is my guest here who's waiting for me?" did somebody say, "Oh, you're General Powell." It was inconceivable to him that a black guy could be the national security adviser.

KING: How do you deal with things like that?

POWELL: You just suck it up. What are you going to do? It was a teaching point for him. Yes, I'm the national security adviser, I'm black. And watch, I can do the job. So, you have this kind of -- there is no African-American in this country who has not been exposed to this kind of situation.

Do you get angry? Yes. Do you manifest that anger? You protest, you try to get things fixed, but it's kind of a better course of action to take it easy and don't let your anger make the current situation worse.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Daniel Bruno Sanz: Obama 2012

2009-07-16T12:31:38Z

We approach the future walking backwards, our gaze forever fixated on the past. Predicting the future is not a passive exercise; we invent it every day with our actions.

I began the sketches for what would ultimately become Obama 2012 in March 2007, a month after Barack Obama declared his candidacy. I had spent much of the previous 18 months living abroad as an entrepreneur and statesman of sorts, and I was slightly out of touch with the pulse of life on the street in the United States. I learned about Sen. Barack Obama's Springfield, IL speech formally declaring his candidacy for president of the United States through one of the international cable news channels and thought how great it would be to have a fresh start after years of mediocrity in Washington, and a plummeting reputation around the world.

By September, after what seemed like raising a six-month-old child, my sketches had turned into -- Why the Democrats Will Win in 2008: The Road to an Obama White House. It was my answer to the burning question everyone had back in March: Can he really win? Actually, not everyone thought it was a question. For many people, including Mark Penn, director of the Clinton campaign, the answer was an easy "no way." This strategic blunder made it that much easier for the Clinton campaign to be defeated. Then there were Black pundits like Shelby Steele, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, who came out with a 2007 book entitled, A Bound Man, Why Obama Can't Win.

Being Black did seem to be an automatic disqualification, but then why did someone need to write an entire book arguing what should have been patently obvious? Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell came to my mind and I remembered that he could have run for president in 1992 as a war hero. But Colin Powell was Ronald Reagan's protege and got a special pass on the race question. Black conservatives like Justice Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were careful to disassociate themselves from liberal thinkers and activists like Jesse Jackson, who lost, as expected, the 1984 and 1988 Democratic primaries. Ultimately, Colin Powell, in spite of all his honors, declined to run for president. His wife Alma feared for his safety.

Common sense said that a candidate like Obama, for numerous insurmountable reasons, didn't stand a chance of winning the Democratic primary, let alone a general election in which 10% of the electorate is African American and Republicans controlled the White House for 20 of the preceding 28 years. But I decided that Obama's chances merited a closer examination. In it, I would bring to bear my gambling skills.

I went to New York to meet Obama the candidate, and in a Soho apartment he told a small group of us that his middle name was Hussein. I thought he was telling a joke. Barack Hussein Obama, a liberal Black senator with a name on loan from Al Qaeda... for U.S. president? Is he out of his mind?

Then I really wanted to know whether his campaign was worth getting my hopes up for and investing my time in. I applied techniques used in predicting financial markets and researched theories of voting behavior. I applied the theories, in my own way, to the upcoming primary and general elections. I learned as I went along. The result was an analytical and quantitative study concluding, with gaps filled in by some admittedly fuzzy logic, that not only could Obama win, but, in fact, he would win because the stars lined up in his favor. Call it God's Will. I reached my conclusion and told everyone who would listen that I had a strong case to make for victory, and that I could prove there was indeed hope. Hope is essential to any difficult endeavor. But hope as a campaign slogan is not good enough; hope needs firepower. No one becomes heavyweight champion of the world, an astronaut or the president by accident or dumb luck.

By the time my book making the case for an Obama victory was first printed in bulk, in October, 2007, Obama was 20 points behind Clinton in the polls and I was dismissed by just about everyone in the New York Democratic Party establishment and the media. Ambitious, elitist and snooty Democratic Party insiders like New York Electoral College voters Deb Slott and Terrence Yang did all they could to shut me up and lock me out. Big-time Obama fund-raising bundler and millionaire Virginia Davies ordered her 12th Street rooftop penthouse minimum-wage Latino flunkies to turn off the elevator when I attempted to go upstairs to an Obama fundraiser on April 9, 2008.

Yang and Davies turned down my $250 check from a Black Masonic lodge and barred me from the premises because it was their private property and Yang didn't like my "hostile attitude" or my "look," i.e. I wouldn't kiss his bourgeois butt or grin to reassure him I wasn't a dangerous half-Negro. The irony of it! For them, Obama was bought and paid for that night and only invited celebrities like actor Lucy Liu and others on Yang's exclusive clipboard could enter their coveted penthouse. Impostors like these are a big part of the problem in America, not the solution. Limousine Liberals jockey for position and the Democratic Party becomes indistinguishable from the Republican Party except at election time.

But even in Harlem I was on the defensive. Harlem was Hillary country. Boldface name Black celebrities like Maya Angelou, Magic Johnson and Tavis Smiley came out for Hillary. Then in January 2008, Bob Johnson, the billionaire founder of Black Entertainment Television, made this statement:

"And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -- and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book -- when they have been involved. That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, 'I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.' And I'm thinking -- I'm thinking to myself: this ain't a movie, Sidney. This is real life."

I was indignant. Here was a man who had made a fabulous fortune peddling and reinforcing the worst stereotypes about his own people as dangerous drug dealers, thieves, thugs and rapists; had provided a launch pad for a thousand materialistic, misogynistic hip-hop videos that glorify the murder of young black men for trivial slights real and imagined; directed his vast entertainment empire to appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to maximize profits, and when confronted with protests from the Black community, retorted that "BET stands for Black Entertainment Television, not Black education television.

The production of these videos outside of BET notwithstanding, I thought about the millions of viewer-hours that Black children (many of them obese) wasted imbibing BET programming and its emphasis on anti-social and self-destructive behavior to gratify primeval instincts of lust and greed. Mr. Johnson made himself the heir to and then continued the tradition of 19th-century popular American culture and journalism that portrayed Africans and their descendants as prurient savages who would still be swinging from trees had they not been saved by European colonialism and slavery. In true late 20th-century American form, Johnson, an African-American, was given the equal opportunity to exploit this tradition in Horatio Alger fashion and become what was hitherto an oxymoron: a Black billionaire.

Tyve, portrayed brilliantly by Zero Mostel in the musical A fiddler on the Roof and typical of the "music videos" my mother exposed me to as a boy before companies like MTV and BET came on the scene a generation later, laments that "when you're rich, they think you really know."

It is clear that in spite of his great wealth, Bob Johnson does not have a clue. Maybe he was exposed to BET programming in his formative years.

Obama the Outlier

The election of Barack Obama is analogous to a "black swan"event in that it defied common sense, convention, precedent and therefore probability in the popular imagination, i.e. it was not supposed to happen. Now that it has, the charts are indelibly shifted in his direction. In my 2007 book I argued that macroeconomic forces and cyclical patterns would bring on a recession and electoral realignment, culminating in his election. In that sense, his election was not a surprise. Now Obama as a concept larger than the man himself is a new novel form of power and has a reflexive relationship with other sources of power in all their variety, including the power of the subconscious mind in large numbers of people. We would call this conditioned power. As we have seen, Black Entertainment Television wields conditioned power through its ability to manipulate images that penetrate the subconscious and go on to influence people's behavior without their knowledge and create the illusion of acting of one's own "free will." Conditioned power, like compensatory power (money), is neither good nor evil; it is a force to be harnessed.

The conservative cultural and political shift that dominated Washington and the American frame of debate since the 1980s is now in ruins because the election of Obama is much more significant than the mere election of another liberal to the White House. The convergence of his identity with the position he holds as the face of America to the world alters the essence of what it means to be an American, a real American, not just someone with United States citizenship resulting from accidents of history and geography. It is difficult to overestimate the repercussions this will have over time but some of the salutary effects on the culture are apparent.

I have seen more Black/White interracial couples in midtown Manhattan during the last week of April 2009 than I saw in all of New York during 2008. In what has long appeared to me to be the most race and caste conscious large city in America once you get past the diversity window dressing of Black receptionists, security guards and bouncers employed at all-white offices and night spots, Latino cheap labor and Asian immigrant mom-and-pop service industries, I now see Blacks and Whites actually socializing with each other in public places like Bryant Park during their free time. Some even hold hands. New York is starting to look like London ten years ago. Still, in 2009, the most fashionable Manhattan nightspots in Chelsea and the Meat-Packing District like Cipriani's and Pink Elephant have an unwritten "No Blacks Allowed" admittance policy, and its often the 300 lbs. Black bouncer at the door charged with enforcing this policy under the guise of face-control and dress codes. Black celebrities, of course, are supra-racial and get the red carpet unless applying for the prestigious Harmonie Club, which has never admitted a non-white, not even as a token. Bloomberg wisely resigned from this club and Obama refused to speak before it while running for office.

In American cinema 20 years ago, Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing and Jungle Fever, both set in New York and brimming with explosive racial tension, were box office hits. A generation before Spike Lee there was Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, A Patch of Blue, To Kill a Mockingbird and Imitation of Life. Now, naturalized American supermodel Heidi Klum and her African husband Seal (Henry Olusegun Olumide Adeola Samuel) are on the front cover of tabloids because they are expecting a baby and the movie The Dance Flick opened in theaters on May 22, 2009. Miscegenation has become fashionable. Nevertheless, in 2009 more Americans and Black men and women than ever are in prison. More than a few of them are innocent. America has 25% of the world's prisoners and millions of de-facto orphans, mostly Black boys. The complex American problem of passive collaboration between marginalized people and phony Wars on Drugs and Crime finds an outlet in the mentally disturbed culture of our time. They say they're just keeping it real, but what passes for music today is like a finger painting done by men who shit in the palm of their hand and call it high art because it makes money.

W.E.B. Dubois (the wise) observed budding materialism and a culture that pardons shiftlessness and celebrates crime as defiance of the "man" (an unjust, racist order enforced by the organs of state power, i.e. ex-Confederate soldiers and Klansmen in the police force) 110 years ago in Georgia. Now in 2009 a Black man -- Black not just by accident, i.e. melanin count and the width of his nose but by virtue of struggle, study and voluntary consciousness, sits at the pinnacle of American state power as he commands conditioned power of millions at home and abroad who would believe in and heed him. His re-election in 2012 is more likely than any other outcome.

His Presidency does not usher in the Post-Racial Era, as the gap between White and Black America remains enormous by any indicator. It does conclude the Civil-Rights Era, a long unfinished chapter of Reconstruction and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The conclusion, i.e. triumph of the Civil-Rights Era does not magically prevent any abuse from occurring in the future; work must be continuously done to hold on to its gains. This is why we support Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

Booker T. Washington exhorted us to cast down our buckets where we are. Now is the time to finally let go. Not of the collective memories and historical record, but of the mental chains. Just as 19th century internal combustion technology ( diesel and gasoline engines) must give way to better methods, culture steeped in passive acceptance of slavery and resistance to exploitation needs to re-asses what is true and what is a big lie. No one person can will this to happen. It will be a movement of broad masses of people as they make a million decisions large and small everyday of their lives.

Theory is far behind reality and must now play catch up.

This essay is the prologue to Obama 2012, a collection of essays to be published later this year. Daniel Bruno Sanz writes about financial and political affairs. His areas of expertise include currencies, stock markets, Latin America, Japan and Russia. In early 2007, he predicted that Obama would win the Democratic primary when polls showed him 20 points behind Senator Clinton. He also forecast Obama would win 52% of the popular vote and beat the Republican nominee in the general election.

Larry Gellman: Punching the Tar Baby

2009-07-16T11:54:04Z

Last week I suggested that the Republican party was at a crossroads of sorts. They could continue down the road of hatespeech, fear, anger, and thinly-veiled racism or they could take a cue from Conservatives like David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Colin Powell, David Frum, and many others and engage in dignified, constructive, fact-based criticism of policies and statements with which they disagreed.

Now, just a few days later, the "dignity" option seems to have been taken off the table. The Republican chosen and designated leaders just can't seem to help themselves. They just keep flailing away at the tar baby (a term I use deliberately) so vigorously that they don't realize that they are caught in a trap of their own making that is leading to both their unmasking and their undoing.

A few days ago, the national Young Republicans elected 38-year old Audra Shay as their new chair. As I wrote last week, Ms. Shay is an Arkansas native who now lives in Louisiana and was endorsed for the position by her governor, Bobby Jindal.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, she gained some unwelcome notoriety during the week prior to her election for cheering on a participant in a conversation on her Facebook page who referred to President Obama as "a commie and a coon." Participants in the conversation who criticized her response were immediately defriended and blocked from the website. Eric, the commie and coon guy, was not.

This and other arguably racist comments she has made caused a number of Young Republicans, including John McCain's daughter Meghan, to encourage her to drop out of the race. Instead she won election by a comfortable margin after scrubbing her Facebook page in an effort to destroy the evidence of her past remarks.

The next day marked the beginning of the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a 17-year Federal court veteran who has been nominated by Obama for the Supreme Court.

From the moment Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the court, the Right wing made it clear that they were going to play the only card left in the Republican deck--the race card. The water carriers of the Right immediately launched into racist attacks against her on the radio with Limbaugh, Levin, and others branding her a "bigot" and Glenn Beck calling her "Hispanic Chick Lady" in their dignified and nuanced commentaries on her qualifications.

Despite the fact that Sotomayor's confirmation should be a formality -- she has extensive experience on the bench and has been given the highest rating for her qualifications by the American and New York Bar Association -- the focus on her race and ethnicity continued.

Ranking Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama -- who himself was rejected for a Federal judgeship by a GOP controlled Senate committee years ago based on his numerous apparently racist comments -- humiliated himself with his line of questioning expressing his surprise and disappointment that Sotamayor didn't vote along with her fellow Puerto Rican in the Ricci case. His clear implication was that it is surprising that all judges of Puerto Rican descent don't think and vote alike.

Can you imagine a Senator expressing surprise that Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer don't vote alike because they are both white males? Can you imagine repeatedly citing a line about "wise Latina women" that Sotomayor used in speeches eight years ago as a reason to repeatedly express concerns that she would be biased in favor of minorities who claim they have been victims of discrimination?

Maybe. If it weren't for the fact that in the 90 cases Sotomayor has heard from people alleging discrimination, she has ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs in 80 of them. And in all but one of the cases where she determined discrimination took place, she was part of a unanimous decision.

The next day, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) -- who you may remember as Senator John Ensign's spiritual advisor and marriage counselor -- did his best Ricky Ricardo imitation in a response to a Sotomayor answer telling her that "she had a lot of 'splainin' to do."

After three days of hearings, the Republicans on the committee have revealed themselves to be so obsessed with race and bias that their efforts to transfer their own bigotry and "concerns" to Sotomayor has come across as childish, transparent, dishonest, and scary.

But the way things are playing out with the entire party and its chosen leaders and spokesmen, that puts them right in sync with the program. The only question remaining is where independents like me will find the next legitimate and credible alternative to the weak and frightening Democratic leadership in Congress in the future.

The Republicans are a decade late and a trillion dollars short. There just aren't enough racists and bigots still around to give them a base on which to build. Instead of opting for facts, reason, and dignity they continue to flail away at those pesky Black and Hispanic tar babies. The harder they punch, the more ensnared they become in the sticky, unyielding mess.

That may play well in the former Confederate states that voted against Obama and with a smattering of proud and closet racists here and there.

But we all heard those Uncle Remus stories growing up.

And we all know how they end.

Stanley Kutler: Remembering History, Powell, and McNamara

2009-07-12T11:12:56Z

How do we remember history? Time diminishes our memories of details and spear carriers. Thirty-five years ago, as Richard Nixon prepared to resign, we readily recited the real-life cast of all the President's men: Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, Dean, Kleindienst, Colson, Liddy, and Agnew. Today, their memory has all but vanished, except for the few still active in the public arena.

For the Vietnam War, do we remember General William Westmoreland, or do we remember the ironic incantation of "light at the end of the tunnel?" South Vietnam's General Thieu rests in the ashcan of history. Khe Sanh and Hue are half-century ago battles now reserved for military buffs; more prominent in today's memory banks is our recognition and trade with Vietnam.

How history plays out is, however, a very real concern for key players. Richard Nixon campaigned for history, beginning with his teary White House farewell on August 9, 1973, and continuing through two decades, with another half dozen books, carefully calibrated appearances, and meting with prominent leaders at home and abroad. He struggled mightily to turn the public loathing of him into admiration for his achievements. He had virtually nothing to say about Watergate; fortunately, he left an enduring gift of his thoughts and words on tape. He was the greatest self-bugger of all.

Public figures understandably fuss over their reputations and how they will be remembered. This week's news brought to mind memories of two prominent figures of their moment: Colin Powell and Robert McNamara.

Powell certainly is very conscious of his historical reputation. He said on CNN (July 5, 2009) that "history" will have to decide whether George W. Bush's decision to make war in Iraq was correct. Like the former president, he presents a formidable example of history by amnesia. "A dictator is gone, a despicable regime is gone, the Iraqi people have been given a chance to have a representative form of government living in peace with its neighbors," Powell said.

If "history" will decide whether Bush (with Powell) made the correct decision, then we have to confront a factual reality. Surely, General Powell knows that he participated in an unprovoked war of aggression, resulting in the death of over 4,000 US combatants, and countless Iraqis. He knows that his UN speech, depicting Saddam Hussein's menacing weapons of mass destruction, was utterly fictitious, concocted in the White House and Defense Department.

Powell undoubtedly has the excuse that he was handed a script, full of errors, lies, and poor judgments. He always has been the "good soldier." He was chosen for the UN performance ironically for his credibility, and not to say, his loyalty. President Bush, ably seconded by Vice President Richard Cheney, soon launched the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad. They soon marginalized Powell, but he loyally stayed for two more years.

Powell favors history by omission. His and Bush's rationale rests on proven lies and factual inventions. Powell offered his judgment of the Iraq War, minus the fact of its undeniably dubious raison d'etre. Silent on that fact, Powell proceeded to the standard interpretation for Bush and his followers. That we lied, that we misrepresented the actual facts -- that Condoleezza Rice warned of a mushroom cloud over us if we failed to act against Saddam Hussein -- are facts easily discarded or ignored. Powell's interpretation simply forgets that an unnecessarily provoked war brought needless sacrifices of casualties and treasure. We can hope that future historians will use all the facts.

Robert McNamara died in the same week that Powell tried to re-write history. McNamara loyally served John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. For both, he was the principal architect and desk officer of the Vietnam War, and for six years at least, the most vocal advocate of victory by a military solution. (McGeorge Bundy and Walt Rostow helped with the heavy lifting.) His public utterances, too, promised that "light at the end of the tunnel."

For an earlier event, the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962, McNamara labored mightily tried to influence our understanding of that history, claiming he helped Kennedy forge a peaceful resolution. But the tapes do not lie: McNamara urged JFK to attack Soviet missile sites. Sheldon Stern, the leading authority on those tapes, has written they "prove conclusively that McNamara was not JFK's principal ally in 'trying to keep us out of war,'" as McNamara often said.

McNamara readily hijacked the truth, and tried to stamp his visions on to recorded history.
Perhaps the McNamara believed a war might gild his reputation. His appetite was insatiable; he got his war, but he lost his reputation.

McNamara proved no stranger to shaving the truth and then offering a wholly different set of facts. The alleged Tonkin Gulf Incident in August 1964 provided a pretext for the greatly expanded American role in Vietnam. The National Security Agency initially reported an attack by North Vietnamese PT boats against American destroyers stationed in the Gulf, often in the North's territorial waters. But subsequent reports indicated that "incident" might have resulted from a combination of bad weather and nervous radar and sonar operators. McNamara ignored the second report, and the President then portrayed the "incidents" as "deliberate attacks and open aggression on the high seas."

Johnson ordered retaliatory air-strikes, and on August 5, submitted a resolution to Congress authorizing him to take "all necessary measures to repel any armed attacks against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." Except for the very brave Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK), Congress immediately folded and gave Johnson and McNamara their blank check.

McNamara did not testify truthfully to Senator William Fulbright's committee about either the "alleged" attack or the lack of American provocation in the Gulf. Johnson headed off growing criticism of the war by enlarging it -- just what he thought he needed to avoid Truman's burden of a limited war in Korea. Johnson also thought he would not be nagged by the question of "who lost Vietnam."

McNamara used the moment to implement his game plan for counter-insurgency. Eventually, he despaired of the ineffective bombing assault, and finally concluded there could be no American military solution. Johnson eased him out, and into the cushy sinecure of the Presidency of the World Bank. McNamara's beloved statistics no longer added up and he realized the venture was doomed. But McNamara always found it difficult to grapple with the intractable fallacies underlying the war. It was no game of dominoes, he must have sadly learned. And he kept his silence about what was true for another three decades, and more.

The blame McNamara deservedly receives now must also note that he was at the service of two of our very distinctive Cold Warriors; Kennedy and Johnson. McNamara cannot absolve them for their decisions. Similarly, history must remember George W. Bush's fateful decisions, enabled by Colin Powell. (As nicely articulated by Michael Lind)

McNamara remained unswervingly loyal to Kennedy and Johnson for over thirty years. Finally, toward the end of his life, he admitted the war was a mistake. Rather late, it seems. McNamara planned, implemented, and supported a war that was a total failure. The South Vietnam "domino" fell, but nothing changed geopolitically. There is no Republic of South Vietnam today; officially, there is no Saigon. Our failure must be measured in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and 58,000 American combatants. That is McNamara's historical burden; that is the truth he never could fully acknowledge for it surely would poison the reputation he hoped penance, and eventually redemption, might bring him. Truth is an elusive commodity for such people.

Powell and McNamara exemplify the ever-loyal, unquestioning subordinate. McNamara self-righteously invoked Dean Acheson's quiet departure from the New Deal as his model, but Acheson's silence did not assure him a place at the World Bank. If McNamara had denounced the war, would it have made a difference? What if the very popular Colin Powell had expended some of his political capital and denounced the dubious rationalization for war against Iraq? Perhaps their dramatic gestures would have been wasted. But Archibald Cox's forceful stand against Nixon in October 1973 is instructive, showing that public resistance to a superior can make a difference.

Justice cannot always be served; but Lincoln reminded us that "we cannot escape history."

Stanley Kutler is the author of The Wars of Watergate, and other writings.

Aubrey Sarvis: What Can Be Done Now on DADT

2009-07-07T14:00:21Z

This is getting ridiculous. In fact, it's beyond ridiculous -- if it weren't so sad. "Don't ask, don't tell" is fast becoming the buck that never stops. It's passed from Congress to the Pentagon to the White House and back again. And again. And again. The gift that keeps on giving? Thank you, Congress.

Yes, President Obama has tested the patience of many when it comes to the speed -- or rather the lack of it -- in fulfilling his promises on gay rights in general and "don't ask, don't tell" in particular. He talks the talk -- and quite eloquently, too -- but his walk is still tentative and at times wobbly. Yes, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their Chairman, Admiral Mullen, and their boss Defense Secretary Robert Gates have been dragging their feet. No big surprise there. But the fact is, 16 years ago Congress passed this offensive law and Congress owns it today. But Congress could easily disown it.

Opportunity awaits when the Senators return to Washington this week. In short order they will be debating the Defense Department budget. All the Senators need do is pass an amendment to the Defense Department bill directing Secretary Gates to stop DADT investigations while Congress acts on full repeal. A simple, straightforward way for the Senate to begin undoing the mess the Senate created is to add language to the Defense authorization bill that "directs the Secretary of Defense to instruct the Secretaries of each of the armed services that there may be no investigation or inquiry into, or any administrative action relating to conduct described in 10 U.S.C. § 654(b), 'Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces,' until the end of the 111th Congress, provided that this shall not limit the authority of the Secretaries of the armed services with respect to conduct that would violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The Senate Democratic caucus, now sixty members strong, should eagerly get behind this amendment. Moderate and responsible Republicans and Independents can and should support it. In fact, is there a single Senator who, in a time of two wars, wants to stand up on the Senate floor and say of patriotic service members who have volunteered to fight and if necessary give their lives for their country, "They're gay. Kick 'em out"?

When the Senate passes this amendment to the Defense authorization bill (notice I say "when," not "if"; I'm an optimist), it goes back to the House where Speaker Pelosi can show that she and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are in this fight -- this fight that never should have been a fight -- together.

Even Secretary Gates has moved from "the president and I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now and let's push that one [DADT] down the road a little bit" (last March) to "if we do it" (last April) to seeing "if there's at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed" (last week). Humane? Well, I won't quibble; at least he's moved from if to when, and he was discussing it with the senior military and with the president the week before. In his press conference last week, the Secretary said the question is "how do we begin to do preparations" and at the same time how does "the administration move forward in terms of asking the Congress to change the law"? He's also looking at what "flexibility" there is in the law as it now stands. Well, that's progress. Not nearly enough progress but it's still progress. Only General Colin Powell and former Senator Sam Nunn, both largely responsible for "don't ask, don't tell" in the first place, are still calling for yet another review, another "study" -- but not for repeal.

The New Republic takes the president to task in a tough editorial this week. "[N]othing is more infuriating than Obama's refusal to act on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. . . . discrimination in our armed forces carries a potent symbolism: It tells an entire class of people that the country is not interested in their service."

The editorial cites the Gallup poll showing 69 percent of Americans believe that gays should be able to serve their country openly. "To put that number in perspective, it is 25 points higher than the percentage of Americans who endorse Obama's handling of health care, 19 points higher than the percentage who currently support the war in Afghanistan, and 18 points higher than the percentage who approve of the administration's economic policies. Obama is not afraid to push health care reform, send more troops to Afghanistan, or stand by his stimulus program -- nor should he be. But why, when it comes to the far less controversial cause of gays serving in the military, is he apparently willing to punt?"

They've all been punting -- the president, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the United States Congress as well. Surely these men and women are not wimps. Now let the Senate amend the Defense authorization bill, let the Pentagon and the president support it loud and clear, let the House endorse it, and the president sign it. Then the president and the Congress can work together to wipe this entire shameful law off the books. For good.

Powell Whacks Limbaugh And Republicans For Calling Sotomayor Racist

2009-07-05T10:59:41Z

Colin Powell, who hails from the same Bronx neighborhood as Sonia Sotomayor, said on Sunday that the Supreme Court nominee was of a "liberal bent of mind," but not so much that it would be "disqualifying" to her confirmation prospects.

In his appearance on CNN's "State of the Union," the former Secretary of State saved his sharpest jabs for the Republicans who have painted Sotomayor as a racist.

"She ought to be asked about everything from both the left and the right," said Powell, who endorsed Barack Obama towards the end of the presidential campaign. "What we can't continue to have is to have somebody like a Judge Sotomayor, who is announced, and based on one simple, tricky, but nonetheless case that the Supreme Court has now decided, have her called a racist, a reverse racist, and she ought to withdraw her nomination because we're mad at her."

Powell expressed relief that the GOP senators who sit on the Judiciary Committee, "after a few days of this kind of nonsense," decided to drop the Sotomayor-as-racist frame. But he would go on to argue that the Republican Party still had a major problem when it came to reaching out to minority voters. In the process, Powell took what seemed clear to be a jab at radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for some of his more inflammatory rhetoric.

"If you look at the results of the election last fall, and make a judgment on the basis of how the party did with respect to the Hispanic vote and the African-American vote, realizing that President Obama, candidate Obama had a significant advantage with those constituencies, we haven't done well enough," he said. "And when you have non-elected officials, such as we have in our party, who immediately shout racism, or somebody who is quite prominent in the media says that the only basis upon which I could possibly have supported Obama was because he was black and I was black, even though I laid out my judgment on the candidates, then we still have a problem."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Powell Calls For Review, Not Reversal, Of Don't Ask Don't Tell

2009-07-05T10:27:36Z

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy he helped craft should be revisited, but he would not go so far as to call for a full repeal of the compromise.

"The policy and the law that came about in 1993 I think was correct for the time," Powell said in an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union." "Sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country. And therefore, I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed."

"I was withholding judgment because the commanders of the armed forces of the United States and the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to study it and make recommendations to the president, and have hearings before the Congress before a decision is made," he added. "It is not just a matter of old generals who, you know, are just too high-bound. There are lots of complicated issues with respect to this, and I think all of those issues should be illuminated. And I hope that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders working with the secretary of defense will give this the greatest consideration and make their recommendation to the president and to the Congress."

Powell, as much as any congressional figure, played the foil in President Bill Clinton's efforts to follow through on a campaign promise that all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, should be able to serve openly in the military. In recent months, he and other key players from the first battle (notably, former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn) have argued that political realities have evolved to the extent that the armed forces should take a closer look at the policy's purpose and effectiveness. In December 2008, Powell told CNN that it was time to "definitely re-evaluate" "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

By not calling for full repeal, the former Secretary of State and prominent Obama endorser doesn't really do the Obama administration many favors. During the campaign, the president called for overturning "Don't Ask Don't Tell." But he has been slow to act since taking office, even as 250 military servicemen have been dismissed for disclosing their sexuality. Having a prominent figure like Powell provide the cover for a sweeping policy reversal would be a gift to Obama and a boon to gay-rights groups, which have grown increasingly frustrated with the president for dragging his feet on this issue.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Colin Powell Cautions Obama On Big Government

2009-07-04T17:12:51Z

WASHINGTON — Colin Powell worries that President Barack Obama is trying to tackle too many big issues at one time and he offers this advice: take a hard look at costs and consider the additional red tape that will be created.

"The right answer is, `Give me a government that works,'" the former secretary of state said in a television interview to be aired Sunday. "Keep it as small as possible," added Powell, who said he has spoken recently with Obama and stays in touch with him. Powell, a Republican, endorsed Obama last year over the GOP presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: President Obama Confronts Holocaust Evil, Now Confront Slavery Evil

2009-06-06T08:51:36Z

President Obama spoke forcefully, passionately and correctly at the Buchenwald death camp on the evil of the Holocaust. He implored nations to confront those who would deny its horror. Obama should do the same about the evil of slavery. There are two arguments against him doing that though. Then-presidential candidate Obama raised one on the couple of occasions when he was asked about reparations. He tersely said that the best way to address racial disparities is to provide more resources and programs for education, employment and health care. Blacks would be the greatest beneficiaries.

The other argument is that slavery ended nearly a century and a half ago. The obliteration of legal segregation, oceans of civil rights laws, voting rights, affirmative action programs, Oprah, Colin Powell, Eric Holder, Tiger Woods, and of course, Obama, and a big, prosperous black middle class, have erased the stain of slavery. Neither argument will wash.

Two years ago Virginia apologized for slavery. The apology was not just a matter of doing the morally right thing. The U.S. government, not just a handful of evil Southern planters encoded slavery in the Constitution, and protected and nourished it for a century. Traders, insurance companies, bankers, shippers, and landowners, made billions off of it. Their ill-gotten profits fueled America's industrial and agricultural might. For decades after slavery's end, white trade unions excluded blacks and confined them to the dirtiest, poorest paying jobs.

Though many white and non-white immigrants came to America after the Civil War, they were not subjected to the decades of relentless racial terror and legal segregation as were blacks. Through the decades of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, African-Americans were transformed into the poster group for racial deviancy. The image of blacks as lazy, crime and violence prone, irresponsible, and sexual predators has stoked white fears and hostility and served as the standard rationale for more than 4,000 documented lynchings, as well as the countless racial assaults, and acts of hate crime violence.

Many blacks earn more and live better than ever today, and have gotten boosts from welfare, social and education programs, civil rights legislation, and affirmative action programs. But that does not mean that America has shaken the hideous legacy of slavery. The Urban League in its annual State of Black America reports finds that young blacks are far likelier than whites to be imprisoned, serve longer terms, and are more likely to receive the death penalty even when their crimes are similar.

Blacks continue to have the highest rates of poverty, infant mortality, violence victimization rates, and health care disparities than any other group in America. They are still more likely to live in segregated neighborhoods, be refused business and home loans, their children attend failed public schools than any other group, and are more likely to be racially profiled on America's urban streets.

There is nothing new about state and federal governments issuing apologies and even payments for past wrongs committed against African-Americans. The U.S. government admitted it was legally liable in 1997 to pay the black survivors and family members of the two-decade long syphilis experiment begun in the 1930's by the U.S. Public Health Service that turned black patients into human guinea pigs. The survivors got $10 million from the government and an apology from President Clinton. They were the victims of a blatant medical atrocity conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the U.S. government.

The state legislature in Florida in 1994 agreed to make payments to the survivors and relatives of those who lost their lives and property when a white mob destroyed the all-black town of Rosewood in 1923. This was a specific act of mob carnage that was tacitly condoned by some public officials and law enforcement officers. Florida was liable for the violence and was duty bound to apologize and pay. The Oklahoma state legislature has agreed at least in principle that reparations and apology should be made to the survivors of the dozens of blacks killed, and the hundreds more that had their homes and businesses destroyed by white mobs with the complicity of law enforcement in the Tulsa massacre of 1921. A bill by Michigan Congressman John Conyers has has kicked around Congress since 1989 would establish a commission to study the impact of slavery and the feasibility of paying reparations to blacks.

The brutal truth is that the mainstay of America's continuing racial divide is its harsh and continuing mistreatment of poor blacks. This can be directly traced to the persistent and pernicious legacy of slavery. Nearly a century and a half later, that legacy is still very much alive and well.

President Obama condemned the monstrosity of the Holocaust six decades after it ended. In doing that he recognized that there's no time frame or statue of limitations on evil. It can still affect generations that were born years after the horror officially ended. There's nothing wrong with recognizing the same about slavery.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His weekly radio show, "The Hutchinson Report" can be heard on weekly in Los Angeles Fridays on KTYM Radio 1460 AM and live streamed nationally on ktym.com