FCC Fines Electronics Retailers

The Federal Communications Commission levied nearly $6 million in fines to retailers such as Best Buy and Sears for failing to inform consumers that their new analog televisions will be obsolete with next year’s digital conversion. What do you think?

Mike Pocelli,
Focus Group Coordinator
“I feel like they should also fine them for being very stressful, claustrophobic, unhappy places to shop.”

Josh Brown,
Glazer
“I’m appalled that Best Buy floor reps withheld their vast knowledge and expertise from customers.”

Sharoz Peterson,
Systems Analyst
“They will have no problem paying that fine; they just sold a shitload of obsolete analog televisions.”

Today’s photo of the day shows the 2008 NBA Playoff Schedule. Make your predictions!!!

vs. (1) BOSTON vs. (8) Atlanta

vs. (2) DETROIT vs. (7) Philadelphia

vs. (3) ORLANDO vs. (6) Toronto

vs. (4) CLEVELAND vs. (5) Washington

WESTERN CONFERENCE

vs. (1) LOS ANGELES vs. (8) Denver

vs. (2) NEW ORLEANS vs. (7) Dallas

vs. (3) SAN ANTONIO vs. (6) Phoenix

vs. (4) UTAH vs. (5) Houston

Today’s video of the day comes from Def Comedy Jam, where comedian Teddy Carpenter tears up the stage.

Two weeks ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit made a critical decision in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. The three-judge panel ruled that Abu-Jamal, who has been incarcerated for 26 years, must be granted a new sentencing hearing or given life in prison rather than the death penalty. While this decision is significant, as it protects Abu-Jamal from an unjust state-sanctioned execution, it should not be viewed as a victory. On the contrary, it is a diversion from the government’s senseless refusal to grant Mumia Abu-Jamal a fair trial.

Although the Court accurately ruled that Abu-Jamal’s original jury received improper instructions, they willfully ignored a mound of compelling evidence that proves his original trial was unfair. In particular, they rejected three credible challenges from his attorneys: that the prosecutor making improper comments to that 1982 jury at the end of the trial; pro-prosecution bias by the 1982 trial judge during a 1995 appeals hearing; and the use of racism by prosecutors to exclude African Americans from the jury during Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial. Although the court ruled incorrectly on all three issues, the third one represents one of the most vile and egregious examples of judicial misconduct in recent history.

In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a juror to be removed on the basis of race. Nevertheless, the prosecuting attorneys in Mumia’s trial did just that. During jury selection, Prosecutor Joseph McGill used 15 of his 20 peremptory challenges to remove at least 10 qualified black jurors from the trial. While some may argue that this alone doesn’t prove racial bias, such a claim wilts under the scrutinous light of history. During Ed Rendell’s tenure as District Attorney, qualified blacks were removed from jury’s 58 percent of the time compared to 22 percent for qualified whites. In 1986, Assistant District Attorney distributed a videotape instructing prosecutors how to exclude black people from juries.  Through these racist actions, the city systematically violated black jurors’ right to equal protection under the law, as well as the defendants right to a fair trial.

Rather than acknowledging this transgression, the appellate court elected (by a vote of 2-1) to ignore precedent and deny Mumia a new trial. To justify this decision, the majority argued that Mumia had not made a timely protest, and that he had failed to provide the court with the racial makeup of the jury pool. Once again, however, these claims are not consistent with other cases. As the dissenting judge pointed out in his 41-page(!) opinion, the court has always assessed the merits of such cases regardless of their timeliness. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the exclusion of even a single juror based race is a violation of the constitution.

If we truly believe in equal justice and rule of law, why are we changing the rules when it comes to Mumia Abu-Jamal?

When Courts Go Wrong
[col. writ. 4/5/08] (c) ‘08 Mumia Abu-Jamal

We’re often surprised when courts get it wrong, but why?

It’s because we expect them to get it right — and therein lies the surprise.

For, if history is any judge, we should all be surprised when they get it right. For courts are political institutions, and politics is rarely about right or wrong: it’s about power.  As in who has it; and who doesn’t.

Courts were set up to protect the wealth and property of the powerful, not the powerless; and any honest reading of legal history leads one back to that conclusion.

Here in this country courts were places for slavemasters, not slaves, and the words of a “justice” of the North Carolina Supreme Court, Thomas Ruffin, are instructive as he illustrates what underpins the law of 1829: The power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect… As a principle of moral right, every person in his retirement must repudiate it.  But in the actual condition of things it must be so.” *

Most of us have heard of the infamous Dred Scott (1857) case, but how many of us know that a generation before Dred was decided, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion said essentially the same things?  In Hobbs v. Fogg (1837) the state’s highest court ruled that Blacks were not party to the Constitution, and therefore couldn’t vote.

And although Dred Scott became a cause for war, by war’s end, it was the courts, in cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that upheld racial segregation, discrimination and oppression against Black people – even in stark violation of the words in the Constitution.

We like to think of this as ancient history;  then – not now. But these are the very foundation stones upon which America was built.

My father was born one year after Plessy was decided, and he lived almost all of his life under its cruel restrictions.

The law has only moved when people organized to make it so.  As that great abolitionist, freedom-fighter, and rabble-rouser, Frederick Douglass has taught, “Power concedes nothing without demand…It never has–and never will…..”

Social movements in the streets brought an end to Plessy, not lawsuits.

People, organized, shook the status quo, not neat words typed on crisp white paper.

When people organize, they make change.