Today’s photo of the day shows Jackie Mason, who called President Obama a “Schwartza” during his comedy routine on Friday. Instead of apologizing, Mason insisted that the term is not demeaning, and that comedians like Chris Rock say far more offensive things about whites than whites do about blacks. He then added, “If it’s a racist society, the white people are the ones being persecuted because they have to defend themselves.” Thoughts?

Today’s video of the day is one of the greatest love songs in hip-hop history. The original and the remix!

Today’s video of the day comes from The O’Reilly Factor, where O’Reilly and I continued our debates about Obama’s tax policy (which I support!) and the responsibility of the rich.

Over the past week, the political world has been tuned into a highly unusual soap opera involving Republican Committee Chair Michael Steele and conservative radio jock Rush Limbaugh. After Limbaugh was publicly lambasted for stating that he wanted President Obama’s agenda to fail, Democratic leaders wisely used the moment as an opportunity to anoint the polarizing pundit as the de facto leader of the GOP. Steele, the actual leader of the party, dismissed Limbaugh as a mere “entertainer” whose show trades in “ugly” and “incendiary” remarks. Limbaugh soon fired back, telling Steele to do his job and to stop acting like a “talking head media star.”

Of course, partisan infighting is not uncommon in politics –though such public spats are typically the property of the Democrats.  The difference, however, has been the party’s response. Instead of rallying around its newly appointed leader Steele, GOP honchos have either taken the side of Rush Limbaugh or remained conspicuously silent. Even Steele himself caved into Limbaugh, apologizing for his remarks and removing any lingering doubt about who the real don is.

By allowing Michael Steele to be publicly undressed by a party extremist, Republicans have tacitly confirmed what many of us already knew: they haven’t changed one bit. Despite their post-November promises to rise above bitter partisanship, the GOP decided to cosign Limbaugh’s antipatriotic machinations. Instead of living up to their promise to broaden their message and appeal, Republicans have instead opted to defer to the steward of its most vile, ignorant, and bigoted constituency. Most disturbingly, they have legitimized their antidemocratic enterprise by hiring a black man,  but giving him no more political muscle than the queen of England.

To be clear, I am not trying to diss Michael Steele, who I know personally and like a great deal despite our political differences. My concern is that the seductive aroma of power and prestige have diverted his attention from the harsh realities of his circumstance. Like many prominent African Americans, Steele has climbed the heights of white society under the false premise that he is being judged purely on merit rather than color. This couldn’t be further from the truth. While the Republican party is willing to use Steele’s black face to celebrate its ostensible progress, it is equally committed to reducing him to nothing more than a paper champion. Hopefully, Brother Steele will stop drinking the Kool-Aid long enough to recognize this and come back home.

MORE LESSONS FROM LUZERN COUNTY (PA)
By Mumia Abu-Jamal
[col. writ. 3/2/09] (c) ‘09

Recently, a piece was produced on the scandal in Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County, where 2 judges pleaded guilty for playing their parts in a kickback scheme that netted them over 2 and 1/2 million bucks.

The beneficiaries of their hustle were private juvenile prison builders, owners and investors (oh — and themselves, of course).

The losers were hundreds of Luzerne County’s children, kids who were treated like cattle, as they were shuffled through so-called ‘courts’ — without counsel –, where so-called ‘judges’ sent them away from their parents, their siblings, and their fellow students, for acts as benign as passing notes, or sending fresh emails — to private prisons for profit!

While the judges pleaded guilty to relatively minor charges, some other officials at the court, from county clerk to deputy court administrator have followed the judges in plea agreements.

What is utterly remarkable is how easily and effortlessly these  judges did their thing, in stark violation of the state’s Juvenile Act, * with virtual impunity, for almost a decade!

One must wonder, where were the lawyers looking out for the interests of these kids? Or were they so cowed, so shocked, so shaken by a ‘long train of abuses’ that they were silenced by the ugliness of corruption, and the aura of fear?

Pennsylvania law allegedly provides protections for children, including the right to counsel (even if they couldn’t afford it), and a legal presumption that all kids should remain with their families.  As a general rule, a child shouldn’t have been detained unless she posed a danger to others, their property, or herself.  There are exceptions to this rule, and they were whether the child was charged with committing major felonies, like robbery, rape or murder.

There was apparently another exception — whether or not President Judge Mark Ciavarella or Senior Judge Michael Conahan wanted to make some quick bucks.

They were subject to a higher law — get money!

What the Luzerne County scandal has shown us is that what happens in many courts is both a business and a mystery.  For millions of Americans, the law is a puzzle written in Latin, one unable to decode.

It also shows us that sometimes the criminal is sitting on the bench, wearing a black robe.

–(c) ‘09 maj

[* See various PA statutes, like Tit. 42 Pa. C. S. 6301 et seq. (Re: Purposes of "Juvenile Act": To preserve the unity of the family whenever possible or to provide another alternative permanent family when the unity of the family cannot be maintained.) ; Tit. 42 Pa. C. S 6337: (Re: 'Right to Counsel': (....{A} party is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings under this chapter and if he is without financial resources or otherwise unable to employ counsel, to have the court  provide counsel for him.  If a party appears without counsel the court shall ascertain whether he knows of his right thereto and be provided with counsel by the court if applicable. Counsel must be provided for a child unless his parent, guardian, or custodian is present in court and affirmatively waive it....)]