Israel and the Marc Rich Pardon?

If you believe Joe Conason, then the entire Marc Rich pardon was done for no other reason than to appease Israel. You see, with scant evidence, Conason supposes that Rich was actually a secret Israeli agent and his pardon was necessary to their intelligence gathering.

Still, it would have been a refreshing change from the usual confirmation minuet if instead of humbly apologizing, Holder had tartly instructed the buffoonish Specter, his fellow senators, the press, and the public about the actual circumstances of the Rich affair. He might have started with the fact that continuous lobbying on Rich's behalf from the highest Israeli leaders and their American friends -- among whom Specter no doubt counts himself -- became even more intense in the days before Clinton left office. He could have noted that such pressures coincided with Clinton's efforts to conclude a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. And he could have explained to Specter that Rich's deals in Iran and Iraq were often related to his other role -- as an asset of the Mossad who gathered intelligence and helped to rescue endangered Jews from those regimes.

...

But Holder understood that there were deeper reasons why the pardon was likely to be approved, which had nothing to do with the political and charitable contributions of Rich's ex-wife, the Manhattan socialite Denise Rich. The New York Times offered just a hint in a front-page story that appeared shortly after the Holder nomination was announced. Only at the very end did the Times mention the pressure from "the Israelis" that had persuaded Holder not to oppose the pardon -- as he told Beth Nolan, then the White House counsel.

...

Echoing Barak's pleas on behalf of Rich were Clinton's old friend Shimon Peres, former Mossad director general Shabtai Shavit, and a host of other important figures in Israel and the American Jewish community. Winning the pardon was a top priority for Israeli officials because Rich had long been a financial and intelligence asset of the Jewish state, carrying out missions in many hostile countries where he did business. Although commentators in the mainstream and right-wing media have discounted this aspect of the controversy, they often seem as unfamiliar with critical facts as the average
senator.

Following weeks of preparation by Clinton, the last round of serious peace talks opened in Taba, Egypt, on Jan. 21, 2001, the day after he signed the Rich pardon. Those negotiations eventually failed, yet they came closer to achieving a workable settlement than any before or since.

This supposition is so ludicrous it would be laughable if it weren't so serious. We have learned in the years since the pardon that Rich was trading with Saddam Hussein in violation of UN sanctions. We've also learned that Rich traded with Iran also in violation of UN sanctions. Long ago, we knew that Rich was a bad guy. Now, I understand the world of intelligence enough to know that so called assets, like what Conason claims Rich was, often play both sides. It wouldn't be unheard of for Rich to help Israel at the same time he was working with Saddam and Iran, both Israel enemies. Yet, it would be totally out of his character.

Still, even if he was helping Israel, it's likely they knew he was playing the other side. As such, while he would have been an asset it wouldn't have been one they counted on all that much. Furthermore, even if he were their asset, they wouldn't have needed him to be pardoned. It wasn't as though Israel would have needed Rich inside the U.S. for whatever it is that Conason thinks they were doing with him.

So, why would Conason make such a ludicrous claim? Conason, and others like him, are convinced that Jews secretly run our foreign policy. Since he has no hard evidence of this supposition, he just makes up conjecture. Now, many of my friends and colleagues scoff when I say that anti Semitism continues to be rampant all over the place. Yet, what should I make of a columnist putting forth such a preposterous theory with nothing to back him up? What's more dangerous though is that Conason continues to enjoy a wide platform for his blatant anti Semitism. While he is a regular columnist at Salon, I found this particular piece at the Sun Times. Conason enjoys syndication for his anti Semitism. Much like his colleague the race baiter Mary Mitchell, Conason enjoys a platform and a nice living for his blatant bigotry.

In the world of our media, being a bigot is only a problem depending on which group you are bigoted against. If you are bigoted against religious people, for instance, that isn't merely tolerated but often celebrated. Yet, try and be bigoted against gays and suddenly you are a pariah. In fact, Jimmy the Greek lost his career for saying about blacks, what Mary Mitchell routinely says about whites.

Folks like Conason have created a cottage industry for hate, conjecture and rumor mongering. In portions of our media, the subtle anti Semitism of proclaiming that Jews run our foreign policy is celebrated. Imagine if another columnist made up similarly unsubstantiated claims about gays. Yet, not only is Conason tolerated, he is celebrated and rewarded with a fruitful career. Mitchell finds similar financial fruits in proclaiming whites are the problem for everything. Being paid to be a racist it seems, can be profitable as long as you target the right group.

Mitchell Gate Day 5: Mary Mitchell's New Race Card

In Mary Mitchell's new column, she pre emptively plays a new race card. If you are in Indiana or North Carolina and you vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, then it is strictly because you are a racist. Here is how she begins to frame the issue.

Looks like Clinton has gotten a lift from the fear-mongering, and is now slightly ahead of Obama in Indiana, and has narrowed his double-digit lead in North Carolina.

Polls in Indiana show Clinton now leads Obama there by four points among likely Democratic voters, 48 percent to 44 percent. Eight percent of voters there remain undecided, according to an analysis by a CNN poll.

That means the Jeremiah Wright controversy has hurt Obama and helped Clinton, even though some voters in Indiana would probably swear on a stack of Bibles that they weren't influenced by the negative coverage.

Thus, what Mitchell sets up is this. Hillary has used the Wright fiasco to play to people's most racist fears, and it has worked because the polls show as much. While Mitchell has heard that folks aren't affected by the Wright issue, she is concerned that their inner most racist feelings will come out at election time.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows because it appears that I will have to defend Hillary Clinton a bit. First, just because you may be concerned about the Wright issue, that doesn't actually mean you are a racist. In Mitchell's world, there is no other reason why anyone would be swayed by what has transpired vis a vis Wright, but there is. Second, Hillary hasn't necessarily used fear mongering to win. In fact, at some point some supporter of every loser will proclaim the winners fear mongered. Certainly, there was no fear mongering toward any inner racist as Mitchell proclaims.

Thus, while her set up is utterly absurd, it does allow her to continue with a theme...

Despite the racially polarizing events, Obama has not wavered from this belief and recently reiterated his belief that if he loses his bid for the Democratic primary, it won't be because of his race.I'm still not so sure.

...

For instance, reported on the New York Times blog on Monday was a piece by a reporter who went to a "mostly white highly educated, professional . . . politically independent" area and found voters were "unaffected" by the Wright controversy.

But the reporter also found that while supporters of both Clinton and Obama said "they did not think the Wright episode should change the race" they feared it might in other areas where "people might be searching for some acceptable explanation for not voting for a black candidate."

That's a truth that many will call a lie.

...

In the secrecy of the voting booth, many of us still vote for a candidate because of his or her race, or gender, or status, or humor, or style, or attractiveness.

But when asked, the majority of voters would die before admitting that they cast a ballot based on those superficial qualities.

...

Because the truth is, some voters will vote for a black candidate. Some voters will not.

If fear-mongering has swayed Indiana voters in this critical primary, it can't be blamed on Wright.

It would be their shame.

There you have it. Barack Obama is infallable. His opponent is wicked, and if you happen to vote for Hillary over Obama, then that is because your most inner and crude racist tendencies have been unleashed.

Let's sum up. In Mitchell's estimation, voters say they haven't been affected by the Wright fiasco, but she doesn't believe them. If they were, it was due to fear mongering by Obama's opponent. If voters are swayed by the Wright fiasco, it is because they have succombed to their most racist tendency. The word chutzpah seems to come up many times when analyzing what Mitchell says.

In Mitchell's world, if you are white and you don't vote for Obama then it has to be racial. There is no way anyone could not vote for Obama for any good reason. Every reason must be rooted in prejudice.

I maybe getting ahead of myself but it appears that Mitchell is putting whites in Indiana and NC on notice. If you vote for Hillary, I will call you racist. It's truly breathtaking to see this racist accuse others of her ills.

In her world, Barack Obama is infallable, and thus voting against him is only done for nefarious reasons. The Wright controversy is nothing more than a distraction perpetrated by his opponents to whip up the prejudism that she knows the average white person has. Thus, cynically she puts all whites on notice in Indiana and NC...vote for Obama or else.


Once again, here is the contact information to her boss: Tom McNamee and you can complain to him by calling 312-321-2510, emailing @ tmcnamee@suntimes.com, or faxing to 312-321-2122. Here is a list of some of the more high profile advertisers in the Sun Times. Intel, Grossinger GMC, State Farm, XM Satellite Radio,Ford, and BlackBerry. Please feel free to make your voice heard.

Also, for the second week in a row, Real Clear Politics has featured her column. To complain please contact any of these three emails: tom@realclearpolitics.com john@realclearpolitics.com and feedback@realclearpolitics.com

MitchellGate Day 4: Mary Mitchell and Louis Farrakhan

As I have pointed out earlier, Mary Mitchell has been a steadfast supporter of Barack Obama. I haven't read every article that Mitchell wrote in relation to Obama, however everytime her support is mentioned toward him it is men, it is mentioned in the context of race.

At a time when African Americans are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down,

As such, the only times I have seen her attack Obama is in response to his own attacks on African American figures. She made several attacks of Obama vis a vis Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and then there is this defense of Louis Farrakhan

When Sen. Barack Obama "rejected" and "denounced" the support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan during the MSNBC debate last week, it wasn't his finest hour.

What is more revealing is the obfuscations and moral equivalency that she uses to defend Farrakhan...

No matter how many times Farrakhan explains, defends or refutes anti-Semitic comments that have been attributed to him, his kiss is still the kiss of death.

...

The point here, of course, is that these men -- one the pastor of an 8,000-member congregation where the church roll reads like a Who's Who of the Chicago black elite, and the other the leader of an organization that has historically saved young men from crime and drugs -- are unfit to even speak of Obama.

Now, if Farrakhan has apologized for some of these statements, I didn't hear about. Let's just give a sampling of some of his racist remarks. (source)

The real anti-Semites are those who came out of Europe and settled in
Palestine, and now they call themselves the true Jews, when in fact, they
converted to Judaism (2007)

...

“I heard from a very reliable source that under that levee there was a 25
foot hole, which suggested that it may have been blown up, so that the water
would destroy the black part of town, and where the whites lived, it would be
dry.” (9/12/2005)

...

White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet."
(3/18/2000)

...

I call them the so-called Jews because to be a Jew you have to adhere to
the statutes and laws that create the special relationship. How can you be a Jew
and promote homosexual marriage (3/18/2004)

Now, many of these were within the last couple years. Yet, in the view of Mary Mitchell he has apologized profusely for them. Mitchell just can't seem to grasp that the endorsement of a racist maybe a problem to a politician, but then again why would a racist see the endorsement of another racist as a problem.

Now, contrast Mitchell's support of Farrakhan to her crude attack on Don Imus.

Don Imus needs to go home, permanently.And while he's at it, he can take his radio producer with him. Although Imus deserves all the bombs being tossed his way for referring to black members of the Rutger's basketball as "nappy-headed hos," McGuirk led off by first referring to them as "hardcore hos." Neither one of these men would dare call white women soccer players hos on air.

I don't know what pisses me off the most--the fact that Imus and his sidekick get paid for entertaining white listeners by bashing black people, as was pointed out by the Rev. Jesse Jackson , or the fact that black people had to protest before CBS Radio and MSNBC took any action against Imus. Didn't one executive at either outlet know all hell was about to break loose?

Now, I don't know anyone that apologized more profusely for their remarks than Imus did. Furthermore, Imus does all sorts of good things in the community. Yet, when he made his remarks, Mitchell was quick and brutal in not only denunciating him, but in calling for him to be fired. In Mitchell's world, white racists have no place making a living, while African American racists, like herself, are given every opportunity.

The other thing that is interesting is that Mitchell sees Obama's distance as nothing more than politicking.

Fortunately for Obama, most black people understand the game.

...

Although Obama scored points for defusing a political bomb, his answer was
insulting.

Yet the stakes are too high for African Americans to lose faith.

...

Obama should have found a way to escape Russert's trap without denigrating Farrakhan's legacy.

But, like I said, we understand.

In other words, in Mitchell's view, Obama's renunciation was nothing more than pandering to white voters because he needs their votes. She believes that Obama really does subscribe to Farrakhan but can't outwardly admit it because Farrakhan has been unfairly demonized by whites.

Once again, the chutzpah that Mitchell shows is breathtaking. Imagine if a white person had been insulted when John McCain distanced himself from John Hagee. Imagine if the same person had said we white people understand the game. Imagine if the white person had excused Hagee's incendiary remarks by pointing to the good Hagee had done in the community. Imagine if the white person had ended the article by saying, "like I said, we understand". The furor would have been overwhelming again. Yet, Mitchell is able to defend Farrakhan, turn it into a black and white issue, and proclaim that black people understand that Obama is only pandering to whites, and get away with it.

Finally, there is this interesting quote toward the end of the article.

Other longtime supporters of the Nation of Islam are willing to forgive Obama for playing into the hands of his staunchest critics.

"There is a new level of political maturity that one can observe going on in the black movement," said Conrad Worrill, a professor at Northeastern Illinois University Jacob Carruther's Center, and a co-founder of the National Black United Front."

Right now, people are exercising political discipline as it centers around the goals of the black electoral empowerment movement. In the '60s, '70s or '80s, if this kind of condemnation had taken place by one of our revered leaders, there would have been a verbal bloodbath," he said.

"But the more we engaged in verbal rhetoric, the more our enemies used it against us. It is just unfortunate that at this moment in history we don't have the kind of power as a people to keep us from capitulating to forces that have their own agenda."

What is the National Black United Front?

The National Black United Front (NBUF) is a coalition made up of individuals and organizations working together for the benefit of all people of African descent.

Among its goals and platforms is an Afro Centric education curriculum in the public schools, reparations for slavery, and this...

On Friday, October 25, 1996, the National Black United Front (NBUF) launched a National Petition Drive charging the United States Government with genocide.

The National Black United Front takes the position that the proliferation of the distribution and sale of crack cocaine by Africans in America street organizations has reached epidemic proportions, causing serious harm to the African community in America. This harm can only be described as acts of genocide by the United States government through its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

In addition to the acts of genocide perpetuated through the CIA and in this recent revelation, acts of genocide can also be attributed to the government's use of taxpayers resources to wage war on a segment of the American population. this can be evidenced by the following:

So, this group believes, like Reverend Wright, that the CIA introduced crack cocaine into the inner cities. Now, it is journalistically dishonest to quote the head of this group without setting context of what this group is all about. Then again, it is likely that Mitchell believes that the CIA introduced crack cocaine into the inner cities and so she likely didn't see anything wrong in quoting him.

Thus, to review, we have a column in which a racist, homophobe and anti Semite is defended. He is defended by using the most outrageous obfuscations and moral equivalencies. Furthermore, a politician is attacked when he attacks this racist, and ultimately that attack is chalked up to cynical politics.

Here is the contact information for her boss and editor: i Tom McNamee and you can complain to him by calling 312-321-2510, emailing @ tmcnamee@suntimes.com, or faxing to 312-321-2122.

Mitchell Gate Day 1

This is the first official day since I called for racist Sun Times columnist to be fired. Mitchell, who's notorious writing includes this nugget

Whites don't get it, blacks do, and it's time to move on

published her most recent piece yesterday. While the piece has only subtle allusions to her standard issue black superiority and separationist ideologies, it was long on personal attacks on specific folks. Here is how she described Hillary

But I am also sick of Hillary Clinton's high-pitched screech and her phony
laugh.

And her pantsuits are really getting me down. There's nothing that reminds a woman more of her matronly status than seeing a peer in a brightly colored pantsuit that tries, but fails, to camouflage her spreading hips.

Hillary's know-it-all attitude is irritating, but I am especially fed up with her "I'm the luckiest woman alive to have a husband like Bill" routine that she launches into whenever she wins a state.

Here is how she views John McCain

But I'm also sick of seeing John McCain wave to a room of white supporters.

Even though did he visit New Orleans' devastated Ninth Ward, which is predominantly poor and black, the clips that we see most often is of McCain and other whites. Well, I did see some footage of McCain with a black man, but the man was really old, and looked too much like a servant in a plantation-era movie.

Mitchell's classless behavior takes on a new low when she even cynically attacks McCain's wife...

And I'm already tired of McCain's ram-rod, every-hair-in-place, toothpick of a wife.

In many ways, her pieces remind me of most of my fraternity mates only they were racist against African Americans and most importantly they didn't get paid for their racism.

It's interesting because most of the racists I have met felt superior to others in general. I certainly get the same general impression of Mitchell. From much of her writing she isn't merely a racist, but she just generally feels superior to others. There is a certain obscene chutzpah in someone proclaiming to be so cynical and fed up with the process when all the contribute is vile, filth, and divisiveness to that process.

The print edition of the Sun Times today had a plethora of interesting advertisers that must be made aware that their advertising dollars are supporting a racist. The advertiser that needs to be contacted most is Cook Brothers Warehouse because their ad is found opposite to the reactions to Mitchell's column yesterday. Here is their contact information.

As you might expect, the list of advertisers in the Sun Times is rather eclectic. National retailers like ABT, US Cellular, Macy's and Nikon share space with local retailers like Golf Mill Ford, Razny Jewelers, and Park Place Homes. Any advertiser that continues to sponsor in the Sun Times is not only giving tacit approval to her racism but they help subsidize it.

Enough is enough. Here is a copy of the email I sent Cook Brothers.

My name is Michael Volpe and I am blogger at
www.theeprovocateur.blogspot.com

In today's Chicago Sun Times your ad was facing the page that had the reactions to Mary Mitchell's latest column. Mary Mitchell is a racist and she has made a career out of spewing racist vile. Just recently she started one of her colums like this

"White people don't get it, black people do, now it's time to move on"

Last week, her column had this passage in the middle,

"At a time when African Americans are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a divisive issue that is being driven by those outside of the black community.

...

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people."

This sort of racist and separtist filth is much of what is wrong with our national discourse, and it wouldn't be tolerated if Mitchell were white. Yet, she is given a free pass for it because she is African American.

Enough is enough, and she must be held to account. Racism is racism and I don't believe your advertising dollars should go to subsidize a racist. I hope you concur. I hope to hear from you on this. I am starting a campaign to finally hold her accountable and I hope you will do what's right and withhold advertising from the Sun Times until they deal with Mitchell properly.

You can reach Cook Brothers here.

Mary Mitchell Has To Go

I finished yesterday's piece by proclaiming this...

Mary Mitchell's racism is no longer in question. The only question is how
much longer she will continue to earn a living from it.

I have decided to do everything I can to make the answer to the second sentence as short as possible. Before, I delve more into that I think it is appropriate to review somethings I have already pointed out along with some things I have since learned.

It all started with a column that started like this...

Whites don't get it, blacks do -- and it's time to move on

That blatantly racist proclamation was followed by one just as racist.

At a time when African Americans are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a divisive issue that is being driven by those outside of the black community.

...

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.

Now, I have only begun to really analyze her work however I have no doubt those types of racist rants are plentiful and at least one reader concurs

If you are a reader of Mary Mitchell, you already know that in her world, there is no right and wrong, there is only black and white!I could cite many of her writings and find it amazing that she gets away with it further, she never answers any of the queries by the public!The vitriolic rantings by Rev. Wright is only another platform to blame the White Community for all the sins of the world.and her defense of his rantings, just further pulls the community apart.

I have also discovered some new information since my last piece. I found some very disturbing information.

I'm on the third day of a six-day bus tour through Pennsylvania as part of the media contingent covering the Obama campaign, and I have heard only one voter mention the name of Jeremiah Wright. Even then, the young white male dismissed the controversy as irrelevant.

Mary Mitchell is a columnist not a reporter. Furthermore, she has been decidedly in the tank for Obama for the entire campaign. What in the world is she doing being part of a contingent "covering the campaign"? Those reporters are supposed to at least give the presentation of being unbiased. Can anyone imagine the uproar if a newspaper sent out a decidedly pro McCain columnist to cover the campaign? Is it any wonder Mitchell found almost no one that was "concerned about the Wright controversy". I doubt it was her intention to find any. Then, she said this...

People who are concerned about Wright can no longer remain silent. At 7:00 p.m. Monday night, friends and supporters of Wright will hold a rally and prayer vigil at Trinity United Church of Christ to show support for their church and their retired pastor.

Mitchell has in fact been defending Wright from the beginning and she continues to defend him to this day.

Furthermore, she has spent the better part of the campaign accusing the Clinton campaign of stirring up the race card

Hillary again playing the race card

Polarizing politics seen as her only way to slow Obama's roll

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

She even attacked Obama for not defending Louis Farrakhan

When Sen. Barack Obama "rejected" and "denounced" the support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan during the MSNBC debate last week, it wasn't his finest hour.

This has to stop. The irony is that she has been doing this most of her career. As such it is not only that much more obscene, but it is that much more difficult to hold her accountable. Mary Mitchell is free to say what she wants however she is not free to receive a handsome living from being a racist.

I believe she can be held to account and everyone and everything else that set up a system that allowed a racist.


Thus, I am starting a campaign to get Mitchell fired that I am calling Mitchell Gate. I am announcing right here and now that Mary Mitchell must be fired immediately. There are many things everyone can do immediately. First instance, her boss is Tom McNamee and you can complain to him by calling 312-321-2510, emailing @ tmcnamee@suntimes.com, or faxing to 312-321-2122.

In order for this to work though, the advertisers of the Sun Times and Mitchell's columns in particular must be held to account. I believe a lot of advertisers find themselves supporting Mitchell without even knowing it. If they were contacted many of them would do the right thing. For instance, by merely going to each of her columns online you find several major corporations and businesses: Land Rover, Intel, Grossinger GMC, State Farm, XM Sattellite Radio, and Blackberry. I haven't even gotten to any of the companies that advertise in their print paper everyday.

I believe that I should lead by example so I will not only contact as many of these folks myself but also post emails I sent from time to time. I hope others will share their emails in the comments section. Let's remember the stakes folks. If Mary Mitchell is allowed to make money from being a racist, she can open up a niche for such venom. If she is held to account, it will make it that much more difficult for the next racist to profit.

Now, to start the campaign off, here is contact information for each company I listed: Intel, Grossinger GMC, State Farm, XM Satellite Radio,Ford, and BlackBerry.

Also, here is a copy of my email to Tom McNamee

Mr. McNamee,

In the last four weeks Mary Mitchell has published two virulently racist columns. As her editor, you had the responsibility of approving these columns. By that measure I assume that your editorial positions include such thoughts as

Black people get it, white people don't, now it's time to move on.

Mitchell has made a living out of being a racist and you have given her tacit approval as long as you have been her editor. This is inexcusable. Earlier during the campaign, Mitchell accused Hillary Clinton of playing the race card and just yesterday Mitchell said this

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.

It is nothing short of brazen chutzpah for Mitchell to on the one hand accuse someone else of playing the race card and then play it herself so blatantly. In my opinion, it is nothing short of incompetence for her editor to allow it. That is exactly what you have done. Furthermore, Mitchell herself proclaimed that she was part of a group of journalists "covering the campaign" of Barack Obama. She has been in the tank for Obama the entire campaign. Since when is a columnist with a clear bias toward a candidate assigned to cover that candidate?

In fact, your newspaper has allowed Mitchell to make a good living being a racist and as long as you have been her boss, you are the main culprit for that behavior. You have an opportunity at long last to do the right thing and hold her accountable. I will be watching and I have started a campaign to have Mary Mitchell removed from her duties. If you don't do it I will.

Michael Volpe

http://www.theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/

A Racist at the Sun Times

When Jimmy the Greek uttered these notorious words,

bred to be the better athlete because, this goes all the way to the Civil War when ... the slave owner would breed his big woman so that he would have a big black kid

not only was he fired by CBS but his entire career was ended. He lived out the rest of his days in infamy generating little to no income. Such was the fate of a white person that was branded with the term of racist.

If the Chicago Sun Times were to hire David Duke it would likely face uncontrollable and intense protests. Their business would grind nearly to a halt and the company would likely go under. Such is the fate of any newspaper hiring a white racist.

Yet, the Chicago Sun Times has absolutely no problem and faces absolutely no criticism for hiring an African American racist in Mary Mitchell. I first noticed the incendiary and racist thoughts of Mary Mitchell in a column that started as such

Black people get it, white people don't, now let's move on

Outside of my own criticism, I didn't pick up on anger from anywhere. Despite the outrageous and racist tone of the column, Mary Mitchell and the Sun Times faced absolutely no criticism. It appears in the world of news, while hiring a white racist is a taboo, an African American racist is perfectly fine.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that this racist has just finished yet another racist column.

This is a sad day for Black America.

At a time when African Americans are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a divisive issue that is being driven by those outside of the black community.

Obviously, Wright's timing for a press conference about his sermons couldn't have been worse. Still, when Obama says he is "offended" by Wright's latest comments -- given in defense against an orchestrated assault on his character and on his ministry -- he's opening up a can of worms.

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.

Now, let's try an experiment...

This is a sad day for White America.

At a time when Caucasians are on the cusp of watching a barrier come crashing down, up jumps a divisive issue that is being driven by those outside the white community.

...

There is no institution in the white community more respected than the white church and the notion that African American pundits can dictate what is acceptable speech in the white church is repulsive to most white people.

The first quote will likely be viewed as provocative and the second would be shocking and racist. It appears that in America if you are an African American racist with a gift for putting words together you can be a columnist or commentator, while if you switched that around, you would be shunned.

Mitchell used the term "repulsed as part of her diatrobe. I will tell you what repulses me. What repulses me is that a major newspaper in a very large city would legitimize her racism by giving her a regular platform. Furthermore, I found this particular article at Real Clear Politics which gives it even more credibility. What is repulsive to me is that major media outlets choose to legitimize racism by giving it a platform.

Jimmy the Greek uttered one racial thought and his entire career was ended. Mary Mitchell makes those thoughts a career.

The stakes could not be higher. If racism pays, it will encourage more racism. Mary Mitchell will spawn the next generation of African American racists looking to cash in on their racism. She will create more proteges who will continue to spew more of the same filth and continue to poison the waters through their incendiary language. The simple fact of the matter is that society should never stand for a racist no matter their color, and certainly racists should not make racism their profession. The Chicago Sun Times has offered just such an outlet for one and it is unacceptable. Mary Mitchell's racism is no longer in question. The only question is how much longer she will continue to earn a living from it.

The Media and Pavlov

Ivan Pavlov was a turn of the last century scientist that discovered what is known as classical conditioning through experiments in mice. Through a system of rewards and punishments he was able to train mice either to eat or stay away from cheese left in their cages. These experiments lead to all sorts of breakthroughs in theories on affecting behavior through punishment and reward.

One of the things that struck me about the movie Good Night and Good Luck was one of the side plots in which a fellow newsman wound up committing suicide because he couldn't stand the pressure of being seen as not objective. During Murrow's time, objectivity was seen as so tantamount that a reputation as biased spelled the end of any news career. In fact, Murrow's insistence on giving his opinion was one of several things that made him so revolutionary. Yet, it is amazing how much the news business placed a premium on objectivity at that time. If you compare the news business then to Pavlov, the insistence through threat of black balling on objectivity was the punishment that created classical conditioning of journalists that adhered so strictly to objectivity.

The sort of objectivity that was demanded back in the day of Murrow has all but disappeared today. The campaign season has brought about all sorts of new examples so called hard news journalists totally losing any hint of objectivity whether it be subtly or blatantly. The news media was so smitten with Barack Obama for instance that it took an SNL skit to put them in their place. Yesterday's coverage of the Reverend Wright speech brought all new examples. Soledad O'Brien must feel rather embarrassed today now that Obama has nearly totally disassociated from the pastor she said hit a "home run" with his speech.

Lee Cowan actually proclaimed that his "knee quakes" when he hears Obama speak. Chris Mathews also echoed such sentiments. Mary Mitchell, of the Sun Times, started one column like this...

Black People Get It, White People Don't Know Let's Move On

Of course, this campaign season is only the latest example. Iraq suddenly faded from the headlines at the exact same time that things turned around and violence diminished. The media spent the better part of a month promoting the station Air America nearly non stop when it first got on the air. No broadcasting enterprise had ever before received such overwhelming coverage, and of course their demise is nearly non existent in the media. I could go on for days of example of bias, subtle and obvious.

So, what is the cause of all of this bias? I think it has much to do with Pavlov. Unlike in Murrow's days, objectivity is no longer treated with such esteem as it was in Murrow's days. Had Cowan made such a statement then he would have immediately been reassigned to the obituaries if not black balled from the business entirely. O'Brien would have wound up working the overnight shift after her statement in Murrow's days.

The simple fact of the matter is that the lack of objectivity is no longer punished with the same draconian measures that it was in Murrow's days. Rather than zapping the reporter with the proverbial electric shock when they show bias, they are instead given a treat. The business is teaching its journalists the exact opposite lesson everytime the fall out of line of what they taught them in Murrow's days.

The question is what changed. The blame certainly can't fall on the readers. The lack of objectivity has been met with precipitous drops in circulation, readership, and viewership. Certainly, the public is performing its function in the Pavlov theory. They are in fact punishing severly the lack of objectivity the media is showing. The problem is that reporters don't have their pay based on circulation or viewership normally and thus they don't feel their punishment.

The market has also certainly punished the lack of objectivity. Blogs, Fox News, and other new media like Politico.com have all risen much because of the failure of the MSM to stay objective. There is no doubt that there is at least some correlation between the extreme fragmenting of the market and the loss of objectivity. Little Green Footballs, for instance, rose to prominence because they lead the charge in breaking the fake documents in the story over Bush's supposed lack of Vietnam service. Had the MSM done their job, LGF would have never gotten off the ground. Fox News has filled the space left by the rest of the MSM which has tilted so far left, that conservatives viewership had nowhere else to turn. Certainly, the market has fragmented at least in part because the objectivity that Murrow's day had has faded. Thus, you can't blame the market either for not doing their Pavlov duty.

That only leaves the editors and here we have the culprit. I mentioned earlier the racist column by Mary Mitchell. There is no way any editor would have ever allowed such garbage to reach the pages of any legitimate newspaper back in Murrow's day. Likely, Mitchell wouldn't have been employed after submitting that sort of a column. In fact, all of the examples I mentioned would have been stopped by any reasonabl editor back in the day when editors actually did their job. There was a time when management in news actually managed. Now, managers allow their reporters to run free. Arthur Salzberger defended his reporters after the hit piece with flimsy evidence about McCain and the lobbyist. Brian Williams called Cowan courageous after he admitted that he was smitten with the candidate he was covering.

Can you really blame reporters for losing all objectivity when their management rewards that sort of behavior? In fact, it is text book Pavlov theory. Rather than punishing harshly any hint of lack of objetivity, it is usually rewarded or overlooked. The reporters and other journalists are not really all that different than mice in that case. The reason there was such strict standards of objectivity in Murrow's day was because management demanded it in draconian manner. The reason there is none now is because management could care less if there is or not. The total lack of journalistic standards can be laid at the feet of management that refuses to demand that there be any.

No Mary Mitchell...You Don't Get It

One thing I have realized in following the evolving fiasco surrounding the comments of Reverend Jeremiah Wright is that Obama's biggest problem right now is Wright and his incendiary comments, that goes without saying. His second biggest problem is most of his surrogates and their responses to the crisis. Now, enter this column by Chicago Sun Times columnist Mary Mitchell (herself African American)...My first reaction was anger that no one has been fired for allowing this amateur piece of propandist garbabe into what is supposed to be a professional newspaper. Right underneath the title, Mitchell proclaims

Whites don't get it, blacks do, and it's time to move on

In the body, she has the chutzpah to then proclaim...

The aftermath of this racially polarizing incident is predictable. Instead of rising to the challenge to move away from the racial rhetoric that Obama talked about in his historic speech, we the media will continue to fan its flames.

Next, you'll be bombarded with polling data that purport to show that Obama is losing ground with the white vote.

And, of course, the vote in Pennsylvania, where that state's governor, Ed Rendell, has already said "conservative" whites will not vote for Obama because he is black, will be dissected to prove that Obama's relationship with Wright cost him white votes.

Ms. Mitchell, with all due respect what exactly are you doing by proclaiming

whites don't get it blacks do let's move on

if not fanning the perverbial flames and using racial rhetoric that you accuse your colleagues preemptively of doing. With all due respect again Ms. Mitchell, the only one that doesn't get it is you. The good work that Reverend Wright doesn't excuse or condone the dispicable, racist, and anti American statements that he has seared into our consciousness. Whatever good work he has done is now a blip in the overall scheme, because for the thousands he may have served, he has hurt millions more. Fair or not, that is reality and if you don't understand that you don't get it.

It isn't whites that don't get it but you. As Bill O'Reilly astutely pointed out Barack Obama is running for President of all of the United States, not just those that you would find at Wright's church. If Obama is to be elected President he is going to just have to humor the rest of us and find some common ground with all of those that were still shocked and outraged by Wright's incendiary language despite his years of good work. Everytime Hamas drops a homicide bomb in Israel there are several Palestinians pointing out all the good work they do, and their good work no more excuses their murder than Wright's good work excuses his hatred of the country that allowed him to spew it.

Furthermore, Mitchell really doesn't get it when she says this...

Indeed, many would consider it a great honor to be nurtured spiritually at the feet of a man like Jeremiah Wright.

He has two master's degrees, including one from the University of Chicago Divinity School, and earned his doctorate from the United Theological Seminary.

Besides his four earned degrees, Wright has received eight honorary doctorates from acclaimed universities and colleges.

Again, with all due respect Ms. Mitchell, Wright doesn't have a monopoly on preachers with impressive education and credentials. If Obama was looking for a preacher with several degrees the list would have been long and frankly much more distinguished than just Wright. Nor does Wright hold a monopoly on preachers that do good work in the community. In fact, for religious organizations that is the rule NOT the exception. What sets Wright apart from most preachers is that he spews hate against his country and all races but his, and he does this to an audience of thousands of all ages including children. Let's stop the nonsense and pretend as though Wright is special because he's done good work in the community. Lot's of people do good work in their community, and it DOESN'T give license to any of them to spew hate.

Finally, Ms. Mitchell, with all due respect again, just because your race has faced generations of tyranny and injustice doesn't mean you have cornered the market on moral superiority and victimhood. (My entire family bloodline, for instance, is of Soviet Jewish descent.) Furthermore, it doesn't mean that others are unjustified in their outrage. Just because someone grew up in privilege doesn't mean their outrage isn't genuine when they hear venom spewed against their country.

How exactly, Ms. Mitchell, do you expect to end the racial divide when you condescend in a morally superior tone that this is a black thing and you privileged whites don't get and let's move on because these concepts are just beyond our grasp? Is this the sort of dialogue that Obama was hoping to inspire with his speech?

I am starting to realize that most of Obama's surrogates only go to perpetuate the stereotype that Wright started. Folks like Mitchell, Charles Coulter, as well as two Obama supporters on Friday's Factor who expressed similar views all perpetuate the stereotype that this is a black thing and that the outrage is unwarranted, unfair, and from those that don't understand. The sort of territorial defense that I am witnessing will only go to further the divide that Mitchell proclaims others will forment. I frankly want to move on. This story has just about lost all of its fascination for me and at this point it is little more than a train wreck. But listen here, Ms. Mitchell, we simpletons, who just don't get it, just don't see how we should vote for an individual for President who sat back and did nothing for twenty years while his preacher spewed anti American hate and venom at every race but his. Once someone answers that for me we can move on.