Our Primaries

THE ABSURD TIMES

Tom Lehrer explaining Math, link below.

Our Primaries

By

Chicago Thought

There seems to be a great deal of confusion as to the "Democracy" pervading the United States.  Now this can only be cleared up by realizing that when the political parties use the term democracy it does not mean "one man, one vote".  Once you get that absurd notion out of your head, things become more understandable.

Donald Trump (hey, a broken watch is right twice a day, eh?) is quite right when he says that the system is "rigged".  As a matter of fact, for you mariners out there, the rigging is as elaborate as you ever saw, and it is so rigged that the two-party system will protect its interests and keep sailing on as if the people have no power over it whatsoever.

Now, the Republican system is beyond description in its complexity.  For example, you may hear about the delegates in Pennsylvania amounting to, say, 85 or thereabouts.  However, not told is the fact that only 17 of them are chosen by the voters.  The rest are just there and can do whatever they want.  In addition, two of those 17 that are running against each other both are Cruz supporters.  That really means 15 are left. 

Enough of the Republicans as I have no intention of writing a 300 page book in two days.  Let's look at the Democrats.

Whenever you see the delegate count, it probably says, as of April 21, 2016, that Clinton has 1,930 delegates and Sanders 1,189.  2383 are needed to win.  This means that Clinton only needs 453 while Sanders needs 1144.  When those numbers are presented, it looks as if the primary is over.

However, 540 of those delegates are so-called "Super Delegates" (hereafter referred to as SD to distinguish from STD) and really have not been elected by anyone as a delegate.  Now, Clinton has 502 SDs while Sanders has 38.  Let us just take the whole population and see what happens.

If those 540 SDs were to all support Sanders, he would have 1691 and Clinton would have 1390.  (The 540 is a fixed number and all will vote and not go away so if one person leave one and goes to the other, it makes a total difference of 2)  Why not? Now Sanders is leading and on his way to victory.  

I'll tell you why not: "The system is rigged".  Where have I heard that before? 

One final fact: many Democratic, not as many Republican, states hold primaries that EXCLUDE independents.  In other words, unless you pledge allegiance to the Democratic Party, say in New York, 9 months before the election, you can't vote.  Of course, in the real election, once the parties decode on their nominees, Independents can vote.  So, one man, one vote?  Don't be silly.

Here is a link that will help you understand how the math works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIWaJ0sy03g&feature=em-share_video_user

Apologies for the commercial (something about divorce – just click the x in the upper right-hand corner of the insert).

The Confusion of the Amerikan Primaries -- Explained

THE ABSURD TIMES

Illustration: Hillary in whatever a meme is.

            There seems to be a great deal of interest overseas in our election this time as it is even stranger than usual.  This is an attempt to clear up some of the confusion for international audiences.

            The Democratic side seems strange because of how the delegates seem to stack up.  You only need one simple rule to tell how Bernie Sanders is doing against Hillary Clinton and that is to subtract about 400 delegates from what seems to be a large total.  The 400 are so-called "Super Delegates" who are establishment party members whose vote is really fungible as it could be changed at any time.  The rest are earned delegates as a result of primaries.  Hillary won a large number of delegates in South Carolina, which seems to make her popular, but it is worth considering that the Democratic Party has not carried that state in a general election for 40 or 50 years.  In short, they are meaningless so far as winning is concerned. 

            Sanders uses the term "Socialist" as in "Democratic Socialist" and in previous years this alone would be enough to defeat any attempt he made.  This year, however, almost all Americans are "fed up" with the system.  While an attempt is made in the corporate media to make this a black v. white issue as Hillary has great support from black voters in South Carolina, the reality is that with support from Dr. Cornell West and Director Spike Lee, Sanders has considerable black support.  If anything, the division is one of IQ rather than race. 

            Hillary's foreign policy is easily summed up as dealing with international issues through "Regime Change," including killing such leaders as Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Assad (if only we could), putting "YAZ" in control in Ukraine, and, of course, helping Israel liquidate anybody who bothers it.

            Sanders is relatively against intervention in other countries as there is considerable need for intervention here.  There is talk about his age, but then he is only 6 years older than Hillary.  To be more explicit, he was an undergraduate activist at the University of Chicago, put in jail one night for civil rights protest, while Hillary was a graduating senior in Park Ridge parading around as a Goldwater girl.  (At any rate, this is close enough for politics in the Chicago area.)  None of the "Super Tuesday states she won are likely to vote for any Democrat, not her especially.

            On the Republican side, Donald Trump is the clearest of them all on his positions, but the Republican candidates share them all.  One noticeable exception is that Trump says he will be neutral in the Palestinian issue and says that regime change is a foolish foreign policy.  He maintains that killing Saddam Hussein led to ISIS and also Iranian influence in Iraq and it is difficult to refute this.  Putin reputedly likes him.  This is said as an attack on Trump, but whoever is President will have to deal with Vladimir Putin anyway. 

            The Republican party is advertised as anti-government as this is what draws support to Trump as he can say that he is not funded by special interests.  Obviously, he is one of the 1%.  Many "Christians" here actually believe that "Israel" in the Bible  refers to the United States.  At this point, we see no purpose in discussing these people any further.

We do have another illustration for you.  The guy on the right is one of Hillary's favorites and the one on the left, who wants to be an Emperor is a close second:

           

Here is a discussion, but keep in mind that the New York Times is an establishment Newspaper:

The New York Times has published a major two-part exposé titled "The Libya Gamble" on how then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed President Obama to begin bombing Libya five years ago this month. Today, Libya is a failed state and a haven for terrorists. How much should Hillary Clinton be blamed for the crisis? We speak to journalist Scott Shane of The New York Times.

---

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Five years ago this month, the United States and allied nations began bombing Libya, striking forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The Obama administration said the strikes were needed to enforce a no-fly zone and to protect Libyan protesters who took to the streets as part of the Arab Spring. Inside the Obama administration, there was a deep division over whether the U.S. should intervene militarily. One of the most hawkish members of Obama's Cabinet was Hillary Clinton, then the secretary of state.

The New York Times has just published two major pieces [part one, part two] looking at Clinton's role pushing for the bombing of Libya. The special report is titled "The Libya Gamble." In a moment, we'll be joined by Scott Shane, one of the report's co-authors, but first a video package produced by The New York Times.

JO BECKER: Hillary Clinton's role in the military intervention that ousted Muammar Gaddafi in Libya is getting new scrutiny as she runs for president. The U.S. relationship with Libya has long been complicated. Colonel Gaddafi, who ruled from 1969 until 2011, was an eccentric dictator linked to terrorism. Still, when he gave up his nuclear program a decade ago and provided information about al-Qaeda, he became an ally of sorts. In 2009, when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, she welcomed one of Colonel Gaddafi's sons to Washington.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: We deeply value the relationship between the United States and Libya.

JO BECKER: But two years later, when Colonel Gaddafi threatened to crush the Arab Spring protests in Libya, she helped persuade President Obama to join other countries in bombing his forces to prevent a feared massacre.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: This operation has already saved many lives, but the danger is far from over.

JO BECKER: The military campaign ended up ousting Colonel Gaddafi, and Secretary Clinton was welcomed to Libya on a victory tour. A few days later, Colonel Gaddafi was killed by opposition fighters.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: We came, we saw, he died.

JO BECKER: But the new Western-backed government proved incapable of uniting Libya. And in the end, the strongman's death led to chaos. When four Americans were killed by terrorists in Benghazi in 2012, it revealed just how bad things had gotten. Colonel Gaddafi's huge arsenal of weapons has shown up in the hands of terrorists in places like Gaza, Syria, Nigeria and Mali. Hundreds of thousands of migrants have fled through Libya on boats. Many have drowned. And the power vacuum has allowedISIS to build its most dangerous outpost on the Libyan coast. Today, just 300 miles from Europe, Libya is a failed state. Meanwhile, back at home, Mrs. Clinton has struggled to defend the decision to intervene.

HILLARY CLINTON: But I'm not giving up on Libya, and I don't think anybody should. We've been at this a couple of years.

MARTHA RADDATZ: But were mistakes made?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, there's always a retrospective to say what mistakes were made. But I know that we offered a lot of help, and I know it was difficult for the Libyans to accept help.

AMY GOODMAN: That video by The New York Times accompanies a major two-part series [part one, part two] on Hillary Clinton titled "The Libya Gamble," written by Jo Becker and Scott Shane. Scott Shane is joining us now from Baltimore. He's also author of a new book called Objective Troy: A Terrorist, a President, and the Rise of the Drone, about the first American deliberately killed in a drone strike, Anwar al-Awlaki. The book just won the 2016 Lionel Gelber Prize.

Scott Shane, welcome to Democracy Now! Let's start with this two-part series, "Clinton, 'Smart Power' and a Dictator's Fall." Talk about Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and how she led the charge, or what she advised President Obama in Libya.

SCOTT SHANE: Well, five years ago, there were—there was a question about what to do as Gaddafi's forces approached Benghazi. The Europeans and the Arab League were calling for action. No one really knew what the outcome would be, but there was certainly a very serious threat to a large number of civilians in Benghazi. But, you know, the U.S. was still involved in two big wars, and the sort of heavyweights in the Obama administration were against getting involved—Robert Gates, the defensive secretary; Joe Biden, the vice president; Tom Donilon, the national security adviser.

And Secretary Clinton had been meeting with representatives of Britain, France and the Arab countries. And she sort of essentially called in from Paris and then from Cairo, and she ended up tipping the balance and essentially convincing President Obama, who later described this as a 51-49 decision, to join the other countries in the coalition to bomb Gaddafi's forces.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Hillary Clinton has argued, in her defense, that it's still too early to tell what the effects of the intervention have been, and that perhaps accounts for why she's pushing for more military involvement in Syria. But Obama, on the other hand, as you point out in your piece, says the Libya experience has made him question each military intervention by asking, "Should we intervene militarily? Do we have an answer for the day after?" So, Scott Shane, can you lay out what you explain happened in Libya the day after, as it were?

SCOTT SHANE: Well, you know, for a few months, it looked like things might go reasonably well. There was some attention to restoring Libya's oil industry. And the optimism was based in part on the idea that this is a relatively small country population-wise, about 6 million people. It did not have the Sunni-Shia split that you see in many Muslim countries, and it had plenty of money from oil to rebuild. So, briefly, there was this sort of moment of optimism. And Secretary Clinton made her visit. And they were—you know, her people were actually thinking this would be perhaps a centerpiece of her record as secretary of state.

But what happened was the militias that had participated in the fight against Gaddafi, you know, essentially aligned with different tribes in different cities, and it proved impossible for these mostly Western-educated—in some cases, somewhat detached—opposition leaders to pull the country together, and eventually it sort of dissolved into civil war.

AMY GOODMAN: You say—in that piece we just heard, the tape that caught Hillary Clinton saying, "We came, we saw, he died." Explain.

SCOTT SHANE: Well, you know, in some ways, I think she would see that as unfair. She was giving a series of TV interviews, and that was in a break between interviews. The reporter for the next take was just sitting down in the chair, and an aide handed her a Blackberry with the news that Gaddafi—you know, first reports that Gaddafi might be dead. And that was her sort of, I think she would say, you know, exaggerated, humorous reaction. But, you know—but it did capture, I think, the fact that she had become very involved in this effort that first—that sort of began as protecting civilians and sort of evolved into overthrowing Gaddafi. And she was eager to see an end to what had become a surprisingly drawn-out affair, given the fact that this very large alliance of NATO and Arab countries were on the rebels' side. So I think she was relieved and pleased that Gaddafi's rule was over and that he was no longer around to make trouble.

AMY GOODMAN: During the Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire last year, ABC News host Martha Raddatz questioned Hillary Clinton about her support for the 2011 invasion of Libya, which toppled Muammar Gaddafi.

MARTHA RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I want to circle back to something that your opponents here have brought up. Libya is falling apart. The country is a haven for ISIS and jihadists, with an estimated 2,000 ISIS fighters there today. You advocated for that 2011 intervention and called it "smart power at its best." And yet, even President Obama said the U.S. should have done more to fill the leadership vacuum left behind. How much responsibility do you bear for the chaos that followed elections?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, first, let's remember why we became part of a coalition to stop Gaddafi from committing massacres against his people. The United States was asked to support the Europeans and the Arab partners that we had. And we did a lot of due diligence about whether we should or not, and eventually, yes, I recommended, and the president decided, that we would support the action to protect civilians on the ground. And that led to the overthrow of Gaddafi.

I think that what Libya then did by having a full free election, which elected moderates, was an indication of their crying need and desire to get on the right path. Now, the whole region has been rendered unstable, in part because of the aftermath of the Arab Spring, in part because of the very effective outreach and propagandizing that ISIS and other terrorist groups do.

MARTHA RADDATZ: Senator Sanders?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: The truth is, it is relatively easy for a powerful nation like America to overthrow a dictator, but it is very hard to predict the unintended consequences and the turmoil and the instability that follows after you overthrow that dictator. So, I think Secretary Clinton and I have a fundamental disagreement: I'm not quite the fan of regime change that I believe she is.

AMY GOODMAN: "I'm not quite the fan of regime change that ... she is," says Bernie Sanders in that debate with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. Scott Shane, from Iraq and her vote for the war with Iraq, which of course did lead to regime change, to Libya, talk about the goal of Hillary Clinton and whether that was even different from the goal of President Obama, who she does wrap herself around now in all of her presidential campaigning.

SCOTT SHANE: I think what we found is that there is a subtle but distinct difference between President Obama and Secretary Clinton on the question of sort of activism and interventionism abroad. And, you know, in a situation like Libya, there are no good choices. It's certainly conceivable that if she had tipped the other way, and the U.S. and the Europeans and others had not gotten involved, that perhaps Gaddafi would have slaughtered a whole lot of civilians, and we would be, you know, posing different questions to her today.

But, you know, what we found was that President Obama is, not surprisingly, very shaped by the Iraq experience, which he's had to cope with the still ongoing aftermath of the decision to invade in 2003 all these years later. She, of course, has been in government longer, and I think she—you know, her aides say that she was also influenced by genocide in Rwanda, which taught her the cost of inaction in a situation like that, and by the experience in the Balkans, which sort of cut both ways. But, you know, I think she drew the lesson that intervention could prevent even larger massacres and do some good, as imperfect as the outcome was there. So they kind of look back to these different historical experiences and draw different conclusions.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, you report in your piece in the Times that shortly after the air campaign began in 2011, there was the possibility of a 72-hour ceasefire, potentially leading to a negotiated exit for Gaddafi. Why was that offer not taken seriously by the American military?

SCOTT SHANE: Well, you know, there were—there was a whole array of attempts to come up with some sort of soft exit for Gaddafi. Perhaps he would stay in Libya, perhaps he would go elsewhere. But I think the bottom line was that the Americans and the Europeans and the other Arab—and the Arab countries that were involved in this, all basically felt that Gaddafi, who was basically a megalomaniac, who had been in office for 40 years and sort of saw him as the savior of his country, just would not, when push came to shove, be willing to cede power. And they felt that any kind of ceasefire, he would use just to kind of regroup his forces and extend the fighting. Whether that was true or not, you know, history will judge.

AMY GOODMAN: And the issue of this being a failed state right now and Hillary Clinton's responsibility here—of course, as is President Obama, but she was the secretary of state who was advising him, meeting with people on the ground, making her suggestions on pushing forward with war?

SCOTT SHANE: Yeah, I mean, you know, one reason we did that series is that it appears that intervention—when, how and whether to intervene in other countries, particularly Muslim countries—remains sort of a pressing question for American presidents. And since she's running for the presidency, this is, you know, perhaps a revealing case study of how she comes out in these situations.

But, you know, there are—there is no good example of intervention or non-intervention in these countries since the Arab Spring and before that. I mean, you have Iraq, where we spent years occupying, a very tragic outcome. You have Libya, where we intervened but did not occupy and pretty much, you know, stayed out of it afterwards—not a good outcome. And you have Syria, where we have really not intervened, have not occupied, and you've had this terrible civil war with huge casualties. So, you know, some people in Washington are questioning whether there is any right answer in these extremely complicated countries in the Middle East.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, given the spread of ISIS in Libya, you report that some of Obama's top national security aides are now pushing for a second American military intervention in Libya.

SCOTT SHANE: Yeah, I mean, one of the ironies here is that, you know, you've almost come full circle, but instead of targeting Gaddafi and Gaddafi's forces, the U.S. is now targeting ISIS. And the—you know, in that debate, Martha Raddatz uses the number 2,000 ISIS fighters; now it's up to 5,000 or 6,000. You know, on the coast of Libya, they have formed the most important outpost for the Islamic State outside Syria and Iraq, and the Europeans and the Americans are very worried about it. So, there was actually an airstrike on an ISIS camp in western Libya, where there were Tunisians responsible for some attacks in Tunisia, and now they're looking at possible attacks on the major ISIS stronghold in Libya, which is in Sirte on the coast.

AMY GOODMAN: In your piece, you talk about the memo afterwards that highlights Hillary Rodham Clinton—HRC, as it's put—role, talking about her leadership, ownership, stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish, with an eye to the presidential campaign. Can you talk about this, as you put it, this brag sheet?

SCOTT SHANE: Well, that memo was written in 2011, when Gaddafi had fallen. And, you know, it looked like—you know, they were holding this up as sort of an alternative to the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq, a coalition in which the U.S. was not even the leader and organizer, really, and it was a very broad coalition of nations that had intervened. They saw this as what she referred to as "smart power." And they really thought this might be something they would hold up as a very successful part of her record as she ran for president. As we've seen, that did not happen, and, you know, you don't hear them raise the subject of Libya on the campaign trail at all.

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Shane, we have to end the show, but we're going to do Part 2 of our conversation after the show about your new book, Objective Troy: A Terrorist, a President, and the Rise of the Drone. Scott Shane, national security reporter for The New York Times. And we'll link to this major exposé [part one, part two] you did on Hillary Clinton's role in "The Libya Gamble."

t of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

           

SPECIAL UPDATE! Our U.S. Idiotic Primaries and the Middle East

THE ABSURD TIMES

ALL UPDATES  IN BOLD ITALICS

Illustration: One of you just sent this to me.  If there are any copyright issues, pleas contact me and I'll obfuscate it.  It coveys our sentiments exactly, however. 

It has been awhile, so here is some catching up. The terrorist threat has been vanquished here at the Absurd Times. A trusted Ally helped me to negotiate with Toshiba and then Toshiba whipped Microsoft's ass and all the files were returned, intact, although the programs (now called "apps" for some reason to idiotic to delve into here) had to be found and reinstalled, some over Microsoft's objections.

Much of the following is based on the input of our army of correspondents from around the world, all very wise in matters of social, economic, and political importance.

Do we really want to elect a blood-thirsty young 68 year old when we have the opportunity to elect an older, wiser, 74 year old? In addition, Sander's wife is a good ten or twenty years younger than the grandma. Her supporters squeal when she speaks, giving a sound similar to that of a flock of horribly violated chickens.  THE DELEGATES ARE EQUAL, BUT WERE DECIDED BY A SERIES OF COIN TOSSES, ALL SIX OF WHICH WERE WON BY CLINTON GROUPIES.  

Groundhog day is a ritual in the United States. If the groundhog sees his shadow, it means 6 more weeks of winter. This year, the Iowa caucus superseded this indication six more weeks of being subjected to Ted Cruz.

DONALD TRUMP HAS CLAIMED HE WON BY FRAUD.  IT HAPPENED BECAUSE CRUZ WAS CANADIAN, AFTER ALL.  WE HAVE DECIDED IT IS THE PALIN FACTOR AS ALL CANDIDATES ENDORSED BY PALIN WILL DO NO BETTER THAN SECOND.   TRUMP WANTS THE IOWA CAUCUSES TO BE HELD AGAIN, A "DO OVER" TO BE FAIR. 

Rand Paul had the only two sensible remarks during all of the Republican debates. The first was "This is like Junior High," and the second, after Trump decided not to attend the second, thus reducing Faux News' ratings by about half and, I assume making them return part of the advertising revenue, Paul said "This will elevate the debate by a few IQ points". It did, but not enough so he has decided not to participate any more.

Putin has done relatively little in Eastern Ukraine lately, much to the Nazi's relief, but this has prompted Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to propose sending more weapons to NATO. Also, he says we are running out of bombs, so would the congress be good enough to give him a couple billion to buy more?

The ZIKA virus was first discovered in 1947. Then Hillary was born.

Zika is now a sexually transmitted disease, so there will be more about this on the news, no doubt, right after the Superbowl.

Israel has been sending its Black Jews to Nigeria from Holot. Well, perhaps "Semetic" has its uses, but no point stretching things.

Michigan has finally been exposed as trying to "privatize" its water supply. The claim that they did not know something was wrong with the water in Flint seems a bit shallow as bottled water had been trucking into flint for State workers for a year and a half before the contamination was admitted.

Two sane organizations, Jews say No, and the Jewish Voice for Peace, collaborated and put out a mock edition of the New York Times. We estimate that about half the readers figured out that it was satirical. Since they were both Jewish organizations, they have a chance of not being called Anti-Semitic (although this is by no means certain).

RICK SANTORUM WILL QUIT THE RACE AND ANNOUNCE WHO HE WILL ENDORSE THIS EVENING.  NOBODY CARES OTHER THAN LITTLE RUBIO.  

Here is an interview on that topic:

Jewish Peace Groups Reveal Role in Spoof New York Times That Criticized Paper's Stance on Israel

FEBRUARY 03, 2016

STORY

WATCH FULL SHOW

172

SHARES

TOPICS

• Israel & Palestine

GUESTS

JANE HIRSCHMANN

a member of Jews Say No! in New York City.

BEN NORTON

journalist at Salon who specializes in U.S. foreign policy and in the Middle East. He just published a piece titled "Progressive Jewish groups make New York Times parody issue to protest newspaper's 'biased Israel-Palestine coverage'"

LINKS

• Ben Norton's Article on Salon.com

This is viewer supported news

DONATE

A Palestinian village has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Israel is throwing open its doors to refugees. Those were some of the headlines that appeared in a fake version of The New York Times distributed across New York City on Tuesday. The paper carried the slogan "All the news we didn't print." The prank copy of the revered "Gray Lady" also announced Democratic presidential candidate "Hilarity Clifton" planned to quit the presidential race to head up a women's nonprofit based in Ramallah. The edition even has fake ads. Volunteers distributed 10,000 copies of the fake paper, but no group took responsibility—until now. Jane Hirschmann of Jews Say No! tells Democracy Now! her group and Jewish Voice for Peace produced the paper. We speak to Hirschmann and Ben Norton, journalist at Salon.

---

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: A Palestinian village has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Israel is throwing open its doors to refugees. Those were some of the headlines that appeared in a fake version of The New York Times distributed across New York City on Tuesday. The paper carried the slogan "All the News We Didn't Print." The prank copy of the revered "Gray Lady" also announced Democratic presidential candidate "Hilarity Clifton" planned to quit the presidential race to head up a women's nonprofit based in Ramallah. The edition even has fake ads.

AMY GOODMAN: Ten thousand copies of the fake paper were distributed, but no group took responsible for the prank—that is, until now. Joining us to find out who was behind the paper, we're joined by Jane Hirschmann of Jews Say No! Also with us, Ben Norton, journalist at Salon who specializes in U.S. foreign policy and in the Middle East. He just published a piece titled "Progressive Jewish groups make New York Times parody issue to protest newspaper's 'biased Israel-Palestine coverage.'"

Now, Jane, it begins—above the New York Times logo, it says, "Rethinking Our 2015 Coverage on Israel-Palestine—A Supplement" Who are Jews Say No! in New York, and why did you do this?

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Well, it wasn't just Jews Say No! in New York. There were two groups that came together—our group, Jews Say No!, and also Jewish Voice for Peace in New York City. And we're two organizations that are trying very hard to get out the real news about Israel and Palestine.

The media bias is extraordinary. And months ago, we came together to discuss: What can we do about this, the fact that the coverage never has any context to what's going on in Israel and Palestine? People are not aware that there's a 67-year occupation, that they're not two equal peoples. The press—and it's not just The New York Times, it's really all the press. They always typecast the Palestinians as the terrorists, and the poor Israelis are the victims. And we felt that the time had come to really put out the news, the real news, about it.

People don't know that our government is complicit, that we give $3 billion a year to Israel. And we don't give it for social services, for education, for research; we give it to them for military reasons. It's the largest contribution we make to any country in the world. So we're funding the occupation. People don't know there's an apartheid-like state in Israel. And we worked for months to get out this paper. And yes, it's a parody, but all the facts about Israel and Palestine on the ground are correct in the paper.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, you know, I'm sure that many of the people in The New York Times would say that they provide some of the most balanced coverage, although, you know, obviously, you might differ with that. But some of the articles are really amazing. You had a headline, "I.D.F. Generals Blame Israeli Government for Recent Violence." And you even had the advertisements, as well, all dealing with a political reversal of how people here in the United States, many, are fed the news on Israel and Palestine.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Well, actually, some of the generals did come forward recently and did question what the Israeli government was doing and that it may be the cause for the violence. That's what they questioned in The New York Times. And we're saying that after 67 years of violence, of stealing people's homes, people's water, you know, not letting them a cross border, have checkpoints to go to work, not getting to hospitals, that this is violent. And even the generals—that article is pretty factual about the generals.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: What was the reaction when you gave it out on the streets yesterday?

JANE HIRSCHMANN: It was really amazing. We had over 60 volunteers at places like Staten Island Ferry and, you know, Grand Central. And people took the paper and said, "Thank you." And my first paper that I handed out at 7:00 in the morning, this guy left, and a minute later, he came back, and he said, "Who did this?" And, of course, we didn't reveal. And then he said, "This is fabulous. This is the news we never see." He said, "I'm a teacher, and I teach about media and terrorism. And I'm going to teach today. Can you give me more copies?"

AMY GOODMAN: You also have a fake editorial of The New York Times in this four-page supplement. And this, Ben, is one of the quotes you pulled for your Salon piece. You write, "In addition, we are aware"—this is the fake editorial. "In addition, we are aware that a disproportionate number of our news stories in the past year and a half have focused on Israeli government statements and positions or the views of Israeli Jewish citizens; only a small fraction have featured Palestinian speakers, whether officials and advocates or residents who experience the effects of Israeli policies in everyday life." This, Ben Norton, is—was the clip that you chose for your piece inSalon to lay out where the Times says they're going with this, though it was fake, of course.

BEN NORTON: Thanks for having me. It's great to be here.

Well, I think—as Jane said, I think it's important to recognize that The New York Times is not necessarily unique in these regards. Rather, I think, as the U.S. newspaper of record, it epitomizes this kind of tendency throughout American media. And essentially, the idea is, you know, Israel is a very close U.S. ally, Israel is a democracy, etc., so we need to give their side of the view the vast majority of the time. And what that does is it normalizes this notion that Palestinians are violent, and they're reacting against, you know, this more civilized, democratic country. And when you look at the media coverage, very often what you see is, you know, you'll see quotes from Israeli government officials—sometimes they're anonymous—and at most there will be one or two quotes from a Palestinian. And even then, the quotes will be very timid and paltry, and you won't see any kind of quotes that discuss, for instance, the brutality of the military occupation. You won't see any discussion, in any kind of significant detail, of Israel's illegal activities.

And as Jane had mentioned, when we're talking about context, context in media is everything. And The New York Times and many other publications very often refuse to acknowledge that there has been an illegal military occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories since 1967. The U.S. and all countries in the world, excluding Israel, have admitted this. The New York Times rarely acknowledges, for instance, that—when they're discussing the recent wave of violence, that more than 165 Palestinians have been killed since October. You know, in a few months, we're talking about approximately 170 deaths. And, in fact, a few minutes ago, just this morning—I was looking at the headlines—three more Palestinians were killed in occupied East Jerusalem.

So, when we're looking at this kind of coverage, it's important to understand that when American newspapers quote Israeli government officials, when American newspapers kind of don't acknowledge the daily, quotidian violence and oppression that Palestinians are subjected to, that, right there, it's a subtle but very clear form of bias that must be overcome. This whole notion of having balanced coverage is, of course, very important, but what it often actually means is it normalizes and essentially creates an equivalency between the people who are under military occupation, and have been illegally for decades, and the people who are carrying out that illegal military occupation. And any media that make that clear delineation are actually being balanced. If you don't make that delineation, you're not being balanced, you're normalizing violence.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Jane, I wanted to ask you—there were two pieces that were not parodies. They were op-ed pieces by Leila Said and by Aurora Levins Morales. I'm wondering if you could talk about them and the decision to include them, as well, in this issue.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Well, we thought it was important to put in pieces—as you said, the whole paper is not a parody. There are facts that are absolutely correct. And we thought that it was important to put in pieces—actually, there's only one person that's named correctly in this paper, and that's Aurora. But we wanted to make it accurate, as well. We didn't want it to just be a joke paper. We wanted to show what real coverage would look like. And so, we did that.

And I also want to mention what Ben said. You know, when an Israeli child is killed, they have a whole story about that child. They have a picture of that child. They tell you about the family, you know. So we listed the Palestinian children who were recently killed, and grown-ups, because we thought it was important to get their names into—you never see it in the papers at all.

AMY GOODMAN: Also, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon actually did write a strongly worded New York Times op-ed criticizing Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Right, right.

AMY GOODMAN: But I also wanted to ask you about the ads.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: On the front page, we're used to seeing, you know, various ads.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: "The Perfume of Power." And it says, "Eau de I.D.F. Skunk." Can you say what it says underneath?

JANE HIRSCHMANN: You know, I can't read what it says underneath, because I don't have my glasses, sorry. Ben, can you or somebody read it?

BEN NORTON: So, it is a fake ad for perfume, you know, "Eau de I.D.F," water of theIDF, or perfume. And it says, "Since 2008, the Israeli Defense Forces (I.D.F.) have routinely sprayed toxic 'skunk water' on and into Palestinian homes and schools. Its smell has been described as 'worse than raw sewage' and 'like a mixture of excrement, noxious gas and a decomposing donkey.'"

JANE HIRSCHMANN: One of my children—

AMY GOODMAN: True?

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Yeah, this is true.

BEN NORTON: Absolutely.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: One of my children was at Bil'in when they sprayed skunk. And it was horrific. And, you know, people got very, very ill. One person has died. This is what they spray to disperse the crowds.

BEN NORTON: And it's important to recognize also, for instance, Bassem Tamimi is an outspoken nonviolent Palestinian activist in the occupied West Bank, and he has discussed how they also spray it into homes.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Yes.

BEN NORTON: And what they do is they sometimes break windows—this is Israeli occupation forces—they will break windows and spray skunk water into people's homes, which ruins their furniture, which makes their house smell horrific for weeks. And if it gets in your hair, it can be stuck—that smell can be stuck for months.

AMY GOODMAN: Did you get a response from The New York Times? I mean, the paper, aside from the headlines and the content, looks exactly like The New York Times.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Yes, yes. Well, they were quoted. We didn't call them for the quotes. But all our sites have been taken down—our Facebook, our Twitter—

AMY GOODMAN: By?

JANE HIRSCHMANN: —and even our domain. Well, we're not exactly sure. The domain, we know, because they were called by The New York Times and threatened, so they took it down. We will be up and running again today. We will not be stopped. And we'll let your viewers know, through you, how to see the paper online, because right now nobody can see it. We were taken down.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both for being with us, as Jews Say No! and Jewish Voice for Peace New York City reveals they're behind the fake New York Times that was distributed yesterday throughout the city, 10,000 copies made. Jane Hirschmann of Jews Say No! and Ben Norton, journalist at Salon who's written about this, and the piece has just gone up.