The Center for Public Integrity and Fund for Independence in Journalism recently finished compiling all 935 lies (click the post title to see them) told by the Bush Administration between September 11th and the start of the Iraq War, concerning the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his (nonexistent) WMDs. The White House Spokesman Scott Stanzel commented that the decision to invade Iraq was based on "the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world."
Lucky number 936. The decision to invade Iraq was made years before September 11th by Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's neocon colleagues. The 935 lies helped, but it was all too easy for Bush to capitalize on our fears following 9-11. The lies serve as a reminder that, in times of widespread fear and conflict, it is crucial to fact-check our leaders' statements and premises.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Hoax in Hormuz?
UPDATE: Iran has a history of independent radio operators bringing foreign navies to the brink of violence, according to a Los Angeles Times article.
During the Iran-Iraq War and many ship-challenges (when a visiting or foreign ship is ordered by the native, or controlling, navy to identify itself and clarify its intentions), these operators have provoked deadly conflicts before.
Referring to one such operator, a gulf-based shipping source claimed: "He's dangerous. He gets on the radio when ships are being challenged, and some of the things he tells the Iranians could provoke an attack."
Full article:
Los Angeles Times
November 12, 1987,
MESSAGES FROM ROGUE RADIO OPERATOR COULD PROVOKE ATTACK;
FILIPINO MONKEY: ON BACKS OF MANY IN TENSE GULF
---
A cargo ship was sailing through the Strait of Hormuz recently when it was challenged by an Iranian warship demanding to know what it carried.
Iranian gunboats in these waters frequently attack vessels they suspect of carrying war materials to Iraq, and for the crew of the cargo ship, it was a tense moment.
"What is your cargo? What is your cargo?" the voice of an Iranian officer crackled over the radio.
Before the ship's captain could respond, a third voice came on the air: "I am carrying machine guns and hand grenades to Iraq . . . and the atom bomb."
The Filipino Monkey had struck again.
Jokes and Taunts
Sailors in this part of the world are by now well-acquainted with the rogue radio operator who calls himself "The Filipino Monkey." He has been interjecting jokes and taunts into radio conversations between ships at the southern end of the Persian Gulf for at least three years.
But as the Iran-Iraq War escalates and tensions rise, with the warships of several nations patrolling the gulf on a hair-trigger state of alert, the Filipino Monkey has become more than just an occasionally amusing annoyance.
"He's dangerous," one gulf-based shipping source said. "He gets on the radio when ships are being challenged, and some of the things he tells the Iranians could provoke an attack."
Most of what he tells the Iranians is unprintable.
'Doesn't Like Iranians'
"Whoever he is, he doesn't seem to like Iranians very much," the shipping source said. "He tells them what he thinks of them in graphic terms."
Memories vary, but most shipping sources who have listened to the Monkey say they first heard him about three years ago.
"He started out by playing music and then by taunting other seamen, usually Filipinos, with curses in the middle of the night," one official recalled.
Other seamen would respond in kind until the airwaves were alive with colorful arguments in various accents of English. This livened things up during the lonely and monotonous graveyard shifts in the gulf, and so for a time nobody much minded the Monkey's technically illegal activities. His transmissions were an abusive, but harmless, form of entertainment.
Dark Humor
But since the arrival of U.S. warships and an increase in Iranian challenges to shipping at the southern end of the gulf, the Monkey's mischief has assumed a darker side.
"I don't know whether he's trying to make trouble or whether he's simply an idiot who doesn't understand the implications of what he is doing, but either way he is a real hazard to commercial shipping," a former ship captain said.
One case in point is another recent encounter between an Iranian gunboat and a merchant vessel near the Strait of Hormuz last month. When the gunboat challenged the vessel, demanding to know its destination, the Filipino Monkey broke in and replied: "I go to your mother's house. . . . "
The encounter ended peaceably, apparently because the Iranian captain was also familiar with the Monkey's antics.
Search Under Way
But the recurrence of such incidents has moved officials of the United Arab Emirates to mount a search for the Monkey. According to shipping sources, Ministry of Communications officials have been checking on shore-based two-way radios in recent weeks to make sure they are licensed.
"They are trying to narrow down where this guy might be broadcasting from," one shipping executive said.
Catching the Monkey is not proving to be easy, however, because there are hundreds of possible locations for his transmitter, including ships, supply boats, tugs, oil platforms and shore-based facilities.
Also, there may be more than one Monkey. Because he has been broadcasting for far longer than any normal tour of duty for seamen or oil workers in the gulf, officials think the Filipino Monkey has spawned imitators and that there may now be more than one radio operator using the same moniker.
Many Monkeys?
"Everyone has their own theories about how many Monkeys there are and where he or they are based," said Margaret Rogg, a reporter for CBS who frequently monitors marine radio traffic. "My own image of him is that he's someone with a lot of time on his hands, maybe someone who's handicapped and has nothing to do but play with his radio all day."
Whoever he is, the Filipino Monkey's sing-song voice is also becoming familiar to U.S. sailors in the gulf.
Early last month, for instance, he broke into the middle of a tense radio exchange between a U.S. ship and an Iranian warship.
The Iranian ship had locked its weapons radar onto the U.S. warship, which was warning it in no uncertain terms to stand down. The warning was repeated three times until the Filipino Monkey added his own.
"Iranian warship, Iranian warship," he said. "You gonna get it now."
--
Despite the writer's tone and the operator's goofy moniker, Iran's history of weak radio security is especially troubling given the almost deadly and potentially cataclysmic encounter on Sunday.
American military officials are still undecided on whether the threatening transmission came from the ships of Iran's Revolutionary Guard or from someone offshore. Either way, we have too little information to identify the culprit let alone to retaliate against Iran.
During the Iran-Iraq War and many ship-challenges (when a visiting or foreign ship is ordered by the native, or controlling, navy to identify itself and clarify its intentions), these operators have provoked deadly conflicts before.
Referring to one such operator, a gulf-based shipping source claimed: "He's dangerous. He gets on the radio when ships are being challenged, and some of the things he tells the Iranians could provoke an attack."
Full article:
Los Angeles Times
November 12, 1987,
MESSAGES FROM ROGUE RADIO OPERATOR COULD PROVOKE ATTACK;
FILIPINO MONKEY: ON BACKS OF MANY IN TENSE GULF
---
A cargo ship was sailing through the Strait of Hormuz recently when it was challenged by an Iranian warship demanding to know what it carried.
Iranian gunboats in these waters frequently attack vessels they suspect of carrying war materials to Iraq, and for the crew of the cargo ship, it was a tense moment.
"What is your cargo? What is your cargo?" the voice of an Iranian officer crackled over the radio.
Before the ship's captain could respond, a third voice came on the air: "I am carrying machine guns and hand grenades to Iraq . . . and the atom bomb."
The Filipino Monkey had struck again.
Jokes and Taunts
Sailors in this part of the world are by now well-acquainted with the rogue radio operator who calls himself "The Filipino Monkey." He has been interjecting jokes and taunts into radio conversations between ships at the southern end of the Persian Gulf for at least three years.
But as the Iran-Iraq War escalates and tensions rise, with the warships of several nations patrolling the gulf on a hair-trigger state of alert, the Filipino Monkey has become more than just an occasionally amusing annoyance.
"He's dangerous," one gulf-based shipping source said. "He gets on the radio when ships are being challenged, and some of the things he tells the Iranians could provoke an attack."
Most of what he tells the Iranians is unprintable.
'Doesn't Like Iranians'
"Whoever he is, he doesn't seem to like Iranians very much," the shipping source said. "He tells them what he thinks of them in graphic terms."
Memories vary, but most shipping sources who have listened to the Monkey say they first heard him about three years ago.
"He started out by playing music and then by taunting other seamen, usually Filipinos, with curses in the middle of the night," one official recalled.
Other seamen would respond in kind until the airwaves were alive with colorful arguments in various accents of English. This livened things up during the lonely and monotonous graveyard shifts in the gulf, and so for a time nobody much minded the Monkey's technically illegal activities. His transmissions were an abusive, but harmless, form of entertainment.
Dark Humor
But since the arrival of U.S. warships and an increase in Iranian challenges to shipping at the southern end of the gulf, the Monkey's mischief has assumed a darker side.
"I don't know whether he's trying to make trouble or whether he's simply an idiot who doesn't understand the implications of what he is doing, but either way he is a real hazard to commercial shipping," a former ship captain said.
One case in point is another recent encounter between an Iranian gunboat and a merchant vessel near the Strait of Hormuz last month. When the gunboat challenged the vessel, demanding to know its destination, the Filipino Monkey broke in and replied: "I go to your mother's house. . . . "
The encounter ended peaceably, apparently because the Iranian captain was also familiar with the Monkey's antics.
Search Under Way
But the recurrence of such incidents has moved officials of the United Arab Emirates to mount a search for the Monkey. According to shipping sources, Ministry of Communications officials have been checking on shore-based two-way radios in recent weeks to make sure they are licensed.
"They are trying to narrow down where this guy might be broadcasting from," one shipping executive said.
Catching the Monkey is not proving to be easy, however, because there are hundreds of possible locations for his transmitter, including ships, supply boats, tugs, oil platforms and shore-based facilities.
Also, there may be more than one Monkey. Because he has been broadcasting for far longer than any normal tour of duty for seamen or oil workers in the gulf, officials think the Filipino Monkey has spawned imitators and that there may now be more than one radio operator using the same moniker.
Many Monkeys?
"Everyone has their own theories about how many Monkeys there are and where he or they are based," said Margaret Rogg, a reporter for CBS who frequently monitors marine radio traffic. "My own image of him is that he's someone with a lot of time on his hands, maybe someone who's handicapped and has nothing to do but play with his radio all day."
Whoever he is, the Filipino Monkey's sing-song voice is also becoming familiar to U.S. sailors in the gulf.
Early last month, for instance, he broke into the middle of a tense radio exchange between a U.S. ship and an Iranian warship.
The Iranian ship had locked its weapons radar onto the U.S. warship, which was warning it in no uncertain terms to stand down. The warning was repeated three times until the Filipino Monkey added his own.
"Iranian warship, Iranian warship," he said. "You gonna get it now."
--
Despite the writer's tone and the operator's goofy moniker, Iran's history of weak radio security is especially troubling given the almost deadly and potentially cataclysmic encounter on Sunday.
American military officials are still undecided on whether the threatening transmission came from the ships of Iran's Revolutionary Guard or from someone offshore. Either way, we have too little information to identify the culprit let alone to retaliate against Iran.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Strait of Hormuz
Both the Pentagon and the Iranian government have released their videotaped version of events during Sunday's confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz. There is a consensus among naval officers that the threat to destroy the American ships could have very well been issued from offshore or from a boat not affiliated with Iran's military.
According to the Boston Sun, the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations "said it was unclear whether the radio warning came from Iranian vessels or from shore along the Straits of Hormuz..."
Similarly, TPM reports that the voice which issued the threat to "explode" the American ships, "seems to come out of nowhere and doesn't have the expected engine noise in the background, and in fact, The Washington Post reports, the accent doesn't even sound Iranian."
Paul Pillar, a former CIA analyst stated in the Boston Globe that Iran's actions may have been a signal to other Arab states "who have to make their continuing decisions about aligning more closely with the United States, or accommodating the Iranians...Whatever ideas the US may have to push Iran around, Iran has options to push back."
Some questions about the incident remain. Videos from both sides have been released, but they are heavily edited. The footage is no longer than five minutes, but the encounter, by all accounts, took around 20 minutes total. Barely any sources (the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Boston Sun, Associated Press) venture to identify the boats as Iranian. Most claim that the boats are "suspected" to be Iranian. The Revolutionary Guard, which recently took over Iran's operations in the Strait of Hormuz, is somewhat autonomous. Some believe that these soldiers could have acted alone in pursuing the American ships. More as the story develops.
According to the Boston Sun, the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations "said it was unclear whether the radio warning came from Iranian vessels or from shore along the Straits of Hormuz..."
Similarly, TPM reports that the voice which issued the threat to "explode" the American ships, "seems to come out of nowhere and doesn't have the expected engine noise in the background, and in fact, The Washington Post reports, the accent doesn't even sound Iranian."
Paul Pillar, a former CIA analyst stated in the Boston Globe that Iran's actions may have been a signal to other Arab states "who have to make their continuing decisions about aligning more closely with the United States, or accommodating the Iranians...Whatever ideas the US may have to push Iran around, Iran has options to push back."
Some questions about the incident remain. Videos from both sides have been released, but they are heavily edited. The footage is no longer than five minutes, but the encounter, by all accounts, took around 20 minutes total. Barely any sources (the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Boston Sun, Associated Press) venture to identify the boats as Iranian. Most claim that the boats are "suspected" to be Iranian. The Revolutionary Guard, which recently took over Iran's operations in the Strait of Hormuz, is somewhat autonomous. Some believe that these soldiers could have acted alone in pursuing the American ships. More as the story develops.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Willful Ignorance
Sometimes it’s the Iraq War, sometimes terrorism, and other times it’s the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A professor declares his opinion on a complex subject and detonates a cacophony of nervous throat-clearing and assorted fidgetings throughout the classroom. The only noise missing is that of a student voicing his own opinion.
As a sophomore at PSU main, I’ve witnessed the above situation quite a few times.
It normally unfolds like so: a student in the front row smirks in affirmation of the professor’s statement and furtively peeks over his shoulder to see if anyone else is clueless, too. Chairs squeak, arms are folded, and everyone else contemplates their shoelaces in hopes of staying neutral in the event of a debate.
Sounds pretty uncomfortable, doesn’t it? Contrary to prevailing philosophy, the jolly community of lecture-listeners filling America’s colleges should rightly feel unsettled in class--albeit for different reasons.
Michael Berube, an English professor at Penn State, once said that college students should cherish debate in the classroom. They should expect to be challenged and uncomfortable “as a matter of course. That is, if [their] professors are doing their jobs properly.”
It seems ridiculous that a community whose stated goal is to learn would be so reluctant to consider and discuss other viewpoints. Sadly, our campuses are plagued with a “contagion” of conformity as well as students’ unfounded shame in admitting what they do not know.
Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale University and author of “Irrational Exuberance,” explains that “when people have limited information about something…they use other people as guides to their behavior.” Citing the erroneous confidence in Washington’s real estate market as an example, Shiller contends that belief in stagnant dogmas spreads by way of conformity.
"One hears other people saying things and confirming ideas you have. When things are commonly accepted, you file it in your brain as something that is true." Despite the smattering of opinions found in a classroom, group settings also foster an urge to maintain “superficial harmony” of opinion, according to doctors David and Roger Johnson in “New Developments in Social Interdependence Theory.”
According to their report, many individuals cease making “their own independent, unique contribution to the group” when placed in group settings, thus depriving the group “of the creative contributions that can be made by each of its members.” Also known as “groupthink,” this phenomenon is antithetical to the very purpose of education. The failure to question widespread beliefs was made some of history’s ugliest policy disasters possible. For example, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion was authorized in a “curious atmosphere of assumed consensus,” in the words of the then White House staffer Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Aside from groupthink, students' opinions also go unvoiced because of their lack of knowledge on particular topics. As an international politics major, most issues discussed in my classes are ideologically loaded and terribly complicated. Political ideologies and current events at the heart of the world’s major conflicts evoke powerful emotions, leading students to feel inadequate when an issue deemed important fails to strike a personal, passionate chord within them.
Mark Twain once said that the only way he ever learned was by confessing how little he knew. Students needn’t feel shame in acknowledging the blanks in their education. To eliminate one’s ignorance on a certain topic, it must first be acknowledged and then confronted through a proactive search for an answer.
The aforementioned smirking student in the front row is cheating himself out of his tuition. We are here to learn, not to impress egoists who would rather appear intelligent than become educated.
Though some may claim that ignorance is the opposite of education, it is perhaps the most important element of the learning process. Discovering, admitting, and confronting it enables us to learn. Ignoring the gaps in your education will only land your brain in a hole.
-Citations up soon
As a sophomore at PSU main, I’ve witnessed the above situation quite a few times.
It normally unfolds like so: a student in the front row smirks in affirmation of the professor’s statement and furtively peeks over his shoulder to see if anyone else is clueless, too. Chairs squeak, arms are folded, and everyone else contemplates their shoelaces in hopes of staying neutral in the event of a debate.
Sounds pretty uncomfortable, doesn’t it? Contrary to prevailing philosophy, the jolly community of lecture-listeners filling America’s colleges should rightly feel unsettled in class--albeit for different reasons.
Michael Berube, an English professor at Penn State, once said that college students should cherish debate in the classroom. They should expect to be challenged and uncomfortable “as a matter of course. That is, if [their] professors are doing their jobs properly.”
It seems ridiculous that a community whose stated goal is to learn would be so reluctant to consider and discuss other viewpoints. Sadly, our campuses are plagued with a “contagion” of conformity as well as students’ unfounded shame in admitting what they do not know.
Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale University and author of “Irrational Exuberance,” explains that “when people have limited information about something…they use other people as guides to their behavior.” Citing the erroneous confidence in Washington’s real estate market as an example, Shiller contends that belief in stagnant dogmas spreads by way of conformity.
"One hears other people saying things and confirming ideas you have. When things are commonly accepted, you file it in your brain as something that is true." Despite the smattering of opinions found in a classroom, group settings also foster an urge to maintain “superficial harmony” of opinion, according to doctors David and Roger Johnson in “New Developments in Social Interdependence Theory.”
According to their report, many individuals cease making “their own independent, unique contribution to the group” when placed in group settings, thus depriving the group “of the creative contributions that can be made by each of its members.” Also known as “groupthink,” this phenomenon is antithetical to the very purpose of education. The failure to question widespread beliefs was made some of history’s ugliest policy disasters possible. For example, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion was authorized in a “curious atmosphere of assumed consensus,” in the words of the then White House staffer Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Aside from groupthink, students' opinions also go unvoiced because of their lack of knowledge on particular topics. As an international politics major, most issues discussed in my classes are ideologically loaded and terribly complicated. Political ideologies and current events at the heart of the world’s major conflicts evoke powerful emotions, leading students to feel inadequate when an issue deemed important fails to strike a personal, passionate chord within them.
Mark Twain once said that the only way he ever learned was by confessing how little he knew. Students needn’t feel shame in acknowledging the blanks in their education. To eliminate one’s ignorance on a certain topic, it must first be acknowledged and then confronted through a proactive search for an answer.
The aforementioned smirking student in the front row is cheating himself out of his tuition. We are here to learn, not to impress egoists who would rather appear intelligent than become educated.
Though some may claim that ignorance is the opposite of education, it is perhaps the most important element of the learning process. Discovering, admitting, and confronting it enables us to learn. Ignoring the gaps in your education will only land your brain in a hole.
-Citations up soon
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Kudos New Hampshire GOP
The New Hampshire GOP has pulled out of the Fox Republican debate tomorrow night because of Fox's decision to ban Ron Paul from attending. Fox claims they only want viable candidates to attend yet have invited two candidates (Giuliani and Thompson) whom Paul is out-polling in New Hampshire. In the interest of open discussion and maintaining that mainstay of democracy that is the public forum, please don't watch the debate tomorrow night. I plan to read the news coverage on it, but I refuse to give Fox ratings. A full post will be up shortly.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Turn It Off
An average reader spends 26 minutes reading the newspaper. Yet the average American wastes four hours a day watching television. Celebrities’ surplus of airtime, or lack of underwear, makes it very tempting to shift the blame for Americans’ political ignorance and apathy onto their perfectly sculpted shoulders.
Although Tila Tequila’s sexuality generates more discussion than Bush’s elimination of Habeas Corpus, America’s obsession with sexy celebrities is not the sole cause for our information deficit.
In fact, the co-founders of the United States of Aloofness receive high ratings while remaining fully clothed. Because Americans depend on television for both entertainment and news coverage, the two often merge. This troublesome concoction is most toxic when irresponsible TV journalists and misleading campaign commercials mix sensation with information.
True, reality shows distract people from issues like civil liberties and the Iraq war, but distraction is the purpose of most entertainment. The intellectual danger of television lurks not on MTV, but on news channels where pundits seek to entertain while simultaneously addressing these crucial issues.
Conservative or liberal, most pundits seek to arm their viewers with hollow slogans suitable only for shouting matches. Rather than informing their viewers, these pundits provide them with a false sense of awareness while addressing few issues from few angles.
Is it fair to blame these entertainers for what they do? Even shows that offer accurate information must entertain, otherwise their ratings would plummet. Expecting sober information from a television pundit is like expecting a clown to behave himself at the circus.
But there’s no way that American voters, whose entire political system is based on the virtue of reason and prolonged debate, could be swayed by soundbytes and misleading campaign commercials, right?
In reality, these thirty second spurts of spin are so effective in shaping our political discourse that most candidates spend the bulk of their money on airtime. Television derives its political power not only from our addiction to it, but from the way our brains function. Just as our stomachs digest proteins and fats differently, our brains process the written word and visual images in different ways.
In his book The Assault on Reason, Al Gore explains with the help of neurologists that emotional appeals and shocking images travel unfiltered to regions of our brain “not mediated by reason or language.”
Reading makes it possible for us to digest information and form opinions without being shouted at or running a risk of rational override. While turning to television for the occasional diversion is harmless, in order to break its rotten spell over our political dialogue, we must seek information elsewhere.
Similar to television, the Internet has a great capacity for information and depravity alike. However, there are websites (talkingpointsmemo.com and politicalwire.com, for example) that offer both sides of the issue on every issue. They do so through text, not shrieking pundits who gauge an argument’s validity by its outrageousness.
Most readers already know their way around the blogosphere, and I commend them for their dedication to staying informed. Nevertheless, I urge: this election season, turn off the television and seek your political information elsewhere.
Although Tila Tequila’s sexuality generates more discussion than Bush’s elimination of Habeas Corpus, America’s obsession with sexy celebrities is not the sole cause for our information deficit.
In fact, the co-founders of the United States of Aloofness receive high ratings while remaining fully clothed. Because Americans depend on television for both entertainment and news coverage, the two often merge. This troublesome concoction is most toxic when irresponsible TV journalists and misleading campaign commercials mix sensation with information.
True, reality shows distract people from issues like civil liberties and the Iraq war, but distraction is the purpose of most entertainment. The intellectual danger of television lurks not on MTV, but on news channels where pundits seek to entertain while simultaneously addressing these crucial issues.
Conservative or liberal, most pundits seek to arm their viewers with hollow slogans suitable only for shouting matches. Rather than informing their viewers, these pundits provide them with a false sense of awareness while addressing few issues from few angles.
Is it fair to blame these entertainers for what they do? Even shows that offer accurate information must entertain, otherwise their ratings would plummet. Expecting sober information from a television pundit is like expecting a clown to behave himself at the circus.
But there’s no way that American voters, whose entire political system is based on the virtue of reason and prolonged debate, could be swayed by soundbytes and misleading campaign commercials, right?
In reality, these thirty second spurts of spin are so effective in shaping our political discourse that most candidates spend the bulk of their money on airtime. Television derives its political power not only from our addiction to it, but from the way our brains function. Just as our stomachs digest proteins and fats differently, our brains process the written word and visual images in different ways.
In his book The Assault on Reason, Al Gore explains with the help of neurologists that emotional appeals and shocking images travel unfiltered to regions of our brain “not mediated by reason or language.”
Reading makes it possible for us to digest information and form opinions without being shouted at or running a risk of rational override. While turning to television for the occasional diversion is harmless, in order to break its rotten spell over our political dialogue, we must seek information elsewhere.
Similar to television, the Internet has a great capacity for information and depravity alike. However, there are websites (talkingpointsmemo.com and politicalwire.com, for example) that offer both sides of the issue on every issue. They do so through text, not shrieking pundits who gauge an argument’s validity by its outrageousness.
Most readers already know their way around the blogosphere, and I commend them for their dedication to staying informed. Nevertheless, I urge: this election season, turn off the television and seek your political information elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)