Jason Whong: Renaissance Man-in-Training

I think most of the facts about my previous post can be found here: Wikipedia: Jesse Macbeth

If someone sends you the link to the Jessie Macbeth video, kindly inform them that the video is anti-government propaganda, likely laced with exaggerations and outright lies.

I ran into the video on Metafilter, and I knew something was wrong with it. The more I listened, the more outrageous his claims became:

• He says he personally has killed about 200 innocent civilians at close range
• He describes a Rangers infiltration of a mosque. When women and children pray, the Rangers ambush them and hang their mutilated corpses inside the mosque. Then they write anti-Allah graffiti on the walls.
• He says the Rangers interrogated parents by shooting their children one-by-one if they didn’t answer correctly.
• He says he is haunted by the memories of seeing a woman, marked by the blood of her own child, pleading for her life with three children in her arms before he kills them all “because he had to.”

Already lots of military blog sites are going to town on this guy for claiming to be a Ranger when he isn’t wearing a proper ranger uniform. I don’t feel qualified to comment on the completeness of his uniform, so I will refrain. I will, however, note some of the innaccuracies I have noticed in his stories at several places.

What’s in a name

The video says he is Jessie Macbeth. He’s easier to find under the name Jesse MacBeth or Jesse Macbeth.

The question of time

The video says Macbeth spent 16 months in Iraq with the Rangers.

MacBeth told the Eastern Arizona Courier in November of 2003 that he “returned to the states two-and-a-half months ago after sustaining an injury in his back.” That puts him back in America about 6 months after hostilities began in Iraq.

The question of medals and wounding

Macbeth told SocialistAlternative.org a few things:

What medals did you get in Iraq?
I got a lot. I got a purple heart. Half of them, I don’t remember. I got five or six medals just for landing. I got a bronze star.

What injuries did you get?
I got stabbed many times. I got shrapnel in my knee. I got shot in the back.

Stabbed many times? Um. Wow. Maybe there are insurgents that carry knives or bayonets, but, umm. That’s unusual.

But he didn’t say any of this to the Eastern Arizona Courier in November, nor to the ASU State Press in April of 2004, which notes he came back to “recover from a back injury.”

The question of service

Macbeth tells SocialistAlternative.org that he was in the Third Ranger Battalion.

Now here’s the nugget - the 3rd Ranger battalion eventually became the 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment - in 1986… but it doesn’t appear they went to Iraq at all.< (I could be very wrong on this one - but everything I read about the unit talks about the invasion of Panama... nothing much about OIF. But I have not had the time to investigate this further. update: They were there.

When I wrote my  previous NSA post I did so under the assumption that the legality of the database had not yet been determined (and might actually be legal)…

But, I didn’t expect to learn that regardless of whether it’s legal for the government to have built such a database, it is still illegal for the phone companies to have provided the information without a warrant to the government.

So, to the phone companies that screwed us, I say: Pay me money or I’ll sue.

This one’s from the “why didn’t I think of that?” department.

New Scientist Tech has an article about a human launcher! It launches people from ground level onto the roofs of multistory buildings. DARPA is working on it.

Think about it. From your physics class, you know that objects accelerate downward at 9.8 meters per second, so if they first accelerate upward, there’s a brief amount of time when they are moving neither up nor down. This launching device could easily and quickly get people onto the roofs of buildings, landing them safely at a downward speed comparable to that of a natural jump. (As long as the launched person doesn’t lean backwards on the landing…)

Whether they’re more or less practical than ladders remains to be seen. But, if they don’t turn it into something for the army, I’d hope it becomes an amusement park attraction. It would be better than a roller coaster.

When I was younger, I used to jump out of moving swings in order to experience a brief moment of upward, then downward flight. Getting a good distance depended mostly on angle of release, which was hard to control. An early release would make for a short trip. A later release could cause serious injury. A computer-controlled human launcher would take a lot of the guesswork out of short-distance human flight.

Some people hope to travel in space. I’ll settle for a ride on a human launcher.

It occurred to me that when I was in the games biz, I did publicity for a number of games with odd titles:

Cythera (too many people think this sounds like a disease. I forget if it is supposed to…)
Icewind Dale (Rescue Rangers? This name only makes sense to hardcore Dungeons and Dragons fans)
Giants: Citizen Kabuto (WTF? Maybe with a Japanese name, it will sell more.)
Sin Gold (That’s right, not just Sin. Sin Gold. Hi mom. I’m selling Sin… the Gold edition.)
Mars Rising (the name only made sense if you were not a U.S. English speaker. We call it an “uprising” here.)
Whizbang Project (Luckily, this was changed to something more suitable before it shipped.)

Sometimes I miss the games biz.

USA Today broke the story today that the NSA (National Security Agency) has a database containing information about most phone calls made in the nation since 2001.

The government quickly called a press conference to point out that the database is full of information about telephone calls, not the calls themselves. (Computer nerds call information about information “metacontent” or “metadata.” The NSA calls it “external data.”) They didn’t go into specifics, but there are only a few pieces of information about a phone call that don’t have anything to do with the content that I can think of:

• originating telephone number
• receiving telephone number
• date and time of origination
• date and time of termination

Maybe also “date and time of connection” - to note the time that the recipient actually picked up the call, but I’d really have to know more about how the phone system works before saying for sure. Also “duration” might exist, but it could easily be calculated from the start and end times.

So, of course, lots of Americans are outraged that such information would be voluntarily turned over to the government. I’m somewhat bothered by it.

The government thinks it can use this information to fight terrorism. Maybe it can. Maybe it can’t.

They are probably thinking that collecting the information doesn’t violate anyone’s civil liberties, because a phone number, like an IP address or license plate number, does not uniquely identify a person. Let’s keep that in mind as we consider just how the government might use this information.

If I were the government, here’s how I would use it:

I’d start with a list of known terrorists. Maybe throw in a list of suspected terrorists. And I’d probably know many of their phone numbers already.

I’d check their phone numbers against the call database, and plot a “personal network” much like friendster, myspace, or orkut. Maybe it would be easier to visualize by redrawing the network at varying thresholds (say, not plotting lines unless more than one call was made, at least a day apart from each other.)

If “island” networks appeared at certain thresholds, meeting certain criteria for suspiciousness ratings (with some new “suspicion heuristic” algorithm much like SpamAssassin uses to identify possible spam), I’d assign people to watch those networks, and maybe listen in on the calls.

I’d have an army of programmers creating ways to analyze and visualize the data (perhaps with time lapses, different colors, etc.), and I’d have an army of sociologists and psychologists looking at the results. And they’d talk to each other to keep making the software smarter and better. And when they found terrorists, we’d pounce on them (or use them to find out where Osama is hiding.)

That’s how it would be if I ran things (and could justify actually having the metacontent in the first place).

Now, let’s consider some other questions: If they can collect personal network information from phone companies, and have the capabilities to process and analyze it, wouldn’t that mean they probably also have the capability to spider data from all of the social networking sites? Could they have a constantly updated copy of MySpace, Orkut, Friendster, and all of that? Could they have a search and data visualization engine that knows more than Google? Could they find a way to “stitch” known and suspected relationships from the public data to the phone call metadata? Could they also “stitch” the call database to a database of taxpayer records? (You can voluntarily disclose your telephone number to the Federal government on your tax forms- surely that’s stored somewhere.)

Odds are, if you’re a privacy freak, you would have already thought of all of this, and that’s why you’re not on Orkut or Friendster. Most Americans don’t care about privacy; they’re way too loose with their information. That’s why identity theft is so rampant here. (Though, even many victims are careful.)

Anyway, I am only mildly perturbed (instead of majorly perturbed) because I don’t think the government gets its jollies spying on the average joe. I think most people joined the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, etc. to be heroes and catch bad guys. Wasting time spying on ordinary Americans and learning all of their dirty secrets doesn’t make anyone a hero, and I honestly think a majority of agents would find it boring.

What worries me is that, like spam filters and other heuristic algorithms, there are always “false positives” and “false negatives.” I am sure that any suspicion scoring algorithm would also have the same problems, possibly resulting in suspicion of innocent people. Every time I get onto a plane, I get searched by a TSA official away from everyone else, because the TSA has designated me a “selectee” for reasons they don’t have to disclose. I comply with the searches because I want to fly on the plane, and because I have nothing to hide. But I still find it very annoying and degrading. (Maybe this has changed; I haven’t flown since 2003.)

If it’s revealed that the NSA connects the phone call database with the selectee list, I’ll be majorly pissed off. But, odds are they’ve already evaluated it and decided it’s crap (much like Congress has). Until such a revelation occurs, I remain only mildly upset. The idea of building a better, private MySpace, and using it to catch terrorists, is too exciting to me (for all of its nerdy possibilities.) And maybe I’m gullible, but I really think that’s all the government is doing with the data.

Critical questions:
1) Is collection of metadata by the federal government necessarily “domestic surveillance?”
2) Is a heuristic algorithm ever fit to determine who’s suspicious and who’s not? (I don’t know for sure that an algorithm is being used, but it is very likely.) And, is a heuristic algorithm better or worse than “profiling?” Or is it the same, just with some binary logic applied?
3) Do you really trust the government not to use the data for other applications aside from tracking terrorists?
4) Does the idea of the government creating its own “social network” visualization software scare you? Or, does it intrigue you?

It just occurred to me that in my last post, I made a straw man argument. Debaters construct a straw man by misrepresenting or oversimplifying an opposing viewpoint, then refuting it convincingly. It’s very persuasive, but it’s also misleading.

Here’s what I said in the immigration protests post:

There are some people who believe that rendering The Star-Spangled Banner in any other language than English is disrespectful. I would disagree…

I set up an argument that was really easy to knock down. It was really specific, and also sounded like a plausible position that all opponents of Nuestro Himno might subscribe to. In real life, not all of the opponents are part of the “some people” that I addressed in the last post.

Some may not like Nuestro Himno because the song is being championed by immigrants without the legal right to live or work in America — exactly the group of people that should not frame national debates. Such an objection would be reasonable.

Some of the opponents may like that America is, by majority, an English-speaking country; they may interpret Nuestro Himno as an attempt to destabilize American culture by imposing Spanish on the rest of America. It’s reasonable to fear impending change (though, not reasonable to hate people because of those fears).

Then there are the purists like Rochester, N.Y. media personality Bob Lonsberry, who think that any variation from the norm when performing the song is disrespectful:

And you should keep it simple.

You should sing the notes that are on the paper and you shouldn’t add any more of your own. There are plenty of vehicles of self-expression, but this doesn’t happen to be one of them.

Because this isn’t your song.

This is your country’s song.

I think Bob’s opinion is valid, too.

Where does that leave us? I’ve acknowledged all the other possible reasons for being opposed as reasonable. How can I still not be bothered by Nuestro Himno?

I’m O.K. with it because I think that the opponents’ reasons for being upset about the song are just as well-reasoned and valid as my reasons for not being upset are. We don’t have to agree on everything in America, and it’s fine as long as we still respect each other. And in the end, I don’t think anyone is talking about banning the song. The law already says it’s not the National Anthem, and that’s probably all the protection the song is going to get, under the U.S. Constitution.

The true tragedy of the debate of Nuestro Himno is that it distracts people from the issue of why so many millions of people live in the U.S. illegally under current U.S. immigration policy.

To the brilliant British record producer who thought it would be a good idea to hire Latin pop stars to sing Nuestro Himno, I hope your only motive was defining a market based on a side of a political debate, and profiting from the people that are going to buy up your disco compacto like caliente-cakes. Because if you intended to influence the immigration debate, you failed. On the day when people were marching in the streets, pundits were wasting so much time debating your song when they could have asked serious, critical questions about immigration policy. That money you’re planning to “give back to the community” for each sale (no doubt, in the form of 6-foot long photo-op checks to immigrant rights organizations) should really be considered a form of penance rather than generosity. (Maybe you can write “sorry for obfuscating your community’s real problems, but thanks for the platinum record” in the memo.)

The question all the popular, trend-setting kids are asking themselves these days is “Gee, what does Jason think about this immigration debate that has siezed the nation?”

Well, to put a rest to all the speculation, here are my thoughts:

On the issue of Nuestro Himno (a Spanish-language rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner), I don’t see what the big deal is. For one, it’s not the national anthem. See the U.S. Code Title 36, Subtitle I, Part A, Chapter 3, § 301 for an explanation:

(a) Designation.— The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

The specification of words and music is interesting: it could mean that the music unaccompanied by words is not really the national anthem at all. Certainly a song that is not the Star-Spangled Banner can’t be considered the national anthem.

So, I don’t think that Nuestro Himno is a Spanish rendition of the national anthem, though it is a Spanish rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner. It is an imitation, which can be a form of flattery. Except, a version to be released later will include some political content, which makes it a pretty poor imitation, since the Star-Spangled Banner is something Americans sing to celebrate their commonality as Americans, rather than their differences over partisan issues. I think the later release will be a bad idea.

There are some people who believe that rendering The Star-Spangled Banner in any other language than English is disrespectful. I would disagree on several grounds:

1) The names of American states come from several languages (English (Maryland); Spanish (Colorado); French (Delaware); Latin (North Carolina); Ute (Utah); Choctaw (Oklahoma); Cherokee (Tennessee); Sioux (South Dakota); Caddo (Texas); Ojibwe (Mississippi); Lenape (Wyoming); Dutch (Rhode Island); Nahuatl (gave the word “Mexico” to the Spanish, from whom we base the name of New Mexico); Oto (Nebraska); Algonquian (Illinois); Polynesian (Hawai’i); Aleut (Alaska); Pequot (Connecticut); etc.) If anything, Americans have learned to assimilate foreign words and make them their own. I don’t think it’s out of line for any of the speakers of those languages to want to render the The Star-Spangled Banner in their language, since many of those languages were spoken in America before English was.
2) The United States has no official language.
3) Hawai’i has adopted both Hawaiian and English as its official languages, according to its constitution. I can’t find a complete New Mexico constitution online, so I can not verify it, but many sources say New Mexico officially recognizes Spanish and English as its official languages. So, even if you don’t buy into my first point, certainly nobody should be offended by renditions of the Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish or Hawaiian. Taking offense at Americans participating in American life in languages officially recognized by American states would be the height of rudeness.

Now, onto the marches and boycotts:

To read the Washington Post’s April 11 story about a rally on the mall, it looks very neat to see so many people (many of whom are not yet Americans) waving American flags. It reminds me of the day my dad became an American citizen. I didn’t know much about what citizenship meant back then, because I think I was 3 years old at the time. But I did know that I was given a small flag, and despite my shortness, I was going to stand on my toes and hold it as high as I could, because my dad becoming a citizen was an accomplishment that I was supposed to be excited about!

I saw some videos today of people marching with Mexican flags. One live interview on CNN featured some American flags being waved by protesters, one of which was upside-down. That bothers me, just as much as people flying the Confederate battle flag bothers me. The U.S. defeated both the Confederate States of America and the Republic of Mexico in separate wars. For Mexican nationals to prance around with Mexican flags, protesting on American soil, is quite bellicose, and I just can’t agree with it. Likewise, I could not justify walking around Mexico city waving an American flag, as I’d consider that rude, even relishing in an American victory over Mexico in battle over a hundred years ago. Foreign flags are for parades and international sporting events, and a few other polite circumstances only.

Some of you are going to hate me for linking to Michelle Malkin, but she called my attention recently to some kids in California who flew the Mexican flag above an upside-down American flag .That angers me. Maybe those kids don’t know that flying the flag of one nation above that of another on the same pole signifies that the higher nation has conquered the lower nation. But whether they know it or not, they must have intended to communicate something with such imagery.

OK. So in summary, Nuestro Himno: yay, until they release the more political version. Protests: yay, as long as you wave the U.S. flag. Got it? good.

Now back to our regularly scheduled random period of silence.

(Frequent readers will note that I have twice written about immigration in the last month, and twice failed to address the issue of U.S. immigration policies in general. This is intentional.)