Can We Just Pretend We Already Invaded Syria?

Right now Syria is a human rights disaster. The country is filled with the most appalling violence, which is spilling over its borders and destabilizing the region. The Syrian government is brutal, corrupt, embattled, and it's filled with people who hate Americans. A patchwork of jihadist groups have taken advantage of the chaos to do terrible things to their fellow citizens... and obtain the kind of training which would make them a threat to the entire world.

So basically, it already looks exactly like it would after a US attempt at nation-building.

Our work's been done for us, guys! Can we just skip to the part where we go home?

No one's saying the president can't lie to Congress about it, or we can't have politicians acting feckless and ignorant. Look, POTUS can give a few speeches about freedom, and maybe get a resolution passed on cruddy intelligence. We'll do all of that, if you people want. We could even have some subcommittee meetings, and get everyone to yell at each other. Really - I mean it. Go nuts.

You want a parade for the thing? You want a couple movies, maybe give a general some job as a CNN analyst? I am totally down with all of that.

Let's do everything - I mean, everything - to pretend we absolutely shipped thousands of our finest, bravest 20 year-olds into some country we know nothing about and got them killed for reasons no honest person will be able to explain in a year. But the only part I want to leave out is the part where we end all their lives. Can we just please, for once in this stupid nation's history, leave that part out?

Everything will be exactly the same with Syria. Promise. We've been here before.

The only difference is our people get to stay home, pretend they went to a war, and live. Won't that be great? Won't that be worth it?

And if you don't think so, what is wrong with you?

"The NSA Has Stopped Or Covered Up Countless Terrorist Attacks" By James Clapper

In a free country, debate about our policies is crucial. We understand that in the US intelligence community. The American public have the right to question their government and demand answers. But as we discuss NSA surveillance programs, I want to make one thing perfectly clear to you: These efforts are necessary to our security, and they are working. They're the main reason the NSA has managed to stop or cover up countless terrorist attacks in the years since 9/11.

Other law enforcement techniques have played a role, sure. I'm not saying there's no way we would have stopped the second New York subway attack without gathering phone data. Or even have been able to suppress the existence of the first one without Prism. We're pretty determined. But I am telling you it would be difficult. The odds would be greater.

Do you want that? Do you really want to make it more likely that an al-Qaeda operative could successfully kill thousands of people without us thwarting him or at least relocating all the witnesses to a facility in Utah? It seems right to stand up for freedom, but you need to think about the real-world choices here. Lives, and also professional reputations, are at stake. These groups are not going to just go away. They're right here, planning to strike. Especially since last year's invasion of Syria (You'll hear more about it soon, but the short version is that things got out of hand, and now some other groups in that part of the world are feeling grumpy about the US. They particularly dislike port cities -- go figure.)

We have a job to prevent Americans from being injured, killed, or panicked with information by our enemies around the world. We can't do this without every citizen pitching in.

In some cases doing your part is as simple as closing your eyes.

Edward Snowden Is Crazy, They Say

Or he's a traitor. A narcissist, maybe. He might be unbalanced, a political extremist, a misanthrope. And now he's about to help the Chinese government.

No matter what the truth, it's obvious we shouldn't believe what he says. Maybe we're even at war with guys like him.

Here's my problem with this line of argument: Only a few weeks ago Edward Snowden was a trusted intelligence professional with years of experience. And the people in the government and media who are maligning him now? Back then - back in that ancient, innocent world of mid-May, 2013 - these people wanted me to let Snowden have access to my private data so he could help fight al-Qaeda.

Have I got all this right? Okay, two questions:

1. How many more Edward Snowdens are still in the intelligence community? How many people with (alleged) mental problems, a serious God-complex, a hatred of America, and access to the records of millions of its citizens? Any idea who else slipped into that crack squad you've got working on Team America?

2. What's the next Edward Snowden going to do? What reckless and terrible thing is the next hero-turned-malcontent going to accomplish with all our information? Isn't it possible he won't go the whistle-blower route? Isn't it possible he'll use his secrets to make money or to help his favorite politicians, or something even sketchier and more dangerous?

Discredit him or believe the guy... it doesn't really matter. Because either way, it brings us to the same conclusion:

Maybe no one should have that much power.

Intelligence Chief James Clapper Answers A Craigslist Missed Connection

Dear Jordan, the financial lawyer who met the redhead reading House of Leaves on the C near Washington Square:

You need to let it go. The data behind this judgment is pretty solid. Let me walk you through it.

Look, the number "Julie" gave you last Tuesday at approximately 8:30 am EST was off by one digit. By itself this would not be conclusive. It happens, right? But then, later in the day, you got a hunch and called several permutations of the number. That was smart, Jordan. Very smart. You reached a few disconnected lines, a gas station, a hospital, and the voicemail of a "Steve" (He's a nice guy, actually. The kind who seems like a bro at first, but he's really not. And you have some interests in common! But let's return...) Anyway, that last number you called was in fact Julie's. Your feeling that her machine's message sounded familiar was confirmed by the best voice matching technology in the world. But here's the problem: She was home, man.

I know Julie said she was busy lately. And I know you thought she might have been in the bathroom or sleeping or something. But our photographic analysis of the building's architectural footprint combined with thermal and acoustic imaging indicates conclusively that when you called Julie was next to the phone listening to your message. She was reclining on the couch watching a Discovery Channel show about exotic pets which attack their owners, and she deleted you within three seconds of your hang-up. Also, she'd seen this episode before. Ouch.

Don't take it personally, Jordan. I know you've been on three first dates within the past month with no follow-through - obviously that can really damage a guy's confidence. But you'll find someone. Steve has a great sister, and she's also into rafting. Did you know that?

The fact is Julie was not being completely honest, when she said she'd "just gotten out of a complicated thing." Her phone and text traffic over the last three weeks indicates a clear pattern - We have a precise profiling algorithm on this, and it matches with someone who is trying to leave a long-term relationship with a man who plays hot and cold and has a flirtation with a coworker that might transform into something more at any moment. These things follow a clear-cut almost inevitable path. In desperation Julie will relocate to be with him, and she may even propose marriage. Their relationship will last 3 to 5 years, and the possibility of serial infidelity is higher than 72%. So, believe me when I say this: It's not you, Jordan.

Julie needs someone else, someone more stable. Your last two performance reviews indicate you're on the way to a promotion. But you're not there yet. Julie would probably benefit from someone at the peak of their career - someone with a highly structured life. Maybe even a military background. And it wouldn't be a problem if this person were older. It might even be a plus. She needs someone to get her away from Chad, that's for sure. The guy is poison.

Julie needs to know all this. It's vital to her well-being. She seems to have vanished from her home, work, and most frequently visited social venues, but she will surface soon. Obviously the fact that she's thrown away her cell is a setback. But not the worst I've encountered. After thorough questioning her mother indicated she had contacts in the Chicago area. The crowds would complicate efforts at spotting her using facial recognition. But no one stays invisible forever.

She's sharper than I thought. And she's very strong-willed. I get a real kick out of this! She's obviously fighting any effort to steer her from this self-destructive course. But Julie's happiness will be secured. And that douche Chad won't be anyone's problem ever again.

Protecting people is what I do. Even when they resist. Even when they don't want my aid. I'm the best.

I guess that's my real message to you, Jordan. And to everyone in this country:

I'm here to help.

What Will Happen When A President Uses The NSA To Get Reelected?

Here is an article in the New York Times about how Barack Obama won the 2012 election through a revolution in collecting data about voters. It includes this quote:

With so much more time to prepare, Mr. Obama’s polling and “analytics” department collected so much information about the electorate that it knew far more about which sorts of voters were going to turn out — and where — than the Romney campaign and most public pollsters.

A piece on CNN said something similar:

But from the beginning, campaign manager Jim Messina had promised a totally different, metric-driven kind of campaign in which politics was the goal but political instincts might not be the means.

"We are going to measure every single thing in this campaign," he said after taking the job. He hired an analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation...

Let's (sort of) switch subjects. An article in Popular Mechanics described how the data collected by the NSA can be used:

There are two basic ways to approach the data. First is a supervised learning approach, where you start with a target variable you are trying to predict for (in this case, you could isolate for a high-risk versus non-high-risk communication) and then separate the data by that variable. The second method, which is more useful for this type of request, is unsupervised learning, in which there's no target variable. You're simply searching for interesting patterns of behavior that occur in unexpected ways. This type of analysis can be used to create social networks of people of interest. 

Now, back to the Times piece:

Culling never-before-used data about viewing habits, and combining it with more personal information about the voters the campaign was trying to reach and persuade than was ever before available, the system allowed Mr. Obama’s team to direct advertising with a previously unheard-of level of efficiency, strategists from both sides agree. 

I hardly need to point out the overlap of the top people in a presidential reelection campaign and the top people in an administration. Messina was a Deputy Chief of Staff in the first term, for example. But the president always wears two hats simultaneously.

To be clear: There is no evidence at all that Obama's team used national security information inappropriately to win reelection. But they have opened the gate. The NSA is surveilling and analyzing the social networks and communications of the American people to an astonishing degree. And this is occurring at the exact same moment pols have launched an information arms race in presidential campaigns like we've never seen before.

The people in the next administration will be privy to a platinum-grade level of information about those whose votes they want to win. To say a reelection campaign won't use their position to gain advantage is naïve.

To say it won't be inevitably revealed is short-sighted.

To say such revelation won't cripple this country's political system and harm its national security is stupid.


NOTE: For something lighter, read: Intelligence Chief James Clapper Answers A Craigslist Missed Connection. Losing our privacy rights has a funny side!

"I Just Want To See If You Have Any Self-Respect Left" By Barack Obama

My fellow Americans:

Like many of you I was shocked and saddened to read the newspaper and learn about the intrusive surveillance on millions of... Ha! Just kidding there.

Anyway, I didn't intend to get like this. Honest I didn't. It's just at some point in in my first term I kinda realized you folks weren't really putting any pressure on me to dismantle the hideous security state we had. It was weird. I mean, we got flack from a few Kucinich types and the sort of people who sell gold on the internet. But who gives a fuck, right?

Then one day a really awful thought occurred to me: I wonder how far we could take this? Sure, the guys who think I'm a Kenyan would oppose me. But at what point would middle America get mad? How close could we get to a third Bush term before your average Democrat grew a pair?

At first it was just the drones. We intensified the program, blew up a couple civilians... nothing big. And then we changed the rules so we could kill someone without even knowing who they were. Jesus, I thought everyone would stop that. Hillary and I were giggling about it in the Oval. I mean, it was insane. But you guys just... just let us keep going.

What the hell were you people thinking?

It became like a little game: Holder and Brennan were making noises like maybe we'll target people in the US. It's a global war, we said. We can go anywhere and do anything, and you just have to trust us. I mean, they did it during the last administration, but didn't everyone want something different? Wasn't I the guy who ran on a promise of changing all that? Then the atrocities started trickling in, and soon we just leaked the AP story ourselves.

Yes, we leaked that. And the reason is that this game is turning kind of weird. I mean, I get a nasty thrill humiliating all of you - God help me, I do. But I'm also beginning to feel desperate. Part of me wants to see how truly horribly we can act, but another part wants people in the country to stop me somehow. I want to see if there are enough people willing to show the kind of spine you expect of grownup citizens in a free republic. Ugh, it's just like when I get careless, because I want Michelle to catch me smoking.

This is the point where it's now impossible to deny that my government is spying on all your phone and email traffic. The people who dismiss this by saying Bush did it, or that it's necessary, or by using any other excuse are hacks and cowards. Everyone now knows - if they didn't already - that we are maintaining an empire abroad by destroying freedoms at home. No one can pretend they don't see the connection. This isn't Alex Jones bullcrap - this is real.

What will it take? Will you let me attack Syria? How about Iran? How about more CIA kidnappings? What if I just assign everyone a government minder - will you squawk then?

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Honestly, I'd like Americans to show some courage. I mean, when a British newspaper is out there defending our freedoms it ought to make us ashamed. Britain! George III! We fought a war against those guys for our rights, and now here they are coming to our rescue. If that doesn't make you disgusted with yourself, I don't know what to do.

Screw it. I don't care. Even Cheney got a book deal when his time was up.

We're going to bomb Scranton. You bastards will probably still give me another Nobel.

"I'm Tired Of Transgressive Edgeplay" By Michele Bachmann

My fellow Americans: I wanted to be honest about why I'm not running for reelection. The truth is I'm tired. Tired of all of it. When I started this job I thought I'd found the purest form of kink possible, something that would never ever get boring. But it's time to admit it: It just doesn't ring Michele's joy-buzzer the way it used to.

Like a lot of you I started out pretty vanilla - one of those "safe, sane, consensual" BDSM clubs that advertise at a women's rec center and teach chubby middle-aged couples how to use a spreader bar. God I'm amazed I used to think that was daring! Anyway I wandered out of that pretty quickly: I toyed with different kinds of risk-aware stuff: a lot of humiliation and fear play. Then I did some suffocation, some punishment shaving, a little fire cupping... and a few kidnapping scenarios that got deep into some dark territory. But nothing, absolutely nothing, got my rocks off like being a socially conservative Republican. I thought the thrill would last forever. I really did.

Do you know what it's like to pass a law that straps a chastity belt around millions of people you don't even know? Or to start talking smack about how some random Muslim person might be part of a terrorist fifth column - and there's no way to prove he or she isn't of course, so they just have to live in a nightmare of paranoia you created? I choked out a whole roomful of sorority girls once and locked them in a storage unit. But what I did in Congress over these past few years was a thousand times more intense. I think rightwing politicians are exploring the last really shocking and unpredictable kind of dominance work in the whole world. Telling someone their entire life is going to be destroyed because I have these weird religious beliefs... that is one sick, hot ball of deviance right there. Putting a district court judge in pony-leather doesn't even come close.

But it's over. Whatever circuits I have are burnt out. I can't go back to hot wax and light spanking after this. It's time to close up shop and try to completely reinvent myself. I'm going to take a good long while and think about my next move. Goodbye.

And whoever moves into my old office: You might want to bleach it down. Thoroughly. Every surface. Stuff happened there.