There were SO many critically important national election races to watch Tuesday night that we can, I think, be forgiven for overlooking the contest between Democrat Colleen Lachowicz and Republican Tom Martin. They were both seeking to represent the 25th District in the Maine State Senate.
Colleen Lachowicz, social worker
Martin, the incumbent who won the seat in the last election, is the owner of an excavation and construction business. Lachowicz is a social worker who works for a non-profit mental health agency, treating adults with mental illnesses. She has a Master of Social Work degree and is a licensed foster parent. And she’s a level 85 orc rogue called Santiaga in World of Warcraft.
During the campaign the Republican Party of Maine suggested that her participation in the online gaming community made her unqualified to serve in the state senate. They even created a website called Colleen’s World in order to alert Maine citizens about her “disturbing alter-ego” and her “time-consuming double life.” The site includes comments Colleen made in WoW discussion groups.
To his credit, Martin said he was unaware of the attacks on Lachowicz (which were promoted by the Maine Republican Party rather than by Martin’s campaign) and he didn’t condone them. Still, the attack brought international attention to the state campaign and Lachowicz garnered the support of gamers from all over the world.
It pleases me enormously to be able to say Colleen Lachowicz is the new respresentative for Maine’s 25th District. Come January, an orc rogue will be sitting in the Maine State Senate.
Santiaga, Senator from Maine 25th District
There are two lessons Republicans can learn from this. First, if you embrace diversity, you win elections. Second, DO NOT FUCK WITH GAMERS.
I spent part of this morning reading some of the more extreme conservative political blogs. Two things stand out. One, of course, is that the United States is doomed because President Obama is going to steal everybody’s guns and deny them the right to buy gold and he’s going to give Mexicans and black folks free houses and hi-def satellite television. But they’re also saying with some consistency that Gov. Romney lost because he wasn’t conservative enough.
Gov. Romney concedes the election
On the surface, that sounds sort of logical. But it also suggests that voters went to the polls and said to themselves “That Mitt, he’s just too liberal…so I guess I’ll vote for Obama.” Or maybe it suggests conservatives just decided not to vote for anybody and sat on their patriotic asses all night. In the conservative blogs I saw lots of accusations of fraud, lots of paranoia, lots of anger, and lots of blaming.
What I didn’t see was a recognition that this is no longer the United States of Angry White Men. The harsh Ayn Rand “I’ve got mine, go fuck yourself” approach to conservatism just doesn’t resonate with the population of the U.S. as it now exists. Four years ago we elected a black man named Barack to the presidency of the United States. Last night we re-elected him. Think about that. A black man. Named Barack Hussein Obama. That right there is evidence that the American demographic has shifted toward inclusiveness and away from resentful exclusivity. But we still continue to see Republicans strive to restrict and reduce individual civil rights and liberties in everything from marriage to voting to immigration to a woman’s right to exercise her own decisions over the integrity of her body.
For more and more Americans, that shit just don’t play anymore.
Last night Maine and Maryland voted to expand marriage rights to same-sex couples, and it seems likely the State of Washington is about to do the same. Minnesota rejected a proposal to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. That’s NOT the action of an electorate longing for more conservative social principles. Last night two states expanded the use of medical marijuana, and two others voted to legalize and tax the use of marijuana. That’s NOT the action of an electorate longing for more conservative social principles. Last night two states supported ballot measures to restrict the power of corporations to donate monies to campaigns. That’s NOT the action of an electorate longing for more conservative social principles.
And yet despite all the evidence, a lot of conservatives continue to believe that the reason Mitt Romney lost was because he wasn’t conservative enough. Of course, a lot of them also believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, that climate change is a hoax, and the President of the United States is a not-so-secret Muslim Socialist who is deliberately trying to ruin the American economy in order to…in order to…shut up, that’s why. Right now the Republican party is more concerned with making the nation ungovernable than in pressing forward any agenda at all. That’s the approach of a spoiled, angry child.
President Obama teary-eyed in final campaign speech in Des Moines
Four years ago the last day of October was unseasonably warm. I was part of a large crowd that watched as then-Senator Barack Obama gave one of his last campaign speeches before the 2008 election. A couple nights ago it was much colder and I watched on television as President Obama gave an emotional speech — the last of his political career. He’s gotten older. So have we all. His appeal now is a more mature appeal. We know — and he knows — he’ll never be able to do all the things he wants to do. But we also know he’s going to try to do as many of them as he can. You can sense the president has an adult’s thin-stretched irritation with the behavior of Republicans in Congress, but you can also see an adult’s patience. It’s as if he believes and hopes that someday they’ll grow out of it.
Senator Obama in Des Moines, 2008
And here’s the crazy thing: I believe they will. I really do. As more Republicans come to recognize the change in the demographics of the electorate, they’ll begin to realize they can’t just rely on angry white men anymore — not if they want to actually shape policy instead of just oppose it. At some point they begin to understand that if they want to govern and not just obstruct governance, they’ll have to appeal to a broader range of voters.
When that happens, we’ll see the resurrection of moderate Republicans. And the nation will be the better for it.
It’s okay. We understand. You’re too polite to say anything, but we can tell you’re worried. You think there’s a pretty good chance we’re going to elect Mitt Romney as President of the United States.
Your anxiety is perfectly understandable, Canada. You’re concerned because Gov. Romney is what us folks south of the border like to call ‘a lying sack of shit.’ You’re nervous because you believe he’d be mind-bogglingly horrific as president. But most of all you’re also worried that if he gets elected, hordes of disgruntled Americans will flood across your border — that we’ll build tent cities in every Tim Hortons parking lot and we’ll turn the warmer less chilly parts of your great nation into an American ghetto.
Canada, you don’t need to fret. Think about it for a moment. When Barack Obama was seeking the nomination, he had to beat Hilary Clinton. Do you know how hard it is to beat Hilary Clinton at anything? Really really hard, is how hard. And Mitt Romney, who’d he have to beat? Rick Perry? Herman Cain? Michele Bachmann? That’s like beating the Three Stooges. Obama had to beat Hilary; Mitt Romney only had to beat Donald Fucking Trump.
Here’s the thing, Canada. You have to learn to ignore our news media. They have a vested interest in pretending the election is close. Americans are a great people, but we’re only capable of paying attention to stuff if there’s some drama involved. We’re like magpies in that regard; we make a lot of noise and we’re easily distracted by shiny objects. And yeah, sometimes we’ll shit all over everything. But here’s the truth: the popular vote is close, but President Obama has always maintained a significant lead in the Electoral College and he has something like a 70% chance to win.
Gov. Romney displaying his policy positions
So you can relax, Canada. Everything is going to be okay. Oh sure, we’ll still be sending out aerial robots to kill foreign folks we don’t like, and we’ll continue to elect people who think the world is 9000 years old to lower offices, but you won’t have to face a Romney presidency.
Probably. Just in case, I have my eye on a spot near the door in the parking lot of a Tim’s on Spadina Avenue in Toronto.
So today I had a brief discussion with a friend who tried to convince me that Gov. Romney is a ‘moderate’ in regard to a woman’s right to choose to have a legal abortion. “He supports abortion in cases of rape and incest,” my friend said, “and if the mother’s life is in danger.”
Well, that’s just fucking great. To whom would a woman have to prove she’d been raped in order to end her pregnancy? A doctor? A court? An elected representative? What evidence would she have to present to prove she’d been raped? How long would it take for that person to decide whether or not the woman would be allowed to terminate her pregnancy? What if the accused rapist denies it was rape — would there have to be some sort of due process hearing before the woman would be given permission to end the pregnancy?
The very notion that a woman should have to request permission from a third party in order to terminate a pregnancy is insulting. For that woman to have to ask permission after having been sexually assaulted compounds the offense. To suggest that women have to be allowed to make a decision about their own bodies is to treat women as if they were children, incapable of making a rational decision about the state of their own bodies. Permission and allow aren’t words that should even enter into the discussion.
You want a moderate position on abortion? I’ll give you one: abortion should be rare, but legal and safe — a decision to be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor. There you go, that’s moderate. Anything that takes the decision away from the woman affected is NOT moderate. Anybody who tries to convince you that it IS moderate doesn’t understand the situation. And this guy? This guy doesn’t have the vaguest hint of a clue about the situation. Moderate, my ass.
It was certainly the most quotable moment in last night’s debate. It was also the most telling moment in terms of Gov. Romney’s qualifications to be president. It was almost embarrassing to watch, but President Obama lost his patience took Romney to school.
Romney, it seems, wants the United States to build a bigger World War II-style Navy in order to fight against…who? The Navy of al-Qaeda? What Romney doesn’t understand is that a Navy built for second generation warfare is pretty much useless against a fourth generation warfare enemy like those we face in the modern world.
First generation war (1GW) was war between nation-states. It was warfare grounded in line and column tactics, both by land and naval forces; it involved bringing superior numbers into battle. 1GW was fought by troops in distinctive uniforms, which allowed them to tell friend from foe in close combat. It was contained warfare, fought in a limited battle-space. For the most part, military operations and wars were won by the side that brought the most men and/or ships to the battle-space.
That was true up until around the middle of the 19th century — the time of the American Civil War — when superior firepower generally replaced superior numbers as the critical factor for victory. Improvements in military technology created Second Generation Warfare (2GW). Troops and ships could attack each from a much greater distance, so the battle-space expanded. More effective weaponry (such as the Gatling gun seen below) allowed smaller units to be more effective. The side that could deliver the most munitions on target usually won the battle. There were always exceptions, of course (in 1GW as well), but no military commander would want to rely on exceptions to win a battle.
Both 1GW and 2GW depended on a fairly rigid top-down military hierarchy. Generals looked at maps, decided on lines of battle based on terrain and weather, gave orders about troop deployments, and the troops carried out those orders. Obedience and discipline by the troops was essential in order to synchronize troop movements and insure manpower and firepower would be in the right place at the right time. Individual initiative was frowned upon; it disrupted troop unity and synchronization.
Further improvements in military technology, however, stressed the advantages of speed and mobility over firepower, introducing Third Generation Warfare. Where 1GW depended on superior numbers and 2GW depended on superior firepower, 3GW depended on the ability of troop movements that surprised and confused the enemy. 1GW and 2GW relied on strategies that were essentially linear — bring up the troops or weapons, establish battle lines, then slug it out. 3GW, on the other hand, was non-linear. Highly mobile units could simply skip around or over battle lines and attack from unexpected directions.
The German’s Blitzkrieg during the Second World War was all about bypassing stationary targets and attacking where they weren’t expected. The use of helicopters in Korea and Vietnam did the same. 3GW is a war of maneuver rather than a war of territory. It requires generals to trust the initiative and decisions of local commanders, which has the effect of decentralizing the command structure. Instead of being given strict orders, in 3GW local commanders receive a general set of objectives and then decide how best to achieve them.
The wars the U.S. are involved in today, however, are Fourth Generation Wars (4GW). They are in many ways more sophisticated and, at the same time, more primitive. 4GW is no longer restricted to nation-states. Non-state participants (like al-Qaeda in the Muslim world or the FARC in Columbia) are actively engaged in 4GW. The goals of 4GW are essentially cultural rather than political, and therefore it’s highly decentralized. Small groups of combatants, often unaffiliated with any larger group, select objectives and attack them without any direction from a general in a uniform. Tactics considered ‘unacceptable’ to the modern rules of warfare are common and utilized effectively. In 4GW, the enemy is largely invisible until they strike.
The suicide vest, the IED, the hijacked commercial airliner — these are the tools of 4GW. Terror is a tactic, not just because of the loss of lives involved, but because of the disruption of ordinary life. The anxiety sparked by error in civilian populations and among the military in-country degrades our willingness to continue to fight.
Most importantly, the enemy in 4GW isn’t hampered by political realities. In the U.S. the political reality is the Commander-in-Chief needs to be able to give the electorate a timetable for success. 4GW combatants are cultural warriors, and they operate on God’s time. If the U.S. is in Afghanistan for another decade, the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban can carry on fighting their low-intensity war secure in the knowledge that at some point we’ll leave — and they’ll win.
Gov. Romney is locked into an out-moded mindset; he still thinks the biggest military is the best military. He wants to create a 2GW Navy to fight in a 4GW world. When he complains that the U.S. no longer has a military capable of fighting two large scale WWII-style land wars on two separate continents, he fails to comprehend that the world no longer fights those type of wars.
Sadly, what Romney and President Obama both fail to understand is that 4GW has an inescapable moral component. When members of the Taliban deliberately shoot a 14 year old girl in the head for advocating education for girls, people are appalled — but because the Taliban is a decentralized religious movement consisting of a shifting array of participants, the blame gets spread out and diffused. When a Predator drone fires a missile and accidentally kills members of a wedding party, it’s clear the act was committed by the United States and blame attaches squarely firmly to the U.S. When U.S. Marines are photographed urinating on the corpses of suspected Afghan insurgents, they are seen as representing the United States, whereas if a shadowy cell claiming some loose affiliation with al-Qaeda of Yemen throws acid in the face of a woman for refusing to wear the hijab, they’re not necessarily seen as representing anybody in specific.
Decentralization not only shifts the command structure, it diffuses responsibility for atrocities. For a modern state military force to succeed against a violent non-state participant, it’s necessary to redefine the term ‘success.’ An army or navy can’t root out the cultural ideas of the enemy; they can only offer support for alternative ideas and perhaps give those ideas fertile soil in which to grow.
Here’s the problem: ‘energy exploration’ instead of drilling for oil; ‘death tax’ instead of inheritance tax; ‘job creators’ rather than the richest two percent; ‘healthy forests’ and not logging.
energy exploration
Beginning in the 1990s, Republicans discovered that words have power and can shape emotion. Change the words describing a thing, and you can change how a person feels about that thing. You want to frighten people about health care reform? Refer to it as a ‘government takeover of health care’ and start talking about ‘death panels.’
frank luntz
There was nothing new about that idea. Politicians and preachers have been using that trick since the glory days of Greece. What was new was that Republican strategists (and most notably Frank Luntz) began to stress the important of playing on emotion over the formulation of policy. Symbolism began to trump ideas, scandal replaced debate over political positions. Instead of identifying weaknesses in the policies of Democrats, Republicans began using emotional arguments to frighten voters and turn them against their opponents. Even the smallest gesture can be re-interpreted this way; let’s not forget how the Obamas’ post-inaugural speech knuckle dap was turned into a ‘terrorist fist jab.’
terrorist fist jab
The Mitt Romney presidential campaign is the natural result of this approach to politics. He has essentially abandoned any attempt to formulate realistic domestic or foreign policies, opting instead to build a campaign around a few phrases, a handful of buzzwords, and the dissemination of scandal. His policies on jobs revolve around a deliberate misinterpretation of the statement “you didn’t build that.” His foreign policy is the president didn’t use the word ‘terrorism’ to describe the assault on the consulate compound in Benghazi. When that attack was raised during the last presidential debate, Romney didn’t didn’t discuss what sort of security might be appropriate for Benghazi, he was only interested in what words Obama used on what day. Everything is interpreted through a lens attuned to scandal, fear-mongering, and dog-whistle racism.
And hey, it’s working. Frank Luntz is right when he says most people make decisions primarily on emotion, not on intellect. Tonight, when you watch the debate, Romney will talk about being ‘resolute’ and ‘being a staunch friend to Israel’ and ‘standing up to Iran’ and Obama’s mythical ‘apology tour.’ He’ll use a lot of strong words, a lot of emotional words, and almost nothing of substance. He’ll be more concerned with looking and sounding presidential than in offering a coherent view of how the United States should act in the world as it is today. In the world of modern Republicanism, substance is secondary.
Like a lot of you folks, I was unaware this year, 2012, is the 100th anniversary of Oreo Cookies. I only became aware of it on June 25th, when Nabisco took what turned out to be a controversial step forward. On that day, in celebration of Gay Pride Month, they released this advert:
The ad, of course, delighted an awful lot of gay and gay-friendly straight folks. It was fun and funny, clever without being twee, and expressed a political and social position. That’s a lot to include in a simple advertisement.
Predictably, it caused an uproar among religious conservatives and homophobes. While liberals applauded, conservatives vowed to boycott Oreos specifically and Nabisco products in general. They swore would give their custom to Hydrox cookies — apparently unaware that Hydrox had gone out of business. It was a classic temper tantrum.
Kraft Foods, which makes Oreo cookies, rightly refused to back down. They released the following statement: “Kraft Foods has a proud history of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness. We feel the Oreo ad is a fun reflection of our values.”
What is just as cool — and what has sadly been overlooked — is that for the next 100 days Oreo celebrated their centennial anniversary by releasing an interesting new advert each day, commemorating some event. Here’s a sample:
The ad campaign was known as The Daily Twist. They used multiple agencies and a dedicated team of four designers to come up with these clever ads, and sadly not nearly enough people saw them.
So here’s your chance to make up for that. Go buy some Oreos. Support the company. Remind them that we appreciate their willingness to do what’s right instead of what’s safe. Eat some cookies in a good cause.
Today the House Oversight for Government Reform Committee is holding a hearing on the September 11th attack on the temporary US consular compound in Benghazi. Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is expected to be severely critical of the State Department’s decision not to increase the number of security personnel, as requested by some of the security staff.
That sounds like a reasonable criticism, given what happened as a result of the attack. Four deaths, including the Ambassador to Libya. The total destruction of the compound and its furnishings and equipment. The ransacking of intelligence documents that couldn’t be destroyed in time. It was, by all accounts, a disaster. Chairman Issa calls it the result of “inadequate security.”
Benghazi assault (STR/AFP/Getty Images)
In the hearing today, we probably won’t hear Issa address some of the more inconvenient facts. He probably won’t mention the fact that those security personnel would have been stationed in Tripoli, not in Benghazi — so their presence wouldn’t have had any effect on the situation. Nor are we likely to hear that one of the reasons the request for additional security personnel was denied was budgetary. That’s significant because since President Obama assumed his office, Congressional Republicans (including Darrell Issa) have consistently voted to reduce the budgets of the State Department in general and embassy security in particular.
In fiscal year 2011, House Republicans reduced the president’s budget request for the two agencies that provide security for the State Department by US$127.5 million. For the current fiscal year, they cut the budget for embassy security by $330 million. That’s almost half a billion dollars over the last two years.
It takes a lot of balls to complain about the lack of embassy and consulate security when you’ve spent the last few years reducing the funding for embassy and consulate security.
It’s also important to keep this event in context. An estimated 120 attackers armed with small arms, RPGs and mortars launched a coordinated surprise assault on a temporary consulate building that was only partially equipped with bulletproof windows and reinforced doors — a structure protected by only a handful of security personnel. Four American personnel were killed. Three days later 15 well-armed attackers launched a coordinated surprise assault on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan, the largest and most secure military base in that country, housing nearly 30,000 coalition troops and contractors. During the four hour firefight, two US Marines were killed and aircraft valued at $200 million were destroyed.
Surprise is an effective combat tactic. If Congressional Republicans are going to blame “inadequate security” for the deaths and damage resulting from a surprise attack by 120 insurgents on a lightly-protected soft target like a temporary compound, then don’t they have to also claim inadequate security for the death and damage done during a surprise attack by 15 insurgents on the most secure military base in all of Afghanistan? Are they going to claim the attack on Camp Bastion could have been prevented if they’d had an extra dozen security personnel?
? Chairman Darrell Issa
What happened in Beghazi was tragic. Nobody would claim otherwise. Congress has the right — even the duty — to investigate how that tragedy unfolded. It would be nice, though, if Chairman Issa was sincere enough to ask if budgetary cuts he supported played a part in the tragedy. I doubt he will.
I’m also willing to bet that Issa will continue to vote to reduce the budget of the State Department by hundreds of millions. And that he’ll vote to give military contractors another $200 million to replace those destroyed aircraft.
Congressman Issa is correct when he blames the event in Benghazi on inadequacy. But it wasn’t just the security that was inadequate; it was the competency of Members of Congress like Darrell Issa.
gregfallis.com 