I am a design science revolutionary which means that I am primarily apolitical. The design science revolution is a technological one. Technology includes social constructs such as the machinery of our government and the public discourse so essential to Democracy. The 2004 election is extremely important because it is the first time in decades that one political party, the Republicans, control all of the major branches of our government: the executive, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. For a lower case 'd' democrat like myself the prospect of unchecked Republican power is ominous. The objective of this notebook is to record my writings to try to frame the political discourse in a civil and comprehensively considerate manner. I will endeavor to be courteous, respectful, incisive, truthful, and logically rigorous. Please send feedback to cjf@CJFearnley.com.
Subject: A lesson from this election's cognitive dissonance
Date: 6 November 2004
For the first time in history, a President is reelected despite not
winning the popular vote in his first term. The promotion of a "culture
of life" includes the hypocritical moral values of a bloodbath for oil in
Iraq and serious violations of the Geneva conventions. A President who is
allegedly strong on terror, loses in every state where the 9/11 terrorists
struck (and by 85% in NYC, site of the worst of 9/11). Strident, violent
vengeance is embraced by the leader of so-called compassionate Christians.
Lies about WMD and the non-connection between Saddam and 9/11 are
believed by the majority of the winner's voters. Most of the country
wants change, but votes for more of the same. Even the Red Sox won!
Past is not prologue. My calculus of justice itself is stymied.
Insight comes only when I remember the words of Buckminster Fuller: "Dare to be Naive". We humans are fundamentally ignorant about how the world really works. We need to acknowledge that. The most important lesson I take from the Presidential election is that we cannot afford to wait for voters or politicians to secure our future. They didn't protect us on 9/11 and it is clear to me that they won't protect us in the future. It is each of our individual responsibilities to set the world right, to join in common purpose to make the world better in whatever little ways we can but with greater urgency than in times past. Our future freedom depends, as I believe it always has, on the collective integrity of each individual to do what they see as just and right.
Subject: President Kerry would show civility and respect
Date: 16 October 2004
Reflecting upon the debates today, I am most struck by how respectful
Kerry was when disagreeing with President Bush. He always explained the
facts or the policies with which he disagreed and why. Kerry disagrees
sharply with Bush, but in the debates he never so much as implied that
Bush's ideology or character were "bad". That's respect. President
Bush tended to flatly assert that this or that thing Kerry said was
"inconsistent" or "liberal". Bush rarely gave a deeper rationale for
his disagreement. It gave the impression that Mr. Bush only sees the
world in terms of Black and White, Right or Wrong. That isn't leadership,
it is called divisiveness.
Our President is America's face to the world. Kerry proved to me by his respectful discourse in the debates that he would show the world tolerance and respect. Kerry showed that he has a deep understanding about how to disagree and battle with the opposition in a respectful and positive way. Several times he reached out to President Bush with compliments and accord (only reluctantly did Mr. Bush return the favor). I am starting to really see how Kerry could restore America's respect in a world that feels betrayed by President Bush's blunt "You're with us or against us" conceptuality. And maybe, just maybe President Kerry's respectful approach will bring civility back to American politics.
Subject: Bush shows unsteady emotions and weakness on unemployment in
third debate
Date: 13 October 2004
Bush was incoherent and repetitive in the first debate, overly angry and
aggressive in the second, and nervously smiley in the third. My concern
is that our President in a tense debate setting (not unlike the strained
situations involved in international diplomacy or getting congress
to work with him to solve complex budget issues) has trouble managing
his emotions. Kerry was much steadier, he varied his emotions to the
situation, he seemed much more Presidential in both mood and stature.
Bush's answer to a question about unemployment was to offer the promise of a good education, going to "a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century". If someone is unemployed how can they afford to go to college? The tax cut doesn't help someone who is unemployed. Bush is right that education is important for jobs in the long term, but he completely failed to address the immediacy of the current situation (we are adding too few jobs to even keep up with population growth). Kerry spoke to the most salient issue: "help workers to transition in every respect".
It strikes me that those are two of the most important observations about the third Presidential debate.
The
Washington Post's transcript of the 13 October Presidential debate.
FactCheck: New And Recycled Distortions At Final Presidential
Debate
CATO Institute Report:
May 7, 2003 A Case for Divided Government argues that when power is shared
in Washington, government works better.
CATO
Institute rankings of fiscal spending by recent Presidents
Subject: The source of Kerry's fresh credibility
Date: 3 October 2004
The Bush administration told America and the UN that Saddam was a serious
threat. Dick Cheney warned about a mushroom cloud, Bush said Saddam was
trying to get uranium from Africa, and the whole administration said that
Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). None of which
turned out to be true: there were no WMD, no active nuclear programs,
no active WMD programs. America has a serious case of egg on its face.
The international cold shoulder that President Bush is receiving is due to
the fact that very few nations trust him after his unjustified Iraq war.
I too lost my confidence in President Bush's integrity. That is why Kerry
is the source of fresh credibility for America again. By highlighting
the problem of Bush's untrustworthiness, Kerry showed that he will be
able to restore America's respect as an honest truth-telling nation.
Subject: Kerry's approach to fight terrorism seems more balanced and comprehensive
Date: 2 October 2004
In the debate President Bush said that the centerpiece of his terrorism
policy is "to stay on the offense". Senator Kerry outlined his
multi-point plan: bring a fresh credibility to lead strong alliances,
reach out to the Muslim world, strengthen our military, strengthen our
intelligence, go after the financing more authoritatively, vigorously
oppose nuclear proliferation, invest more in COPS, fix some of our tunnels
and bridges and most exposed subway systems, inspect more containers in
our ports, x-ray the cargo compartments, fully staff our firehouses,
better protect the nuclear and chemical plants, as well as kill the
terrorists with an offense. I get the impression that the Bush plan
was to attempt a knockout punch with large-scale military operations
in the middle east (I can't believe they really want endless war).
Kerry's approach is to proceed with many more smaller but significant
strengthenings. I think Kerry's more balanced and comprehensive
approach will work out much better because the world is complex and big
operations involve tremendous costs and risks that can easily backfire
(witness Iraq).
Subject: Kerry showed how we can get out of Iraq honorably
Date: 2 October 2004
When Senator Kerry said "I will make a flat statement: The United States
of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq", it showed that
he has a deep understanding of the cause of the resentment fueling
the Iraqi insurgency. When he said that, I finally saw that he can
deliver on his promise to get us out of Iraq honorably. Kerry would
bring a fresh start and new credibility to moving Iraq from an American
occupation to a young democracy. When President Bush's claims that we
would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proved to be untrue, he
lost the credibility needed to win the peace in Iraq. Kerry convinced
me that his new credibility would bridge the gap.
The Washington Post's transcript of the 30 September Presidential debate.
Subject: Kerry showed strong, incisive leadership on nuclear
proliferation
Date: 1 October 2004
When Kerry introduced the issue of nuclear proliferation as the number
one threat to America, he showed strong and incisive leadership. During
President Bush's watch, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved their
"doomsday clock" from nine minutes to midnight to seven. Their reason
was the slowness in securing nuclear material and "U.S. abandonment of
the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and U.S. efforts to thwart the
enactment of international agreements designed to constrain proliferation
of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons". Kerry incisively pointed
out Bush's failure to lead on this critical issue. Kerry also showed
how President Bush's program for bunker-busting nuclear weapons sends
a mixed message to Iran and North Korea. Kerry's leadership on this
issue stands in stark contrast to President Bush's failure to prevent
North Korea from building nuclear weapons.
Subject: Kerry was strong, decisive, and Presidential in the debate
Date: 30 September 2004
Kerry impressed me with his leadership in the discussion on nuclear
proliferation as the most significant threat we face. Bush seemed too
relaxed, nonchalant, and folksy for a war time President. I thought it
was confusing when he said that the future of Iraq is in the Iraqis hands
(is that why they are killing our troops?). In a time of war, we do not
need a nonchalant, folksy leader, we need one with incisive ideas who
can use his smarts to do the job right. Kerry impressed me about that.
It was a telling vignette when Kerry joked about some of the things the Bush daughters said and Bush responded by saying that "I'm trying to put a leash on them". Kerry smartly pointed out that he learned long ago not to do that. It made Bush seem patriarchal, not modern. It was Bush's patriarchal decision to go to war in Iraq without a broad coalition and without the troops or the plan needed to win the peace that has put us in a vulnerable position in the middle east. It spoke volumes about the quality of the men in that exchange.
Subject: A very troubling Republican ditto-head campaign
Date: 25 September 2004
I am very troubled by the stream of ditto-head, "talking point" derived
comments that have been delivered by several key Republican leaders to try
and associate John Kerry with the innuendo of increased likelihood for
a terrorist attack. It started with Cheney's comment about us getting
"hit". President Bush added to the message with his comments about the
danger of "mixed signals". Deputy Secretary Of State Richard Armitage
said that Iraqi insurgents are working to influence the US election.
Orrin Hatch, Dennis Hastert, and Oliver North have all piled it on
saying similar things. This is scary talk. If there is evidence
that the terrorists have a plot of this nature from captured cell phone
conversations, terrorist web sites or informants, then the American public
needs to know the facts and have it independently verified. Otherwise,
this is simply an insidious, baseless attempt to smear John Kerry from the
core of the Republican party. America deserves (after 9/11) to have an
intelligent discussion of ideas and analysis of the candidate's records,
not baseless smearing and fear-mongering. We deserve better.
Subject: Bombing cities filled with civilians is wrong
Date: 25 September 2004
Yet again this morning's news includes reports that an American bombing
of a suspected insurgent position has killed women and children.
What happened to the effort to win over Iraqi "hearts and minds"?
Bombings in heavily civilian areas tend to entrench an insurgency.
It happened in Vietnam, it is happening in Iraq. Has President Bush
so lost his patience and his moral integrity that he would sanction
risky bombing operations that are certain to strengthen the insurgency
and continue killing women and children? The only way to control the
insurgents is to send in tens of thousands of troops. We need to stop
killing women and children with indiscriminate bombs.
Subject: Integrity, trustworthiness and the war in Iraq
Date: 24 September 2004
A key element in the debate around this year's election is the integrity
and trustworthiness of the Presidential candidates in respect to the
war in Iraq. In President Bush's 2003 state of the union address, he
alleged that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa and had stockpiles of
chemical and biological weapons. In fact, these claims turned out to be
unwarranted. By leading America to war based on a litany of groundless
allegations, President Bush severely damaged America's respect as an
honest peace-loving nation. Never before did America "cry wolf" over
matters of war and peace. Even if there was no intent to lie, Bush's
judgment and integrity on matters of national security will never again
be trusted at face value by most Americans let alone the rest of the
world and its leaders. Although I recognize that complete integrity
is impossible for finite humans to fully achieve, we should demand the
highest standards of integrity from the President of the United States
of America. This President lowers those standards below my personal
threshold.
Subject: Changing strategy and tactics is necessary in war
Date: 22 September 2004
In military briefings about Iraq, our generals often explain that in
war they must continually adjust tactics and strategy to deal with an
ever changing enemy. Evidently, our military understands this critical
element for success in war: it is imperative to incisively respond to
the salient aspects of the actual situation. President Bush's warning
"not to wilt or waver or send mixed signals to the enemy" caricatures
his failing to appreciate the need to change tactics and strategy when
faced with new facts. When I listen to John Kerry talk about Iraq,
I do not hear "wilting" or "wavering", I hear a man who is continually
evolving his thinking about how best to adjust our tactics and strategy
to win the peace in Iraq. President Bush needs to learn something from
the US military: in both life and war it is often necessary to change
your position when faced with unexpected facts and factors. It is pure
obstinacy to steadfastly stick to an ineffective policy.
Subject: Why do some wars divide America?
Date: 20 September 2004
America rallied together for WWII and Bush's war against Al Queda in
Afghanistan. Why is it that America divided over the Vietnam and current
Iraq wars? I submit two speculations that deserve careful thought.
First, wars tend to receive widespread support if they are in direct
response to significant attacks (e.g., Pearl Harbor, 9/11, etc.).
This makes sense because the strategy of "tit for tat" has been shown
to be the best policy for building and policing cooperative win-win
relationships. Secondly, united support for wars can be sustained when
they START with widespread support. Neither Vietnam nor the current
Iraq war had strong support at the beginning. America always gives
its commander in chief the benefit of the doubt. But if the President
doesn't win a quick victory or start with enough support to get the full
commitment of most Americans, divisions start to form and begin to fester.
In conclusion, it may be that in a Democracy with free speech, we are
only able to remain united in war when the cause and the stakes are
clear to a large supermajority of Americans from its beginning.
Subject: Seeking victory against terrorism
Date: 19 September 2004
Consider the incisive quote from Sun-Tzu's The Art of War: "In war, then,
let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns." President Bush
has sold us an arduous, bloody campaign against terrorism. A strong
leader would focus steadfastly on victory, instead of getting distracted
by a crusade to try to impose democracy by force of arms in the Middle
East. Bush's battle cry that we "fight the terrorists abroad" is not a
strategy for victory, it fails to address the root causes of terrorism and
assumes we can outspend and outlast them in a lengthy, bloody war with no
end in sight. As a result of the quagmire that Bush's Iraq campaign has
generated, terrorism has launched a successful and growing counterattack
practically every day this past past month. President Bush doesn't seem
to understand the art of war. America desperately needs leadership that
understands what it takes to get a real victory over terrorism.
Subject: Measuring success in the war on terror
Date: 18 September 2004
Terrorism in Russia has recently surged. This week we learned that
14 American governors received booby-trapped letters. Each day this
past week brought new carnage from terrorism in Iraq. The problem
with President Bush's war on terrorism is that we are LOSING ground.
During the Clinton administration and the first couple of years of
Bush's administration Al Queda's war against America was only able to
strike a few times per year. Although the situation was intolerable,
they were not able to strike monthly let alone daily. During the past
year of the Bush administration terrorism has become rampant: a near
daily occurrence somewhere in the world. The measure of progress in
the battle against terrorism ought to be the frequency and severity of
attacks. By this measure Bush's terrorism policy is a miserable failure.
Subject: Freedom, transparent government and terrorism
Date: 14 September 2004
Two of today's news items concern
me deeply. First, Rep. Waxman released a
congressional
investigative report documenting the growing secrecy of the Bush
Administration which is leading us away from
a more open, transparent and trustworthy government. Secondly,
a report
on ABC News that President Putin is proposing a major extension of Kremlin
control over political and security structures. Combined these
reports document a scary trend: both in America and in Russia: a trend
toward more totalitarian behavior by government. Thomas Jefferson said
"When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the
government, there is tyranny." Let us not allow the fear of terrorism
to drop our guard against the more omnipresent fear: fear of tyranny.
Subject: The connection between freedom and terrorism
Date: 13 September 2004
I am struggling to understand President Bush's view that a lack of freedom
is the cause of terrorism. Why would a terrorist who is oppressed by
a non-free government respond by hating America and wanting to kill
Americans? It just doesn't make any sense. Terrorists tend to attack
elements of the society that oppresses them, not random disinterested
foreign powers. For example, the Boston Tea Party (an early instance
of economic terrorism) directly attacked British interests. The only
resolution to this contradiction seems to be to acknowledge that the
terrorists must feel oppressed by the US government. If that is so, how
is it that by further meddling with their affairs (in Bush's euphemism
"freeing them"), will we root out terrorism? The cause cannot be a cure.
Subject: Lack of freedom is evidently not a root cause of terrorism
Date: 12 September 2004
President Bush's web site says "Above all, [our security] requires
bringing freedom to people for whom it has been too long denied, for
free people do not support terror." Then he asserts that Iraq has been
freed by the US forces. The logical conclusion is that the people of
Iraq no longer support terror. The truth is that the war in Iraq seems
to have let terrorism become rampant. Clearly, something is seriously
wrong with President Bush's logic.
Subject: Taking responsibility for 9/11
Date: 11 September 2004
In the three years since 9/11, I have heard very few in government,
with the notable exception of Richard Clarke, apologize and take
responsibility for the events of 9/11. It is an important element of
leadership to honestly take responsibility for events even if they were
beyond your control. Since our government plays the blame game instead
of taking responsibility for 9/11, it is necessary for our citizenry to
take the lead and show the way. I, Chris Fearnley,
failed
the American people on 9/11 by failing to anticipate and address salient
issues that might have led to increased security in America and around
the world. I am deeply sorry for my shortcomings that allowed 9/11
to happen. I
commit
to redouble my efforts to work for the success of all humanity and
to endeavor to find solutions to the
problem of global security. Since I made that commitment in 2002,
my life has changed significantly. I invite everyone to join me in this
cathartic effort.
Subject: Is the Iraqi insurgency too broad-based for us to defeat?
Date: 9 September 2004
The news that Fallujah and many other parts of Iraq have again come
under complete control by the insurgents is very disturbing. It suggests
that the Iraqi insurgency is broad-based. Our experience in Vietnam and
Russia's wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya demonstrate that broad-based
insurgencies are practically impossible to suppress even with superior
force. President Bush needs to give us a new, more incisive plan to
secure the peace in Iraq than simple steadfastness and consistency.
That plan has not worked and seems to be continually losing ground.
Subject: Decisiveness in the war in Iraq
Date: 8 September 2004
G.H.W. Bush's incursion into Panama and war in Iraq ended decisively.
President Clinton's sucessful war in Kosovo also ended decisively.
The trouble with this President's handling of the war in Iraq is that it
is not over and shows no sign of coming to a decisive end any time soon.
One of the main lessons learned from the Vietnam war was that before
we go to war, we must ensure that not only can we win the battles but
we must also win the peace so our troops can come home. Unfortunately,
President Bush did not learn that lesson.
Subject: Troops killed in Iraq exceeds one-third of 9/11 death toll
Date: 7 September 2004
2,752 people died on 9/11 in NYC. We went into Iraq allegedly to prevent
catastrophes of that scale. The Iraq catastrophe continues to grow more
costly and deadly by the day for the American taxpayer, our soldiers and
their families. Add in the toll paid by coalition partners, other third
party noncombatants like the Red Crescent and the UN, plus innocent Iraqi
civilians and the Iraq war has turned out to be a greater human tragedy
than 9/11. Terrorism has become more frequent since the Iraq war began.
This war is becoming a greater terror than terrorism itself.
Subject: The hobgoblin of small minds
Date: 6 September 2004
It seems that the Republicans believe that steadfastness and consistency
are the primary virtues of leadership. So they have been highlighting
Senator Kerry's alleged flip-flops. But Emerson said it best: "A foolish
consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." I hope we soon see an end
to this divisive tactic of criticizing small inconsistencies. No human
is immune from such allegations: the world is simply too complicated.
Indeed, President
Bush first opposed but now supports the Department of Homeland
Security. That makes him a flip-flop too. All this proves is that
both candidates are mistake-making human beings.
Subject: Has President Bush turned the words "freedom"
and "liberty" into Orwellian double-speak?
Date: 5 September 2004
During President Bush's convention speech he spoke at length about
liberty and freedom in the context of the war in Iraq. He compared the
Iraq war to WWII and our liberation of Germany. Would we have accepted
Hitler if his rationale to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland was to
liberate it? Would we have trusted Stalin if his argument to invade
Hungary and Czechoslovakia was for freedom and liberty? Of course not!
Freedom and liberty is not an acceptable reason to fight a war. If it
was, every country could simply invade their neighbors to give them
the gift of their form of "freedom" and "liberty". By using the words
"freedom" and "liberty" in this way, President Bush only increases my
cynicism as to his true motives in Iraq.
Subject: Zell Miller's Angry Tirade
Date: 4 September 2004
Zell Miller's keynote speech to the Republican National Convention was
an extremely angry tirade --- he scowled the whole way through. I am
very concerned about how Democracy itself can survive if angry character
assassinations like Zell Miller's continue to play such a strong role
in politics. Rancor like Miller's that treat not just John Kerry but
thousands of his colleagues in the Democratic party and anti-war movement
as unfit to serve their country are the lowest form of gutter politics.
I hope that this election campaign becomes an honest discussion where
both sides learn from the other and together build a plan to make America
safer from both terrorism and our complex economic troubles. After all
we are all Americans and we ought to be in this together.
Subject: Bush's first big mistake in the war on terrorism
Date: 3 September 2004
"I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office, a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make," Bush said. "Do I forget the lessons of Sept. 11 and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."This is precisely the moment when President Bush made his first big mistake in the war on terrorism. There were still many options to ensure that the threat of Saddam Husein would be neutralized. The UN weapons inspectors were making significant progress despite Saddam's foot dragging and would have been able to certify Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction within six months according to Hans Blix's estimate. By rushing to war before we had a plan to win the peace or secure help from additional European and Arab powers, President Bush created a new round of support for Arab hatred of America which is one of the primary root causes of terrorism. Bush blundered badly.
Subject: A Secure America in a Secure World
Date: 3 September 2004
FPIF has released a proposed framework
for securing America in the post 9/11 world. I have reviewed their
plan and find it to be the most incisive plan that I have seen to date.
It is especially keen in its treatment of addressing the root causes of
terrorism which most other efforts have omitted.
Please read the report at
http://www.fpif.org/papers/04terror/index.html
and share your impressions with me.
Then join me in the effort to secure America by helping to ensure that
this incisive, comprehensive plan is thoroughly discussed so that it
can be improved and implemented.