Politician's Purgatory

Once upon a time there was a country that decided by a democratic process to model its behavior after Santa Claus. Every day there were presents provided for the “children” for in this country everyone wanted to be a child. Of course there were some who wanted to be Santa Claus and there were those who wanted to be elves. And since this was a democracy every four years they would nominate and elect a Santa Claus and he would distribute the toys and gifts for the next four years.

One year a very stingy Santa Claus got elected and he wanted more people to volunteer to be elves so there would be more gifts made for the “children”. Many of the “children” didn’t really want to work in Santa’s workshop because the hours were long and of course there was no pay. But Santa told the reluctant children that they were being very selfish for not wanting to work and build toys and gifts for the” children” and he said if they were not going to voluntarily work in the workshop he would have to make a law that if they didn’t want to work then they would have to anyway. This frightened the “children” and they announced that they would form a union and that union would shout to the rooftops that they didn’t believe in Santa Claus anymore. Santa told them that they would find their stockings empty every morning and they would be put on his list of bad little boys and girls. The rebellious “children” said they would impeach Santa because he was not a Santa in the real spirit of Christmas and he didn’t deserve the job. but Santa told them that they lived in a democracy and the majority of the “children” had voted for him and therefore he was the real Santa at least for the rest of his term. Being “children” they said that didn’t matter because they wanted a better Santa and they were not going to settle for anything less.

So the rebel “children” went door to door and asked all of the other children to jump up and down in the streets until Santa stepped down and they could get a new Santa. But many of the “children” were getting their toys and they were not interested in getting a new Santa, so many times they just slammed the door in the rebel ‘children’s” faces. Now this made the rebel “children” very mad and they decided that if they couldn’t get their way in a democracy that they would start a new form of government called an undemocracy. This undemocracy would not work where every “child” got to vote for Santa. Santa would be chosen from the rebel “children” ranks and he would stay Santa as long as he wanted to. Then one rebel child asked,” What if the new Santa is a bad Santa?” The other rebel “children” said that was a stupid question and they didn’t want to hear any more divisive comments. They then went to the Red House where Santa lived and told him that they were not going to live in a democracy any more and they would throw him out on his fat belly and put a new Santa that they liked in his place.
Now Santa was not a stupid politician. He told the rebel”children” they were certainly free to choose any form of government they wanted in the democracy but they had to vote on it. The rebel ”children” said,” Look what voting got us the last time.” So Santa said, “ Okay, but what if another group of rebel “children” don’t like your Santa?” The rebel “children's” spokesman said that was a divisive question and they didn’t want to hear it. So Santa said, “ Do you mean you do not want people to be divisive and not question you”? The rebel spokesman stomped his foot and got real mad. He screamed,” I want a new Santa and I want him now”. So Santa being the kind , but stingy, Santa he was, gave the reins of the sleigh to the spokesman and said he didn’t want Santa Country to be a country of unhappy “children” and he was going back to being a child. The spokesman then said we have to appoint a new Santa and the other rebel “children” said how will we do that? “Well we’re not going to vote on one so I’m going to appoint myself”.
The elves said they didn’t like him and they wouldn’t work to make the toys and gifts so he would have to be Santa without any toys and gifts to give out. The new Santa stomped his feet and screamed they had to work or else. The elves said ,”or else” sounded pretty good to them and they sat on their break benches and waited for the New Santa to give them gifts and toys. Soon they realized there would be no toys and gifts and they started to cry. All over the country you could hear crying for there were no toys and gifts and of course no elves that were willing to make them and even the new Santa’s reindeer refused to pull the sleigh. Soon everyone was hungry and miserable even the new Santa. Realizing he didn’t have the kind of a job he wanted he said he no longer wanted to be Santa and he wanted to be a child again, so he resigned. Now all the country was just filled with children crying and hungry and without new toys. They sat around all day and cried for a new Santa to bring them the toys and gifts they used to get. But no one heard their cries and soon one smart child decided that if there were to be any gifts or toys he would have to build them himself. So he began to build toys and gifts and when the other children saw that he had toys and gifts they said they wanted some too but they wanted to be like it used to be and Santa would deliver the toys to them. So they elected a new Santa and told him to take the toys the worker was making and give them to all of the children. But the worker said he couldn’t make enough for all the children and besides if he gave them to the other children he wouldn’t have any for himself. The children called him selfish and went back to their crying and the new Santa tried to recruit some elves but everyone now wanted just to be a child so he couldn’t recruit anyone to build toys and gifts.

The country named Santa Claus finally was overrun by a country called stingyville and the stingyvillans made the children work without pay and fed them water and stale bread. And as the children grew old and tired they used to talk about how they used to have lots of toys and gifts and didn’t have to do anything but play. They called this the “good old days” and pined nightly for the return of a Santa. But no Santa ever came because without elves to make toys and gifts there could be nothing for a Santa to give to the children so no one ever applied for the job. And that’s how Santa became forgotten by the children.

Politician's Purgatory

This blog begins with a simple question. If it is okay to kill the killers why isn’t it okay to torture the torturers? What is the point of capturing enemy warriors if there is nothing to be gained from their capture? Are we only taking prisoners to have them under our custodial care? What is the point of taking prisoners? Why does the enemy take our soldiers prisoner? Don’t they expect to gain something by this action? Whether it is to inflict terror and fear on television screens with bloody beheadings or to gain information or prisoner release or withdrawal from the battlefield, they expect something to be gained by capture instead of killing. But what is being proposed and articulated by our side is the proposition that we don’t necessarily expect anything from our prisoners if it requires torture.

The rules of war are really not rules. The basic command and rational understanding of a soldier is to kill the enemy before he kills you. It does not prescribe how the killing is to take place, what kind of weapon is “legal” or whether you should first ask the enemy if he would prefer capture to death. The rules of rational discourse are suspended on the battlefield between the enemies. Force is the only rule and superior force whether in numbers, technology or tactics determines who wins and who loses. Under the category of tactics falls the subcategory of torture. There are countless examples of American lives being saved when critical information is extracted by force, i.e. torture. Of course torture is not always effective but does this mean it must be eliminated as a tactic? If the enemy uses nuclear weapons are we going to claim we are better than them because we won’t? In the split seconds of battlefield decisions when seconds count, are we going to rule out some options that might have saved American lives? When an enemy uses torture he recognizes it is a tactic that may give him an advantage. How has the torture we have witnessed by our enemy on our soldiers and civilians disadvantaged them? We look in horror at the brutality inflicted on our fellow Americans by barbarian fanatics and announce we will not torture? Why? For what reason are we holding back while they proceed with every barbarous act imaginable? And there are those who cry compassion for those captured fanatics. Showing compassion for the enemy is showing disdain for Americans. There can be no such thing as compassion for the guilty and the innocent. Justice rejects such a contradiction.

It will not be acknowledged by those who cling to preaching of nonjudgmental pronouncements, but the fact of the matter is, evil actions must be recognized as products of evil ideas in people evil enough to blindly follow (and/or initiate) the destruction of human life in the name of some professed higher cause. An individual’s life is all that any individual has and to sacrifice that for the pretense that there can be some justification for wiping out other individuals who are innocent of any aggression is the most ignorant and evil decision a person can make. And to combine torture of the innocent with torture of the guilty into a rejection of torture as such, negates all who would fight the horrors of our enemies. The compassionate soldier will be the dead soldier under these restrictions. He will be confronted with the torture of losing his friend, the agony and torture of rejection by his commanders and country and for torturing the enemy he will be chastised as unworthy. This vision will cause him to pause in an interrogation that may save his fellow soldiers. This vision will appear as the rebuke to his common sense that everything must be tried to get the hiding place of the mass murderer or the location of the roadside bomb or the WMD’s that are destined to be launched. This albatross will hang on his neck and if he survives he can stare at his prison wall, awaiting enemy torture, content that at least he did not disobey an irrational dictate to try to save his life and his country.

The value of obedience is destroyed under the dictate of the irrational. You cannot ask a soldier to fight to the death and exclude some intermediate action. Just as you don’t supply your enemies with supplies neither should you exclude some tactic. This only creates a weakness for the enemy to exploit. How? If an enemy knows he will not be tortured he can freely surrender and infiltrate our prison camps, communicate with other captured prisoners and eliminate any source of information susceptible to torture. Meanwhile we treat the irrational as if they were rational and wonder why we are getting only erroneous information or no information at all. They eat and sleep at our expense, utilize medical care, and for what? For nothing.

What good will it do for us to be known as the people who would not torture their enemies. Does this set a standard for the world? Certainly not for our muslim enemies. Certainly not for other nations that utilize it as a tactic of war. And certainly not for the American soldier who in the thick of battle realizes that this tactic may be all that is left to save himself, his buddies or his country. There is no excuse for taking torture off the table. We are being laughed at by our enemies who now know that we can be intimidated by a moral code that is intellectually bankrupt but is preached as if there had been no invalidation. We are a superpower only to the extent we can utilize superpower. If war is to determine our survival we cannot accept that we were better than the enemy but we lost. We must fight tooth and nail to eradicate this menace and if killing is good enough for them so is torture. And if torture is defined as humiliation so much the better. Better them than us.

Politician's Purgatory

The Democrat’s Dogma


It has become more and more apparent to the discerning American voter that the Democratic Party has abandoned ideas for the option of dogma. This approach to reaching the voters peaked with the mantras of John Kerry attacking George Bush. The essence of his message was and is, “George Bush is doing everything wrong and we won’t do that”. What will they do? Whatever , who knows?

Dogma is the result of a lazy mind that wants to be heard but cannot clarify their thinking process to consider the facts. Facts are expendable in the mind of the dogmatist because whatever is said must match their preconceived notions whether the facts are consonant or not. Consider the mob that listens to the dogmatist and immediately chants a simple slogan usually aimed at deriding an opponent or projecting a political victory. And the follow up is the continuation of the derision of the opponent and in the case of political defeat, a cry of “foul”. There is no reflection on the causes of the defeat or the successes of the opponent. There is only the repeated verbalization of the need to obtain political power and how rotten it is that their past projections have been decoded as unacceptable to the voters.

Since dogma is an easy thing for those whose primary goal is to acquire political power without an understanding of its nature, the crowds of supporters like the fans of a perennial losing sports team cling to the shouts and slogans. The foolish “leader” listening to the shouts of encouragement from those that have the desire to oust the other party, takes his clue from their chants and rides the wave hearing only the cheers that echo the message that was presented and accepted. There was no reexamination of the message, no explanation of its validity and the central theme is an accusatory tone accompanied by vitriolic phrases.

Dogma has never created or led to progress in any endeavor. It is the product of a mind shut to thought. It is the nemesis of civilization. Yet for all it’s history and the misguided notion of the liberal mindset that assumes a sophistication and practices sophistry, the result is a mindless reversal to the barbarism of dogma. This is not the result of a mind working to know the truth but a deep seated desire to rule and control. When the Democrats found a political winner in the presidency of Bill Clinton, were they shocked at the cavalier attitude of a playboy in the White House? What he did didn’t matter to them. Power had been achieved and if they had achieved it personally they would have done no different. What else explains the lock step support for the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States who flaunted the law? They knew that what he said didn’t matter as long as he could win a political victory and they could ride the coattails. The vision of an embarrassed country was of no concern. They now could speak for the country even though they had nothing to say.

Since FDR the dogma of the Democrats has prevailed. Once they got on a socialistic bent it was only power that mattered. For a free citizenry restricting government would be a recognized necessity. The founding fathers didn’t talk of the benefits the government could provide but the need to restrict the government from reaching the stage of tyranny that they had observed. The Democrats abandoned that notion as soon s they bought into the idea that they could do the good things for people via government regulation and redistribution of wealth that could not be accomplished by the unfettered productive private citizen. And now that they have seen the rejection of that approach by those who are hearing the voices of support for privatization and limited government, they fall into the abyss of dogmatism in the hope that if the message is repeated loudly and often enough someone will swallow it just as they have.

But America rebelled against political dogma from the time of it’s creation. It knew of the servility of the European continent and the continued attempts to rule by force from Britain. And now the rebellion is again revived against what is recognized as the same old chant of more and more power to the government. There is also a recognition that the Republicans are reneging on their proposals to reduce the size of government and the redistribution of wealth. The Republicans are developing a dogma of their own based on the fact that they have achieved political power and they don’t want to relinquish it. The actions that don’t correspond to the promises and projections will open up this possibility. But in the mean time the Democrats will rely on nothing except the same old notion they sold to the voting public when the long term effects of their programs were not so evident. Social Security is dead and the Democrats know it but they will keep trying to shout down the reality of the situation with cries of shame on those who make an effort to eliminate this scheme that is destined to go broke. They ignore it will be their grandchildren that will take reduced benefits, if any, and the fact that government enterprises that reach outside of the true nature of government to protect individual rights are all destined to fall into bankruptcy. Just as the Soviet Union could not sustain the socialist notion neither can the United States as its political structure mimics the failed “experiment”.

The middle ages was a time of dogma and misery, the dogma of the middle east has wrought nothing but pain and death and the dogma of the Democrats has brought them the realization that political glory is an ever diminishing hope. The problem was not in their ambition but in their unwillingness to recognize that power in a democracy requires persuasion instead of a vision of impossibilities. And only dogma can sustain such a vision.

Politician's Purgatory

How to Win the War on Terrorism


The latest admonition from the pacifist Doomocrats is “the war in Iraq is not winnable”. The war in Iraq which is a battle in the war on terrorism is not only winnable but is absolutely necessary. Just as we “island hopped” on our way to Japan, just as we liberated France on our way to Germany we need to win in Iraq to set the stage for the next step which may very well require the invasion of Iran and/or Syria. To win the war on terror we must eliminate the terrorists. There is no negotiating with fanatics. We could not negotiate with Hitler nor the Japanese. With negotiation off the table that only leaves victory or defeat. Defeat would be not only suicidal but stupid. We have the means to defeat these middle ages barbarians and what we are lacking is the courage and will to show them what it is they are messing with. Any loudmouth can challenge and attack when he thinks the response will be tepid. The risk is low enough for him to attempt to bully that which he can’t defeat. He might get the recognition the Palestinian’s achieved or he might bluster threats like North Korea and Saddam Hussein. But if he thought Sherman’s March through Georgia would be a high probability you can bet the motivation to start something would be greatly diminished.

To win a war you have to define victory and it must include the unconditional surrender of the enemy. Our enemy is not “terrorism” but the states that sponsor and support terrorism and it includes all of the Muslim nations who allow, encourage in any way or promote the conquest of the West. Allowing the attacks that destroy the lives of people who have not initiated force is inexcusable. Either by the nations involved in this game of suicidal destruction or the United States of America by refusing to name all of our enemies and including them in our war operations. We attacked Afghanistan because the Taliban sanctioned terrorists activities, training and people we knew were terrorists. We properly attacked Iraq for the blustering threats and non-cooperation of Saddam. What we didn’t find has nothing to do with what the threat was. The battles that are ongoing proves there is and was a threat from this part of the world. We should enlist the support of Israel and quit trying to pretend the Palestinians are not supporting terrorist tactics. Once the lines are drawn the road to victory will be clear. Just fighting one or two countries when there are other countries who are participating in supplying and infiltrating is a ridiculous strategy. It is the result of politicians not wanting to “offend”. The notion of a limited war has been proven to be ineffectual, wasteful and creates the legacy of loss. Instead of pointing out the holes in homeland defense Congress should declare war against all the countries promoting and executing terrorism. No exceptions.

If Congress would do this, you would see the marginal terrorists states wilt and the others that still want to be defiant and belligerent either declare war openly or realize that the losses they would incur would not be worth the risk. Congress could state that unconditional surrender would be an option and acceptable for any identified terrorist state that wanted to avoid invasion. This would do away with the ineffectual war attempts of the past that have only led to either long term occupation or a stalemate or a defeat. Winning has to be reintroduced into the minds of Americans with regard to military action and not just a Saturday football game. If football was played as politicians wage war we would see players loaning equipment to the opposing team, cheering for some of them and worried if the fans would be upset if the tackle was too hard. There would even be diplomatic efforts to bribe the opposition to not play too hard. This is the kind of spectacle we see today and the seriousness of the consequences is far greater than a score that is soon forgotten.

Evidently it will take a far more critical event to trigger an attitude of winning a war decisively. As long as politicians can pretend to stage a war and be content with a limited military action and not feel the danger of defeat, we will continue to waste American lives on the limited notions of victory contained in the limited vision of our political leaders. This is unacceptable, irrational and dangerous. At present one can only challenge the childish notions of our political leaders who I find turn a deaf ear unless their employment becomes threatened. This too is the notion of a child that says I don’t have to and you can’t make me’. True, but playing in the street with a moving truck headed your way with this attitude won’t reduce the carnage and loss.

Politician's Purgatory

The Revenue Gatherers

In operating a business in the private sector there is a focus on the dual operations of revenue generation and cost containment. This is the combination that maximizes profit. Profit being the driving force, this purpose is the guideline indicating the success or failure of one or both of these operations.

On the other hand there is the approach used by the non-profits that amplifies the reach for revenues with cost containment given a perfunctory role. Notice such organizations as the U.S. Post Office. Do you ever remember the price of stamps dropping? If there were competition for the delivery of first class mail there would be an effort to keep the price of stamps lower or equal to the competitors, Since competition is forbidden by law this concern is vaporized. So when the Post Office finds that it can no longer offer enough services or wants to modernize its operation, it gravitates to the revenue generation facet of its operation and raises the price of stamps. You see this in the rise of tuition in state universities, Amtrak ( including a request for more subsidization), hospitals and any operation that includes a reach for government payments. But you see it most obvious in the operation of the Federal Government. Time after time Congress initiates a new spending program that requires more money than anticipated ( because of the desire to upgrade technology and inflation ) and then finds that re-funding of the program becomes necessary to keep the program active. Social Security is but one example. There was no foresight that the population could shift from young able workers to a preponderance of retirees. There was no provision for the people who paid and died too early to obtain any benefits. There was only the presumption that if we need more money to keep the system alive we’ll simply raise revenue via taxes or borrowing and hope the pain for the contributors doesn’t reach the point of rebellion.

The hypocrisy of this approach becomes most evident when a private industry such as the oil industry, restricted from drilling on American soil by law and regulated to the extent that refinery construction is delayed and practically eliminated ,tries to raise revenue by higher prices. The government that practices revenue gathering to cover its poor planning denounces the oil companies for not doing more to conserve. The government wants oil companies to keep their prices low, cut their costs and develop alternative methods of energy generation but the Post Office et al. just needs to raise their rates. Why this double standard? Because nobody recognizes the difference between the nature of business and government. Politicians run on platforms that espouse the virtue of running government like a business. They speak of their business background and how they will translate this experience into running a more efficient government. This is a false hope and a dishonest promise. Government has no competitors, does not operate on a profit motive ( nor should it ), and primarily requires revenue gathering to cover its deficits.

Ideas that don’t work can be perpetuated only if they are not challenged and replaced with new ideas that conform to real situations. We see this in the “Peace Process” of the Middle East and in the continuing rise in postage stamps prices. Clinging to old notions, such as the one that government can do all and doesn’t need to have a limitation on its activities perpetuates the very real misery of wasted tax payments, rising costs of living on people with fixed incomes, higher and higher costs of education and health care and an eventual lowering of our standard of living. Government can sooth the citizen that inflation is contained but even a little inflation over time becomes a burden. Government services that cannot get the political backing for increased taxation to gather revenues must eventually reduce services or ration. This means the politically favored will get some portion of the benefit but those not in favor with the powers in government will do without that which they are paying for. These truths revealed can be ignored and obfuscated by those who want to pretend that everything will work out okay in spite of the contradictions because they have been able to be used in the past. What these pretenders ignore is the obvious trends of their policies. Social Security needs revenue gathering to survive. This is a fact that even the most evading pretender will eventually have to face. What is the solution? It’s really quite simple. Face down the pretenders with the facts. Write and speak as often and as effectively as you can and never allow the pretenders to perpetuate their myths without a well reasoned challenge. Every time you hear of a new government program ask yourself how much this program will cost in the future and where will the money come from. Look at the history of the expenditures of the government and how they have always covered their deficits. Look to the future when money must be printed in such volumes that devaluation is required and ask yourself why you didn’t think it was important enough to stand up against. Like locusts , the revenue gatherers will continue their scam as long as they can continue unopposed. They must be identified for who they are and what they are doing. Their way of “doing business” must be exposed for the sham that it is. Then and only then will we be able to see the results of the advantages of a limited government and an unlimited horizon of economic prosperity.