I'm not sure that “courage” is the correct word. When my son was a Cub Scout and I was preparing him and his friends to advance to Boy Scouting, we discussed courage. They were, after all, expected to be brave to be good Scouts. I told them the story of Audie Murphy.

Audie Murphy was one of America's most decorated heroes during World War II. Miraculously, he survived and returned home to great acclaim. After convincing the boys that he was a hero, I challenged them to decide if he was brave. Obviously, they were confused by the question (much as you probably are). Let me explain.

I was the Chief of Awards and Decorations during the better part of my tour of duty in Vietnam. I led many panels of senior officers as they evaluated and passed judgment on recommendations for awards for valor. Although it is popular to refer to all service men and women as heroes these days, I learned that there are those who go above and beyond ordinary heroism. They act when others fear to act. To put a fine point on it, they do what is necessary to win the battle, to save the lives of others at great risk to their own, in spite of their fear. In other words, they share the same fear as the others around them, but act in spite of it while the others don't. Those Cub Scouts and I agreed, that is the definition of courage.

As I studied Audie Murphy's many awards, I discovered that he was often confused as the award citation was read. It was as though he was hearing a story for the first time and surprised to learn that it was his. It seems that he may have acted in a fugue state as when, for example, he attacked a German heavy tank with nothing but a pistol in one hand and a grenade in the other. Where was the fear? Without fear, can there be courage? Make no mistake. Audie Murphy earned every award and decoration he received, for the accomplishments if not the courage. Who cares how he dealt with fear? We celebrate his contributions to the defeat of our nation's enemies.

As I look back on my first novel, Rebels on the Mountain, I realize that it simply was not a made up story. It is, in fact, my fantasy. As a boy I had been chosen to pilot a yacht on a cruise to Cuba and denied the opportunity when my father withdrew his permission. In writing the novel, I made the trip in my imagination.

I made the story as historically accurate as possible to give substance to the fantasy. Did I include famous personalities such as Ernest Hemingway as part of that effort or to appease a self-serving motivation to fraternize with such a famous author? Was my treatment of Che Guevara in my novel fair, or was I abusing him as payback to another person, a boy from my youth, who stole my girlfriend and then threw her off, much as Che threw off wives and children? Did I include a romance with a mulata because I know that a relationship between a white and non-white would have driven my own father crazy? (I abhorred his prejudices, still do to this day.) Lastly, was the courage of my hero just a reflection of my own wish to be a little like Audie Murphy?

How could I have bared my soul to the world like that? Was it courage or, like Audie Murphy, was I completely unaware of what I was doing at the time I wrote the novel?

I suppose that if authors are to be successful, they must either be truly courageous or totally oblivious to what they are doing because, after all, all fiction is someone's fantasy.

For minorities, the road to hell is a freeway liberally paved with the worst of unintended consequences. For example, nothing has entrenched poverty more than the War on Poverty and the poor are threatening to become a new majority. However, some consequences are not unintended. One minority, veterans – less than seven percent of living Americans have served – are targeted. As with all minorities, some hold veterans in high esteem, some revile and vilify them, but most seem not to think of veterans much one way or the other except for Memorial and Veterans Days. 

Politicians appear to fear veterans. Under their direction, Homeland Security conceives of scenarios wherein veterans lead armed TEA Party insurgents against the government and train for this eventuality. (See Training Facility Resembles American City) Strange, but aren't coups generally restricted to nations suffering a tyrant? Most recently I learned that career politicians fear election challenges from veterans. California legislators have crafted election laws barring veterans from announcing their service on ballots as though this might give veterans an unfair advantage in challenging their incumbency. Witness the following letter to California's Orange County Register from a veteran who is a candidate for US Congress.

“Last year I filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for California's 45th Congressional District, and this week I turned in all the required signatures to the Orange County Office of the Registrar for inclusion on the June ballot. Like other non-incumbent candidates, I am limited to three self-descriptive words below my name on the ballot, while incumbents and elected officials may use a larger amount of space to puff up their credentials. Here is yet another law that handicaps non-incumbents and entrenches the current governing elite. Nevertheless, within these constraints I chose the three words 'USMC Combat Veteran', which describes my life and personal history best. However, the California Secretary of State handbook disallowed me from using those words, and I was forced to pick three other words to describe me. I am saddened, as I am sure other proud veterans would be, that I was prohibited to use the word 'Veteran' to describe myself to voters. It's a shame to forbid patriotic veterans to describe themselves as such. Those who served our country with honor and distinction and whom want to run for public office should be allowed to represent themselves honestly and without artificial limitations.”

Colonel Raths appears to be reading the law correctly.

Forgive me if I digress to my children's youth. I can't help myself. The prohibited terms hardly seem to belong together.

Sure, “Patriot” and “Philosopher” are “P” words, but “Veteran” is easy to distinguish without looking at its initial letter. It is an official designation. The other two are not. So how do you suppose that “Veteran” found itself among such offensive company? Could it be that “Veteran”, unlike the other designations, could influence voters as much as “Incumbent”. Obviously, “Incumbent” is a magical word. Look at how many incumbents use it on their ballot and are reelected.

We must keep in mind the purpose of these regulations and prohibitions.

20710. General Provisions.

1. The regulatory purpose of this Chapter is to ensure the accurate designation of the candidate upon the ballot in order that an informed electorate may intelligently elect one of the candidates.
   
   

It's easy to see how “Philosopher” and “Patriot” may be misleading, especially since there are no professional credentials to support such a claim. But “Veteran”? Hardly.

To be honest, I sympathize with the politicians in this case. It must be truly frightening to oppose someone who has obviously placed duty, honor, and country above all else while they, politicians, are an especially reviled class.

I've enjoyed following Brooke McEldowney's animation of Shakespeare's classic tale of romance and tragedy, Romeo and Juliet, in his comic strip “Pigborn”. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is difficult to appreciate a play by simply reading its script. Actors, even cartoon actors, provide context to make the story more accessible to us common folk.

By coincidence, President Obama unveiled MyRA just as McEldowney's version of the play reached the climatic moment when Romeo attempts to intervene in a sword fight between his kinsman, Mercutio, and Juliet's kinsman, Tybalt. Despite his good intentions, Romeo's interference causes the death of Mercutio. This is the event that leads to the story's tragic ending.

Unintended consequences are rarely good. For example, the Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) may have been crafted by some with the best of intentions, but it is coming apart at the seams despite the President's best efforts to patch and delay it. Not only is the health insurance industry unraveling, but also health care providers are abandoning their practices or looking for greener pastures in other nations, and the opposition to the ACA smells blood in the water.

Some are turning on the proponents of Obamacare claiming that they must have foreseen the consequences of this legislation and, thus, intended its harmful results. I am more generous. I believe them to be simply guilty of poor problem solving.

This same lack of skill is evident in the President's latest proposal to provide wage earners with a new program for their retirement savings, MyRA. You say you're not familiar with it? Allow me to summarize. Under this plan, Americans would be permitted to shield their retirement savings in tax exempt government bonds. Although the yields would be small, these bonds would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

The President's proposal reminds me of the tale of the farmer who gave his seed corn to a crow on the promise that it would fly the seeds beyond the reach of the mice. I'll let you figure out for yourself, who is the crow and who are the mice in this metaphorical tale, as well as its inevitable conclusion.

There are those who argue that the President doesn't have the authority to create programs on a whim, that he should have waited for Congress to craft a solution. Unfortunately, we know that past performance is the best indicator of future performance and that this Congress has little prospect of crafting any solution to any problem.

Isn't it time to replace them all before the story of our nation reaches the tragic ending that we can so easily perceive looming in the near future?

Well, it's good new and bad news all wrapped up in one package. The Good News: Michael has been paroled. The Bad News: The stain on his record remains as an injustice. Still, his family and friends are glad that he is coming home, and I'm glad for them. Still, I hope that justice will be served in this case some day.

You may read the previous episodes of this continuing story at the following linked postings in this blog as well as the website dedicated to Michael.

Original Posting: Who is more deserving of justice than the men & women who fight to defend our freedom?

Update 1: Parole hearing scheduled

Update 2: Parole denied

Update 3: Government dragging its feet in responding to Supreme Court

Update 4: Is justice delayed justice denied in the case of Lt Behenna?

Update 5: Justice plods ahead slowly: Lietenant Behenna's case in conference at the Supreme Court

Update 6: What price justice?

Update 7: Justice denied 

Update 8: Appeal Denied

To the thousands of Michael supporters,

With tears of joy in our eyes we are happy to tell all of you that Michael is coming home!  He called us this morning to tell us his parole had been granted and he will be released on March 14, 2014.  So in one month Michael will finally be home with his family.  Praise God from whom all blessings flow.....

It has been, to say the least, quite a ride.  Michael signed up for the Army in order to serve his country and honor the innocent people killed on 9/11.  As a lieutenant he led his men in the ‘Mad Dog’ 5th Platoon into combat in Iraq and with them bravely faced a determined and ruthless insurgency.  Then his story took a bizarre turn when he was charged and later convicted of killing a known Al-Qaida cell leader who was directly involved in an IED attack that killed two of his soldiers, Steven Christofferson and Adam Kohlhaas.  He spent the next five years of his life in a small cell in the medium security wing at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth serving a 15 year murder conviction.

Life is often not fair, and as we have seen, justice is sometimes hard to come by.  For the innocent man who is sent to prison, life can seem especially cruel.  To survive that requires strength that comes from deep inside.  It also requires the love and support from family and close friends.  Michael always knew he could count on his family and friends to be there for him.  What has rocked his world is how thousands of people he has never met could will him through this struggle.  YOU DID THAT!  As you’re reading this I want you to say to yourself ‘they’re talking to me’.  YOU made the difference in how our son responded to this adversity.  Whether you sent him a postcard, a letter, put money in his prison account, contributed to his defense fund, wrote your Congressional Representative, shared Michael’s story with a friend, rode your motorcycle in a rally of support, or lifted Michael up in prayer to Almighty God, you made the difference.  YOU literally saved our son's life with your love and support, and for that we will be forever grateful.

God bless each and every one of you!

Scott & Vicki Behenna

Once upon a time, I wrote to my Representatives in Congress. I began when I was very young, just fourteen years old. That's right, just 14. I was a new Sea Scout and had become enchanted with the art and science of navigation. I wrote to my Representative and asked for the charts of the Chesapeake Bay where I lived and sailed. Within days, I received a mailing tube full of them, every chart drawn in every scale, covering the Bay from one end to the other. How about that? The experience encouraged me to write again.

I first got the idea when a member of Congress gave our school an American flag that had flown over the U.S Capitol Building. Actually, many flags have flown over the Capitol since the practice of giving them to community organizations began in 1939. The Capitol Architect's office processes more than 100,000 requests from Members of Congress annually. A pair of guards run them up and down the pole all day long. A card is attached to each attesting to its provenance and given to Representatives and Senators to be passed onto constituents.

I don't write so often anymore. My Representatives in Congress are ideologues and we are separated by word processors. Our letters are shuffled into piles: For and Against. Our responses are regurgitated from the bowels of machines. Whereas no member of Congress would not allow the sun to set on an unanswered letter in those halcyon days of long ago, they now depart each day as other machines affix artificial signatures to the day's output.

Certainly, our population has doubled since I was a 14-year old Sea Scout, but so have the number of Representatives in Congress. Are they so busy, so inundated with requests for flags, that they can't answer a letter from a constituent?

Even my beloved President, Ronald Reagan, failed me. When he fired the Air Traffic Controllers for striking, I wrote with an idea to transfer air traffic control from the Federal Aviation Administration, to a private contractor. That way, the cost of air traffic control could be spread among the users (airlines and private pilots) and the FAA could focus on policing the system. It always seemed absurd to me that the same bureau that provided a service policed itself. Apparently, my letter found its way to the stack reserved for those who disagreed with the President's action, and I received the response directed to his opponents. Opponent? Me?

Accessibility is the principal thing that first attracted me to Greg Raths who is running for Congress in California's 45th Congressional District. He began his campaign last year when the declining state of affairs in America moved him to action, even before our current Representative, John Campbell, announced that he wasn't running for reelection. He had a banner printed and began meeting people. He's attended every city council meeting in the district. He's joined civic organizations. He's walked door-to-door. I haven't seen or heard of Greg's two opponents beating down any doors to meet me or my neighbors.

Greg's campaign reminds me of the campaign that brought Richard Lamm to office as governor of Colorado in 1974 when I lived there. He too won against the campaigns of better known, better financed candidates, by walking from one end of the state to the other, making himself accessible.

I can't help but watch Greg with people and think, wouldn't it be nice to know who your Representative is, to at least know his name and what he looks like? Wouldn't it be nice to once again have access to our Representatives so that we can contribute to the effort to help solve our nation's problems? We certainly have enough problems to solve.

Of course I don't expect things to return to the way they were when Abraham Lincoln was President and any citizen could walk into the White House unchallenged and request a meeting. Nor do I expect any member of Congress to dictate a personal answer to every letter as they once did. However, don't you wish you had a candidate who is accessible to you? Why don't you go out and find one? Hopefully, they'll remain accessible once they're elected.

It seems that everyone is easily offended these days, especially on the Internet. Just follow any discussion following a blog posting. Here come the magic words: "liberal", "conservative", "left", "right", "progressive", "reactionary". Wait for it. Here comes the invective. The ad hominem attacks. The name calling. How did honest debate devolve to this sad state of affairs.

So here's the challenge: Describe a candidate in a way that appeals to his constituents while offending the fewest number of people remembering, of course, that some people won't get past the party affiliation without becoming offended. Granted, you won't vote for any candidate based on a catch phrase. You'll want to know more.

You'll want to know where they stand on the issues.

If you can trust them.

If they'll represent you or some special interest.

If they'll succumb to the siren call of career politics or remain one of us.

Okay, we'll deal with all that. However, first we have to catch your eye.

A photograph.

A catchy phrase.

Something to hook you and make you want to learn more.

Without offending you.

How would you describe that candidate? Please take our survey:

Seriously, if a person has any real talent for solving problems, building a successful business, creating jobs, why would they want to waste it in Washington?

Okay. I'll allow that they might want to serve a term or two in Congress as their civic duty. 

But, who are these clowns that hang out there for forty years?

It's a good bet that Henry Waxman and other key Democrats who foisted the Affordable Health Care Act on us are abandoning ship now only because they fear voters' wrath. If they had any talent for crafting viable solutions, it's an even better bet that they never would have given us that legislation and Obama wouldn't have had the chance to sign it into law.

Actually, Obamacare is an excellent case study in how not to craft a solution. It failed at the outset because it was written without first defining the problem accurately.

What was the problem with healthcare in America before Obamacare? We could debate that subject all day. In fact, we've been debating it for a half of a century. It was the topic of debate when I joined my college debate team in 1960. It's a shame that Congress didn't before they crafted the Affordable Health Care Act.

What did Congress use to guide them if it wasn't an accurate definition of healthcare issues?

Simple.

Ideology.

The Democratic Party followed Bobby Kennedy's famous vision...

Sadly, in the case of Obamacare, we're learning the hard way, why not.

One of my favorite reference books, The Search for Solutions, remarks that “Great science is conceived at the boundary where exact observation confronts leaping imagination.” The same may be said of political science. 

We need a healthy dose of imagination to craft solutions to America's problems. However, we need to temper it with exact observation to insure that we don't leap into the abyss such as we are now doing thanks to Obamacare.

Keeping to our case in point, the Affordable Health Care Act should have been crafted beginning with an accurate assessment of the problems.

• Did we have a problem with the provision of healthcare? No.
• Did we have a problem with the administration of healthcare? Maybe.
• Did we have a problem with the financing of healthcare? Yes.
  

So why was Obamacare crafted to address all three of these issues?

Who would have thought that a government bureaucracy was better equipped to take over the provision, administration, and financing of healthcare than all of the extant healthcare providers, administrators, and insurance companies? 

Obviously, the Democrats in Washington.

Now, even Democrats in state houses don't agree. They're joining Republicans in abandoning Obamacare in their several states.

Many of the Democrats, like Henry Waxman, are abandoning their careers rather than face Democrat voters at the polls.

Only a few key Senators and the President hold out.

I'm beginning to feel abandoned. How about you?

Let's hope that we replace all these career politicians with men and women who practice the science of politics rather than the ideology of progressivism.

Of course, that depends on us, you and me, to elect people who have demonstrated a talent for crafting viable solutions rather than those whose only talent is remaining an incumbent.

Yes, the 2014 election has begun. You can avoid it until the primary. You can avoid it until November. Sooner or later you will face a choice, or ignore it and let someone else make it for you. Isn't that what we've all done in the past, and look where it's gotten us.

Honestly, I don't know if any citizen can best a career politician in a political contest, but we need to find out. We have state houses and a Congress full of career politicians and look what it's gotten us. Obviously, the Affordable Health Care Act isn't affordable. The government jobs and part time employment they've created are poor substitutes for the millions of jobs we've lost. Now, do you really think that reelecting the same career politicians will produce a better result?

I got myself involved in the political process this year for many reasons. First and foremost, I have grandchildren and I'm ashamed that I'm leaving them a far poorer world than the one I inherited. Also, I don't want to again face a choice between dumb and dumber or the lesser of two evils when I cast my ballot this year. Sure, I've done that often enough before, but now there are grandchildren to consider. I hope that, like me, you'll go out and find yourself a better candidate than the career politicians who are clamoring behind the scenes to vie for our votes.

Yes, the clamoring has already begun. You should hear the career politicians in California's 45th Congressional District squealing because a mere citizen has thrown his hat into the ring. “But, it's my turn!” they cry and they have supporters who echo the sentiment.

Here we have two Republicans who have paid their dues. One is a state senator and the other is a county commissioner. They and their supporters truly believe that only professional politicians are qualified to represent We the People. Do we have to believe that just because they do?

Indeed, what are the arguments against sending an ordinary citizen to Washington?

They have no experience. Experience may be a factor when comparing incumbents to challengers. Every new member of Congress reports early to Washington to attend classes in the legislative process. I wonder if they are required to view the Schoolhouse Rock episode of “I'm Just a Bill”. Unfortunately, we have been reelecting incumbents regardless of the fact that their experience consists of voting for bad legislation.

Interestingly, in the campaign that I've joined, the private citizen has more experience in Washington than all of his opponents – Republican, Democrat, et al – combined. He served for three years in the military liaison office at the White House during the Clinton Administration, working on legislation both there and on Capitol Hill. You probably won't be so lucky to find a non-politician like that, but it doesn't matter. Your new Representative or Senator will have plenty of help learning the ropes.

Many career politicians, especially incumbents, use their seniority as an argument against sending novices to state houses and Congress. While it is true that incumbents' seniority entitles them to first consideration for assignment to key legislative committees, the argument fails when we consider that they've used those positions to foist bad laws on us. Also, there is no constitutional basis for committee assignments based on seniority. Maybe, it's time to challenge that.

I hope that you don't sit out another election. Maybe you'll be inspired by our experiment in the California 45th Congressional District. Please feel free to follow along. “Like” our campaign page on Facebook. Bookmark our website.

Better yet, go find your own extraordinary citizen. We'll be happy to help your campaign just as you can help ours.

I don't listen to radio as often as I once did before I retired and stopped commuting between clients. I don't miss the commuting, but sometimes I do miss listening to talk radio. Thus, it was a rare opportunity just yesterday when I drove to the store and happened to hear a caller lamenting about the diversity of nations and religions in the world. He opined that life would be far simpler and safer if only we all could agree to pledge allegiance to one nation and pray to one god. When the host pressed the caller to name one of each, he demurred. It seemed that he cared more for peace and quiet than in proselytizing for his religion or his nation.

I once advocated the very same thing, but that was a long time ago when I was a teen high school student. I may have gone further than the aforementioned caller. I proposed a universal law that no two persons of the same race, religion, or national origin could marry. I put my words to paper and submitted them in satisfaction of a tenth grade history assignment. Yes, I was both a sophomore and sophomoric.

My teacher seemed amused.

He had me read my paper in class.

Girls swooned.

Boys laughed, except for those who felt that I had damaged their girlfriends. They made threats.

Parents objected.

I had been born and raised in the south and my proposal amounted to universal mongrelization of the race, a touchy subject in those parts in that time.

I believe that the teacher had been reprimanded, but his career salvaged by tenure.

I've grown a lot since then. I no longer share the caller's pursuit of peace and quiet at any price nor his fear of diversity. Indeed, I've come to believe that humankind is better for the richness of its diverse tapestry. I no longer tolerate differences, but rather celebrate them. 

Diversity encourages the evolution of new ideas.

People and ideas stagnate when their is a lack of diversity.

It appears to me that cloning ideas is no more advisable than cloning living organisms. I've come to accept the words of the man who presided in the White House during the better part of my years in school.

There's a lot of diversity in thought these days. The American Revolution has detoured down some paths that seemingly lead to the abyss of ruin.

The world's most successful economy is faltering.

Racial relations, once improving, are now deteriorating.

The shining light on the hill that once served as a beacon for all liberty loving peoples is guttering.

Those who have blazed this trail insist that sanctuary is just around the next bend. Their opponents argue that the next bend only hides ultimate ruin and insist that we turn back.

Debate has been replaced with entrenched positions and anyone with the temerity to suggest an alternate path finds themselves sitting on the fence between two camps where they serve as targets for everyone's wrath.

What is the solution? That is a tale for another day...

Propaganda is most often the purview of government agencies and revolutionary organizations. However, the Internet seems to have made it a public endeavor. Anyone can play. Simply visit almost any weblog discussion thread and you'll easily see what I mean.

Hitler assembled his legions in great masses and transformed them into ranting mobs with his propaganda. Stalin used the state-run newspaper, the humorously named Pravda (Truth). In recent decades, ideologues have employed the popular cultural media, electronic news and entertainment, to carry their banners at the head of American political groups. Today, propaganda may be found liberally sprinkled in discussions all over the Internet, especially in weblogs. It is now the purview of the common folk.

To be honest, political discourse in America has never been polite. The Sons and Daughters of Liberty simply tarred and feathered anyone with the temerity to disagree with them. A member of the House of Representatives once beat Senator Charles Sumner into unconsciousness with his cane. However, with the advent of the Internet, anyone can play. Verbal brickbats can be thrown freely without fear of consequences. Even worse, virtual mobs may form to verbally assault anyone who wanders into the weblog of the opposition.

Interestingly, these amateurs have learned the rudiments of propaganda with little formal instruction. They're easy to spot.

• Straw-man Arguments: The key word is “they”, as in “they say” followed by an absurd comment attributed to the opposition (even though no one has ever said such a thing) followed by a brilliant refutation.
• Scapegoating: Blame is heaped on the backs of the wealthy, the poor, and the middle class as well as those who are different (race, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, ideology, etc) so that they may be persecuted without remorse as goats were once painted with blood in biblical times and stoned outside the city gates. 
• Red Herring: Whenever someone is backed into a corner in debate, they toss out irrelevant facts to distract their antagonist and make good their escape. For example, the Koch Brothers are vilified for using their wealth to support conservatives, by those who are supported by the wealth of George Soros, none of which supports any argument for either side. 
• Repetition ad nauseum: Unfounded facts and arguments are repeated to answer challenges to the same unfounded facts and arguments as though simple repetition will make them true. For example, some scoff at the TEA Party as an Astroturf movement to imply that it is not a true grass roots movement, but rather the invention of an evil cabal. The fact that it is attacked equally by both parties seems to prove that it is beyond anyone's control.
• Statements Quoted Out of Context: What is a frog? Most likely, you think of an amphibian. However, a dressmaker may think first of a clasp at the neck of a cape. A florist may think first of a device to arrange flowers. To a railroad man, a part of a switch in a railway track. In fact, there are many more definitions of “frog” and confusion reigns if the word is used without specifying its context. The same is especially true of statements made by the opposition and then quoted out of context.
• Reducto ad Hitlerum: To refute an opponent's argument by characterizing it as something that Hitler would have believed. Generally, the words “Nazi”, “Hitler”, or “Holocaust” are used. Yes, I've seen this used many times in discussions on the Internet.
  

Unfortunately, not everyone has debate experience and many fall into the trap of lashing out with propaganda while engaged in an Internet discussion thread when faced with opposition, especially well-stated opposition. Generally, I attempt to respond with a question to give the person an opportunity to rethink their words. Another technique is to restate your opponents view in your own words in an attempt to clarify their position (for them as well as for yourself).

Sadly, once a conversation has devolved into an argument, there is little to do but walk away. Be prepared. The other party will likely taunt you for your supposed cowardice or claim victory as you turn tail. Never mind. They are beyond convincing and those who choose to lurk on the sidelines while you and they do battle, have already chosen sides and they won't be dissuaded either.