On building an army...

Patti and I were talking tonight about good friends of ours who have a boy in the Army. I told her when I learned he was "joining up" that I had wanted to talk to him, to try to get him to rethink his decision.

She wondered what motivates people to join the armed forces, and I said I thought a lot of it was that there's so much anger and frustration about 9/11, and towards Middle Eastern people, that joining the service seems like an answer. Especially to young men and women fresh out of high school, who may be disenfranchised with entering the work force or can't afford college.

It doesn't help that the Army markets itself as a "game" to young people. I blogged some time ago about an Army ad that puts the viewer looking through a crosshair, just as it tracks and centers on an "Arab" walking through the desert. Plus they offer a free hat for contacting them.

As I mulled that over, I wondered if maybe the real reason behind 9/11 was to create, in disenfranchised young Americans, an anger and hatred of Middle Easterners that would drive millions of them to the recruiting office. That, along with a very slick and subversive advertising campaign.

I mean, if you read the documents on the web site for the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), you'll see that the future holds "multiple, simultaneous major theater wars." We're gonna need a pretty big military for that. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea... all of these wars are happening or coming. How are we going to be prepared unless we can build an army of angry Americans, just itching to pull the trigger when the crosshairs find their mark?

Hey, here's a (wild) thought... maybe BushCo is stirring up the "illegal" immigrants for the same reason... Perhaps, after declaring them "felons," they will offer amnesty and/or citizenship to them and their families, in exchange for a term of service in the U.S. Military.

"Hey, if you say you love this country so much, grab a gun and go fight for it in some desert overseas! That, or either be deported or go to one of our shiny new prisons! Deal... or No Deal?"

The 9/11 Game

I was recently reading, with some interest, a message thread relating to 9/11 on a completely unrelated web site. As I read through the posts, I saw a familiar pattern: friendly discussion starts, interested parties chime in, facts begin to be debated, things start to degenerate and eventually people start to insult each other, and the whole point is lost in a battle of "I'm right, you're stupid for believing nonsense" (on both sides).

The same web sites are linked to, the same facts hashed and re-hashed. Facts are presented, then a link to a debunker, then someone debunking the debunkers, etc. It's a vicious circle that goes on without end.

Not long ago, I found myself a participant in such debates, usually on UseNet. I'd be reading something, then I'd get irked and post "Yeah, but what about..." and soon find myself embroiled in the neverending argument. But I've decided to refrain from these debates, at least on UseNet and message boards. I will gladly discuss 9/11 in person, with anyone who wants to discuss it (and I'm still passing out DVDs of "Loose Change" to friends and strangers!). But not online. Not any more.

The problem is that there is just no way of knowing the truth. Both sides hold to "theories" and none are proveable with evidence, because the evidence (aside from the video record) is gone. Holders to the "official" story have only what they saw on TV and what they've been told by the government and media to hold to. Those in the "truth movement" have nothing but nagging questions, huge numbers of coincidences and anomalies, and a distrust of a government that has lied to its citizens countless times in the past.

The advantage to being a truth seeker, however, is just that: there is no hidden agenda, no attachment to the proposed theories. We just want the truth, whatever. If the truth is that 19 Arab terrorists, backed by Osama and the gang, perpetrated the horror, then we'll be satisfied to know that. But until the questions are answered, satisfactorily, the truth seekers will press on, and the 9/11 game will continue. I'm just sitting on the bench for a while.

Bush is the Decider

Reporter: What do you say to the critics who believe that you are ignoring the advice of retired generals and military commanders who say there needs to be a change?

Bush: I say I listen to all voices but mine's the final decision and Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror - He's helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices and I read the front page and I know the speculation but I'm the decider and I decide what is best (emphasis mine) and what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of defense.

"I'm the Decider"? Does that sound like something an 8-year-old would say? This is our president! Oh, dear God...

Funny related link: http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

The Corporations' Definition Of "Giving"

On the Today show this morning, Al Roker had several "special" kids (their word, not mine) who had various serious medical conditions, etc. Al made the announcement that the Today Show was sending them for a week to "Give Kids The World" - what appears to be a cool place for kids.

They proceeded to shower stuff on the kids, like digital cameras and some other things. The first time they mentioned all the "sponsors," I thought, "That's cool, such-and-such company is doing that..." But then, through the course of the story, they must've mentioned those companies another 3-4 times. Then I started to think, "Well, that's cool, but whatever happened to doing something nice just to DO it? Why do we have to always ask 'What's in it for me'?"

How is it any kind of giving or sacrifice if we gain from it? Is it really commendable that "Office Superstore" gave $500-worth of digital cameras, when they received a million dollars'-worth of advertising in return?

There is a great ad campaign by thetruth.com where people do a nice thing for someone else, then announce it via bullhorn to the world... "I just held the door open for this woman! And I don't even know her!" Etc. Isn't that the way our world - at the very least our 'corporate' world - works? Isn't that a shame and completely contrary to what just seems right?

As Jesus said, "When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you."

Those are some of my favorite words from the Bible. Not that I always live by them, mind you, but shouldn't that be one of our goals in life, to live more selflessly?

Wow. It's April 20th already, can you believe it? The year is flying by... Have a great Day.

What a day...

It's hard to imagine a more beautiful day in Las Vegas. It's currently 72 F, overcast, the breeze is blowing cool, fresh air through all of the open windows in the house, and there's a hint of the smell of rain...

It's good to be alive! Enjoy today.

Defeating a defeatist attitude

Making the assumption that someone is reading this (which, I guess I can assume, since some of you have told me you do), I'd like you to stop for a second, slow down, and really consider what you're about to read.

I talk a lot to people about health and our diets/food choices, because it's an area of interest for me right now. That's what we talk about, right... things we're interested in? I'm struck by how many people have the attitude that, "I'm going to die anyway," or, "you only live once, may as well enjoy it." Haven't we all heard those things more times than we can remember?

Well, I have news for you: you ARE going to die, but chances are, it will be a LONG time from now, and you will probably be in your 70s or 80s. If your health deteriorates as late as 50, or even 60, you could potentially face 20 to 30 years of your life in chronic discomfort or pain.

Someone very close to me, a near life-long smoker, suffers from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder. Every breath is a struggle, every day a 24-hour battle. Can you imagine depending on machinery for the most basic of life's funcions, your breathing? All because of a few bad choices many years earlier?

Then there's cancer, which is touching more and more lives every day.

Cancer is not something you "get" from external sources. Cancer is something that happens in a body because a cancer-enabling trigger occurs, and our bodies lack the proper enzymes and immunity to keep it from developing. I believe cancer is preventable, but only through reducing possible body traumas (smoking, exposure to pollution, chemicals/pesticides in foods, etc.), and a diet that is rich in the foods our bodies need to operate as they were intended.

How long can you continue to run an automobile, using maple syrup instead of oil, or by mixing gasoline with water? Not very long. It will, of course, eventually break down. Is your body any different? How long can we continue to pour gallons of sugary sodas into our body when it's asking for water? How long can we continue eating french fries and candy bars when our bodies are crying for enzyme-rich fruits and vegetables?

We have the cards stacked against us: our world is becoming increasingly toxic; bad food is cheap and easy while good food is harder to find and more expensive; our lifestyles are almost completely sedentary. All you have is your health, and all you can do for yourself is try to eat right and stay healthy. If we all give in to the corporate "fast food" mindset, all we are doing is killing ourselves while we make someone else wealthy - someone who is contributing to our early and painful demise.

Health is wealth. Remember that.