Huh?

Six fundamentalist Islamics and would-be terrorists from the Middle East and Yugoslavia .. in the US illegally .. were arrested this month in New Jersey when two of them tried to buy AKC automatic machine guns. They planned to kill as many people as possible at US Army base Fort Dix.

One of the men delivered pizzas to the base and told the group he knows Fort Dix "like the back of my hand."

They had been plotting the attack for some 16 months, according to New Jersey U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie.

Thanks to a local video store employee, the six were identified, followed by law enforcement and two paid informers infiltrated the group. The clerk was asked to transfer a video to DVD showing ten men preparing for the attack and making anti-US statements. The clerk reported them immediately.

The group had been watching tapes of terrorist activities and one of the 9-11 suicide-hijackers speaking to a camera to inspire others to commit themselves to "the jihad."

"Jihad" actually means a holy cause, not war, but terrorists consider killing themselves and all "non-believers" a holy cause, which is why they call their acts of terrorism jihad.

Suicide bombers are treated like rock stars among "believers," and make tapes of themselves to show how dedicated they are to Allah and how they look forward to the good fortune they will enjoy when they die - hooking up with all those virgins, yanga yanga yanga. Families of suicide bombers are frequently given large sums of money for sacrificing their lives to the cause of killing.

While fundamentalist Islamics are among those who entreat followers to kill "non-believers" and themselves in order to do that, mainstream Muslims the world over are starting to speak up, insisting that terrorists have hijacked their religion to carry out their own particular political agendas.

Now, here's my problem with what politicians have said after exposing the plot and arresting the six defendants - who are actually considered "far from hard core" terrorists by law enforcement officials:

Republican presidential wannabe Rudy Giuliani said that, literally, if you vote Democratic, you're going to die from terrorist acts. Republicans will protect us.

Uh-huh.

Other typical ultra right-wing wackos have said the same. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for inviting terrorism in the US, especially if we bring our troops home from Iraq. Riiiiight.

You know, they're using the old illogical argument that we need to fight 'em over there, so we don't have to fight 'em right here at home.

If you read my recent blog about this bizarre assertion, you know that fewer than 4% of those fighting the US in Iraq are associated with al-qaeda.

Terrorists don't need to be in Iraq because the Iraqis and now infiltrating Iranians are doing their work for them: keeping our soldiers busy being caught in the crossfire of a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites (who have been warring for some 1,300 years) and fighting previously peaceful Iraqis who have grown to hate the US because - gosh - more than half a million innocent Iraqis have been killed since the US invaded, and US soldiers are now blamed for destroying their country.

Hmmmmm.

So the question has to be why we're there to begin with, losing nearly 3,400 American lives with tens of thousands of our soldiers injured or maimed. What was the goal to begin with? More and more, the real answer appears to be to get our hands on their oil.

To all those who claim that the Republicans are strong on defense and security?

The six would-be terrorists - and who knows how many others who are not stupid enough to take a video of themselves practicing killing people to a video store for transfer - made their way into this country across who knows which border, port or train - on the Bush/Republican watch.

When they entered the country, Republicans and Bush had complete domination of the White House, Congress and Judicial branches.

Democrats didn't get any clout until the election was held several months after the pizza delivering terrorist had free reign to move around Fort Dix - where they train troops to fight in the Middle East.

Is this even starting to make sense?

The most serious questions:

Why are we not devoting our resources to flushing out Ben Laden and al qaeda -- those actually and vocally (proudly) responsible for killing thousands of people (many of whom were Muslim and non-American) on American soil September 11, 2001 (when Bush and the Republicans again had total control in the White House and congress) instead of fighting in Iraq.

Why do so many security loopholes remain in our borders and ports?

Why have we gone so deeply in debt to fight the war in Iraq - borrowing billions from our "good friend" China - without a specific goal or end to the battles in sight?

Are we sending tens of thousands more American soldiers to Iraq to be cannon fodder?

Three former US generals who were military leaders in Iraq - at least one of whom resigned in protest of what he considers President Bush's misuse of military personnel in Iraq - are featured on television ads now, stating plainly that President Bush has placed our nation at risk, that he is destroying our Army and Marine Corps and is needlessly costing us lives in a war we have no business fighting.

He does not mention to the vast destruction to the nation of Iraq itself and the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed because we are there. He is only talking about his concerns of what he considers the dismantling of our army and marine corps - his area of expertise.

Still, Bush sends more soldiers over - making them work far past their legal commitment and enlistment agreement. Not giving them the proper breaks between being sent to the front lines. It's no wonder so many of our brave women and men are coming home with post traumatic stress disorder - only to find too few resources to help them when they return.

Meanwhile, we don't have enough military personnel in the US to address disasters here in the US - whether it's from the horror in Louisiana, Mississippi and other states from Katrina or recent hurricanes in the Midwest and other domestic disasters.

In case you don't know - I am an Air Force veteran and am astounded at the decisions that have been made about the use of our military, our continuing security loopholes and other problems that appear to be overlooked because we have concentrated so many resources in a nation that was never a threat to our country or borders to begin with.

I'm delighted Saddam Hussein is history - but the "threat" he was to anyone outside Iraq and the Middle East was no greater than other leaders in other Middle Eastern nations and certainly far less than Ben Laden and al qaeda, sitting tightly in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the notorious Taliban, who are working to gain a foothold there again.

Expect the Republican rhetoric to skyrocket the closer we get to the election. I mean it is going to get nasty. I mean you won't know real nasty until you witness this coming election.

Because they don't want Democrats coming into the White House to witness the shambles Bush has made of the US Presidency, and the evidence he will leave behind of all the other *extraordinary* errors of judgement he made during his tenure.

Republicans would come in with a CYA attitude, wanting to clean up Bush's mess without any public notice. And believe me, they will desperately want to be sure they are in a position to take care of the mess left in his wake.

Democrats would definitely - to a degree - expose what they find. They can't afford to expose too much evidence of the Bush travesty because it would make the government and our two- party system appear to be broken.

Now the question is whether the Democrats have the stomach and stamina to stand up to all the right wing bravado, fear mongering, dishonesty and dirty politics. Take special notice of who counts the votes.

And whether Americans care enough to get involved with the election to make sure the nation gets back on track - working for the ideals and promises pledged by our constitution and Bill of Rights.

Wassup w/happiness? (long, but fast read!)

I asked myself why I've been writing so much lately about happiness.

I realize it's because I'm happy - and I see so many people who are not only unhappy, but who actively make unhappiness happen in their lives.

They get in their own way, sabotage themselves, cut off healthy people and choices in their lives-

I guess I remember how I used to do the same thing way back when and how deeply I wished I had someone like me to show me the way, to turn on the light for that road less taken.

I do have more to say on the subject, but for now, I'm putting it to rest because whether Proust or Patrick, we all have to make the decision on our own, as I did, that happy is the way I want to feel, live and how I wish to deal with life.

As thousands of books, Oprah, Dr. Phil and the million other people who have found their own way to happiness know: it is no secret: making the decision to be happy - to have the desire to make the most of who we truly are live it to the fullest - is the first step.

Learning just how to be, behave and live that way day after day, minute by minute, has been the most challenging and enlightening path for me to take - and it's all been worth it.

I know I've said it before, but it's true: I wish you happiness.

The more happy people there are, the kinder we will treat ourselves and one another; the kinder we treat ourselves and one another, the more we will understand one another. The more we understand one another, the better we will get along. The better we get along, the less violence there will be. The less violence there will be, the fewer the wars will break out. The fewer the wars break out, the more we will focus on real issues in the world: health, education, the environment, self sufficiency and how a variety of cultures can live together in peace.

Interestingly, many people believe that we "need" war to keep economies stimulated. A lot of people mae a *lot* of money from waging war.

What they don't get is that if our economy shifted focus to thrive economically from promoting environmental welfare, empowering and educating people to become self-sufficient, healthy, understand each of us has a positive role to play in the world - that each of us belongs here - and capable of determining our own futures, the planet would thrive as we do.

The earth is the little canary in the world's coal mine.

If you listen carefully, you will hear that the little guy's song becoming weaker and weaker.

If you don't listen because you have better things to do? You will not only be shocked when he dies, but part of the reason he suffocated and mad as hell at all those "other people" who killed him because they wouldn't stop deforestation, polluting, overpopulating, killing off hundreds of species who are indicator animals.

"Indicator animals" are those whose welfare indicates the state of the environment in which they live.

There was a huge fight in the Northwest about the status of the endangered spotted owl, which relies on old forest growth to survive. If the spotted owl is in trouble, so is its environment. Loggers wanted to continue to harvest logs while environmentalists said that logging had to desist until the spotted owl's environment was healthy again.

Old forest growth takes decades - if not centuries - to thrive without interference other than clearing brush.

The media fight became between the "greedy" timber industry and the "idiot tree huggers" who don't make a living from the land. The stories almost *never* mentioned the spotted owl is an indicator species.

Like if the loggers keep logging without conisdering the future of the spotted owl? Um, no more logs, no more living off the land, and another area is deforested which reportedly contributes to more global warming.

If the environmentalists figured out a way to preserve the old growth forests in a way that would allow a healthy way to preserve the forests' integrity and - ultimately - maintain a thriving logging industry; if the logging industry came in with the attitude of needing to preserve its source of income by protecting the spotted owl, rather than just wanting to clear cut a forest then moving on to another area? The negotiations and media coverage would not have been so vitriolic.

As always, the enemies dehumanized one another at the outset - "Those greedy bastards don't care about the environment!" "Those tree-hugging hippies don't care about putting people out of work!"

The government stepped in by making proclamations rather than inviting all parties in before any proclamations were made so there would be a clear understanding of why the spotted owl needed to be protected. More, why wait until the species is endangered before taking action?

Let's face it - negotiators from all sides were un-happy! Unhappy people feel attacked instead of viewing a problem as a challenge.

They push people to take sides like two immature parents fighting over the custody of their kids in a nasty divorce.

Of course the innocent owl was caught in the middle - as its habitat was being destroyed, and by extension, the future of the logging industry there as well as contributing to the environmental illness of the world.

My wish is that one day I'll read the headline, "HAPPY PEOPLE MAKE PEACE BREAK OUT!"

I know it sounds woo woo and laa laa and tie-dye print and artsy fartsy to a lot of readers.

Believe me, it's not.

As you can see from my one very simple example, it's a totally left-brain, logical way to reason and think and negotiate.

We just have to teach people how to reallign their philosophies and reasoning systems.

But, as with happiness - they must make the decision they want to live, work and thrive as happy, educated, truthful people whose goal is to improve life for individuals and communities.

As it is, the unhappy "bad" conservatives supposedly only want what is best for the individual - generally the wealthy individual - those who have, keeping government out of our lives as much as possible (until it comes to intruding in our bedrooms, religions, women's bodies and other private matters) -

And the unhappy "bad" liberals supposedly only want government enforcing what they believe is good for the group - making government responsible for the welfare of everyone, including the "have nots." Of course, the folks who have to pay for it should be the "haves," only the "haves" have enough power to make sure the folks who end up paying more than their fair share are the "have nots."

Thus, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

I wish others would join me in understanding that it's time to rethink how we deal with all parts of a system wherein the people who are supposedly "in charge" of a republic - voters - are only left to feel constantly betrayed, lied to, powerless, helpless and .. dare I say it? UN-HAPPY!

My apologies for the length of this blog! Peace out! -cp