The tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister and the principal contender in Pakistan’s elections in the next few weeks, leaves a lot of questions to be answered or may never to be answered.
So far her death is in question as to whether she was shot or hit her head on the sun roof of the vehicle. Was al-Qaeda responsible? The Bush Administration comes out claiming that her assassination was a tragedy and they were supporting her in the elections, but their support has always been behind President Pervez Musharraf. Heck! The USA has given him an estimated $10 billion to fight terrorism.
One question that I think ties into all this is what did Bhutto mean that Osama bin Laden was killed?
Not long ago, November second, she made this comment on David Frost’s show, “Frost Over the World”, which is broadcast on Al Jazeera English television. Sir David Frost asked her about the assassination attacks against her possible win in the election. Bhutto responded that she had contacted Musharraf. She felt that rather than focus on the organizations that it would be more important to go after three people who supported, financed, and organized these groups.
Sir David pushed further in getting her to mention who these three were, and Bhutto pretty much named them on the television.
Bhutto answered with no hesitation, "Yes, well one of them is a very key figure in security. He's a former military officer. He's someone who's had dealings... and he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh (Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh), the man who murdered Osama bin Laden."
Say what? The man who murdered bin Laden?
Now maybe Sir David Frost isn’t the interviewer he used to be before the “Sir” part was added to his name because he never questioned what she had just said.
And then another vague message by bin Laden in a video shows up days after Bhutto’s death. Her accusation opens up a whole bunch of questions into her assassination.
You can see the video on YouTube. The questioning starts about 4:30 into the interview, but it are worth watching the whole interview.
While you are at it – Come join us at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com/
Jake Drew
Monday, December 31, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Monday, July 2, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
“Shoot’em Up!”
How does a gun make anyone feel safer? Please – I dare anyone out there to explain it to me. What is it in the make up of the United States that we have to have guns? Better yet – why do we think guns solve the problems here and in the world? Of course, we use much bigger guns in other parts of the world. Yeah – yeah – I know all about the second amendment. You have to provide a better reason than that one.
The shootings at Virginia Tech University were a tragic incident. An incident – an occurrence - an episode. It will probably never happen there again. These occurrences happen all over and not very frequent considering the gun craziness of most of the United States of America.
If being armed makes a person feel protected, we should arm everyone because who knows when you might be involved in a shoot out. Personally I have never been in a shoot out. Heck – I’ve never seen a handgun, except on the hip of the police, which makes me feel safe enough. I live in a high crime area of my city too, so it’s not because I’m a satellite dish suburbanite.
Texas Governor, Rick Perry, thinks that students should carry guns on campus. “It makes sense for Texans to be able to protect themselves from deranged individuals.”
I’ve been to Texas – he’s right! The place is full of deranged nuts. My only concern is for the lower grades – the innocent children. It seems most of school shootings happen in grade school or high school situations. Some congress person in Wisconsin a few months ago came up with a brilliant idea – arm the teachers! Yeah – and I bet teachers could get a kid’s attention a lot easier with a gun. Think of what it could do for the educational system. Heck – no need for parent/teacher conferences anymore. You are in my classroom now and what I say is the law around here.
“Where’s your homework, punk?”
“Don’t give me that old story about your dog!” Click!
I know the University of Utah allows students to carry handguns, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a gun battle on their campus. Though I don’t think they are a good testing ground. I’d assume the lack of shoot ups there is because of the highly religious morals of the students. Mormons are a heck’uva lot less violent nowadays than in the past.
So the best that I can come up with is that unless everyone is armed in the USA we can never reach the level of security that we all want.
- Jake Drew
Come JOIN US at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
The shootings at Virginia Tech University were a tragic incident. An incident – an occurrence - an episode. It will probably never happen there again. These occurrences happen all over and not very frequent considering the gun craziness of most of the United States of America.
If being armed makes a person feel protected, we should arm everyone because who knows when you might be involved in a shoot out. Personally I have never been in a shoot out. Heck – I’ve never seen a handgun, except on the hip of the police, which makes me feel safe enough. I live in a high crime area of my city too, so it’s not because I’m a satellite dish suburbanite.
Texas Governor, Rick Perry, thinks that students should carry guns on campus. “It makes sense for Texans to be able to protect themselves from deranged individuals.”
I’ve been to Texas – he’s right! The place is full of deranged nuts. My only concern is for the lower grades – the innocent children. It seems most of school shootings happen in grade school or high school situations. Some congress person in Wisconsin a few months ago came up with a brilliant idea – arm the teachers! Yeah – and I bet teachers could get a kid’s attention a lot easier with a gun. Think of what it could do for the educational system. Heck – no need for parent/teacher conferences anymore. You are in my classroom now and what I say is the law around here.
“Where’s your homework, punk?”
“Don’t give me that old story about your dog!” Click!
I know the University of Utah allows students to carry handguns, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a gun battle on their campus. Though I don’t think they are a good testing ground. I’d assume the lack of shoot ups there is because of the highly religious morals of the students. Mormons are a heck’uva lot less violent nowadays than in the past.
So the best that I can come up with is that unless everyone is armed in the USA we can never reach the level of security that we all want.
- Jake Drew
Come JOIN US at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
Monday, April 30, 2007
“Bizarro World”
When I was a boy reading “Superman” comics I ran into an alternative universe, Bizarro World”. Quite a few times in my adult life I have felt that I’ve entered that alternative world. I’m having those feelings now.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel have been wearing themselves out by trying to get the message out about global climate change, and that message is being received by the United States as the crazy uncle that you were told to ignore as a kid. We have until 2020 to reduce carbon emissions by eighty percent. That’s less than fifteen years!
By 2050 around a billion people will face food and fresh water shortages. Sea levels will rise, and major populations around the world will be relocated inland. New Orleans was a testing ground for things to come. Anyone who thinks that the government’s reaction to Katrina was about incompetence should realize that they realized that there was no point in salvaging or rebuilding the city. It’s just going to be worse next time and then the next time. So why invest in rebuilding what could be considered the United States version of Atlantis.
The president has finally or kind’a admitted that global climate change might, well, maybe, be caused by humans. What a giant step for the oil man! Now, of course, he’s all for regulations and trying to counter attack the emissions issue, but only as long as it doesn’t have an effect on the economy.
Well I don’t see how it can’t have an effect on the economy. It might be a good move for the economy by developing new technologies as new markets that will replace the old. Though I don’t think things are moving fast enough to create this new economy. We aren’t going to make it because consumerism is so embedded into everyone’s brain.
This leads me back to Bizarro World. We are going to have to start thinking in terms of the Bizarro World where everything is the opposite. Used is good, new is bad. There was a movement during the Great Depression and into World War II where people were involved in saving scrap or recycling clothes and other items, bartering with others, neighborhood gardens, and on and on. We can learn a lot from that generation and time. The attitude has to adjust that old things are coveted, and buying new is wasteful or only okay when necessary.
People are going to have to change:
“I don’t have an air conditioner.”
“Wow! That’s impressive.” They responded.
“I figure it helps prevent black outs and allows people that need the air conditioning to use it.”
Or:
“I’ve been biking to the grocery store. I have to make two trips, but it’s good exercise!”
“Me too. I used to drive my car to the fitness center, but I realized that it lacked some
common sense on my part.”
See what I mean? Write me with a scenario of your own.
Oh yeah and anything plastic should be shunned! Jake Drew
Come join US at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel have been wearing themselves out by trying to get the message out about global climate change, and that message is being received by the United States as the crazy uncle that you were told to ignore as a kid. We have until 2020 to reduce carbon emissions by eighty percent. That’s less than fifteen years!
By 2050 around a billion people will face food and fresh water shortages. Sea levels will rise, and major populations around the world will be relocated inland. New Orleans was a testing ground for things to come. Anyone who thinks that the government’s reaction to Katrina was about incompetence should realize that they realized that there was no point in salvaging or rebuilding the city. It’s just going to be worse next time and then the next time. So why invest in rebuilding what could be considered the United States version of Atlantis.
The president has finally or kind’a admitted that global climate change might, well, maybe, be caused by humans. What a giant step for the oil man! Now, of course, he’s all for regulations and trying to counter attack the emissions issue, but only as long as it doesn’t have an effect on the economy.
Well I don’t see how it can’t have an effect on the economy. It might be a good move for the economy by developing new technologies as new markets that will replace the old. Though I don’t think things are moving fast enough to create this new economy. We aren’t going to make it because consumerism is so embedded into everyone’s brain.
This leads me back to Bizarro World. We are going to have to start thinking in terms of the Bizarro World where everything is the opposite. Used is good, new is bad. There was a movement during the Great Depression and into World War II where people were involved in saving scrap or recycling clothes and other items, bartering with others, neighborhood gardens, and on and on. We can learn a lot from that generation and time. The attitude has to adjust that old things are coveted, and buying new is wasteful or only okay when necessary.
People are going to have to change:
“I don’t have an air conditioner.”
“Wow! That’s impressive.” They responded.
“I figure it helps prevent black outs and allows people that need the air conditioning to use it.”
Or:
“I’ve been biking to the grocery store. I have to make two trips, but it’s good exercise!”
“Me too. I used to drive my car to the fitness center, but I realized that it lacked some
common sense on my part.”
See what I mean? Write me with a scenario of your own.
Oh yeah and anything plastic should be shunned! Jake Drew
Come join US at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
Monday, April 9, 2007
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Heck, Fight’em Over Here!
I’m a big fan of westerns, and it seems that this administration is too. They talk in cowboy lingo and their idol, Ronnie Reagan, starred in a number of them before becoming president. I’ll admit I’m not a Reagan fan – I like Randolph Scott better as a western star. The United States government should screen a few western movies to help with that “War on Terror”.
Now I admit I have trouble with what “the terror” is or who the terrorists are that are trying to get us and what they want to get us for. Plus Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to one heck’uva a wagon train of terrorism recently. Considering all the things he confessed to being involved with I’d take the plural out of terrorists.
The “fight’em over there” concept escapes me too. We can’t really pin down who the terrorists are. The United States might know who a few of these terrorists are and has the names of organizations that are a threat to us, but we don’t know where they are. If we are sending out our troops to wipe out terrorists, I think it might be better to wait for them to come here.
Now I might seem politically incorrect in this next part, but I’m only referencing what I’ve seen in Hollywood westerns. If a fort was under attack by “the Indians”, “the cowboys” never ever throw open the gates and run out to the enemy. They waited for the fort to be attacked and fought off the enemy from high up on the inside of the fort’s walls.
I know Hollywood and reality are two separate things, but what about the wall we want to build along the Mexican border? This is really no different than a movie set. The fence doesn’t solve the problem – it only creates an image. So wouldn’t it make more sense economically to bring the troops home and post them all over the country? You could have troops on city buses, walking the streets, the borders, using electronic surveillance. Heck – I’d love to see one of those big old army tanks coming down my street.
Considering there is no thought to when this “war on terror” will end or where the terrorists are or who they are. It just makes sense financially and for the well being of the military to bring them home and let them patrol the streets. If we have 130,000 troops in Iraq, that would be 2,600 troops stationed in each one of the fifty states. While the military is in our cities they could take care of the gang members or any illegal activities too. There’s enough of this type of terrorism to make the country look like Tombstone or Dodge City of the late 1800s.
Shoot a letter to your congress people and let them know how you feel.
- Jake Drew
Come VIST US at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
Now I admit I have trouble with what “the terror” is or who the terrorists are that are trying to get us and what they want to get us for. Plus Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to one heck’uva a wagon train of terrorism recently. Considering all the things he confessed to being involved with I’d take the plural out of terrorists.
The “fight’em over there” concept escapes me too. We can’t really pin down who the terrorists are. The United States might know who a few of these terrorists are and has the names of organizations that are a threat to us, but we don’t know where they are. If we are sending out our troops to wipe out terrorists, I think it might be better to wait for them to come here.
Now I might seem politically incorrect in this next part, but I’m only referencing what I’ve seen in Hollywood westerns. If a fort was under attack by “the Indians”, “the cowboys” never ever throw open the gates and run out to the enemy. They waited for the fort to be attacked and fought off the enemy from high up on the inside of the fort’s walls.
I know Hollywood and reality are two separate things, but what about the wall we want to build along the Mexican border? This is really no different than a movie set. The fence doesn’t solve the problem – it only creates an image. So wouldn’t it make more sense economically to bring the troops home and post them all over the country? You could have troops on city buses, walking the streets, the borders, using electronic surveillance. Heck – I’d love to see one of those big old army tanks coming down my street.
Considering there is no thought to when this “war on terror” will end or where the terrorists are or who they are. It just makes sense financially and for the well being of the military to bring them home and let them patrol the streets. If we have 130,000 troops in Iraq, that would be 2,600 troops stationed in each one of the fifty states. While the military is in our cities they could take care of the gang members or any illegal activities too. There’s enough of this type of terrorism to make the country look like Tombstone or Dodge City of the late 1800s.
Shoot a letter to your congress people and let them know how you feel.
- Jake Drew
Come VIST US at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
Friday, March 16, 2007
The Invisible Man!
I’ve come to realize that I am invisible. I am the Invisible Man! I started fading about twenty years ago.
I’ve always liked walking around or going for walks. I like saying “Hi” to people and making eye contact as they passed. It might seem silly, but I think it’s a way to create a connection between one another. I had no idea who these people were, whether they were married, political, wealthy or poor, or even owned a car. I just felt that we were connecting with a smile and hello. It was just a nod to show that we’re in this together.
I noticed through the years people became less aware of their surroundings by the number of walkmans, CD players, cell phones, and Ipods stuck to people’s ears. I’ve never used any of these things because it takes away from my experience in nature or with other people. I like to hear the noises that surround me. The birds, the sound of squirrels scratching up a tree as you approach – even the car sounds whether it’s the engine or the tires splashing through a puddle.
Now it’s gotten to the point where I can’t get a reaction from anyone out there. No one looks up anymore as we pass each other. Okay, maybe once in a while I’m still visible, but not much anymore. Seldom do I get eye contact from anyone I pass.
Grocery stores are the worst. I can be coming down an aisle and never be noticed by the person blocking the aisle. This isn’t coming up from behind a person - this is approaching someone from the opposite direction. When I stand in a line more and more people seem to step in front of me. The worst is crossing the street at a street light. The little neon bulbs light up with “walk” – and I do and a car turns right into me. In the last week this has happened three times! I can only assume that I have become invisible. It’s hard for me to believe that so many people have lost their sense of the reality around them.
The one thing I still have is a voice. I can tell people to get out of the way or just to say, ‘Hi”. I can still be heard at local meetings. Of course I don’t have the silkiness or gentlemanly manner found in the vocal tones of Claude Rains.
Let me know if you can hear me – Jake Drew.
Come Visit US at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
I’ve always liked walking around or going for walks. I like saying “Hi” to people and making eye contact as they passed. It might seem silly, but I think it’s a way to create a connection between one another. I had no idea who these people were, whether they were married, political, wealthy or poor, or even owned a car. I just felt that we were connecting with a smile and hello. It was just a nod to show that we’re in this together.
I noticed through the years people became less aware of their surroundings by the number of walkmans, CD players, cell phones, and Ipods stuck to people’s ears. I’ve never used any of these things because it takes away from my experience in nature or with other people. I like to hear the noises that surround me. The birds, the sound of squirrels scratching up a tree as you approach – even the car sounds whether it’s the engine or the tires splashing through a puddle.
Now it’s gotten to the point where I can’t get a reaction from anyone out there. No one looks up anymore as we pass each other. Okay, maybe once in a while I’m still visible, but not much anymore. Seldom do I get eye contact from anyone I pass.
Grocery stores are the worst. I can be coming down an aisle and never be noticed by the person blocking the aisle. This isn’t coming up from behind a person - this is approaching someone from the opposite direction. When I stand in a line more and more people seem to step in front of me. The worst is crossing the street at a street light. The little neon bulbs light up with “walk” – and I do and a car turns right into me. In the last week this has happened three times! I can only assume that I have become invisible. It’s hard for me to believe that so many people have lost their sense of the reality around them.
The one thing I still have is a voice. I can tell people to get out of the way or just to say, ‘Hi”. I can still be heard at local meetings. Of course I don’t have the silkiness or gentlemanly manner found in the vocal tones of Claude Rains.
Let me know if you can hear me – Jake Drew.
Come Visit US at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Monday, March 5, 2007
Friday, March 2, 2007
SUCH A GOOD BOY!
Last week President Bush sent strong-arm Cheney to tell the president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, that he better step up the hunt for Al Qaeda operatives. If Musharraf didn’t, those Democrats in congress would cut his funding. The Democrats urged the Bush administration to squeeze Pakistan some because American commanders claimed that a number of Taliban were resting easy in Pakistan.
General Musharraf should react because President Bush is looking to give Pakistan $785 Million to help eliminate Islamic radicalism. That’s right $785 Million, and the best part is Pakistan is currently the fifth largest benefactor of U.S. aid. President Musharraf is a smart guy, and in his book that came out in the fall he referenced the “prize money” paid out to him to fight this war of terror, which estimates claim to be around $10 billion in the last five years.
So like a kid being threatened that he won’t receive his allowance unless he cleans up his pig sty of a bedroom – Musharraf came through like a good teenager. Within a day or so of the congressional threat the Pakistanis arrested Mullah Obaidullah, a senior leader in the Taliban. That should satisfy Mother Liberty for awhile or until the next allowance is needed to be paid out.
Write your congress people because there is no excuse why Pakistan is receiving this kind of money. We are being played like absent parents.
- Jake Drew
Come Visit us at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
General Musharraf should react because President Bush is looking to give Pakistan $785 Million to help eliminate Islamic radicalism. That’s right $785 Million, and the best part is Pakistan is currently the fifth largest benefactor of U.S. aid. President Musharraf is a smart guy, and in his book that came out in the fall he referenced the “prize money” paid out to him to fight this war of terror, which estimates claim to be around $10 billion in the last five years.
So like a kid being threatened that he won’t receive his allowance unless he cleans up his pig sty of a bedroom – Musharraf came through like a good teenager. Within a day or so of the congressional threat the Pakistanis arrested Mullah Obaidullah, a senior leader in the Taliban. That should satisfy Mother Liberty for awhile or until the next allowance is needed to be paid out.
Write your congress people because there is no excuse why Pakistan is receiving this kind of money. We are being played like absent parents.
- Jake Drew
Come Visit us at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
TERMINATION?
You ever been fired or had to fire someone? I’ve fired a lot of people, and then I was fired too.
Here’s the thing though – I’ve never known a company to ask, “We’re letting you go, but, oh, would you mind sticking around for a few months?”
Well Donald Rumsfeld can still be found in the Pentagon. He’s listed as a non-paid consultant, but he has seven paid employees working for him. Rumsfeld resigned on November eighth right after the Democrats took a number of seats in the elections. The strange thing was that a week before his resignation President Bush was saying that Rumsfeld was doing a heck of a job and would continue until the end of his presidency. Oh yeah – we saw that with Brownie and Katrina too.
So why is Rumsfeld hanging around? He’s reviewing and sorting through top secret documents, and he needed the status of non-paid consultant to do so. That seems as backward as keeping him around after he resigned. He quit, so why would he be involved with top secret documents?
The Bush administration is tricky. The president didn’t lie about Rumsfeld being around until the end of the administration. He just moved him around. Everybody moves around in this administration or is brought in from the previous administrations of Daddy Bush, Reagan and even Richard Nixon’s administration.
This is an administration that likes to think of itself as a corporation, which might explain why they are in so much trouble. It’s not great business sense to rehire employees.
Write your congress people and draw some attention to why this ex-employee is still hanging around on the premises.
Jake Drew
Come visit us at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
Here’s the thing though – I’ve never known a company to ask, “We’re letting you go, but, oh, would you mind sticking around for a few months?”
Well Donald Rumsfeld can still be found in the Pentagon. He’s listed as a non-paid consultant, but he has seven paid employees working for him. Rumsfeld resigned on November eighth right after the Democrats took a number of seats in the elections. The strange thing was that a week before his resignation President Bush was saying that Rumsfeld was doing a heck of a job and would continue until the end of his presidency. Oh yeah – we saw that with Brownie and Katrina too.
So why is Rumsfeld hanging around? He’s reviewing and sorting through top secret documents, and he needed the status of non-paid consultant to do so. That seems as backward as keeping him around after he resigned. He quit, so why would he be involved with top secret documents?
The Bush administration is tricky. The president didn’t lie about Rumsfeld being around until the end of the administration. He just moved him around. Everybody moves around in this administration or is brought in from the previous administrations of Daddy Bush, Reagan and even Richard Nixon’s administration.
This is an administration that likes to think of itself as a corporation, which might explain why they are in so much trouble. It’s not great business sense to rehire employees.
Write your congress people and draw some attention to why this ex-employee is still hanging around on the premises.
Jake Drew
Come visit us at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Oil & Cigarettes
Exxon Mobil Corporation announced that 2006 was the most profitable year in their history. Actually in any corporations history! Exxon recorded 39.5 billion dollars in profit for 2006. Within days of this acknowledgement Exxon Mobil was trying to get a federal appeals court to have another look at the $2.5 billion compensation to Alaskans for the 1989 Valdez tanker oil disaster. Originally an Anchorage court ordered the oil corporation to pay $5 billion, but that amount was cut in half.
It made me think about the tobacco company settlement in 1998. Forty-six states took a settlement of 206 billion dollars from the cigarette manufacturers to cover health costs of sick smokers. It took 85 years from the time that the tobacco industry introduced cigarettes to soldiers during World War I to the $206 billion settlement.
1914 was a turning point in the tobacco industry because this hooked a lot of men into smoking cigarettes. It was a boom from that time on. It was 1950 when the first medical report came out that linked lung cancer to cigarette smoking, and in 1965 due to pressure from the U.S. Surgeon General cigarette packages had to carry a warning about cancer and smoking.
No one ever talks about the health risks of inhaling automobile exhaust. Maybe there isn’t any, but I highly doubt it. There is that whole global warming issue – oh, but that’s still debatable at least in the United States.
Automobile production probably hit it’s stride in 1950 after World War II. Americans moved to the suburbs, and by 1956 the street car systems in almost every city had been replaced my bus systems.
So I figure on a comparison time line I’d say that the oil industry can enjoy ample profits until around 2035. That’s about twenty-eight more years before they have to own up to the disasters they have caused to the planet. I don’t know if we can wait that long. I’m not even sure we can wait another ten years!
There is no excuse right now as to why we don’t have affordable, humanitarian friendly, non-gas guzzling transportation or vehicles. If you want to protect your health, write a congressperson about this concern. There is no reason why the oil industry is making humongous profits at the cost of human lives. We tax the heck out of the tobacco industry, so why does the oil industry get by?
- Jake Drew
Come visit us at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
It made me think about the tobacco company settlement in 1998. Forty-six states took a settlement of 206 billion dollars from the cigarette manufacturers to cover health costs of sick smokers. It took 85 years from the time that the tobacco industry introduced cigarettes to soldiers during World War I to the $206 billion settlement.
1914 was a turning point in the tobacco industry because this hooked a lot of men into smoking cigarettes. It was a boom from that time on. It was 1950 when the first medical report came out that linked lung cancer to cigarette smoking, and in 1965 due to pressure from the U.S. Surgeon General cigarette packages had to carry a warning about cancer and smoking.
No one ever talks about the health risks of inhaling automobile exhaust. Maybe there isn’t any, but I highly doubt it. There is that whole global warming issue – oh, but that’s still debatable at least in the United States.
Automobile production probably hit it’s stride in 1950 after World War II. Americans moved to the suburbs, and by 1956 the street car systems in almost every city had been replaced my bus systems.
So I figure on a comparison time line I’d say that the oil industry can enjoy ample profits until around 2035. That’s about twenty-eight more years before they have to own up to the disasters they have caused to the planet. I don’t know if we can wait that long. I’m not even sure we can wait another ten years!
There is no excuse right now as to why we don’t have affordable, humanitarian friendly, non-gas guzzling transportation or vehicles. If you want to protect your health, write a congressperson about this concern. There is no reason why the oil industry is making humongous profits at the cost of human lives. We tax the heck out of the tobacco industry, so why does the oil industry get by?
- Jake Drew
Come visit us at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
Thursday, February 1, 2007
“THAT’S HOT!” February 2007
The Bush Administration has decided that there is something to this Global Warming scare. I don’t buy into it because in every State of the Union for seven years he has brought this up. It doesn’t matter if we reduce oil imports by 20% by 2017. So what if we are “addicted to oil”. So what if the United States is responsible for 25% of the world’s carbon emissions and we only hold 5% of the world’s population. There’s a whole group of people out there that think global warming is natural, and we can’t or shouldn’t do anything about it.
Best excuse – it’s god’s plan.
Most people don’t care about the environment. Nature is nice to watch on Television, but they don’t even want to send their kids outside. It’s a scary world out there. You have anthrax in the ground levels, Lyme disease, bird flu virus, child predators driving around neighborhoods, and don’t you dare talk to strangers, even though they live three houses down from you.
Plus to reduce oil dependency we might have to give up some of our “freedoms”. Little Johnny can only participate in one sports activity, because of the gas expenditures from driving him back and forth. He could ride his bike though. Eliminate recreational vehicles. Shopping would be reduced to once a week. Cut out shopping – then we aren’t supporting the troops!
If you want to do something about the environment, you have to humanize it. It’s not a good thing if the glaciers melt away. Warm weather is nice to people, but ocean levels rising would displace a lot of people. Cities and suburbia will need to make room for a lot of new neighbors. U.S. citizens already try to avoid contact with people by eating fast food, renting DVDs, no eye contact when walking, and talking to people through cell phones. Increased population is really going to hinder our lives.
The environment needs a spokesperson. It has to be a person and not a cuddly animal character like a polar bear. Polar bears aren’t found in our everyday lives, they live in zoos. Global warming isn’t going to affect the zoos. We need a celebrity to draw attention to the issues. Paris Hilton would be ideal! She already has that tag line, “That’s Hot!”. Plus we all have an interest in her, and she could use a little polish on that soiled image of hers.
You could show her watching a bunch of hunched over bicycle riders going by with their tight buttocks up in the air. She could use her tag line. She could be cuddling up with a polar bear, though not a polar bear rug. All that tan bare skin against the furry whiteness – Oh, man! That’s hot!
Jake Drew
Come relieve your frustrations with the cartoons at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
Best excuse – it’s god’s plan.
Most people don’t care about the environment. Nature is nice to watch on Television, but they don’t even want to send their kids outside. It’s a scary world out there. You have anthrax in the ground levels, Lyme disease, bird flu virus, child predators driving around neighborhoods, and don’t you dare talk to strangers, even though they live three houses down from you.
Plus to reduce oil dependency we might have to give up some of our “freedoms”. Little Johnny can only participate in one sports activity, because of the gas expenditures from driving him back and forth. He could ride his bike though. Eliminate recreational vehicles. Shopping would be reduced to once a week. Cut out shopping – then we aren’t supporting the troops!
If you want to do something about the environment, you have to humanize it. It’s not a good thing if the glaciers melt away. Warm weather is nice to people, but ocean levels rising would displace a lot of people. Cities and suburbia will need to make room for a lot of new neighbors. U.S. citizens already try to avoid contact with people by eating fast food, renting DVDs, no eye contact when walking, and talking to people through cell phones. Increased population is really going to hinder our lives.
The environment needs a spokesperson. It has to be a person and not a cuddly animal character like a polar bear. Polar bears aren’t found in our everyday lives, they live in zoos. Global warming isn’t going to affect the zoos. We need a celebrity to draw attention to the issues. Paris Hilton would be ideal! She already has that tag line, “That’s Hot!”. Plus we all have an interest in her, and she could use a little polish on that soiled image of hers.
You could show her watching a bunch of hunched over bicycle riders going by with their tight buttocks up in the air. She could use her tag line. She could be cuddling up with a polar bear, though not a polar bear rug. All that tan bare skin against the furry whiteness – Oh, man! That’s hot!
Jake Drew
Come relieve your frustrations with the cartoons at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
Sunday, January 28, 2007
“Maximum Greed”
Ted Kennedy’s blood was boiling when he said, “When does the greed stop?!” Thankfully someone in the Senate was saying what needed to be said. How can anyone think that increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour could be wrong? If a person works full time at $7.25 an hour, they bring home around $210 a week, $840 a month, around $10,000 a year.
$7.25 is pretty minimal to me. You figure depending on where you live a one bedroom apartment rents for $800 a month. Okay, let’s say you got a real good deal on rent - $500 and that’s my final offer. You are left with less than $400 to cover monthly expenses.
Wages across the board have been stagnant since George Bush was smuggled into office, and since then corporate profits have doubled. The inequality between executives and their workers has increased by,…, lets say – lots! The incredible unfairness is when you look at the worker working away as the terminated CEO walks out with millions.
The federal minimum wage has not been increased in ten years, but congress has given itself about $31,000 each during that same time period. So the Senate had to pass the increase for the minimum wage, but the vote breaks down to 54 to 43. I have no idea who voted what, but I bet that most of the forty-three were Republicans.
Eighty percent of the American people wanted to see the increase passed. It makes you wonder how there could be such a discrepancy in votes then? Were they voting as their constituents’ wished? The Republicans wanted to attach a tax break for businesses to the bill. Without sixty percent of the vote the bill now will be delayed and discussed and,…, well, you’ll see what’ll happen.
The number one complaint is that by raising the minimum wage it will hurt small businesses, which can be disputed by looking at past increases. By increasing a person’s pay scale wouldn’t they purchase more? Doesn’t that help the economy?
Write your congress people – better yet get angry at that selfish, greedy forty-three!
Jake Drew
Come relieve your frustrations at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
$7.25 is pretty minimal to me. You figure depending on where you live a one bedroom apartment rents for $800 a month. Okay, let’s say you got a real good deal on rent - $500 and that’s my final offer. You are left with less than $400 to cover monthly expenses.
Wages across the board have been stagnant since George Bush was smuggled into office, and since then corporate profits have doubled. The inequality between executives and their workers has increased by,…, lets say – lots! The incredible unfairness is when you look at the worker working away as the terminated CEO walks out with millions.
The federal minimum wage has not been increased in ten years, but congress has given itself about $31,000 each during that same time period. So the Senate had to pass the increase for the minimum wage, but the vote breaks down to 54 to 43. I have no idea who voted what, but I bet that most of the forty-three were Republicans.
Eighty percent of the American people wanted to see the increase passed. It makes you wonder how there could be such a discrepancy in votes then? Were they voting as their constituents’ wished? The Republicans wanted to attach a tax break for businesses to the bill. Without sixty percent of the vote the bill now will be delayed and discussed and,…, well, you’ll see what’ll happen.
The number one complaint is that by raising the minimum wage it will hurt small businesses, which can be disputed by looking at past increases. By increasing a person’s pay scale wouldn’t they purchase more? Doesn’t that help the economy?
Write your congress people – better yet get angry at that selfish, greedy forty-three!
Jake Drew
Come relieve your frustrations at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
“Human Military Hybrids” January 2007
Every year in the State of the Union address the president tosses out something that makes me perk up. Last year there was “switch grass” and “human animal hybrids”. Through the course of 2006 switch grass came up, but I still keep looking for a human animal hybrid! That seems a lot more interesting than some weedy grass.
What hit me in this year’s speech was “Civilian Reserve Corps”. Huh? That’s what President Bush said.
“A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.”
All I found about this idea was something attributed to Wesley Clark from October 2003. He talked of Americans serving their country when emergencies occur. Civilian Reserve registration would allow Americans to contribute their special abilities to help in times of trouble without an added bureaucracy. Nah – that’s not it.
No way could the Bush Administration be talking about Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which was part of the New Deal to help relieve poverty during the Great Depression. This is the administration that despises and tries to remove anything related to Roosevelt, but cuddles and pampers the Ronald Reagan legacy.
Just for fun I looked up the Nazi stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, the Sturmabteilung. Basically the Brownshirts were a bunch of thugs that Adolf Hitler would use in the 1920s to squelch out dissidents at Nazi speeches or gatherings. Later on when Hitler took power in Germany they were good at busting up Jewish businesses and homes. Maybe? Nah.
Let’s meander on down the trail of the Military Industrial Complex. Bush was talking about Americans without uniforms to define our greatest struggle. It sounds like privatizing the military to me. It eliminates the financial burden of the military, and not so long ago we had hired guns watchin’ over the cattle on the plains.
It’s already here, so it’s not a stretch to get to the Civilian Reserve Corps. In the Iraqi and Afghanistan War we have our military operating side by side with civilians or “private contractors”. Can you imagine what it’s like to work next to somebody making $100,000 a year while you risk your life for your country for $20-24,000 a year? That can’t help morale!
Financially it makes sense to take misguided youths out of their bedrooms and away from their Mp3 to let them act out all their video gaming in a foreign land. The best part is now a company doesn’t have to pay exorbitant salaries, and these employees aren’t held to any of the rules of warfare. Heck! If this works out, we can do away with police departments too! That’s taxing on our cities and country too. Oh, oh, can you say – Sturmabteilung?
Write your congress people because this is one really bad idea.
Jake Drew
Come relieve your frustrations at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
What hit me in this year’s speech was “Civilian Reserve Corps”. Huh? That’s what President Bush said.
“A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.”
All I found about this idea was something attributed to Wesley Clark from October 2003. He talked of Americans serving their country when emergencies occur. Civilian Reserve registration would allow Americans to contribute their special abilities to help in times of trouble without an added bureaucracy. Nah – that’s not it.
No way could the Bush Administration be talking about Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which was part of the New Deal to help relieve poverty during the Great Depression. This is the administration that despises and tries to remove anything related to Roosevelt, but cuddles and pampers the Ronald Reagan legacy.
Just for fun I looked up the Nazi stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, the Sturmabteilung. Basically the Brownshirts were a bunch of thugs that Adolf Hitler would use in the 1920s to squelch out dissidents at Nazi speeches or gatherings. Later on when Hitler took power in Germany they were good at busting up Jewish businesses and homes. Maybe? Nah.
Let’s meander on down the trail of the Military Industrial Complex. Bush was talking about Americans without uniforms to define our greatest struggle. It sounds like privatizing the military to me. It eliminates the financial burden of the military, and not so long ago we had hired guns watchin’ over the cattle on the plains.
It’s already here, so it’s not a stretch to get to the Civilian Reserve Corps. In the Iraqi and Afghanistan War we have our military operating side by side with civilians or “private contractors”. Can you imagine what it’s like to work next to somebody making $100,000 a year while you risk your life for your country for $20-24,000 a year? That can’t help morale!
Financially it makes sense to take misguided youths out of their bedrooms and away from their Mp3 to let them act out all their video gaming in a foreign land. The best part is now a company doesn’t have to pay exorbitant salaries, and these employees aren’t held to any of the rules of warfare. Heck! If this works out, we can do away with police departments too! That’s taxing on our cities and country too. Oh, oh, can you say – Sturmabteilung?
Write your congress people because this is one really bad idea.
Jake Drew
Come relieve your frustrations at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
“Have ya ever heard of the Marshall Plan?”
“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” James Madison in 1795
It’s been almost four years since George Bush stood on the deck of the battleship, the USS Lincoln, and announced how we would help rebuild Iraq. We weren’t going to leave until we left behind a free and democratic Iraq. The USA would build hospitals and schools in the place of the dictator’s palaces.
Now the image of the United States in Europe has faltered to the same low points as George Bush’s support for his policies and the war. What happened?
Sixty years ago President Truman had the same dilemma in front of him. The Marshall Plan was put in place. During four years, which coincides with where we are currently in Iraq, some $13 billion of economic and technical assistance was provided to the convalescing Europe.
The Marshall Plan was conceived by many of the same people who designed the New Deal programs that helped bring the United States out of the Great Depression. The United States wasn’t just looking out for Europe. They knew the European economy was important to the USA because Europe would need to buy manufactured goods and raw materials. Our prosperity was dependent on trade, and markets that developed our ability to export goods.
Truman’s administration made it clear that the Europeans would be free to structure the plan for themselves, but the European plans would have to pass through Congress. Congress was committed to free trade and European integration. The Europeans asked for $22 billion in aid, and Truman cut this to $17 billion in the bill he put to Congress. The funds were transferred to the governments of the European nations. These funds were managed by local governments and the Economic Cooperation Administration.
“In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936.
The Bush Administration has done the exact opposite of what the Marshall Plan was set up to do. This administration didn’t give money or loans to Iraq. Bush gave the funds to large politically connected corporations to deal with the problem. The Iraqi Constitution was molded to make Iraq the world’s largest free-trade zone. Corporations were allowed in to buy up Iraqi companies, and then corporate income taxes were reduced from 40% to 15%.
This continuing war has little to do with leaving Iraq a free and democratic country – this war is about corporate greed.
Write your congress people and remind them of the values that were set up with the Marshall Plan.
Jake Drew
Come relieve your frustrations at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
It’s been almost four years since George Bush stood on the deck of the battleship, the USS Lincoln, and announced how we would help rebuild Iraq. We weren’t going to leave until we left behind a free and democratic Iraq. The USA would build hospitals and schools in the place of the dictator’s palaces.
Now the image of the United States in Europe has faltered to the same low points as George Bush’s support for his policies and the war. What happened?
Sixty years ago President Truman had the same dilemma in front of him. The Marshall Plan was put in place. During four years, which coincides with where we are currently in Iraq, some $13 billion of economic and technical assistance was provided to the convalescing Europe.
The Marshall Plan was conceived by many of the same people who designed the New Deal programs that helped bring the United States out of the Great Depression. The United States wasn’t just looking out for Europe. They knew the European economy was important to the USA because Europe would need to buy manufactured goods and raw materials. Our prosperity was dependent on trade, and markets that developed our ability to export goods.
Truman’s administration made it clear that the Europeans would be free to structure the plan for themselves, but the European plans would have to pass through Congress. Congress was committed to free trade and European integration. The Europeans asked for $22 billion in aid, and Truman cut this to $17 billion in the bill he put to Congress. The funds were transferred to the governments of the European nations. These funds were managed by local governments and the Economic Cooperation Administration.
“In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936.
The Bush Administration has done the exact opposite of what the Marshall Plan was set up to do. This administration didn’t give money or loans to Iraq. Bush gave the funds to large politically connected corporations to deal with the problem. The Iraqi Constitution was molded to make Iraq the world’s largest free-trade zone. Corporations were allowed in to buy up Iraqi companies, and then corporate income taxes were reduced from 40% to 15%.
This continuing war has little to do with leaving Iraq a free and democratic country – this war is about corporate greed.
Write your congress people and remind them of the values that were set up with the Marshall Plan.
Jake Drew
Come relieve your frustrations at http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
Monday, January 15, 2007
"Angels Amongst Us" January 2007
There is nothing creepier to me to think that angels descend from the heavens to watch over us. I’ve never heard a whisper or felt a push to look out for a speeding car or better yet to prevent me from stepping into dog crap. I’d appreciate it though, because I tend to run into the latter example quite a lot!
I do like angels in films, such as “Wings of Desire” or “The Bishop’s Wife”. I guess I prefer to watch angels rather than having them watching over me.
A report came out recently that 81 percent of United States citizens believe in angels in some form. The definition in the report of an angel could be a kind stranger, a benefactor, a misty aberration, or someone with fluffy wings. I’d say that’s a pretty open definition. I assume the 19 percent that don’t believe have to be hardcore Republicans. With a definition as open as this one you’d have to assume that all people are self-centered and unwilling to help others.
I prefer to think that helping others has nothing to do with religion or angels. Is Wesley Autrey an angel or just a courageous man? Wesley Autrey left his two daughters on a subway platform to go save a college student’s life. Mr. Autrey jumped onto the subway tracks to protect the man, who fell while he was having a seizure, from an oncoming train. Later Wesley stated that he had to do something to save the young college student’s life.
Wesley Autrey’s actions were about human kindness at a very high level. He showed compassion or humanitarianism to another. We can all learn from him about caring about others rather than always being concerned about ourselves. Wesley isn’t an angel - he’s a human being.
- Jake Drew
Come visit us at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
I do like angels in films, such as “Wings of Desire” or “The Bishop’s Wife”. I guess I prefer to watch angels rather than having them watching over me.
A report came out recently that 81 percent of United States citizens believe in angels in some form. The definition in the report of an angel could be a kind stranger, a benefactor, a misty aberration, or someone with fluffy wings. I’d say that’s a pretty open definition. I assume the 19 percent that don’t believe have to be hardcore Republicans. With a definition as open as this one you’d have to assume that all people are self-centered and unwilling to help others.
I prefer to think that helping others has nothing to do with religion or angels. Is Wesley Autrey an angel or just a courageous man? Wesley Autrey left his two daughters on a subway platform to go save a college student’s life. Mr. Autrey jumped onto the subway tracks to protect the man, who fell while he was having a seizure, from an oncoming train. Later Wesley stated that he had to do something to save the young college student’s life.
Wesley Autrey’s actions were about human kindness at a very high level. He showed compassion or humanitarianism to another. We can all learn from him about caring about others rather than always being concerned about ourselves. Wesley isn’t an angel - he’s a human being.
- Jake Drew
Come visit us at http://www.livinginlethargy.com/
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
“Addressing Liberty Across a Troubled Region” January 2007
After watching President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq, I realized that nothing new was being said, but when I read the text one paragraph stood out for me.
“The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region.”
There’s a hint of the Crusades of the Middle Ages in this paragraph. President Bush did not say a troubled country; he used “troubled region”. He is working toward a broader advancement in the area to spread our liberty and freedom.
The United States consists of five percent of the world population though we use twenty-five percent of the world’s resources. I always assumed that is because of all our freedom and liberty, but then the president spoke of freedom and moderation. Where does the word moderation fall into our way of life? The extremists kill innocent people and want to destroy our way of life. The United States kills innocent people, and when was it ever stated that extremists want to destroy our way of life?
There’s something missing in all this war mongering. I’d call it diplomacy, and a matter of fact the Baker-Hamilton report suggested that too. If our freedoms and liberties are so valuable then other countries would want to be like us. We wouldn’t have to invade their countries. Kill’em with kindness like a good Christian country should do. If the United States were invaded, I can assure you that we would all fight against the invaders.
As the president was addressing the country there were two events occurring. The United States invaded the Iran consulate in the Kurdish area of Iraq, which is considered an act of war, and oil companies are diversifying the vast oil supplies of Iraq.
This does not sound like the United States is bringing freedom and liberty to others. The reason for the United States wants to be a thorn in the side of the Middle East is based on greed, and the Middle East is suppressing that freedom.
I only wish that the president would be honest about our involvement in the Middle East. Just say it – Our freedoms and liberties depend on capturing the oil supplies in the world.
Jake Drew
Come have a good laugh with us and visit http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
“The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region.”
There’s a hint of the Crusades of the Middle Ages in this paragraph. President Bush did not say a troubled country; he used “troubled region”. He is working toward a broader advancement in the area to spread our liberty and freedom.
The United States consists of five percent of the world population though we use twenty-five percent of the world’s resources. I always assumed that is because of all our freedom and liberty, but then the president spoke of freedom and moderation. Where does the word moderation fall into our way of life? The extremists kill innocent people and want to destroy our way of life. The United States kills innocent people, and when was it ever stated that extremists want to destroy our way of life?
There’s something missing in all this war mongering. I’d call it diplomacy, and a matter of fact the Baker-Hamilton report suggested that too. If our freedoms and liberties are so valuable then other countries would want to be like us. We wouldn’t have to invade their countries. Kill’em with kindness like a good Christian country should do. If the United States were invaded, I can assure you that we would all fight against the invaders.
As the president was addressing the country there were two events occurring. The United States invaded the Iran consulate in the Kurdish area of Iraq, which is considered an act of war, and oil companies are diversifying the vast oil supplies of Iraq.
This does not sound like the United States is bringing freedom and liberty to others. The reason for the United States wants to be a thorn in the side of the Middle East is based on greed, and the Middle East is suppressing that freedom.
I only wish that the president would be honest about our involvement in the Middle East. Just say it – Our freedoms and liberties depend on capturing the oil supplies in the world.
Jake Drew
Come have a good laugh with us and visit http://www.LivinginLethargy.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
