The Life of Gilman Chatsworth

If nobody reads a public blog, does it really exist?

2011-03-16T02:49:00.000-04:00

There are times like right now that I truly do feel like the modern day Charlie Brown. I am completely unable to succeed.

I cannot think of one sustained success in my life. By sustained, I mean success that lasts. My grades in college sucked. My career is best illustrated by dropping an anvil into the ocean from 10,000 feet. Failed marriage, 100% because of me. Failed additional long-term relationship. In the 6 years since I left Chicago, only two people I haven't been romantically linked to have visited, one in Seattle, one in Georgia. Folks even get to within two hours of me and don't care to visit. I've lost my house. I'm behind on every bill. I can't get interviews with 90% of the resumes I send. The other 10%, well, I'm still without employment. I have no success with attracting attention unless I'm intentionally being controversial.

I am the failure face.

The Fall

2011-02-17T11:15:00.000-05:00

Today marks 23 months since I was RIFd by United Community Banks.

In that time, I have been unable to secure employment. In fact, I've gotten to the interview stage with a company only twice. Further, I've had two other interviews with recruiters. To finish the list of callbacks, I've been called about 4 other jobs for which I didn't send a resume. Obviously, in every case, I failed somewhere along the way.

It isn't for lack of trying though. I send out 3 resumes a day, and have for the last 18 months. I do not limit my search to jobs that are in my geographic locale or to jobs that would meet my previous salary.

On February 1st, my mortgage was foreclosed. If I agree to the "Cash for Keys" program, I have until April 10th to get out and leave the house in "broom clean" condition, and I'll receive $2,000. I guess it's because they worry about me pulling the copper tubing and completely trashing the place.

I'll be moving into one room in Denver's aunt's house. It will be the smallest room I've ever had, including my dorm room.

I own a dance studio, that we paid $1 for and was worth -$4,000 when we bought it. I put the last of my money into it in order to make it work. It now pays for itself, but it doesn't pay me, though it has paid back much of my initial investment. Eventually it might be lucrative, but it isn't yet, hence the job search.

I live on unemployment, which I justify to myself because the studio doesn't employ me. Unemployment is $330/week pre-tax.

I have no 401(k). I used much of it as the down payment on my house. The rest had to go into living expenses. I have no savings. I have 50K in unsecured debt, as I kept up under the idea that eventually I'd have a job and be able to pay the credit cards back for paying my mortgage. On any given day I may run out of propane, like it did last night, or the electricity could be shut off. My radio station still runs, but that may not go much longer.

I still have a car, but the payments on the car are harder and harder to make, and insurance is a nightmare. I know better than to go cheap on coverage, having been sued not two years ago. Further, I need new brakes, I need a tune up, I need new tires, and I have a big dent in the rear left section from someone backing into me.

This is where I am now.

On February 17, 2009...

I just got off the phone with a recruiter. He is calling about a job at Regions Bank in Birmingham, as an Accounting Policy Manager. It would pay more, and would be in a metropolitan area. I turn it down, because I feel secure at United Community Banks, I made a commitment to them when they moved me here. Further, they didn't think twice about letting me leave during our busy season to attend my cousin's funeral just a week ago.

I just got my 2009 tax return. It was around $11,000 because I over withhold, and I have about $25,000 in itemized deductions, thanks to donations to various charities, among them the University of Illinois, and my mortgage interest deduction. I am able to loan half of this to a friend so she can pay off a credit card. I'm not at all worried about whether it will be paid back. The rest continues to pay down moving expenses I didn't submit to the bank.

I'm considering buying a condo in the suburbs of Chicago, so that I have somewhere to stay when I visit, rather than stay with my parents. Kind of my version of a second home.

I loan $1,500 to a group that is starting a wrestling promotion in Blue Ridge. I will again get to be Top Jimmy, but now on a consistent basis and within the storylines.

I just got my check a couple days ago. It's for $3,000. That's after all deductions, Social Security, Medicare, 401(k), income tax (federal and state).

I contribute 5% of my check to my 401(k). Pre tax growth, right? I didn't roll my 401(k) over from the previous employers because I put that money into the down payment of my house. My savings are slim but that's because of a combination of security within my job and the effort I've put forth into paying off all the debt from the past. It's almost all gone now.

Propane ran out last week, and I filled the 750 gallon tank. All my bills are taken directly out of my bank account, because I don't have to worry about there being money available. I just turned off Boskey Radio West a couple weeks ago, because the shows were getting a bit stale and I wanted to put the $60/month I was paying into something more fun.

I don't even think about my car. If I need some maintenance, I just get it done. I have a deposit on a 2010 Camaro.

That is a serious fall my friends. None of this is an exaggeration.

Now I read that companies are excluding the unemployed when looking for new employees and it certainly appears there is no end in sight to the fall. It's like Gandalf falling into the pit that has no end.

McCaysville Church of God

2010-11-16T10:39:00.000-05:00

Presented without comment

Hip Hop

2010-10-14T12:25:00.002-04:00

Whoda thunk that I, Jason Boskey, would be attending a Hip Hop dancing convention?

The Ever Changing Me

2010-03-13T09:09:00.004-05:00

It was a year ago that I was just finishing up filming "A Touch of Darkness". If you haven't seen the rough cut yet, you can view it here.

Many things have changed since then, some of it has been documented, such as losing my job, which was a year ago St. Patrick's Day. I've allowed myself to be more interested in creativity, something that is fairly scary for someone brought up in the accounting world. Acting has really become a passion for me. Writing stories is something I have taken to, though the craft for me will require much more polishing. Singing, something I've never had any confidence in, will get tested when I try out for Guys and Dolls later this month. My living arrangement has changed, and stayed the same. Laurel has moved on to Minnesota, and after a rough winter is settling in up there nicely. Recently, Denver has moved in and so far that has been a joy, though her dog has a sock fetish.

We're running FLEX now, which is located in Blue Ridge. That makes living in Blairsville not the right move at the moment, but hopefully that will change this spring. The house was only viewed a handful of times last year, and didn't even come close to an offer. Hopefully, Denver's stepfather, who has become a successful realtor since moving up here, will have more success than we had last year.

Another change that I've found has been an internal one. In the past, I've tried to stay out of squabbles between friends and family. I've always figured if their situation was not affecting mine, I would find a medium between them that was peaceful for me. If they asked me to get involved, I would, but that was the extent. At least, that's what I was gunning for. I still believe that's the best way for me, but in one instance this is changing.

Denver's mother has caused me more anger in the past year than anything I can remember throughout my life. Occurrences have made me sad, happy, depressed, despondent, but not angry, not like this. I've known many people in my life, but to this day I have not met someone more self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant and manipulative than Denver's mother. People have talked about my narcissism and my need for the center of attention. I would never argue these things, as they are perceptions people have had of me, and I can see where these perceptions come from, as I do try to look at myself from the outside and see how I would perceive myself. Yet, even in all that, I am amazed at the depth of her need. Normally, I'd just brush it off, because it has no effect on me. This time however, it is tearing that family apart. Even that might be OK to me. Sometimes the best thing in the long term is to tear things apart and rebuild. However, she's not doing it through altruism. She's not concerned in the least about her family, which includes a teenage daughter. She is only concerned about herself, and what she can get. I will detail all she has done in the future, but for now, let's just say that I have never been more angry at someone who did not do anything to me.

The worst part about it is she has a blog, and some of the people that patronize FLEX read that blog. She announced her pending divorce through her blog, then painted it as if her leaving at the beginning of January was a joint decision. There are so many instances of her painting her perceptions as reality in there, while some are just factually inaccurate. Therein lies the anger. Those who know me know that over time, what has become my hottest button is to paint perception as fact. I can't abide by this, and it has actually pulled me back into writing here.

I'd much rather have been writing about how I got into film school and am in the process of learning all there is about moviemaking. Alas, that's still in the future. For now, it's back to ranting.

Proselytizing and Women

2009-06-11T08:29:00.003-04:00

Whenever a woman tries to tell me about God and Jesus Christ, I am reminded of Paul's first letter to Timothy, Chapter 2, verses 11-12.

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Under the strict interpretation, this only applies to religious teachings, as this chapter of the letter to Timothy is only about religious matters. Under a more broad interpretation, such as the interpretation of a dream Peter had leading to Christians abandoning dietary laws, this applies to all matters... a woman is to submit to men.

The real question is whether I will ever have the guts to remind a proselytizing woman of this.

What are Soldiers Fighting For?

2009-05-23T10:33:00.003-04:00

Here is the oath of enlistment for members of the United States military:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Here is the oath of commissioned officers in the United States military:

I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

Here is the presidential oath, as prescribed by the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

One does not need to be a scholar to see that nowhere in any of these oaths does it say defend the people of the United States of America. Why is that? That is because defending the citizens of the United States is not the military's concern. It hasn't been since the 9th state signed on to the Constitution.

Why does this matter at all? It matters because our military's role is to defend the ideal, not the people. Our military's role is to defend the methods by which this land is governed, the ideals by which this land is governed and the freedoms believed to be so important that they were either in the original document (habeas) or were later added (Bill of Rights, suffrage, freedom from slavery) within this piece of land.

The military is not fighting for the tribe. The United States military is NOT fighting in an "us against them" battle. It is fighting to defend the values, not the people. If it were about the people, then rules of engagement would not matter. Treaties signed in accordance with the Constitution would not matter. All that would matter is the defense of the people.

This is why the argument about "they cut our heads off, and we just dunk their heads in water" doesn't hold. Our military is not about just proving we are the dominant tribe. Our military is supposed to be about the ideal, and you cannot defend an ideal by going against that ideal. When you do, you are truly no better than those whom you fight.

The End Has Come

2009-03-17T09:48:00.002-04:00

My time in North Georgia will be ending quickly.

I was RIF'd.

Need Someone to Explain

2009-03-17T08:41:00.003-04:00

For the second year, I need some help with this...

Why, here in the bible belt where Catholicism is treated as if it is worse than ignorance (since, you know, Mary was just a vessel for Jesus, since women have no use other than childbirth, so why celebrate a woman for doing her duty?) is the most celebrated of Catholic saints being glorified so colorfully?

Of course, I did see one person wearing an orange shirt, which is either a sign of naivete or a direct slam against the Irish Catholics that love this day.

Last Night For Boskey Radio West

2009-03-03T10:24:00.003-05:00

March 24th, 2005, I proved to myself that I could indeed learn how to set up an internet audio stream, and Boskey Radio West was born. I had hoped that it would help me keep a connection with Chicago,as I had just moved to Seattle 9 weeks prior.

It was Boskey Radio West because my father, like myself, was using an FM transmittor in Mokena so that he and others could hear his music from anywhere, and also for awhile was streaming on Pirate Radio. So being west of him, I decided to go with Boskey Radio West.

There have been some great times on the stream.

The Ask Fig Show, which started November 10, 2005
The Jeff Daniels interview with Fig and Pivoney
Being asked to syndicate The Directors Cut
The 2nd Jeff Daniels interview, solo
Filming Hunter Weeks' 10 Yards, a spot I got in no small part due to the 1/2 hour recap I would do each week
Transmitting the 2007 Junior National Curling Championships
The Iwanski/Winter show, which started January 29, 2007

I had a fabulous time doing it. I like to think I learned a lot about what radio producers, station managers, and talent really have to do in order to make a station or a show run smoothly.

What I never really got though was listenership. Boskey Radio West is a relic from a time long ago when people listened to all kinds of music. That's not what people do anymore. I was competing against mp3 players and other more specific streams, like Pandora. Those streams cater to a specific genre, or in the case of some streams, they actually try to figure out what you might like and play that for you. That was never what I wanted. I wanted to expose listeners to music across the board, and with requests, be able to expose people to the music other people liked. Unfortunately, that idea never really caught on. The number of people listening never really grew.

The costs did though. I spent thousands of dollars on equipment, so that I could handle the radio shows. 4 computers, 1 for the feed in from the cohosts, 1 to take calls from regular phones, 1 to aggregate the sound from each computer and to record, and 1 to take all that and stream out. I bought a mixing board so that I could take all the feeds in. I bought a smaller mixing board, wireless microphones, wireless headsets, a laptop, and wireless broadband so I could handle remote broadcasts.

The cost of music is something else. Luckily, I already owned a majority of the music I play, but I was dedicated to getting any music that someone requested. Then throw on the royalties. Unlike regular radio, that pays only the composers, streaming music also pays the artist that recorded it.

In the end, I have to pull the plug. There is no light at the end of the tunnel that I can see, where people will suddenly say "yeah, I want 70s radio again" where you can hear Jive Bunny and the Master Mixers followed by Louis Jordan followed by a Christmas song followed by the Beatles. If people don't listen, I can't even attract enough advertising or sponsorship to pay just the royalties.

So tonight will be the end. I will be live on the stream, audio only, until just after midnight Eastern. I'll do for 5 hours tonight what I never really did while I had the station going. I'm going to be the DJ. I'll take requests via email, via the website, or you can call in to 877-BRW-TUNE and make a request or just chat for a minute or two.

Thank you to everyone who supported Boskey Radio West during its time.

Closeness and Connection

2009-02-11T11:44:00.005-05:00

As many of you might know, my cousin (1st cousin to be specific) Kevin passed away suddenly last Friday, from as of yet unknown causes. The autopsy was inconclusive, which I hope means that foul play, drugs, and meningitis (I assume they would test for this immediately because of how contagious it is) were all eliminated. Toxicology results will be back in 4-6 weeks.

When I would tell people my cousin died suddenly, the first two questions were stock.

"How old was he?" He was 21.

"Was he ill?" As far as I know, he did not have any condition that is associated with killing young people.

The third question is the one that would always trip me up.

"Were you close?"

It's such a relative question, how do you answer it? What are the criteria for determining whether two people are close? Is it how often you talk to the person? Is it how comfortable you are in their presence? Is it the bond you feel with them?

Most of the time, I would avoid the question, or I would say "close enough" because it's such a hard question to answer. I'm 14 years older than Kevin, and for 99% of the time we were over 240 miles apart. We could talk sports, of which Kevin was very knowledgeable for as long as we had conversations. We talked colleges when he told me he was going to Grand Valley State, and then going to Michigan St. We talked fantasy football, and he was my team's general manager the first year I won the championship in 2005. However, there's no way I could say I was a mentor to him, or some kind of guiding light for him. He didn't look to me for advice or anything that some would define as being close when you have one person being an adult and another being a child then teen in a familial relationship.

That said, just on a feeling basis, I felt a connection to Kevin. When I got married in 1998, I broke my own "no kid" (kid defined as under 13) rule by inviting Kevin at age 11. The official reason was that his sister and brother, both older than 13, were invited and it would be difficult on his family if they couldn't bring Kevin. That was political BS. I wanted Kevin there. My Christmas season was always defined by when Kevin's family was coming in to visit their paternal family for the holidays. I like to see everyone in my family, but I always felt it was very important to see their family, because when they came to town, a year disappeared from the time since I last saw my cousins. We all grew a year older, but my brothers and I and Billy, Kristie, and Kevin all fell right in, as if we saw each other every week. When they would come in for the Bears-Lions game, the emotion put forth by Kevin and Billy for those games reminded me of my own emotion in sporting events.

When he was younger, Kevin had the hyperactivity and immaturity that you might find in any child. He was exceedingly polite, but he was a bundle of energy. He grew out of that obviously, he finally stopped biting my coat during Bears games, but it warmed my heart to see him deal with the exact same hyperactivity from our cousin Olivia that he gave to Derek and me. There was no animosity towards Olivia at all about it. A little eye-rolling because he wanted a break, but nothing mean. That kind of playing though builds a bond, whether it was Kevin building the bond with Derek and me, or in reversed roles, him building the bond with Olivia.

From what I've been told, Kevin passed that bond on too to the next generation, by always being willing to play with the kids that would visit up at their family vacation home "up north" near Alpena, much the same way as I unknowingly try to do with my brother's children and my cousins' children.

So like I said, I don't think that my relationship with Kevin would meet all definitions of close, because there was much we did not share. I felt a bond though that I hope he felt as well. I still feel the bond, and probably will until my last days. We would spend 24 hours as being close, then drift apart for a year, then be just as close again. To me, that's having a connection, and in the context of how something like this affects me, is just as important.

Quote from Leon Panetta

2009-02-06T10:44:00.002-05:00

During his confirmation hearing for head of the CIA.

"But very frankly, you have to make waves. When you're not asking questions, when you're not challenging, that's when we make mistakes."

Apollo Creed, if he were the Coach of the Steelers

2009-02-02T00:23:00.002-05:00

"Man, we won, but we didn't beat 'em"

You have to review that last play with Warner. You simply have to.

It's not even a question.

The whole game led up to this one play. The mistakes by the Cardinals, the mistakes by the Steelers, the entire game funneled into that one play. The referees, for all their mistakes in the game, had one play they had to get right.

They did not even try to get it right.

So the Steelers won, but they didn't beat anyone. They got a unanimous decision because their ability to issue the knockout was taken from them by an officiating crew that seemed so enamored with the Steelers that they would not look at a play that was not nearly as obvious as the reviewed touchdown by Santonio Holmes. With that, the win was tainted.

The most pathetic part of it all is that the Steelers fans don't care, further proving we live in a country where winning at all costs is what matters. We then wonder why our economy tanks because of so much fraud in the business world.

President Obama

2009-01-20T12:08:00.000-05:00

Just had to say that...

Thought Experiment for Chicagoans

2009-01-07T09:49:00.002-05:00

Draw these dimensions in your head. Start at Touhy and Sheridan. Go south down Sheridan until it becomes Lake Shore Drive. Take Lake Shore Drive south to 79th St. At 79th St. go west to Cicero. Take Cicero back up to Touhy. Take Touhy to Sheridan.

Now that perimeter you just drove, put a fence around. Not just any chain link fence. We're talking razor wire. We're talking military surrounding it.

There's a checkpoint at 79th and I-94, and Cicero and the Kennedy. Other than that there is no way out. Trying to get through the checkpoint takes up to 3 hours, with no guarantee you'll get through. When you get to the checkpoint, it is quite possible you will be subjected to humiliation at the hands of the guards. The guards, by the way, are not Chicagoans.

Supplies aren't allowed in. People with medical emergencies can't get out. Utilities are sporadic at best.

You are under siege, and have been for 3 years. Before that, you were occupied. The enemy has stated their goal is to break your will.

So you're stuck here, with no way out.

Being on an Island

2008-12-11T09:06:00.002-05:00

My buddy Ephraim says that I should be in politics. He says that the country needs more people like me in office, apparently because he thinks I have an eye out for what's best for the nation, and can explain the why behind my political positions in a way that people understand.

He couldn't be more wrong.

The reason he's wrong is that there are too many thoughts in my head that put me on an island, and it can sometimes be worse being on an island in your ideas than being physically on an island. The physical isolation of being alone must be excruciating after awhile. That said, there is no mental isolation when you have an idea that is different than what others think. No, what happens is rather than try to understand your idea, 99% of people instead cling to their own belief about something and instead try to trip you up to prove your wrong.

Last night in the Green Room following the Ask Fig Show, ED drugs were brought up. My position on ED drugs has always been that if a man becomes impotent, that's the equivalent of a woman going through menopause, and therefore, using ED drugs is defying nature. Of course, this created an uproar because our society believes strongly in the right to have sex. It believes in this so strongly that I'm surprised it wasn't in the declaration of independence. Since I don't think that's the case, it shows up in various ideas that I have about things like monogamy, and in this case, ED drugs.

Why wouldn't you believe in the right to have sex? I'll tell you why. I believe that the theory of evolution is the proper theory regarding the propogation of species on this planet. I do not believe that some being plopped each of the billions of species and said, "have at it." Rather, I am with the idea that everything came from blue-green algae over the course of time. Along these lines, I believe that the point of sexual reproduction is to bring the genes together that are best for that species to continue on and continue to improve. Of course, improve to me means be better equipped to handle the environment in which the species lives. If this is the basis for your thought, then you realize that sexual reproduction is really supposed to be reserved for only the males capable of improving the species.

Next up, a reminder for people. Sex is for reproduction. It is not for intimacy. Some, like I do (another island I'm on) believe that the sex act is an act of showing dominance, but even having it be an act of dominance is again tied back to reproduction. Now, humans have found a way to short circuit this one via the various contraceptives available, and there is no contradiction between saying this is OK and saying impotence drugs are a crime against nature. The former is interrupting something that is natural. The latter is artificially restarting something that has naturally ended.

So, this is not a typical belief among people, especially not American men? Why? I believe part of it is the selfishness of humans. Humans don't want to give anything up at any point in time. They want what they want, and they want it now. The other part of it is a complete and total lack of reflection. Those who were attacking me last night in the Green Room, I am willing to bet that only one of them may have, at any point in time, given any thought to whether impotence drugs are natural or defying nature. The rest, they just want to be able to have sex the rest of their lives, and if it means taking drugs in order to do it, then so be it. No reflection. No thought. Just "I should be able to have sex for the rest of my life, so if I need to take drugs to do it, I don't care."

That's fine if you think that way. I disagree with you. But if you're going to come at me with arguments for why impotence drugs are fine, then please, have a point that is pro-impotence drugs.

Attacking me because I said "no one has the right to an erection", which I contend is true, and claiming without support that it's semantics will do nothing but rile me up. Making arguments that have nothing to do with the situation, like fermenting honey and water is the same thing in that it is messing with nature, show no support for your position and do nothing to diminish mine. All it does is grasp at straws for a reason for my position to be wrong.

By the way, "the right to an erection" is not a legal right. Saying this doesn't mean that you have to get a license to have an erection, or that it must be approved by the FDA, or any other way that someone might want to twist that to make it an untrue statement. Nature give erections to men through physical stimulation and conscious and unconscious imagery, hence it is a gift from nature. In the natural world, in order to have sex you have to earn the right to have sex at that moment and you have to have nature working with you to have the equipment ready. Humans had already eliminated the first part of this equation. Now they eliminate the second.

Perhaps people would think differently about impotence drugs if we referred to those who take them as "welfare cocks" since they are looking for a helping hand to get back on their feet.

Blagojevich

2008-12-10T13:08:00.002-05:00

I'd like to be able to say something clever about the whole Blagojevich fiasco, but I can't add anything to what Iwanski said other than Patrick Fitzgerald, the Republican US Attorney, said that Obama was not involved, other than being one of the people Blago wanted to shake down.

Give the rant a listen.

So Easily Pushed Off the Point

2008-11-20T09:43:00.002-05:00

People, including Congress, are so easily swayed by little symbols here and there.

Take for instance the auto execs. They fly into DC on private jets (not first class as I was originally told) in order to plead their case to Congress. Why is this even an issue? We're talking about a multi-billion dollar industry, and possibly the future of the United States as a country that actually makes things. Yet, this "excess" gets attention at the hearings?

Eye on the prize people! The jets cost $20,000 and saved 4 hours for these people. $20,000 doesn't even show up on their income statement, and in theory, the additional 4 hours these people had was, if they are the type of people who become executives at global conglomerates, used working. Call me crazy, but $20,000 that means nothing to GM is worth less than giving these cats an additional 4 hours to work on this stuff. Additionally, that $20,000 will not be the tipping point for the automakers. What will be the tipping point is if they do not get loans from the government.

Of course, by handing out cheap capital to the financial institutions of the country, weren't the recipients of that capital supposed to be using it in order to inject money back into the American economy via lending?

The End of My Relationship With the Sun Times (formerly: The End of the Sun-Times)

2008-11-10T09:35:00.004-05:00

My relationship with the Chicago Sun-Times is officially over.

I've been a Sun-Times reader since I could read. My dad would get the Sun-Times on the train on his way to work and as soon as he got home, I would go into his briefcase and pull the paper out to read the sports section. I don't know exactly when I started doing it but I remember seeing BUCKNER at the top of the National League batting leaders.

Throughout the time I lived in Chicago, I would read the Sun-Times. When I moved away from Chicago, I'd read it on their terrible website, but I would dutifully go to the sponsors' links to keep the Sun-Times afloat.

I remember Terry Boers' columns, which I would read over and over, since I grew up with his kids (and I found his columns entertaining.) When I started driving, which pushed my radio awareness sky-high, I started reading Robert Feder. Soon after, I was reading the entire paper, and though it was in tabloid form, I was still able to keep up on what was going on in the world without having to deal with sections. It fed my passions too, as Dave Feldman's column fueled my love of horse racing. Roger Ebert's writing on movies made me think, especially when I did not agree with his verdict on a movie.

It was the paper that my name appeared in most often (as you can probably guess, this was very important to me). There was even an edition some years back when my name appeared twice. It was in the sports section where Larry Hamel, their harness racing writer, congratulated me for winning the 1998 United States Harness Writers Association Unsung Hero award, and they published an email I sent to Jim DeRogatis regarding the best albums of all time (I chastised him for not including the Prince album Sign O' The Times.)

In the end though, nothing compared for me to QT, Zay Smith's Sunday-Thursday column. It was a ritual for me. Every day I had to read QT. I wasn't alone either. QT had a global following, and would often receive emails or letters from Asia, Europe, Australia, or South America. The column was extremely witty, pointing out the stupidity of humans. The column was nonpartisan as well, eager to find dumbassery in any political party. QT would also run letters requesting QT spread the news about causes, sarcastically writing, after publishing the request, "Sorry, can't do it" or something along those lines. Of course, the highlight of my week or month would be when QT would publish one of my emails. I can recall being published from Homewood, Seattle, and Blairsville.

Unfortunately, weeks after my other must-read (Feder retired last month) they have canceled the QT column, under the auspices of needing to send Smith back into the field for general assignment. Therefore, I really don't have any reason to go to the Sun-Times on a daily basis. Ebert doesn't write often enough to draw me to the horrendous website. Richard Roeper is OK to read but I wouldn't intentionally go to the Sun-Times to read his writing. If all I need is news from a Chicago paper, I might as well go to the Tribune's site now, as that which differentiated the Sun-Times is now gone.

So that's it. My apologies to Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, but there isn't enough left in the Sun-Times to draw me to it. I will still check in when someone informs me of something worth reading, but otherwise, our time together, something between 28 and 30 years, is over.

Whites No Better

2008-11-05T13:39:00.003-05:00

I've heard white folks in the past scream because the predominantly black constituencies of William Jefferson (D-LA), who was indicted on bribery charges and Marion Barry (Mayor-DC), who was convicted of drug charges, would reelect them, despite their status as indicted or convicted.

Well, white folks now need to shut up. It looks like Alaska has returned convicted felon
Ted Stevens to the Senate.

I don't understand electing someone who is accused in a court of law of using his office for illegal personal gain, which is why I find all of these situations incredulous. Nonetheless, I am apparently in the minority.

More Lunacy of People

2008-11-01T12:08:00.002-04:00

It saddens me when people that I consider to be probably intelligent, can be fooled by the use of buzzwords.

A fellow on Facebook who is a friend of an acquaintance (Facebook should really consider changing the term "friend" to "acquaintance") felt that he was bringing to light a reality about the US Constitution when he wrote this:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Notice the phrase (Caps emphasized by me), "... PROMOTE the general Welfare ..." It says that we are to establish, insure, provide and secure some things. In other words, we/government is to actually DO them. However, in regards to Welfare, it says we are to PROMOTE - NOT provide - the general Welfare. Promote means to encourage ... private enterprises, groups, individuals, etc. Certain people in this nation seem to think and promote the exact opposite.

THIS, my friends, is a key distinction of how and why the Left has been selling the public a false doctrine for many, many years - yet no one has made a strong effort to point out this minor, but foundational clarification. Aren't basically all the Democrat/Socialist platforms based on this false premise that the Govt's role is to mandate and provide various forms of Welfare through expensive, wasteful and ineffective programs that really only serve to gain votes and give cush jobs to their friends???? Think about it, and pass it on. Food for thought.

I believe with just this LITTLE distinction, we can prove that the whole liberal platform needs to be questioned ... sooner than later. I don't know about you, but I can't wait to read the rest of this amazing document!

God Bless America!

First of all, he blows his credibility by actually tying Democrat to Socialist, which is about as proper as tying Republican to Fascist, or Iraq to 9/11. But we aren't here to discuss this, or how someone who claims to love team-building and developing relationships is apt to alienate just under 1/2 of the people of this country who consider themselves Democrats by conflating the boogeyman word "Socialist" with being a Democrat. I've always found the way to build teams is to tell those who agree with you that those who disagree with you are the enemy. We're here to discuss the fallacy of his argument, that promote the general welfare is inconsistent with the democratic platform, how his beloved republican party is not concerned about the general welfare at all, how his attaching to one phrase is an argumentative fallacy, and how he is a hypocrite because as a Christian, one of his top priorities should be to provide for those who do not have.

Promoting the General Welfare

This person claims that what the Democrats are doing is not promoting the general welfare, but instead providing the general welfare. Instead, he claims that promoting means to encourage, and makes the claim that private enterprise promotes the general welfare. Immediately, this is where his argument falls apart. There was a time, of course, when promoting private enterprise was indeed a means of promoting the general welfare, but that time has passed. That time passed when enterprise became so much more worried about profits than about the communities in which they operate. Companies ship jobs overseas to gain one or two pennies in earnings per share. Companies sell and close not because they aren't profitable, but because they aren't profitable enough. When they sell and close, it leaves a gaping hole in the community where it was located. That is not promoting the general welfare. That is promoting the desires of the stockholder over the general welfare. I say desires of the stockholder because the stockholder does not need that extra penny per share.

Promoting also means "to further" and "to aid". The Democrats view of promoting the general welfare, is exactly that... furthering and aiding the general welfare. Promoting the general welfare is pushing the general well-being of all the nation's people, not just those who already have. The policies of the Democrats do not destroy incentive to work. The policies of the Democrats do not make it so that someone working is worse off than someone not working. The policies of the Democrats do not, as this person wrote, PROVIDE the general welfare. A safety net for society is not providing the general welfare, it is aiding it and furthing it by pushing the general welfare forward, rather than letting the general welfare rot while the specific welfare of the moneyed and powerful moves forward. Nothing that is not disposable is taken from the moneyed and powerful. Yet, the benefit to the general welfare of this nation is enormous. That IS, promoting the general welfare.

Republicans and the General Welfare

Republicans, meanwhile, have the philosophical position that government's best role in promoting the general welfare is to get out of the way and let individuals do that. This is a philosophical position with some merit, and if we lived in a country where people looked out for the community in which they lived, this would actually work, as it did for many years. However, in a time when ownership is anonymous and decision-making does not take into account the external repercussions, individuals no longer have any stake in the general welfare of the country. It's very similar to tried and true game theory. As long as you trust everyone else working towards promoting the general welfare, this works. Yet, anonymity prevents people from being accountable to the community, thus it is in their best interest to do what is best for them, with no concern for the rest of the community. That in and of itself is why jobs and factories are shipped overseas. That is why companies relocate for the purpose of cutting expenses. The only accountability is to profits. Striving for profit does not lead to promoting the general welfare. Cutting taxes on the wealthy does not promote the general welfare. What it promotes is feudalism, a system where money and power is concentrated in the few and the many continue to labor in deference to the money and power.

Pulling One Phrase Out

The entire preamble of the Constitution is:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you take a look at what the framers felt was important via the preamble, you see:

insuring domestic tranquility: Making sure the government can put down rebellion and settle interstate disputes
provide for the common defense: defending the nation
promote the general welfare: Help, encourage, further, and aid increasing health, happiness, prosperity, and well being
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity: defending liberty within the nation

(note: form a more perfect union is a comparison to the Articles of Confederation. Establishing justice refers to an impartial means of settling disputes among parties. These are specific and thus in my opinion, do not outline guiding principles)

All of these are noble ideas.

The first two are quite autocratic. Without reading the final two, you'd think the framers thought like the Emperor in the Star Wars movies. However, we have the last 2, which act as limits on the first two, and the first two act as limits on the last two.

So, how does pulling the 3rd one out and just addressing that one piece of these four interlocking pieces solve anything? Promoting the general welfare can only be done within the confines of the other three. And none of the other three can occur without taking into account promoting the general welfare. It is impossible to discuss promoting the general welfare without taking into account the providing for the common defense nor can you discuss promoting the general welfare without discussing ensuring domestic tranquility.

All of the principles carry equal weight, and oftentimes they work against each other. Therefore, it is disingenuous at best to discussing one outside the context of the other three.

It is Christian to Provide for Those Who Do Not Have

One of the more perplexing ideas to me is how Christians, who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, are so against providing help for those who are of meager means. Much of the gospel of Mark is dedicated to Jesus helping those who cannot help themselves. Mark 6:33-44 describes how Jesus fed the masses, and again at Mark 8:1-26.

In my mind, this is how you promote the general welfare. The entire nation is better off if everyone can subsist. Yet, Christian organizations time and time again have failed in the mission to feed those in need. They fail to provide shelter for those who need shelter.

One last thing on this. Jesus did not teach the politics of attack. To understand the lessons of Jesus, look no further than Matthew 5. Think about that the next time someone claims to be a Christian and tries to smear someone.

Published again

2008-10-22T08:49:00.000-04:00

In my own little way...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/quicktakes/1234436,CST-NWS-qt22.article

It's official

2008-10-02T18:41:00.001-04:00

The Aztek has been totaled.

Boskey's Aztek (9/27/03 - 9/29/08)

The Aztek

2008-09-30T12:18:00.002-04:00

The first time I saw one, I wanted one. It was just so cool to me, so different. It was perfect for me, it fit me. It was an SUV, but not. It was roomy, but wasn't the size of a landyacht. It had a good strong engine, but didn't chug gasoline. It was built for tailgating. The tailgate actually had seats and cupholders. Many were built with speakers and radio controls in the back. It had all kinds of hidden storage for the little things. The sound system was great for not being Bose.

On September 27, 2003, I finally bought one. I wanted the champagne color and a sunroof, but the dealer cut price to get me to drive off the lot with the one they had. It was the top of the line Aztek, had a DVD player, the cooler in the console. They put a trailer hitch on it for me, and the car was mine. Few days in my life compare to how happy I was the day I got the Aztek. My first destination? An Illinois football game to tailgate.

It has been my true companion since. It took me to Seattle, through the mountains in January. It took care of me the day there was 2" of ice on I-5. It took care of me going to Canada to get curling supplies. It took me from Seattle to Blairsville without a problem. It has taken me to and from Chicago 5 or 6 times. When it blew a tire in Harden, MT, it made the phone call to onstar so that I could get a tow truck, when my cell phone couldn't get a signal. It took me to Chatsworth, GA 2x a week so I could relearn to wrestle. It kept Laurel and the dogs safe when Flynn the overcurious border collie tried to close one of the windows on his neck, and Laurel went into a ditch trying to lower the window. It made trips to Atlanta easy. All the while, it did it in such a way that I have never been more comfortable in a car.

And in one last act for me, it absorbed almost all of the energy, when I apparently dwelled a little too long looking in the rear view mirror and didn't see the guy in front of me slamming on his brakes to avoid a woman turning left. I hit my brakes but it wasn't enough. Me? I have a bump on my head and my neck and back are sore, and considering the airbag didn't deploy that's not bad at all. The Aztek though... hood is crumpled, radiator is busted, front end is FUBAR, and the front axle might be broken. I don't think it's going to make it.

I've had more than one person tell me "that's what insurance is for." I understand they mean well, and I understand that since I have collision insurance I will be able to replace the car. What they don't understand is that the connection you have to something is often based upon the happiness it brings you. It could be a person, a pet, but in this case for me, it is to a car. The car I wanted from the moment I saw it and was able to get. This car brought me happiness, it brought me peace, and for that matter, peace of mind. I thought I had another 5-10 years with this car. Alas I do not.

So I will have to go the path of buying a new car. I will do everything in my power to get another Aztek, as many dog owners go out of their way to get the same breed as the dog they lost. It won't be easy, because they don't make Azteks anymore (2005 was the last model). It's still the car of my dreams.

Muppet take on Debates

2008-09-27T16:29:00.001-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/09/26/opinion/26suboped_ready.html