I'm in DC, have time on my hands, and no place to call home. My condo was just packed up in preparations to move it to Pittsburgh. Which means I had time to wander a bookstore, and am now sitting in a local food establishment offering free wireless.

In both of these places I've come across people talking about their jobs. Overhearing the interaction between speaker and the spoken-to, I've become sad, in a real existential sort of way. Not weepy, just sort of washed over in an unwanted empathy with these people and the work they do.

First was a published author talking to an audience of aspiring novelists. The speaker was fine, but I could tell from his voice that he was somewhere else, disengaged, making a rote speech about what it's like to be an author. The hopeful faces in the audience all glowed with the same concept of vague accomplishment. This, they seem to so desperately want, is a real first step. Come, listen to the author talk about his experiences, and learn about how the publishing system really works. As if the publication-worthiness of their own book was a foregone conclusion. In reality, 99% of the work produced by those hands is utter crap. It's no fault of their own, and no indication of their personal worth. Most writing is crap. THIS is crap, realtively speaking. But since the cost of publication is so low, the drive towards quality loses steam. So there, in the top floor of the bookstore, is the bored moderate success of a thriller-writer giving the same tired stories and platitudes to a gathering of writing-circle attendees all flush with visions of acceptance letters because, after all, everyone at the writing group on Tuesday over at Panera Bread really liked the latest draft. Just a little more work, some tightening up of the descriptions, more flash to the ending...

Which brings me to the restaurant, and within eight feet of some woman built like a retired linebacker with years of stool-piloting at the local Applebee's. She's fire-drilling a woman with the air of the slightly befuddled through the process of becoming a Mary Kay sales rep. It's all directive and dictation. You're going to do this, then you have this, and wait give me that I'll read it, and just to make it easy we'll do it how I've done it for others, and you can see here how others have done this with me, and it's all here in my program since I'm a computer buff and really you just should...

It's exhausting, really, and I understand the slightly resigned nature of the woman being signed into the world of pyramid marketing. She's being hit with a process like a fat-cushioned mac-truck, hand-held and spoonfed through online registration. Will she be able to recreate any of this tomorrow as she tries on her own to start the new job? Instruction by lecture works in some cases; this one looks like it's being lost on the audience.

Would it be wrong to mention the fundamental problem here? To say that this right now, this hook-in-lip dragging onto the Mary Kay boat is the only way to make money? She'll have to be prepared to be on the other side of the table, being the middleman taking larger orders and distributing them to her own stable of sellers. Frankly, one tough question about how one wins the pink Cadillac, and I'd bet on tears.

25 years from now when the houses are for sale and the stuff of their lives is detritus in the basement, discolored and warped, these people's children will collect the unpublished manuscripts, the cases of foundation and eyeliner, and wonder. Just what the fuck were mom and dad thinking with this crap?

There are lots and lots of uninsured in this country. This isn't something one can argue with. But like most political uses of a number, hauling out this statistic is mostly a distraction.

Generally lost in the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands about the number of uninsured people in our country is any consideration of the difference between insurance and actual care. And it is actual care that should be the real concern. People without insurance are varied in their characteristics. They include children who have parents unable or unwilling to buy insurance, people out of college who have no fear of ever getting old, and the elderly who may have chronic problems and can't get covered. By and large, however, these people are covered. Medicare and Medicaid exist to provide a way to pay for health care in the event that the person is unable (due to age or income) to do so in any other way. True, there are definite gaps in the availability of Medicaid and Medicare (you have to fit into the appropriate category; very poor single adults often don't qualify). So of the large number of uninsured, we have only some subset of that population that is unable to get health care coverage.

And what of those people, and those gaps? As anyone who has had to find it privately or used COBRA can testify, health insurance is a massively expensive proposition. [Editorial Aside: When you see discussions about the changes in income levels over time, consider the fact that employer financing of health care is far more prevalent now than before. Your compensation is more than just salary. The value of having your employer pay a large share of your insurance goes up as health insurance premiums go up. To your employer, this is a cost of having you on the team. So while salaries may not be going up, especially in comparison with the CEOs of the world, the average level of compensation for the average person is much better than it was even 30 years ago. End Aside] Of those people who fall into this situation, there are many who are choosing not to take on the expensive cost and purchase something else with their money. Some put the money into housing or other costs, but it still must be taken into account that for some the cost of health insurance is at odds with the basic costs of living. A more hardened libertarian than myself might suggest that this only means people should move to lower cost areas, or that this is a self correcting problem insofar as letting some people go entirely without care might serve as a social preventative when people make better personal choices from their observations of the fate of those who didn't. But it's hard to argue that family units don't provide a useful support that is missing when people move, or that social Darwinism is an unqualified good. Point being, it's not wrong to worry that some people can't get health insurance. What I have never heard, however, is a case of someone not getting health care because of the lack of insurance.

Access to health insurance and access to health care should not be conflated into the same thing. The truly important metric is utilization of health care. Those who have insurance may not spend much time in the system, while those who don't may be there frequently. Or vice versa. More important, however, is the fact that a lot of people who are covered by some program (Medicare/caid, SCHIP, etc.) often don't take advantage of it. Why this is true is complicated, and depends heavily on the age group and income bracket you're talking about. The effect, no matter how it comes about, is poor health outcomes for certain populations. And therein lies the true heart of the matter. Do we care about who is covered, or do we care about who gets care? They are not the same thing, and the answers don't result in the same policy.

Generally, people express hope that everyone will be healthy. I, as noted before, don't believe you have a right to demand good health from anyone, but I don't wish anyone harm. The policies advocated by the current candidates, however, center on that scary number of the "uninsured", trumpeting their plans as those that will finally cover this horrendous failure of American justice. This requires belief in the false notion that having coverage through some sort of program is employer insurance isn't available or unaffordable equates with positive health outcomes. Once people are covered, the plans ask you to believe, there will be good health for all. This is a ludicrous notion, and you should be offended that they ask you to swallow it unquestioningly.

Sadly insurance actually can drive worse behavior. When the cost of some activity is lowered, people will tend to engage in more of it. Make it easier to deal with high levels of bad cholesterol, and its hard to get the patient to ease off the gravy-covered fries and marbled steak. While I actually have a great deal of respect for pharmaceutical makers, people have poor facilities in making judgments and tend to see pills as solutions to their problems. Patients, who should absolutely take the time to inform themselves, often simply believe what they see and demand that a doctor provide the pills for what the patient believes is wrong with them. This effect, however, is more prevalent the lower the personal cost of insurance goes.

The argument here is not for a total lack of insurance. Such a situation would drive other problems. People without insurance will leave off getting care because of the expense, and end up making their conditions worse. Ending up in the emergency room after letting a problem fester means that the whole event is using the most costly resources when the illness will consume more resources and the person is the worst off. Some middle ground is both desirable and possible.

In a later note I'll discuss the information issues that create problems in the market for insurance. Suffice it to say for now that a massive government program that provides jobs for aspiring administrators may sound like a wonderful plan, but does little in terms of dealing with the ultimate question of having a healthy populace.

Here's the skinny: after next week's match-up with the Giants, there could be five NFC teams notted for thelast wildcard spot, at 6-6. The Vikes and the Lions play at the Roller Dome. If the Vikes win they pull even with the Lion at 6-6. The 'Skins play the Bills and will most likely be 6-6. The Eagles play the Seahawks and if they avoid the big let-down following was the Pats game yesterday they could also be 6-6.

Granted, the Bears might have a tough a time with the Giants, mainly because the Bears suck more than the Giants. How many big plays this past Sunday were nullified by inept play? Let's see, I count:

1. Most obvioulsy, Grossman's fumble inside the five;
2. Hester's fumble on the punt return;
3. Illegal contact nulification of 2nd qtr pick;
4. Grossman TD pass nulified for Holding (Miller);
5. Muhammad's drop, which would have been a first-down, late in the 2nd qtr;
6. the missed takles on the 65-yard screen play by Denver before the end of the half;
7. Davis' 3rd and 8 drop in the 3rd qtr;
8. all the missed tackles on the college-style option plays - gimme a break.

Still, if they beat the Giants they go to 6-6. The following two weeks they have a chance to eliminate two teams, the 'Skins and the Vikes. It's conceivable that they could be going into the last two games on the short list. The Eagles still have games against the Cowboys and the Giants; the Lions have the Chiefs, Chargers, Packers and Cowboys; and the 'Skins play the Giants, Vikes and Cowboys.

After the Giants, the Bears have one game against a .500+ team and it's the Packers at Soldier Field. Just Saying (part 1).

Here's a few scenarios that all hinge on the Bears winning the next two games:

1. Lions lose to the Vikes, and then the Cowboys putting them at 6-7. The Vikes beat the Lions and the 49ers and get to 7-6. The Eagles split between the Seahawks and the Giants and end up at 6-7. The 'Skins split against the Bills and Bears and are at, you guessed, it 6-7. Bears win both and are tied with the Vikes at 7-6, with the lead on the line the following week at the Roller Dome.
2. Lions beat the Vikes, and then lose to the Cowboys putting them at 7-6. The Vikes lose against the Lions and beat the 49ers and get to 6-7. The Eagles split between the Seahawks and the Giants and end up at 6-7. The 'Skins split against the Bills and Bears and are at, you guessed, it 6-7. Bears win both and are tied with the Lions, but a game behind due to the head=to-=head record, at 7-6, with the opportunity to eliminate the Vikes the following week at the Roller Dome.

With me so far? Good. After the next three weeks, the Lions would have played the Vikes, Cowboys and Chargers. I put them at 7-7 after that. The Vikes have the next three against the Lions, the 49ers and the Bears. They could be 6-8 after that. If they lose to the Bears their season would be done. The Eagles play the Seahawks, Giants and Cowboys. After that they will most likely be 7-7. The 'Skins have the Giants, Bears and Bills for the next three and only get to 6-8.

If the Bears win the next three, against the Giants, Vikes and 'Skins, the game against the Packers, at Soldier Field, could mean a playoff spot - Just Saying (part 2).

Taken from Heritage: Birth of the Administrative State

Wilson's thesis in his works on administration was that it was far better and more efficient for a professional class of experts, instead of a multiplicity of politicians with narrow, competing interests, to handle the complex business of the modern state. To the objection that entrusting administrators with such discretion might not comport with the Constitution's distribution of power, Wilson responded that administrative principles and constitutional principles were distinct and, thus, that constitutional limitations could not easily be applied to the exercise of administrative authority.

It's not that I find the arguments for Progressive policies repugnant, I do not. In Wilson's context, clearly there is more for the State (note: Big S) to do than, as the Framers laid out, mitigate commerce, protect borders and establish a baseline of law that applies across state (small S) borders. Whether this action is a responsibility or opportunity is of little difference to me. To draw another example, the Great Society's goals far outweighed any then-contemporary perception of the negative consequences of the policies chosen.

What I do find reproachable, is the tendency for action without the prospect for results. Whether the current subject is SCHIP, minimum wage or immigration reform, the cause for action seems to outweigh the attention paid to results.

...I do want to note that today is the anniversary of one of the greatest speeches ever delivered (on record, anyway). Lincoln's Gettysburg address does in under 300 words what our politicians cannot do with multiple terms in office. The cause of the war is noted, the grievous cost lamented and the ultimate price of failure clarified, resolve requested, and the meaning of success properly framed.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

But in a larger sense we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It might feel odd at first, but try reading that out loud. This is a practice I recommend for a good deal of great works. If it helps, consider that from one day alone, 7800 men -- more than double our losses in Iraq so far -- were dead from the fighting with a total of nearly 38000 wounded or missing.

* Seed should note the use of the double "that". It's not improper in English, just very hard to do well.

I heart Scalia. But even if you consider him the nearest thing to Hitler the US has ever seen, the one argument you have no footing for whatsoever is that the man is not one of the smartest people to ever sit on the bench at the Supreme Court.

Reading a simple Scalia interview -- an extemporaneous interview fer chrissake's -- like this one on orginalism reminds us that there are, in fact, giants living among us.

"The more you think about it, the more you realize it's either originalism or else you essentially tell your judges, 'Oh, wise judges, you went to Stanford Law School and Harvard and even Yale Law School. Govern us. You must know the answers to these profound philosophical questions as to whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be a right to suicide, whether there should be a right to homosexual conduct. After all, you went to Harvard and Yale and Stanford.'

Right. Fucking. On.

Quick tech question here. A few months ago I started getting complaints from the wife and the in-laws regarding DVD playback on the home system. I was never there to witness it, but the reports went along the lines of:
the DVD doesn't play;
the DVD plays but there is no sound through the TV;
it plays sometimes but not others;

Most men here would file those under User Error. Especially when you have supply complete written instructions, with drawings, for you in-laws when they house-sit for the weekend.

As it turns out, I had the same issue when the wife and I sat down for a flick a few weeks ago. The player menu comes up on the TV, so it's safe to assume that no cables have been moved. The disc menu does not come up, though when play is pressed the counter starts to tick and there is audio. There's just no display from the DVD. That lead me to think that the player was dead. I tried composite jacks and they worked just fine. None of the settings on the TV have been changed. Everything is still set to HDMI, 16x9, etc.

I got Toshiba on the phone and they were nice, but useless.

So, I picked up a Phillips DVD player this week and got it hooked up. Very similar issues. Player menu comes up, disc menu comes (which is better than before) but there's static when you play the disc. Strangely enough, there is also a green flick that appears on the screen every few seconds.

I pack everything back. The new DVD player was going back anyway due to the fact that it didn't have an optical audio out. Back up a sec...

A week or so ago, I noticed that the picture on the TV, while viewing the cable input, went dead. I thought it was the Dish box again. I reset everything and finally narrowed the issue down the composite jacks on the TV. I switched to a aux set and everything worked just fine. Though there is a bit of play in the jacks that effects the display. The cables come into the set and make a sharp right angle before the go into the jacks. My thinking was that due to the location of the first composite inputs there was too much turn in the cables. The second set of jacks was in less constraining position. So, I kept everything like so, and it was fine.

Back to the DVD issue. Being up late last night, as usual, I decided to play around with the old DVD player and see if things were any different. When the new player was set up, I noticed an error message that appeared on the scrren just prior to the disc playing, and the static screen. It said that HDCP non-compliant. That made me think that there was an issue with the connections. The TV is only two years old and very compliant.

So I flip everything on and rotate the TV so that I can see it while I'm at the DVD player. Sure enough, I get a flick in the display. I hop behind the set and fiddle with the HDMI connector and I get a solid picture. The disc plays, but there is no audio through the TV. The sound should go through the HDMI cable to the TV. Normally, I use an amp for the sound. So, I do not pay a lot of attention to the TV audio. Normally, there was usually an error message that said HDMI Audio Not Supported, when the disc cycled through chapters. I swear it wasn't every time, but most of the time I got the error. I paid little attention to it because of the external amp.

Now I've got a solid display on the TV while playing disc. Then the audio just comes on. It's late, so the TV volume is at a trickle. I'm flipping through chapters and the sound comes on. So, now everything is back to normal. I've got video and audio while playing a DVD.

The questions is whether the issue is the HDMI cable itself, or the HDMI jack on the TV? The cable's are around $50 and not a huge deal. If it's the set, then it's got to go in for service, or I settle for composite video on a 720p 32" LCD.

It is fitting that the Bear's 2007 season should come to a close during their bye week, since they haven't really played a game all year. Even the networks know they're done. With the rest of the NFC North winning this past weekend, the Bears effectively eliminated from post-season contention. They are four games behind the Packers; Four games behind Detroit - three straight wins and one head-to-head; tied, but a game back due to the head-to-head loss to the Vikings. The only worse teams in the entire NFC are St. Louis and Atlanta.

So, they have eight games to play and are four back of the division leader. They might as well be getting started after the All Star Break, trailing by 40 games. Think the Wildcard is up for considerations? Think again. Even if Detroit fades, the Bears are three games behind the Giants. My guess is that that match up will be pointless by December 2.

The real question is when the front office will ring the gong and begin playing for next year? It's pretty obvious that:
Archeleta cannot handle safety;
Bensen is not your future running back;
the entire receiving corp needs a shake-up;
special-teams Devin Hester is the best scoring threat the Bears have;
Griese blows as much a Grossman, and surpasses Rex due to the fact that he has blown for his entire career, with the exception of a brief stint of Pro-Bowl-ness while he was on a real good team;
Ron Turner needs to disappear;
Clearly, the Bears need cheerleaders.

My guess is 6-10 for the year.

Mint400.net/imagebase

I initially hesitated at sharing this through this venue. But, upon further reflection, let's see if it has legs here. If you've gotten this link through another channel, all apologies for the repeat. Currently, it's an exact copy of what is running on my personal network. My thought is that it becomes divergent here, but who knows? There is an admin tool that allows images to be easily uploaded. So, if other riders are interested, I can set it up.

That's photographic work spanning a couple of years. If not shot literally from the hip, it's photos taken with a quasi-amateur approach that tries not to disrupt the flow of things too much. As an art student, I failed all my photography courses. Since then I put my head down a bit and approached the subject a little more dilligently. And then there's the admission that I like to drink and take shots of botanics. So it goes.

The player is not something that I am capable of building. It's an off-the-shelf thing that I picked up here. It's wicked cheap, and totally customizable, right down to the source .fla's.

The riders here are pretty techno-savy, if not impatient. I won't go into a detail of how to use the thing. I will mention that commentary and photographer annotation are contained within. You can get that information by clicking the thumbnail button on the dragable widget at the bottom, while on the slide viewer screen. From there, you get another widget with a preview mode, and the main image in the center. Click the arrow button inside the center pane and you'll get an overlay with the data.

Enjoy.

It's really sad when video games get old.