Bong hits 4 Jesus rules

Well, well, the Supreme Court gets to decide if an Alaska high school students "Bong hits 4 Jesus" duct tape banner from back in 2002 can be proudly re-waved in the face of the school principal who originally curtailed his activity with a suspension.
The courts first ruled in the school districts favor. The 9th circuit court of appeals reversed that decision. The principal may now have significant financial liability and none other than Ken Starr is representing the school district free of charge. Other supporters of the school and principal include the Bush administration, school boards and of course drug Czar William Bennett. My guess is they'll need him to explain what a bong is.
Then you have the father who lost his job, due in some way to his fatherly and financial support of his son, apparently in partnership with the American Civil Liberties Union. He later won a lawsuit and $200,000 from his former employer.
There's more. The bad deed happened across the street from the school on a day when students were excused to watch the Olympic Torch parade. The boy said the banner meant nothing. He just saw it on a snowboard and thought it was right for what he wanted to accomplish, assert his right to free speech.
There is mention of some prior friction with school Administrators and in 2004 a guilty plea to selling marijuana in Texas. So the kid is no saint.
At a glance what struck me first was a specific difference between this case and the Viet Nam era high school case when the Supreme Court did rule in favor of a students right to free speech. The principle behind this case was admitted to be experimental as opposed to an actual substantive timely expression. There of course is principle involved here to, but limitations may apply a little sooner than in the original precedent. The court said that these limits or balance as sometimes referred to are that students can't be disruptive, lewd or interfere with a schools basic educational mission.
At this point I was leaning in favor of the school district until you realize that the two cases may really have nearly nothing in common. In fact we need to call the kid Mr. Frederick because student is just plain misleading. He was not on school grounds when the incident happened and had not come to school that day so the principal had no right to suspend him. I'm sure she felt pressured to do something but she did the wrong thing and now she should suffer the consequences. Am I heartless? I don't think so. It shouldn't matter but if in doubt look into what a high school principal gets paid these days in your area. I think you'll agree that it's enough that she should have know the rules before she subjected the school district and herself to this kind of expense and criticism. You might call these folks lucky that the outcome of their case was important enough to someones agenda to warrant a free lawyer.
Let me make it clear that I'm no ACLU guy nor do I want to sound unconcerned about this. I realize that schools are up against allot and it may have seemed the sensible thing to do in this case but, there are limits to authority and jurisdiction and when there is a rule it must be followed. Sometimes it also pays to ask oneself in a situation like this, "is this really bothering anyone else as much as it may be bothering me?"

Teflon Vulcans

I've been scurrying around trying to make a living and the like, you know, all busied up with the things that make it far too easy and maybe even sensible to slack off on the writing. What forced me back to it is my utter disbelief at the battering the Bush Administration is taking without a noticeable effect. Let me remind you that I tend to blame the President for blunders made in any department that has representation at or near cabinet level. Unreasonable? Maybe, but they're usually quick to take credit for anything that's done well and especially at this level, so here goes.
Iraq? Disaster. Brits leaving, Cheney calls it a positive sign. His right hand man "Scooter," guilty as sin. Cheney? No comment. I digress, my faith in our jury system is revitalized.
Moving on. Inquiry into Ouster of U.S. Attorneys. The named players are already hiring lawyers. Duke Cunningham's lawyer no less. Is it me or does that seem like a bad move?
Now, the men and women who should be the most revered, the returning wounded soldiers from war are found out to be receiving poor care under deplorable conditions. At Walter Reed, it turns out, they showcase patients for Washington muckamucks and celebrities in the good part of the hospital. Just plain sinful.
Next, wouldn't you think that if nothing else, a sense of shame would make you see to it that F.E.M.A. was on it's best behavior. Not these guys. Thousands of mobile homes built for Katrina victims and never used sit in a field in Arkansas and for unexplained reasons are not available to recent tornado victims. The report alluded to Arkansas Democratic Governor as a possibility. Two nearby States did receive mobile homes and have Republican Governors. We'll never know the truth but it sure looks rotten.
Breaking news: the Justice department concludes the FBI improperly and in some cases, illegally used the Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information about people in the U.S. and under reported forcing businesses to turn over customer data. I wish we could take John Ashcroft's pension away.
How about the image around the world? "Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate bad spirits after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties with the group said Thursday." Why would he even make such a trip? Chavez 1 Bush 0. Brilliant. I caught a few pieces of his speeches on the air that he made down there and couldn't believe how much he sounded like a "Saturday Night Live" impersonator. That's supposed to work the other way around isn't it?
It really is a different world now. All the Democrats can do is appear to be taking the high road when in fact without the power of the independent council law any efforts to take on the Bush administration will go the way of the Scooter Libby trial and nothing more. No more fishing expeditions like the one that brought down President Clinton. No juicy reports back to congress to chart a course. There's just no way to get after the lower level shenanigans.
What makes it even harder is that bad behavior keeps getting redefined. You realize that the independent council law was used on Hamilton Jordan for doing a little cocaine at studio 54 back during the Carter administration. He was acquitted but it shows how far we have come.
On the media side the so inclined have become entertainment businesses who package product to target audiences. Advertisers identify who uses what they make then place the dollars where it does the most good. It's efficient but it's backwards and it's in no way conducive to good reporting. And lets face it, the straight and narrow, the ethical road, values, all of it is getting real squishy these days. Remember the discussions about relativism a few years back. That's all gone because trend setters don't have to explain themselves. They just have to get away with it. No more friction from irritants like ethics. In an article by Herb Greenberg, the financial guy, who interviewed the two convicted felon turned consultants from ZZZZ Best and Crazy Eddies, asked if there was ever any remorse, "never...we simply did not care about our victims . We simply committed crime because we could." These guys conned billions out of the pockets of very smart people so never think you can't be had.
As I've mentioned before, I think President Clinton's indiscretions and cover up were deplorable. For me it was even worse because I thought he was a capable president. That said, I do think that there are some parallels between his case and Scooter Libby's. Chris Mathews had a right wing Pundit on who said that Libby's case wasn't as bad as Clinton's because Clinton admitted that he lied and Libby didn't, even though he was convicted of it. How do you counter that way of thinking? I remember when "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" was kinda used as a joke. I guess those days are long gone.

Why Barack Obama?

It's very early in the game but Barack Obama is an interesting candidate. Maybe at this point it's more because the rest of the field is so damn predictable than anything else but, I have to say that not since Bill Clinton have I been compelled to watch a candidate as closely as I have Senator Obama. Yesterday he stepped right in it with his "wasted lives" comment about soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. Without missing a beat he made all the right steps to rectify the situation. It was really just a misstatement and resolved quickly, to my satisfaction anyway. This is an insight into the man, not something huge but something a little more raw than the usual stuff and should be considered. It's a rookie error and it's good to come clean and learn this lesson early. After all look at what happened to Senator Kerry on a similar issue or Senator Biden the day after his announcement. Both anything but rookies and it finished off one and it remains to be seen with the other.
Obviously the big question is can a African American be elected? Incidentally, I'm not particularly moved by the African American argument that Obama has not had the proper experience to represent true African Americans. He no doubt has experienced discrimination and is well aware of it's history in this country. Empathy can go along way to fill the gap if there is one. I'm not African American so I suspect I may be missing the point but two years from now I think that Senator Obama will have swayed a lot of people in this country regardless of their backgrounds.
Furthermore, I think that every person who voted for Vice President Gore, who did win the popular vote in the last election, could theoretically vote for Senator Obama. I'm not saying the country has suddenly gone color blind but the disgust factor with the current administration is so strong that Senator Obama may just provide the best alternative at the right time.
A long shot? Absolutely but, with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards as his chief Democratic rivals it's not that unlikely he could get the Democratic nomination. Unfortunately for them they each represent too much of the past . More than at any time I can remember, people want something new and different in Washington. Senator Clinton is well known enough for people to recognize that she is currently having to stretch beyond what she really is to measure up to the bar recently raised by Senator Obama. And people don't even want to think about what her predicament in her husbands indiscretions and cover up tells them. This still haunts conservatives as well as liberals, and everyone in between for that matter.
Senator Edwards is just plainly an average politician living in a 28000 square foot house worried about the poor Hurricane Katrina victims. His best chances are at a V.P slot but highly improbable.
On the Republican side Senator McCain will likely get the nod unless Mayor Giuliani becomes even more Republican than he seems to be trying to be lately. Just how good is he anyway? I don't believe he would be in contention had he been the mayor of New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit. No doubt he did a lot of good for New York but in a New York minute the rest of the country could pick him apart for lack of experience. And if your a pro Iraq War guy and you have a choice between Giuliani and McCain, who are you going to vote for? So if it's McCain and Obama, I think Obama has a chance.
There is of course that other outcome which personally I don't care for, being a Clinton/Obama ticket. As time rolls on it will become more apparent how difficult Senator Obama's goal really is. Unfortunately his ultra liberal voting record is sure to get in the way. I also believe that Senator Clinton will realize that Senator Obama nicely counteracts her weaknesses. But I do think that it would be a hard pill to swallow for Obama.
A whole lot can happen between now and the election but for now, why have I like so many others, near irrationally taken to Barack Obama? That's simple, he's believable. It's worth your time to watch him because you think what he says is truthful. You keep listening and it just keeps sounding better and better and before you know it your even feeling hopeful again and that's a good feeling. So for the sake of hope I'm watching him very closely. I know he has a very non traditional background to say the least but traditional backgrounds sure didn't get us much with the current administration. (to say the least)

"Im the decision maker"

Is it just me or does "I'm the decision maker" sound more like the half drunk loser husband bringing to bear his physical advantage to claim control over his uppity wife?
I've taken some time off from writing lately in effort to shake a bad case of cynicism but there seems to be nowhere to hide these days. I figured I would slip off somewhere and find something less dire to talk about but then I get that "deck chair on the Titanic" feeling and find myself back where I left off. It just seems to damn important to ignore.
Folks, we have people in the highest levels of this Government who quite possibly could be delusional. Senator Durbin's assertion about Vice President Cheney, although part and parcel to politics, could in fact be true. It appears we may be witnessing what this man is actually made of, a "never say die" personal constitution that if allowed to fragment would spell the end for him. He may be willing to sacrifice anything to avoid this, including the welfare of this country.
Now on to president Bush, whether directed or his own volition, his State of the Union Address included the requisite acknowledgements and concessions one would expect under the circumstances except for the war in Iraq where their will be no compromise. The "I'm the decision maker," statement seems to have signaled the end to the more thorough explanations. It's damn the Generals,Baker,Hamilton and the torpedoes time for this President.
So who's will is really being exerted here? I can't help believe that this statement does come from his heart but, it by no means seems the natural way to communicate it. In fact, at this point in his Presidency I suspect Mr. Bush longs far more for retirement than owning any more responsibility for the Iraq war.
Remember that President Bush has had to rely on others to tend to virtually all matters involving foreign affairs. Since 9/11/2001 he has essentially handed the reigns over to appointees, who have in effect bungled the job. What I gather from this statement is that, particularly without Rumsfeld around, he is letting Cheney and others know two things, we'll go it your way one more time but after that I am the boss, "the decision maker." Of course it could just be that I'm stupid and just being too damn optimistic.
In a strange way it's too bad that he didn't have his current level of experience when he was elected. He very well might have been a better President.
And now it's payback time for The President and unfortunately the country for bad decisions. In the Presidents case for not knowing his limits and, the country for lack of due diligence. After all we elected someone who without being the son of a former President could indisputably never have won. What we perceive to be safe decisions cushioned with familiarity often are not. We just get old recycled ideas even if they failed in the past. It's time to say goodbye to this clan and all their associates once and for all.

Dems Get Gavel

I'd give anything to know how it turns out for the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. I was able to watch most of the ceremony and I must admit being a little spellbound watching her. She did an admirable job being gracious and looking the part though she did seem to absorb the adulation a little more in line with someone who had just won a beauty pageant. Hopefully this was just a nervous way of dealing with a once in a lifetime event and not some insatiable thirst for this kind of thing. Give her some slack, right, after all I'm watching the anointment of the first woman Speaker in the history of the country. Maybe, but as a citizen I'm in need of knowing if it's all about the country or all about Nancy Pelosi. Fair or not, she is being asked to "right the ship," after a period of Government shenanigans that rivals the Warren G. Harding administration, so the stakes are unusually high. For now I'm all eyes and ears.
The grand kids surrounding her was a stroke of genius for unexpected reasons. They busied up the images so her high energy squirming, twitching and lip biting wasn't so noticeable.
When it came to the speech I'm glad she mentioned the troops in Iraq as soon as she did even though none of the first 100 hours will be spent on them.
Actually as she spoke, the administration was at work teeing up some thousands of more soldiers for Iraq in one last effort to salvage whatever is left of President Bush's ego. They also continue to eye the War Powers Act and now even postal laws to magically increase they're authority. Do you think a spirit of partnership can work to curtail these plans?
Congressman Henry Waxman heading the House Government Reform Committee is exciting. I wonder if he had anything to do with Vice President Cheney looking grumpier than usual or President Bush's more than normal, "the lights are on but no body's home," appearance with Chancellor Merkel today.
As usual, time will tell but, I'm sure glad we are at least trying something new.
See, ethics is something that good people posses. It's that nature-nurture concoction that make some people unable to live with themselves unless they follow the straight and narrow. In groups these people understand the value of a commitment to something greater than oneself. Once it takes hold it has the potential to be truly great and the servants and the served reap enormous reward.
The Minority Leader elect John Boehner said something telling when introducing Speaker Pelosi. Referring to ethics on the part of the Republicans he said, "...when they lose sight of this they begin writing a ticket to minority status." This is the "big stick" approach to the straight and narrow and it doesn't work. It's not surprising it came from the side that lost. Bad guy's aren't team players and maintaining the majority is not enough to keep them honest.
Hopefully the new leadership will see the difference and start some meaningful reform because if you can't fix this then nothing else matters.

Sizing up 2006

As I begin yet another year I can't seem to shake that tugging feeling to size up the year passed. Though not in the memory jogging, January to December tick-off of events kind of way. I find more interesting anything that seems to drive the behavior which the expression of, will be immortalized for 2006.
I think that the balance between the haves and the have-nots may ultimately decide the fate of the planet so it is naturally worth some attention each and every year.
Political systems that harnessed the power of the natural desire to improve ones own lot in life seemed to have had plenty of success.
The places with less of this struggled along with those with few resources and limited experience exploiting the resources they did have. Societies in these stages tend to "cut the tall flowers," so to speak, so the overall restraints to improvement are large.
In the U.S. where the gap has become a valley between the haves and have-nots, the poor don't starve and the society for the most part encourages success but, the shift toward the haves knowledge based economy creates a formidable barrier for entry for the have-nots.
The haves on the other hand seem to remain confounded as to why the have-nots don't simply recognize that the haves inched their way up and they can to. What the haves will never concede is that an ever increasing number of them never were have-nots in the first place. Strangely the ones that skipped the penniless origins, often tend to offer the most advice to the penniless on the subject.
All the while 40 million people have no health insurance and one trillion was spent on health care last year of which 500 billion was spent on the last 10 days of life. I'm no mathematician but for congress to carry on about where to start the negotiating for a minimum wage increase for less than two per cent of the population doesn't leave me all that hopeful
You know my feelings about Iraq. It was a mistake in a variety of ways but the ancillary issue of 2006 is Iran. We had to euphemistically describe what we thought Saddam Hussein had as "weapons of mass destruction," to invade Iraq. We won't have to do that in Iran. We'll know exactly what they have and if it's not good we likely won't be able to do anything about it because we are spent, both politically and financially. If the economy stays robust, the war in Iraq turned around and we made some progress repairing our image around the world it will be two years before we could do anything about Iran. On the positive side it may be a good thing because it will force this administration to work diplomatically for two years and then they'll all be gone.
Which brings me to my last issue for this post. Why does the U.S. Dollar continue to hit lows against all major currencies? This is another conundrum whose birthday was in 2006. Far be it from me to try to call the reason for currency fluctuations but given what appears to be guesswork by the economists I read, I'll share my opinion.
I've seen many periods over the years when the dollar remained strong when it shouldn't have, and had it explained that due to the perceived on balance strength of the U.S relative to the rest of the world, with risk being part of every investment equation, people simply preferred to hold U.S. dollars. Why would I not now believe that the opposite is the case.

American Hegemony

I got books for Christmas, lot's of books, and after reading a few chapters of each I'm reminded once again that we can't blame the Ills of the world on a lack of knowledge. It's all there for the taking and clearly many of the serious miscalculations of today could be avoided by studying the past. No, we don't repeat mistakes because the necessary information to avoid them is unavailable, we repeat mistakes because we're lazy, deceitful or incompetent. How many times must we hear some version of Santayana's "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," before we'll learn?
President Gerald Ford's unfortunate passing provided some focus on the Vietnam War and Watergate era once again. Seeing Donald Rumsfeld and his sidekick, a 34 year old Dick Cheney at the heart of the Ford Administration was surreal. How do a couple of young guy's like this get to be Secretary of Defense and Chief of Staff? I think these selections are as insightful as the pardon of President Nixon into the mind of President Ford.
It doesn't matter now, they got the jobs and the rest is history, but it is incomprehensible that they were the guy's who supposedly had a large role in fixing the country after "our long national nightmare."
So, we have historical information in abundance, we have continuity with actual players from the previous period and guess what, we're right back where we were then except for the embarrassing conclusion.
There are theories galore and the spirit of the times, sort of "perfect storm," wielded notable influence along with a bungled con job that should make the keystone cops feel proud but, in my humble opinion, what drove the decision to invade Iraq was no more than good old fashion American hegemony. From here it masquerades as a hard to shake subtle sense of superiority arrived at by observing your immediate surroundings and believing that it is the highest level attainable. When you become this certain that your ideology is the right one and therefore the answer to the many problems that face all of the human race, you get giddy with the desire to share it with the world. Once they see how brilliant you and your ideas are, they will gladly accept their subordinate role and you will have strengthened America in the process, right? Wrong!
Isn't it strange how the psychology of those who wish to rule and those who resist being ruled is so similar yet neither ever seem to consider it. A clear eyed view always seems to come too late and this is no exception. It actually makes some sense that Cheney and Rumsfeld would wind up in such a predicament. As it turns out their true abilities were concentrated in their political skills. And the incompatibility of good judgement and political skill becomes clearer over time. I wonder if history will record that Cheney and Rumsfeld returned us to our "long national nightmare."Only if the historians are intelligent enough to wring hegemony out of the truth.

Denied The Gloat

It seems like yesterday that being against the war in Iraq was tantamount to being a Communist. I love the financial world analogies so here goes. It must be time to sell the losers, buy the winners and bury the details deeper than anyone reads. In time people forget about the poor performance and only remember owning the right stocks.
In politics, at the behest of the strategists, you serve up the crow as early as possible, eat it shamelessly, knowing that time will work in your favor. When it counts, they will have nicely positioned their clients barely a nose behind the real courageous and independent thinkers, who actually were against the war when it mattered. I don't know about you but I sure wish I had the, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have...", way out of a few of the bad decisions I've made.
What I'd really like to hear now is the internal dialog of the ones who knew better but didn't have the personal fortitude to hold to their convictions. The loss of gloating rights must be painful.
On the subject of lost gloating rights, the predicament of the century has to go to former President George H.W. Bush. Here is what he said after the gulf war. He did not give the the order to overthrow the Iraqi Government because it would have, "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".
Talk about an unfortunate alignment of the stars. Imagine the work that goes into suppressing the urge to spread far and wide the "I told you so's." The only thing in the world that could prevent him from doing so would be the current situation.

But will they vote green?

I watched Bill Moyer's, "Is God Green" the other night. In between then and now I've taken a few jogs on the beach and can report that I couldn't find a 10 foot stretch of shoreline without a piece of plastic trash, washed up from a recent storm. A mile south the tide pools that teemed with life and fascinated me as a child are all but gone. I'll never be able to show these to my children and no late conversion of opinion will ever change that.
While it's encouraging to know that 63% of Evangelical Christians now believe that climate change is real, somehow I think that the other 37% represents the real danger. This is where the power hungry, corrupt and unprincipled remain. They hold on to their beliefs for far different reasons than the ones who saw fit to change sides.
Here you will find people who mine the Sciptures for what serves their needs and absolve themselves of any accountability in the name of Jesus. This is where arrogance confuses being closer to God with being God-like.
To think that there are people who believe that doing anything to slow down the process of fouling the earth is interfering with the will of God, is incomprehensible for me. We hear Senators saying, "global warming is the greatest hoax in history" and a young recently converted environmentalist Christian saying to the effect that she always thought "they" took care of the environment and we didn't. They being ''the tree hugger's-the liberals." Or the other convert saying that "he never made that connection between the Creator and Creation before. This is but a sample of the mind boggling statements made in this program.
I know that it will perhaps never be perfectly clear whether or not climate change is man made. Call me crazy but just in case it is, isn't it reasonable to include that possibility when deciding what should be done about it. The debate has been refocused on who's right and who's wrong about the cause and the issue itself goes unaddressed.
I know "Is God Green" is mostly about the progress being made and I'm thankful for that, but in a bittersweet way. See, when I was a kid I always felt a sense of pride picking up that one maybe two pieces of trash which instantly returned the beach to it's pristine and beautiful condition. Sunday I picked up 20-30 and it wasn't even noticeable. One kid then could do more than the whole world can do today.
So 63% of 20-30 million Evangelical Christians now think that Global Warming might be a problem. I wonder how they feel about the Trash Vortex? If we have to wait for Evangelical Christians to vote "Green" then we have got a long wait.

Larger Government? Please...

Let me start by saying that I'm no fan of Government run anything. The assertion that the government can run any organization better than the private sector is simply ridiculous. I didn't always feel this way, my idealistic origins had me spend 16 years working for the Government proving it to myself. Now, do I believe that we should start dismantling all Government run operations? It doesn't really matter because it is clearly impossible to do that, largely because it is simply insurmountable. These are massive culturally entrenched institutions that have evolved superior defenses. It is every public job in this country. No, they most assuredly aren't going anywhere soon.
But what about private companies like Enron or Worldcom? Disasters of course, but they did finally go down in flames. There was a beginning and and end and there was plenty of ways to look into what was going on. It took some time but that transparency ultimately brought them down. This simply does not exist in Government. I could go on and on about the waste and the secret settlements that are paid to people who are wronged (or think they were) by inside actions that never see the light of day. But, by far the real culprit is the ongoing steady erosion of performance that results from the vacuum that the Government operates in. This amounts to unimaginable billions squandered over the years.
For those of you who operate in the private sector imagine for a moment that the sales staff no longer generates the revenue. (Send them home, or sorry you can't, you'll need to absorb them into other functions.) Revenue just sort of shows up. No gross profit, no net ; margins? who cares, no profit or loss, and ebidta? forget about it. It's like being in a white room with no doors. It's what brought down the Soviet union.
It almost makes you feel sorry for them. But not really, because if you don't receive the benefit they do, your being played for a fool. To make things worse, the delusion they live under makes them odd citizens believing that an honest days work is less than it really is. Because they don't work as hard for their money, they don't think anyone else should either. This gets incorporated into society in many ways and becomes a national handicap and remarkably your tax dollars pay for it.
Now back off Mr./Mrs. Government employee who happened to stumble on this site. I am fully aware that there are hordes of you who are overworked and underpaid. But this is likely a result of what you brought with you, like a strong commitment and work ethic, not what you learned while your there. You are the ones that keep the Government running. I considered myself one of you, working myself to death while others coasted. I had a choice, become one of them or leave. I left and never regretted it.
I think that if you think for a second you'll agree that a lot of people at work don't come close to pulling their weight. But unlike the private sector nothing ever comes along to dislodge them from the system. I think I was one of the good guys but got tired and left as many do. This just concentrates what's left. This is in large part the insidious nature of large organizations without proper checks and balances.
So, what do you do? If your in a position to effect the size of government, think small. This is the ultimate case where less is more. If a politician suggests the need for a new committee or agency or department or whatever he calls it, realize that they probably don't have any answers and are buying time until the storm passes, then they'll do whatever they want. It's good old fashion lip service. Don't underestimate the power of the bureaucracy, growth is power and power is survival. You've heard it before, the bureaucracy runs the Government and it is by far more interested in serving itself than serving you. Try to elect leaders that are willing to deal with it.
Don't accept inferior service, demand to speak to a supervisor or their supervisor, raise hell, call your congressman if necessary.
Also remember that when you see the high dollar settlements, typically for discrimination or sexual harassment know that their are thousands of lesser amounts routinely paid for claims resulting from poor management. When you find yourself taking the bait, going along for the ride analyzing the fairness of some settlement amount, you have probably lost the point. The point is, incompetence. The inability of your Government to conduct itself properly. Given the way it is designed, it simply cannot improve unless the people it is supposed to serve speak up.