Help me think this one through, perhaps as a test case of whether or not governments spend money wisely. On the face of things, the numbers seem as absurd as umpteen hundred dollar toilet seats, yet more proof that taxes are wasted. And yet every time I've looked into particular examples of government spending, I've found the mix that is familiar to most military historians: corruption, ineptitude, diligent good-hearted people doing their best, confusion, muddling through. Putting civil servants in charge of anything has always been a risk, but as Mike says, who better to do the things that a conscience-less market will not do? Everyone here is well read on these issues, but should someone be casting about for a new perspective I recommend, rather than a tub-thumping lecture on nineteenth century social misery from someone like Dickens, the nuances of an annotated Pepys, a volume that might be sub-titled, "how to be a somewhat-honest civil servant and still get on in the world." So here goes. The latest "news" from Iraq is that Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi may have been wounded. Stories about this "news" mention that the U.S. is offering a reward of $25 million for this man. I can see the very old fashioned notion here that it is a wise use of resources to offer a reward for one's enemy--getting someone to betray him is cheaper than finding and killing the fellow oneself. But why $25 million rather than say one or even two million? Are we hoping a very large group of people will band together, twenty five at a million apiece? Or are we reasoning that a man tempted by a reward of one million dollars will be twenty five times more tempted by twenty five million dollars? David Ritchie Portland, Oregon ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html