Amending The Standard Form Of Professional Services Contracts: Fill & Download for Free

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” [Amendment II, Constitution of the United States, as ratified by the several States]The Constitution as a whole, including the amendments, must be viewed through the lens of the time to be understood. This is not as easy as it might sound, because even if you know the right words, you have to understand the context of the time. The Second Amendment is a real beast, because it has been interpreted by the courts, even the Supreme Court, for the most egregious of political reasons, to distort the meaning. I am not a Supreme Court Justice, nor even an attorney, and it is not my intent to refute Cruikshank, but to offer a fresh historical perspective on the meaning of the Second AmendmentThe Militia - What “They” Said….James Madison: “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” Federalist 46James Madison: “A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” 1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: “ The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789)Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On DemocracyThomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” Richard Henry (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)Justice Joseph Story: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace both from the enormous expenses with which they are attended and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them…” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.The point many miss (and has not yet been addressed in any court) is that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to form militias. Just as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the right to life, the people’s right to defend life, the right to form militias is an extension of the right to liberty, the people’s right to defend liberty.When Madison proposed the Second Amendment, he submitted the text of the Massachusetts proposal, unchanged…“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” [Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Charles Hale, (1856), p. 86]As you can see, the intent of this proposal was, clearly, to guarantee the rights of citizens to own and carry arms. They recognized this as essential because, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country. This was recognizing the role of militias in liberating Massachusetts from the British.Understand, it was not “The Kings Militia” who rebelled against King George, it was the armed citizens of the colonies who formed ad hoc militias (such as The Sons of Liberty) to oppose what they perceived as tyrannical government, facing the troops of the King. With the exception of Boston, Massachusetts was essentially liberated before the Revolution began. In many communities around Massachusetts, militias had already repelled British soldiers who came to confiscate their powder, with the threat of arms, before the Battle of Concord.These militias were not controlled by the Colonial Government in any way. Originally, many were formed in communities throughout the colonies, especially in New England, primarily for community protection and policing (analogous to today’s Neighborhood Watch), who joined with militias like The Sons of Liberty. Even after the Continental Army was formed, the militias were not “controlled” by the Army, but often coordinated with it. The Founders were guaranteeing, not just the right to own and carry firearms, but the right of the people to form militias.Well Regulated?The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.So, if something is “well regulated”, it is “regular” (a well regulated clock; regular as clockwork).In the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. [2](emphasis added)The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."Finally, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, from The Federalist Papers, #29,The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.From this quote we can deduce two things:If the Founders meant for government to control the militia, they would have used the verb “to discipline”, as in “a well disciplined militia” (an objective Hamilton described as “futile” and “injurious”)As Hamilton observes, well regulated meant the people were responsible for training themselves to arms, as well as supplying and equipping themselves. "Well Regulated" was a superlative of the character desired in a militia. Though Hamilton thought this onerous, by demanding the Second Amendment, the States devolved this responsibility to the People.Arms - weapons considered collectivelyThere is a lot of misunderstanding of this term, even among the gun community. If you just read the 2nd Amendment by itself, it is easily (and often) misinterpreted. If you study the the supporting documents and the ratification debates, it becomes much clearer. Nonetheless, the keys are in the text of the amendment itself. A couple of definitions first to promote understanding….implements of war, munition, weaponry, weapons systemammo, ammunition - projectiles to be fired from a gunarmament - weaponry used by military or naval forcebomb - an explosive device fused to explode under specific conditionsUsage - A couple of famous quotes…Niccolò Machiavelli:The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms . You cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.Adolf Hitler:The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.arms (Johnson and Walker’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828) -At the time of the Second Amendment, arms meant pretty much the same as now. Firearms (muskets and muzzle loading rifles), ammunition (powder and bullets), bayonets, swords, and field pieces, but those were the arms of the time. The term “arms” was selected with the understanding that while the hardware might change, it would still be “arms”. Whether it’s a Brown Bess, or a Type 4 phaser, it’s still arms.Actually, the modern definition still applies, as the Founders were well aware that military science was rapidly evolving, particularly in the field of arms. They specified arms to leave interpretation as broad as possible, but there are caveats. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… [emp. added][Tenche Coxe]Mr. Coxe was a Congressman from Pennsylvania. Clearly their intent was that citizens be armed with military grade weapons.It seems pretty clear cut, but in analysis, there are inherent limitations, on both government, and the People. The prefatory clause, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, is a justification clause, and defines a limit on what type of arms. It does not say, “Because the People need to hunt for food, and slaughter live stock” or “As the People must be secure in their person and home”. Though these are good and sensible reasons, and while they were certainly considerations…. It specifies the militia as defined above, so clearly all arms, up to and including military grade weapons.The operative clause: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, note the wording - keep AND bear arms. These two terms are inextricably linked. It inherently limits the arms you may keep, to the arms you can bear. In other words, such arms as an infantryman or “soldier” carries; at the time, a musket or rifle (with bayonet), with sword, and or pistol. Today, common, infantry type weapons include (but are not limited to) pistols, semi-automatic rifles, burst fire rifles, and fully automatic rifles of a caliber used by the individual infantryman.This specifically excludes crew served weapons such as heavy machine guns, mortars, artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, missiles (other than man-portable), fighter jets, etc. because a single militiaman cannot bear them, by himself. Just as the Federal government can commission privately owned ships, by a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, as ships of war (privateers), the governors of the States can commission officers to establish, and equip a militia unit, with the crew served arms needed to wage war.What to Conclude?Having properly defined “militia” as used in the vernacular of the Founders, and establishing the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” as it was used at the time the Second Amendment was written, it seems the “well regulated militia” was meant to be “the whole people”, all citizens, who, at need, could work together, and as effectively as a professional army, with the armament they provide themselves. In order to do that the arms and equipment in their possession, part of their “regulation”, would be arms and equipment equal to that of any army they may face. None of this seems to support the interpretation that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, or a state sponsored, organized militia.As to what constitutes arms… This analysis must conclude that the government shall not infringe (in any way limit) the right of the citizen to own any weapon they can use effectively by themselves, as individuals, or carry them, as is fit. While the prefatory clause is a justification clause, it is not the only justification found in the supporting documents, but one of several. It was seen as the most important, and justified the broadest possible latitude in the types of arms the People could own. A hunting or slaughter weapon might or might not be effective for personal or home defense. A weapon suitable for home defense can also be used to hunt, and slaughter livestock, but not optimal in armed conflict. A weapon suitable for military use can be used for all of the above. This does not limit one to “military grade” weapons only. Any weapon can be used effectively in combat. It may not be a “first choice” weapon, but it can certainly be used effectively if it is all you have; certainly more effectively than nothing at all.Even if the Constitution were amended to preclude government access to the militia, this would not affect the Second Amendment. The “militia clause” of the Second Amendment was not the “reason” for the amendment. It simply represented what the Founders saw as the most important of many reasons. Actually, the Second Amendment could be seen as guaranteeing The People the right to form militias, irrespective of government control.The Second Amendment was founded on this principle, “Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”, from the Declaration of Right, commonly known as the English Bill of Rights. Notice there is no mention of the militia, but this guarantees the right of the English people to have “arms for their defence”. Explicit with the “right to have”, is the right to use in your defence, therefore to carry with you if you felt you may be threatened.Since the right to own and carry firearms was already commonly understood, but the British Governors had elected to deprive them, in some very important cases, of the means to equip their militia, the Founders saw this as the most likely abuse of power regarding firearms, since the right to own and carry arms had been undisputed for 100 years. It did not deny the ownership and use of arms for defense, and in fact states that the right to own and carry arms, even for use as a militia, shall not be infringed. Note another difference to the clause from the Declaration of Right…. “and as allowed by law” was specifically addressed by, “shall not be infringed”. While the King could make laws regarding ownership and use of arms, Congress could not.What Does It Mean… Today?Modern language only vaguely resembles the language of a couple of centuries ago. This is “linguistic drift”. As society changes, so does language. Words take on new meanings, or even express different ideas. The Heller decision was the first SCOTUS decision that actually took a look at the basis of the 2nd Amendment, that actually parsed the arguments of the authors, and the delegates to the ratifying conventions. The Court’s conclusion was inescapable. The only reason the opinion didn’t go any further than it did, was because the question before the court was very narrow.You see, actually, the words in the Constitution define the concepts at that time. That specific concept was agreed to by all parties to the document. This was a contract agreed to on behalf of the representative’s constituents. While the meaning of the words may change over time, that concept remains the same. The concept, described by what the words meant at that time, is the law.As language changes, so does society, but, the law does not. That is why it is the duty of Congress to write laws pursuant to the Constitution, and as society grows, and the people, in great enough numbers, feel the Constitution no longer addresses the needs of society, to amend the Constitution. Until that happens, regardless of what the words may mean today as opposed to the time when they were written, those concepts, agreed to by all signatories, shape the law.The Constitution is a legal document; a land survey plat is a legal document. Both are defining legal constructs. A piece of real estate is defined by boundaries. You will never see a parcel of land defined with a stream or river as a boundary. A stream may run congruent with the boundary, but markers are set to establish the boundary. Over time, a stream may change course. If your boundary is on a stream, when it moves, do you suddenly have less land than you paid for? Of course not, your land still extends to the markers set at the time of the survey. This is why the concepts of the Constitution, not modern definitions of the words, define the law.Understanding the history of the Second Amendment, if it were written in today’s style, it might be written as…The right the people to own and carry arms, even for use as a military comparable militia, shall not be infringed.Footnotes[1] Meaning of the phrase[2] What the Founding Fathers Meant by "Militia"

It’s a form contract that’s negotiated between contracting companies, companies that frequently use their services (like property developers), and design professionals (engineers and architects) that’s accepted as the standard for such transactions and is almost always used after the tendering process.If you’re doing a major building project that requires an engineer or architect to prepare the tender, it’s usually a term of the tender that the standard construction contract terms prevail, although there can be amendments to deal with special situations.The use of the standard form reduces the work for lawyers (they’ve already reviewed it) and establishes certainty about how things like change orders and disputes will be resolved. It also sets out a standard set of payment terms and, usually, gives the engineer or architect sole authority to judge when payment is due.Since contractors and building agents are so familiar with its terms, and the terms themselves are so clearly spelled out, it’s rare that there’s a situation that arises where both sides don’t know where they stand.

Americans who are concerned about such issues sometimes point to Canada as a kind of liberal test bed. As I have said in some other Answers this can be very deceptive. Conditions are very different here. So is the Canadian Constitution. So are attitudes. So is the economy. So are the political lobbies.You can extract a few examples and possibilities but you have to be careful with them and not overextend them.You'd Need A Comprehensive US Liberal PlatformAt both the federal and provincial levels Canada has Liberal Parties. They put forward what their definition of what “liberal” means in the Canadian context. If they get elected they enact their liberal platform, to the extent that budgets allow.The United States does not have this. The Democratic Party does not pretend to be a liberal party. It's a grab bag of interests, big corporations, minority group activists, career social workers, people who believe in open borders, people who want the Second Amendment cancelled, some trade unions. etc. This does not add up to a liberal platform. The supporters of Bernie Sanders are saying just that. If it wasn't so difficult to form third parties in the USA, they would probably be one.The Liberal Party of Canada has, as part of its platform, things that are not necessarily part of a liberal repertoire. However, since they are the Liberal Party of Canada they have plenty of say so. The Liberal Party platform includes:-A commitment to multilateral free trade agreements.-A commitment to international peacekeeping.-A legalized commitment to a very limited, defined, constrained type of ethnocultural multiculturalism.-A legalized commitment to official bilingualism.-A commitment to high immigration levels, with a focus on economic immigration, and provincial participation in selection.-A commitment to recognition of the grievances of Canada's indigenous peoples, and negotiations on a “nation to nation” basis.-A commitment to managed agricultural supplies.-Economic stability as a strong, strong priority, with freedom of competition curtailed in some cases, if it has to be.-Using government-owned companies to accomplish certain economic and social objectives.-A commitment to nation wide standards of medical, educational and social services, expressed in part by transfer payments from the wealthier provinces to the poorer ones.Most or all provincial governments accept some of these principles, as well as the commitment to a comprehensive social safety net, expressed by government enacted social programmes.You Need Political Parties, Not A Bunch of People ShoutingWhat political party would be prepared to advocate this in the USA, to the extent it is applicable? And, you need a political party, not a bunch of individuals and groups grandstanding, blogging, expressing passionate views, decrying enemies, etc.At the United States federal level, that political party would have to commit itself to a “core” standard liberal programme, basically a capitalist social democracy with social justice created via social programmes. Then they would have a menu of alternatives like the above and would have to choose some. It wouldn't be much different at the state level.The Supreme Court Would Have A Field DayThe default position of the United States Constitution is that powers not specified as federal belong to the states. The Canadian Constitution is the reverse. Canadian law and cultures don't have the same concept of society being subservient to the untrammelled rights of the individual. A federal or state political party that tried to approximate Canadian liberalism would face a barrage of lawsuits and court challenges. The decisions would establish how far American liberalism could go, without constitutional amendments. This would play out over time as standards are established by legal precedent.So, Liberal America Takes ChargeSay, for example, revulsion against the excesses and failures of the Trump Administration opens a window of liberal opportunity. The Sanders faction and its allies take over the Democratic Party at the federal and most state levels. This liberalized Democratic Party continues much of the Sanders platform, with some add ons. The Democratic Party wins the Presidency and one or both houses of Congress. Similar things happen at the state level.Various permutations and constitutions could arise. Here is just one scenario:We're BrokeThe new Democratic administrations look at the books and choke a little bit. They are taking over after a Trump administration that wasn't fiscally conservative. Rather, the Trump Administration made deep tax cuts without creating countervailing sources of government revenues. (Except tariffs, which are a tax paid by American consumers and consumers to the United States Government. In Canada, the federal government at one point was virtually addicted to these tariffs.) They have to do the same exercise that new administrations in Canada customarily do. That is, announce a fiscal crisis, blame it entirely on the previous administration, and use it to justify cancelling their campaign promises.Then the new administration looks for spending freezes and cuts that won't cause a public uproar. The go-to is freezing civil service salaries and reducing the civil service by attrition . (Civil services have unions and contracts with the governments. You can't just fire people.) Then, the new administration looks to creep taxes up. Start with higher “sin taxes”, liquor, tobacco, and in Canada as of October 17, weed. Then, raise the gas tax a few cents. Raise income taxes on higher income people. Reduce tax rebates. Look for ways to tax Internet-base transactions.Some of the Social Programmes Are Already ThereThe USA is far from being without some social programming. That's what social security and medicare are about. The new Liberal governments will have to squeeze out enough money to augment them and make them more universal. Social security benefits get raised but people may have to pay more payroll taxes until they retire. Obamacare gets expanded. However, the new Democratic federal administration hits a medical wall. The American medical system is among the most costly in the developed world, without producing population wide superlative results. In Canada, doctors bill the provincial health insurance plans. Hospitals are controlled by the provincial governments. Canadian citizens and permanent residents don't get hospital bills. The hospitals get provincial government support and also bill the provincial medical plans fee for service, for services covered by those plans. (Many Canadians buy supplementary coverage from private health insurance plans, or their employers provide it.) This system is cheaper, although you don't get many celebrity millionaire doctors. Those new Liberal governments either need to procrastinate or bite a very hard bullet.Then, The Really Hard Part BeginsI believe these new American Liberal administrations would stumble over the a la carte parts of liberalism. Canada got through the stumbling stage a long time ago. The Liberal Party of Canada decided on the menu options a long time ago, and stuck with them.In the United States, developing that stock Liberal platform will cause pain. A lot of Americans who present themselves as progressives will be very disappointed. However, the liberalized Democratic Parties of the USA will have to reach out to swing voters or else get another Trump-type, rewave.No Open BorderYou can't maintain bearable labour market conditions for your less-skilled workers unless you keep your borders under control. Maybe you even construct parts of the Trumpian wall. You enhance investigations and prosecutions against those who illegally hire undocumented workers. You shift the focus of legal immigration quotas away from family members and specified nations, to skilled worker and business immigration. Maybe states get invited to use their local labour market expertise and participate more aggressively in selection. Some legitimate labour needs get supplied by legal temporary Work Permit programmes. Canada has one for seasonal agricultural workers.Eat Multilateral TradeThe Trump Administration is doing the American people a great service by showing them that economic nationalism doesn't work. Trade wars aren't good and easy to win at all. The trade struggles become protracted, America's trade rivals take reprisals against working class Americans and farmers, unite against the USA and look to do business with each other. Average Americans get hurt, badly.The new federal Democratic Administration folds down the trade disputes, returns trade discussions to professional negotiators and diplomatic interchanges, and accepts that multilateral trade agreements will stay a fact of American political life and sometimes, the USA will lose.A Little Bit of Multiculturalism And That's ItRace isn't the same as ethnicity. The USA has been somewhat successful at integrating various races into American culture, at least enough.However Spanish has emerged a de facto second language in the Southwest and a few major cities in other regions. The federal Democratic Party discusses the situation with the state governments. The probable result? English gets declared the sole official, national language of the USA. Areas with sufficiently large Spanish speaking populations get legislative guarantees of a limited range of Spanish-language services, maybe including school bilingualism, the publication of Spanish-language versions of some municipal, state and federal laws, bilingual signage at some federal buildings, and that's it and that's all.Spreading False News and IncitementCanada has worked at enforcing against this for a long time. Yes, Canadians have freedom of speech but not freedom of threatening behaviour. So, if you want to express your views that us Jews are out to replace you, you can. However, creating false facts like the Jewish replacement plan and saying, we are acting in self-defence so let's go get “em”, is hate speech that incites to violence and, at least, discrimination. The federal and state Democratic Parties enact laws that criminalize that behaviour. Then they fight it out in the Supreme Court.The Right to Bear ArmsThis right is in the United States Constitution. Nowhere enough states will agree to a constitutional change that eliminates the Second Amendment. The liberalized Democratic Parties of the USA don't even waste effort at trying. The better effort is to increase school security and increase pre-sale checks on gun buyers. You can't win them all.I could go on and on with this list.Learn To Love Your Bureaucracy, Tough LoveIn Canada the Liberal Parties have to work really hard to keep their bureaucrats on the level. There is a saying here, “The pigs are always at the trough.” English-speaking Canadians are generally adverse to public displays of emotion. However a hot news story about public servants behaving badly, will justify throwing a total fit at your local sports bar. Liberal governments have to reply heavily on social programmes and strict law enforcement. Never assume that your civil servants will be competent, place the public interest over their careers or do the right thing.So, that's your Liberal, quasi-Canadian, America. Disbursements, taxes, functioning bureaucracies, realism, national humility, you can't win 'em all and nobody even gets a full win, eat the hit and move on, there's no free lunch. If you need passion and victory, look for it in a sports competition or in your romantic life.How many Americans could live with this? How can you tell?Martin Levine