Of course, there are limits to the analogy. But the usual solution will probably apply in this case as well. We'll either reduce the scope and/or negotiate a more reasonable figure with Turkey, or we'll dictate a new figure and say 'deal with it'. The advantage of the latter in this case is that we don't have to be worried about getting sued by Turkey afterwards. <g>
As for impeaching Bush, and in keeping with the analogy, it has always amazed me that the average Joe (er, make that Ted ;-) tends to blame the "Owner" for cost overruns, rather than understanding that there really are unanticipatable (is that a word?) things that can crop up in projects sometimes, and contractors charge exhorbitantly when they happen.
In further keeping with the analogy, when the owner insists on building a building that has considerable opposition and has trouble finding suitable contractors, its not unusual for eligible contractors ie Turkey to take advantage and to gouge the owner. And if the owner further fails to make a solid case for construction of the building and protest marches ensue, then it would not be surprising to see said contractor increase the size of his gouge since he knows he has the owner between a rock and hard place.
Once word gets around, all the contractors begin to take advantage of this owner, thinking a fool and his money are soon parted. Usually, the owner ends up filing bankruptcy before the building is completed. On those rare occasions, when a permit of completion is issued, the building is typically known as [fill in the bank]'s folly!
So is it that surprising to hear people talk of firing the owner?
ted |
