[shankbear]

Hammer...meet nail

[BenLurkin]

"I'm not sure which is worse – that spectacle so lacking in dignity, or the fact that virtually no one there is even going to question much less object to government blindly rewarding people whose only “accomplishment” was simply to have happened to be unlucky enough to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Harsh. Very harsh. But this fellow certainly does know how to turn a phrase.

[dschapin]

I completely disagee with this article. The government was negligent and its negligence caused the harm to the victims, therefore, under standard tort law it is liable for any harm that the victims suffered as a result. The only wrinkle is that governments often times exempt themselves from being sued in the same way that you or I could be sued. So, the victims are pushing to have the government change the laws so that they can get the same compensation that they could get if the bridge was privately owned.

One more critique of this article. It is not correct to compare what happened here to a hurricane or other natural disaster - those are acts of God which cannot be prevented. Whearas what happened here here was a simple act of negligence that could easily have been prevented. The government failed to properly maintain a bridge - instead it wasted its taxes on other frivolous projects - it then continued to allow people to use this bridge without providing any warning that the bridge was unsafe. So, when the bridge finally fell and people were injured the government is clearly responsible for their injuries.

[stylin19a]

it will only be sick when Jesse arrives demanding his fair share for his people.