Try Angle

Here are a few pieces that intersect.
Re-Rights,
Checks,
And Balances. [^^^]

How? Well, we have the Judiary, Congress, and the Executive perspectives.
The bottom line is account ability. Yes, that is two words under three branches.
We have the accounting of Bush v. Gore, trickle down, and the slippery slope. Juctices can't count, economics does, and they all matter. I will try not fall into the trap of the previous post with technical difficulties arising from the burden of
tangents and links, or whatever the problem*** is, but it is a matter of looking back** at where we were and how we got there, with Bush the Decider, the current economic climate of understanding Trickle-Down and Slippery-Slopes, and the Executive we are lucky to have in the face of mythical* obstructionism and obfuscation. In fact, again I have only read the first and glanced a bit at the others but they are almost a protractor or other instrument of our graphic nature and the geometry of purpose that some have. i.e. It was not my original intent but maybe there is some intelligent design, in that it is about Re-Writing our social architecture. Re-writing checks and balances, economics is the bottomline and whether there is Bane or Change, and I don't mean Bain or Boehner.

* mythical: as in monstrously huge if not fantastical.
** well they did arise so there! I mean here:
and see Lord of markets,
and values politics. Economics is not without politics and values.***

*** "convenient" link see placement(^) of asterisk "the problem" re: positive/normative "dispute" or die-manics of dynamics.

(^) (more ttdl: footnote search own comment(^^) re: economics being engineering. ...?)

(^^) [3-13-12 update: my ttdl(temp tech difficulty linking) is now corrected, also found my comments on economics being a field of social engineering. Featured caricature? Herbert Spencer. ALSO RE : Politics ]

[ Unrelated: if war were not related to economics.(NFRY) Also too bad.]

[^^^ Tag tomorrow : From the original Try Angle we have the 3 branches as we navigate the world of economics and power relations.]

CIA Inspector General Report

Internal Report Faults Ex-CIA Director's Counterterrorism Efforts
Voice of America by Gary Thomas

CIA inspector's report on September 11 faults leaders Reuters
Then, to top it off, Bush ignored the Al Qaeda warning
Prairie Weather (newly googled)

The Report cia.gov

My earlier reference to The 9-11 Commission.
Set Up? Walled Excuse. The Liaison Report April 16, 2004
HISTORY A GUIDE TO LOOKING AHEAD, NOT A DISTRACTION
The Liaison Report May 4, 2004

URL ADDED: GORELICK MEMO
USDOJ.gov
PDF Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General

Flip-Flopper in Chief:
Bush to invoke Vietnam in arguing against Iraq pullout CNN.com

Earlier Flip Flop reference.

Comment: Who writes his stuff?
Another tangent: If it is Rove and we need an Unrove,
my nomination is for Brent Budowsky.

Gitmo Got More

I don't know if it is mentioned here and I must look over my previous work, but the big news is the 8-4 [* should read 5-3 SEE BELOW]vote overruling Bush on his preemption and rendering of the constitution. Justice Roberts was sidelined because of conflict of interest rules that he upheld by recusing himself from the decision on a case that he had earlier ruled on.

That fact [his recusal] is mentioned but I do not think it is categorized as the big news, but it is a critical blow to a "unitary executive" if any Justice he selects must be "fair and balanced" not to mention follow rules,laws and the constitution.

Now it is a matter of not making new laws that will run this stay-the-course vicious recycle.

[* should read: "5-3" - keeping with my policy of not messing with my posts without notation, I must have done some wierd math, which indicates I should slow down. There were also no labels till now, and the thought of Hit and Run.] and a "run"+"Bush" search was what brought me here.]

The Gore Exception; A Layman's Guide...

[Mark Levine provided a Q&A analysis of the selection of the President. Titled:
THE “GORE EXCEPTION”:A Layman's Guide To The Supreme Court Decision In Bush V. Gore

Having read the decision myself, I asked him the following question.]
> Is my logic correct that the only thing bipartisan was the dissent?

His reply: yes.
There was no 7-2 decision. That was the spin of the Five Lawless Justices.
Note that none of the four dissenters concurred in any part of the majority
decision. If the had, it would have written "concurring in part, dissenting
in part."
Don't be fooled.

[Link added 2-11-07 although originally an email and this reflects an exchange with it's author at the time]