"Timing is everything."

[Rough draft: ]
A phrase I recently Googled.
And today noted.

1. a. Curve Balls?, e. Connecting the Dots, l. PC [^]
2., 3.,
4. (b.s.) "perpendicular": a. Anachronism, b. Heuristic Concurrence and ...

[continued 9-22-14: To whom it may regard...]
Hot, cold, wet, dry.  Father Quido Nye[!]
Up s. c.[!] d'acronible candle schtick.

Nye: A. B.
Quido: A.  Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?) , B.
Facebook Town Hall (amended) , C., D., E.  2 Reid's later? , F. Missing M-bed , G. Wise Crack , H.  REFRAIN is a Heckuva Paradocs[!] , I.  A Funny Thing Happened... , J. Dog Days, Raven Nights?, K. Darned if you do, darned if you don't..., L. Frank Knight , M. The Challenge? , N. Off Track Betting , O. "Can't Get There From Here" , P. McCain camp sexist. , Q. Stranger than Science (Fiction) [?]
Father: A., B. Rat Races Van Mices?, C. Pink Floyd,

The Ge Oh Metrics? 

The thing about timing(TIME) is that there is more than one perspective on its definition. Not to be ironically reflective by taking time from timing, but that may cover an aspect of it.  Maybe scratch or reboot this.  The forth(`) dimention(^) is the stick.  Not to men shun the Three Amigoes.

Re: 4th Dimention

(^) Arthur Young(sic)
(`) my psych [?]

[This has become a rather hard draft but(~) speaking of timing (dot,dot,dot)?]
(~) A., B., C. D., E., F. (buh dump ump  : d. Para-model) Now that is Gravy~ Toss~ [!] ~OW[!]
~  \\  BLANK NETWORK, ~ [<\\>]  a.,b., c.Wittgenstein
Gray V~: a., b. Re-Mix, c.Anachronism, d.Loose Threads, e., f. Divide to conquer?, g. 13 and a half men?  h. A Plea to Congress
[!] OW almost litter ally! Actually I just flipped open the hard copy and landed on the strip.

Immigration Reform

and Political Maneuvering:
[Posted* elsewhere under construction.]

* I had an earlier comment [found it: SEE (scroll to)"To Heck with the Political..." 2010-07-08 12:04] not at the above elsewhere link

[My point is that Republicans are too often for something before they are against it. Some people believe there are absolutes, and do not see the gray** in their words. Present company included. Then there are people that follow leaders or misleaders. In regards to Immigration Reform, Ronald Reagan was not so demonized for his amnesty for illegal or undocumented workers. And Senator McCain was for comprehensive reform before he was against it. But the big issue is who is responsible and that is the federal government.[***] There is an optional federal E-verify program, and there are two AZ laws that are at issue. The problem is Republicans making it an issue for state political calculations, and not addressing it at the federal level for the federal political calculations.]

** or is it purple or constitutional/political separations
[*** post post links added]

[The current policy is that hiring of undocumented workers is the crime without punishment. Comprehensive Immigration Reform would be documentation with punishment but at least a process. My theory is that you cannot just enforce laws at will without interpretation and implimentation consideration, unless you are Republican. The Federal Goverment is not just the Obama Administration, it is also congress. Congress is not just the House but also the Senate. While the House is solidly in Democratic control, the Senate is in minority control, Republican 41, even though there is a bi-partisan majority. 56-D/2-I]

[Mini-Meta- Meme? I just mean a heckuva job filtering, when there is so much out there. Keep in mind: A. what a job it would be to check MSNBC & FOX and B. the fact that Politifact began only during the 2008 campaign.]

Who knew what when...

...is still unclear and contradictory.
(Update became too long and windy so I overlap here)

<< Correcting an Impression (1): still confusion(2). My own missing (3) link.

Apparently $30 Billion latest AIG potential for drawdown has been caught in this confusion and is potential leverage. Who knew what when is still unclear and contradictory. >>

(1) "Congress last month passed a bill that President Obama signed into law, allowing AIG to keep its bonuses. For days, no one would say who was responsible for the loophole that let that happen.

The $787 billion stimulus bill included a measure from Dodd to limit executive bonuses strictly. But slipped inside at the last minute was an exemption for bonuses agreed to "on or before February 11, 2009." That allowed AIG to go ahead with its controversial bonuses."

(2) "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28."

(3)"The federal government agreed Sunday night to provide an additional $30 billion in taxpayer money to the American International Group and loosen the terms of its huge loan to the insurer, which is preparing to report a $62 billion loss on Monday, the biggest quarterly loss in history, people involved in the discussions said."

<> Date of sources: (1)today 3-19 (2) yesterday 3-18 (3)Sunday 3-1-09 <>

Imagine the scenario that the market actually had the information clear. The above confusion occurred likely due to the compartmentalization* of information and actions needed to be taken over a weekend. I am still uncertain about the spurious charges of "hush money" in regards to the "retention" bonuses but it is difficult to expect too much transparency** in such market sensitive negotiations or even authoritarian (or mob rule) expectations for responsibility.***

* and filtering through various departments, committees and branches of the process, including the media
**this does not excuse the outrage over bonuses but the speed that was needed and
is in contrast to previous manipulations or administrations and telegraphing our blows.
***(not to mention "...rotisserie of meaning and values and what is being skewered or brings stock aid to mind.": see P.S. verse us alternatives )
[Yes I played with verses as opposed to stocks versus stockade mentality]

[Footnoted Outrage: Between the lines: Embedded and bottom line.
A.I.G. Using "Suicide Strategy" to Push Bonuses by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
Venality Bites by: Brian E. Gray, t r u t h o u t | Perspective A synergy of strategy and legality and antagonistic con fluency of Authoritarian and Mob Rule.]

SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal

Democrats must put ethics and the law back on the table.
While as Professor Domke said at one of our PCO trainings in Olympia, Democrats run to govern, and Republicans govern to run... I would say that those who are of neither party see what is not on the table. [ALSO MEANING: REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS CAMPAIGNING, POLITICS CAN NEVER BE OFF THE TABLE, PLAY IT FORWARD, PLAY IT HARD!]

Those on the so-called Left and those of the non-partisan middle, know what is right.

So while Democrats are working on issues for us, Republicans will be working on other issues against us. So we must face them on all fronts or they will flank us.

ON A RELATED ISSUE OF ETHICS, THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT: and where they will be putting the pressure...

Remember there are several levels of government but the people count, please help them count by supporting this getting from the ground up. Leaders won't go where people fear to follow, but they should go when they have the people and the issues.

WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE I NOTE BELOW?

A: Outside interests may not file ethics complaints against members of Congress. They may only file ethics complaints against each other. "And that almost never happens," said Sloan.
B. We sure hope Adam Smith will do the rare and righteous thing: make that complaint- and show us that Democrats will give equal treatment and oversight to both geese and the ganders.

ETHICS SHOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE INTERESTS! Italics quoted from BlatherWatch link [McKay testimony] previous post.


THE ONLY THING BLACK AND WHITE IS A VOTE: But while the law is not just ethics, even the law has a spirit and the letter. So gray areas matter, but people should count. THAT IS A BIG CONNECTION.

Bush never says he will not follow unconstitutional laws.

[THIS POST WAS LOST OR RATHER SAVED IN A DRAFT FILE FROM July 25th, 2006 and Published October 11th, 2007: COMMENTS MAY FOLLOW BELOW]


So says Tony Snow.:in Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush

"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, ’We’re not going to enact the law."’

Well not exactly, but close enough for government work. But not close enough for constitutional work.

Besides it is not the enacting of a law but the following of it. Congress has enacted the law. But the devil is in the details of any bill that requires congress in it's current make up to do it's job.

New laws are quite worthless if the current laws are not enforced. If the Republican congress cannot even start an investigation it promised then how can they be counted on to sue the president. Many Republicans rally around the fear that the president could be impeached if the Democrats gain power. This is just the politics of stall tactics.

"Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws."

If we cannot be clear that the president intends to follow unconstitutional laws as Tony Snow's words imply, it will be hard know if he means to follow any at all, let alone challenge them.

It sure seems that for someone who seems to see things in black and white, there is a lot of gray area in the gray matter. Are terrorists combatants or criminals? He wanted a new category. Are laws constitutional or unconstitutional? He prefers to leave a third option.[paragraph]

Well,[uh...]there I go again. The rest... I've been there before.

[Comment 10-11-07 As I have now reviewed this post, which somehow slipped into draft form and was never posted till this date, I only add bold to the 2nd to last, now 3rd to last paragraph,(see Reagan touch). But I will try to explain that by implication in their choice of words in the second paragraph the signing statements are statements about questions about constitutionality and that he was not saying he won't enact them, but apparently won't even let us know who decides or when and if they are enacted. This bold italics portion adds to what I started to imply, which I think is more than an implication.]

POLITICS: QCON It is what is Left, not just All Right.

“Pols" Over Polls Or No More WMD!

One of the most important things President Bush said in this war on terrorism, is that we must continue to stand up for our principles. Democrats must remember this too. If they don’t stand up for our principles, they may as well stand up for Bush’s. If they are not with us, they are not for us.

Granted others may view things as black and white and they are really more gray or oatmeal, grains and all, but when one insists on black and white, it must be worth debating, not just fighting for. In a debate every argument one presents must stand up to the questioning of opposition. One must be able to rely on only the arguments one presents and if one is not honest enough to present it, it won’t count. In politics like debate, one does not have the luxury of changing the game to boxing to settle the score. Though it appears they do.

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too." If things are black and white, why is evidence not?

The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he came from, it is interesting that some would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.

In his previous campaign the candidate Bush blamed his opponents for being too "elitist", behaving as if they knew better than the general public. Now he makes decisions solely on that basis, holding both evidence and reasons close to his puffed-up chest. That may be too much mush for polls to sort out, but it is the job of our leaders or "pols" to search out WMD: Waving Mis-Definitions.

[3-28-08: Updated Title (inserted) and minor editing, and all labeling inserted]

A Plan to B-Team

[A Plan to B-Team]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.

While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.

As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.

There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.

[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]