Every once in awhile during a crisis or an event, you run across a quote or an observation that sort of summarizes events on the ground, in a nutshell.

New York Times (NYSE: NYT) business journalist Floyd Norris articulated one such observation during a roundtable discussion with other Times journalists on "The Charlie Rose Show" on PBS Monday night.

Regarding the bank bailout plan, Norris said, "This is a case where justice and success don't come together."

New York Times Chief Financial Correspondent and Columnist Floyd Norris, appearing on the "Charlie Rose" talk show Monday night on PBS, offered an insight that sort of summed up the financial crisis, the need for a rescue bill, and the reason a considerable portion of the American public doesn't like the rescue package.

Floyd Norris said: "At times it does appear that Wall Street is saying 'Bail us out or the U.S. economy is ruined.' And, if you're a citizen of the U.S., it's perfectly normal to be upset and angered by that. The problem is, what Wall Street is saying is true."

No time for perfection

The rescue bill, even the expected, revised rescue bill by Congress, will not be perfect. And yes, it will help some on Wall Street, including (unfairly) those who 'gamed' the system, or whose business mistakes, dubious securitization frameworks, or just plain greed helped create the crisis in the first place. But the nation does not have the luxury of taking six months to compose and pass a 'perfect' bill. The nation needs a rescue package, imperfect though it may be, to stabilize the financial system. And it needs it now.

Should you, the typical investor be upset about that? Sure, it's o.k. and it's a natural response to be upset, but don't let that emotion lead you to believe the nation or the financial system would be better off without a rescue bill; it won't be. And it's not possible to prevent Wall Street institutions from being involved in the solution -- at this time-pressured, critical juncture, they have to be. As The Times' Floyd Norris noted, Wall Street knows it, we know it, everyone knows it. So accept it, and move forward with the necessary work of getting a rescue plan in place.

Steve Case is "sorry" for the AOL merger with Time Warner (TWX). That's what he said to Charlie Rose Friday. I've seen this characterized as a Steve Case "apology" (to shareholders who lost about $200 billion in share value, I guess) but I read it more as a regret things didn't work out as he expected. Apologies don't usually include the statements like Case's that he still thinks the merger was "a good idea."

Now we have left the bubble long behind us. With hindsight it is certainly easy to beat up on the guy, and that's been a lot of fun for a lot of pundits since 2001. Trying to look back on my own feelings about it at the time, I thought the deal would be a bad one for competition, part of the inevitable, but disturbing gathering of the reigns of large corporations into fewer and fewer hands, but -- much as cringe to admit it -- I never imagined the deal would be disastrous for AOL and Time Warner Inc. themselves.

I'm wondering what BloggingStocks reader think. Did you believe back in 2001 was Case making the right decision by merging Time Warner into his AOL? Or did you believe even then the merger was headed for disaster?

I'm up late watching Charlie Rose's taped interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt. In raving about Google's 20% rule -- that engineers can spend 20% of their time on projects of their own choosing -- Schmidt says that all of their new products come from that 20% "free time." Charlie asks an obvious question, one that's been bugging me for months: "why not make it 50%?"

Schmidt doesn't answer the question, really (he is a CEO after all), basically saying that, although it's a great idea, and they should do it, anarchy would prevail.

Why would anarchy prevail if 50% of a creative worker's time was spent doing creative, independently-chosen work? I think it's a fantastic idea and one that many companies should employ. If workers are selected for their extreme intelligence and ability to innovate, why not have them create the products they wish existed? We'd all be better for it.