I read the local papers here and elsewhere. Locally, committees and various boards of people have procedures, rules and laws they are supposed to follow. The small-town politics, sometimes has a problem following these procedures. Especially the ones where they are to have their meetings and actions open to the public. Locally, I do not have to remind you of the lack of transparency in the meetings and decisions here. Thanks to our local newspaper, these problems are eventually made available to the public.
Our local problem is not an isolated case. Some friends I have living near the Wisconsin Fox-Con site are having the same problem. Not all information is made public. It appears decisions are being made without the proper public notice. Strange, they are having the same problems we have, lack of transparency.
It seems to me in my failing short memory, the state of Wisconsin not long ago was making decisions not following proper procedures. That same lack of transparency thing. It is not a certain political party thing, it is a politician thing.
The public should be informed of the actions of politicians locally and state-wide. Granted, probably half the people wouldn't read the information anyway, let alone understand what was going on. It sounds like the same problem Washington and the FBI memo has, lack of transparency. Yes, I know the Democrats, and Republicans (including Republican or Democrats by a different name) are fighting over it. Some of these politicians do not want the information public.
First let's talk about government information made public. In the Obama administration, the report on climate change was a consensus report by the Democratic administration. Definitions of consensus, general agreement, the judgement arrived by the most of those concerned, controlled by or done according to one's inner sense of what is right, generally accepted opinion. Did you notice, there is no mention of facts. In the site - justfacts.com - under the climate change, there are references to, it is not whether or not climate change exists, but what are we going to do about it. My comment, "Shouldn't it exist first?" Look for yourself, what are the facts?
The current FBI report is supposedly a report on the reports of the facts. Probably another government consensus report. So, what is the difference between the two topics. The climate change consensus report by the Democrats was pushed (and still is) down the throats of the American people with the help of MSM (main stream media). The FBI report these same Democrats do not want the public to know about the information. At least with the climate change thing, people can look up the facts behind the government consensus report. With the FBI memo/report, how does the public look up this information?
Let's face it, there are not going to be any earth-shattering top secrets in the memo. It is a report of the report of the facts. It is not like the H. Clinton emails with top secret information on a public email service. Clinton's emails I can understand why that might be a problem. But this FBI thing, release the memo. Why try to hide the information from the public. Where is the transparency in the government? I do not care which political party is in power, release the information.
It is still going to be just like the people that are against President Trump that did not even vote, just like the people that did not like President Trump's State of the Union address that did not even listen to the address. Just like the people that when the FBI report is made public they will not like it even though they did not read it. Unfortunately, the MSM will have their own consensus reports controlled by or what the MSM feels is generally accepted opinion. Which will again be force fed to the American people.
Don't you just wish these people with political power and MSM would follow proper procedures, follow the law and keep the public honestly informed?