Today, the GOP members of the House intelligence committee voted to release a 4 page memo that Chairman Nunes and staff had created. Now Mr. Trump has five days to render a decision to release or not.

Interestingly, the majority refused two actions that make so much sense to me:

1. the Director of the FBI asked for the opportunity to come to the Committee to discuss the contents of the memo. Then the Committee could vote to release or not – but with more perspective and wisdom behind that vote.
2. The Democrats on the Committee have created a memo that provides their perspective of the situation along with their opinion of the GOP memo. The GOP refused to agree to publish the “rebuttal” memo along with their own memo.

Why would the GOP members not want additional perspective before providing the GOP memo to America?

Why would the American people be kept from the full and more balanced perspective by the GOP members of the Committee?

The only conclusion I can reach is that the GOP wants to control the public narrative – with their presentation only and without getting smarter via the input of the FBI and without providing the people with the various perspectives about whatever issues are presented.

This seems to me to be pure, unadulterated politicization of the Intelligence Committee – which is a sad, sad day for our country.

This seems to me to be abuse of power by the GOP. Reminds me of what the North Carolina GOP did after a Democratic Governor was elected but before he took office.

The divisiveness in politics is greater than it ever has been in my lifetime. Our members of Congress HAVE TO put integrity ahead of prioritizing their own party’s interests.

Restraint and wisdom needs to be put ahead of party selfish political interests.

Why do we all allow our politicians to get by with spin and high level statements when most would, when probed not be able to explain what they meant in any real detail?

Too many Americans simply buy into the spin that best fits their current, predisposed position. That does not do America any good.

What would happen if politicians would be required to expose themselves to deeper questioning about what they say – with iterative inquiries going sufficiently deep to help Americans understand what they mean or see that they really don’t know of which they speak?

Now THAT might be interesting and educational at the same time. It also may help Americans shape their opinions based upon better information and a better understanding of what the politicians are saying with their superficial talking points.

Why can’t debates probe more deeply with follow up questions? Could candidates ask each other questions in an attempt to determine whether their opponent knows what he or she is talking about?

Alternatively, why can’t we have a televised debate about an issue where “experts” from both sides try to explain and ‘sell’ their positions by presenting deep explanations about how it works and presenting statistics (citing specific sources) to help Americans better understand and choose. I think Ross Perot’s charts did a lot for him because he spoke to the voter and demonstrated ideas in ways that lot of Americans could understand and to which they could relate.

What do you think?

Robert Reich is a very short man. He has learned to deal with that in various ways as he lived his live. When you see the film, you will hear both humorous and emotional anecdotes about his height directly from Mr. Reich.

Maybe because he was bullied when he was young or maybe because he simply cares about ALL Americans, Reich has spent a life time fighting for all of us – even the little guy who has no one else to help him counteract those with more economic or political power.

The documentary “Inequality for All” is now out on DVD, OnDemand, iTunes and Netflix DVD by mail. I have seen the 87 minute film in a town about 60 miles away – and have watched it once the DVD was delivered earlier this week by Amazon.

Regardless of from where on the political spectrum you hail, you should see this film. Reflect on the information it presents and consider what it may mean for our economy and even more importantly our national security.

It will show at the Ross Theater in Lincoln, NE starting Friday, January 24 and thru Thursday, January 30. The film is targeting being shown in all 50 state capitols on its current tour.

Did you know?:

– that the median wage for Americans, adjusted for inflation, has stagnated since 1978 – and is actually a little lower today than it was way back then?

– that the American economy is dependent upon consumer spending for 70% of its total?

– that the decline in the median wage is directly correlated to the decline in union membership?

(Note: whatever may be the cons of unions, it is readily apparent that they helped represent employees in dealings with businesses.

An individual is pretty powerless against companies and economic policies. Banding together can often help offset some of that powerlessness.

– huge numbers of American jobs have been eliminated by technological automation? Many of these jobs were middle-class-sustaining jobs.

– huge numbers of American jobs have been off shored over the last 40 years?

The trends started in manufacturing – but with the hyper connected world, ANYTHING that can de digitalized, can be “shipped” anywhere in the world. Tom Friedman in his “The World is Flat” spoke about USA tax returns being completed in India by well trained folk there. He talked about digital scan results being sent anywhere in the world to be read by a trained and smart technician or doctor.

– that in August there were 3.9 million open jobs in the USA – and 11.9 official job seekers? Add to that millions of “unoffical” or not counted job seekers and it is obvious that there are not enough jobs.

So – what to conclude?

With the purchasing power of the middle class eroded by both job loss and wage stagnation, should we expect consumer spending to continue to drive 70% of our economy? Will that be 70% of a much smaller total?

Employers typically hire because of market demand. There is no economic incentive to hire if there is no revenue to be had as payback for the added labor expense.

If our economy is now looking at a new and lower level of demand, what might be the effects over time on the security and “greatness” of our country?

Governments make the rules of their ecomonies. Should we consider tweaking some of the rules to make adjustments for and strengthen our economy?

As usual, I sure don’t have the answers. But as Socrates taught us: the wise person (OK – in his time it was wise “men”!!!) knows one thing – and that is that they don’t know everything and don’t even know enough.

PLEASE SEE THIS FILM – and with an open mind. Then reflect upon it and decide for yourself if you agree or disagree – and if you agree, what, if anything you wish to do about it.

I followed a post by Mother Jones last night – and viewed many video clips they offered of Chris Christie treating normal people very inappropriately. In those same clips, however, he appeared to address questions and issues in a straightforward manner – which I found very refreshing for a politician.

IMO, too many politicians talk a lot and say very, very little – unless they are in a “safe” crowd – defined as one where their message will be appealing and not leaked out or not shared externally (oops, says Mitt Romney !!!).

So what to do? My opinion is that the voters of NJ get to decide how to evaluate the rough side of their governor with other behaviors he displays – and with his positions on issues. If I remember correctly, NJ voters reelected this man by a very healthy margin. Is it appropriate for me, the lil ole Cornhusker to question a strong majority of NJ voters?

Now, if I ever get to vote in an election where this guy is a candidate, I will evaluate my choices, each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses (which they are forever trying to hide from us) and cast my ballot.

Of course, in Nebraska independents do not get to vote in GOP primary elections – so I may never get the chance !!!

One last point: most often in the Christie videos, the questioner or “citizen” was pretty uncivil as well. So maybe all of us have a lesson to learn here – can we discuss and debate with civility?

Postscript: the bridge issue is not yet done. Recently uncovered messaging seems to indicate that possibly two others on Christie’s staff knew of the action and supported it.This includes the individual that the Governor appointed to lead the investigation into the issue. Hmmmm … the story may yet unfold and the Governor may be more entangled that he claims !! Time and news will tell.

Many, many of us are upset and even angry over the failure of our federal government to get things done, over their failure to move our country down the road to solving some of our huge problems and challenges. Yet individually we feel helpless – as if there is nothing that we can do to make Congress do things that make sense and could be done regardless of the perceived partisan squabbling – squabbling that paralyzes Congress’ ability to compromise and enact sensible change.

Yes, the parties do indeed seem irrevocably divided. However, are we in the electorate also divided? Do we let our differences take control rather than uniting behind common sense change that could be accomplished? Do we let labels such as “conservative” or “liberal” dominate our response to politics and governing?

There are many issues that genuinely divide America – and they are important issues. Issues such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, increasing taxes and the size and role of our military in a time of fiscal challenges. There are many others – maybe too numerous to mention here.

All these issues are very, very important to an awful lot of people – people on various sides of each. Yet, are these issues and others like them the defining issues of our time?

… or by making the dividing issues our priority, are we losing sight of a larger threat to our country? Without judging, opining or taking sides on any of the controversial issues themselves, what if the larger threat is that Congress is not beholden to the people anymore? What if Congress is beholden to the very few in our country who can provide large sums of campaign funds? What if a plutocracy has formed or is being formed?

If members are required to look like they are fighting the good fight –

as defined by their funders

– does that result in an abysmal failure to pass change that does make simple common sense? If I partner with someone on the other side of the aisle to pass laws that make sense to huge majorities of the electorate but am then perceived by potential funders as being unacceptable, what is in it for me?

An example of an issue that could be moved forward quite easily if it could be unbundled from the political gamesmanship played by both parties is Social Security. There are actually a number of relatively small changes to Social Security that would extend the life of the trust funds for quite a long time. One example: adjusting the cap on wages and salaries in order to return the amount of income exposed to FICA taxes to a percentage equivalent to the percentage that was used when the program was created (about 90%) would greatly contribute to the program’s longevity. Is the philosophical position against ALL tax increases really more important to our country than extending the life of this hugely important and hugely successful program?

The power each one of us has is “the vote”. Yet, if we allow ourselves to be divided over issues that may be of less importance to the country’s future, our collective vote is divided. Is it wasted?

Is this solvable – or are we doomed to the inevitable decline that will result because we’ve focused upon the wrong issues and by doing so, we’ve failed to require actions on items that simply make common sense and upon which huge numbers of us CAN agree?

What was it that Abe Lincoln said about a “house divided”? Didn’t Rome decline and ultimately fall because of internal and arbitrary divisions by those who became more focused on their own wants and needs that upon the good of the whole?

Where are we and where will we go? How can we change the current paradigm?

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Paper #52, Congress is to be “dependent on the people alone.”

Yet in our current systems of electing and governing, candidates require very large sums of money to have a chance at winning their election. Thus, a dependency on BIG MONEY and by natural extension, the people and organizations that can supply BIG MONEY, has overtaken the dependency upon the people as prescribed by our Founding Fathers.

I listened to Republic Lost by Lawrence Lessig this summer while driving to Springfield Illinois to take in some Abraham Lincoln history (which, by the way, I highly recommend). This one argument seems to overcome all others. How can Congress focus on the good of the whole when they are quite naturally required to focus so much time and energy on raising money? Why would they work together when competitive pressures require catering to their money sources and when they are required to take positions that will continue future flows of campaign finance funding?

As Lessig states, the corruption is not necessarily quid pro quo corruption (although we are all aware of cases of that from both sides of the aisle), but it is systemic corruption – corruption of the systems of electing and governing and quite definitely, corruption of the intended “dependency on the people alone.”

Is there anyone out there who truly believes that big donors don’t expect a return on their investment? Does anyone think they donate huge money for the good of the whole?

Mark Twain wrote a short paper entitled “On the Decay of the Art of Lying”. If he could observe politics in this day and age ….

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
– Autobiography of Mark Twain

Wanting to examine some data about messages shared by politicians, I went to Politifact’s WEB site last December. I compiled the aggregate ratings for each leader (and Internet emails).

Ranking the best and worst in categories, Mr. Obama scored best, Mr. Boehner was 2nd followed by Mr. Biden in 3rd. The two Senate leaders came next and were tied. The worst score for an individual was Ms. Pelosi.

Of course, Internet chain emails were far and away the absolute worst score and led the percent of the worst rating available “Pants of Fire” false – which is not surprising because there is little to no accountability for their messages. OVER 91% of the rated Internet communiques had, at best, half-truths !!!! Given these stats, why do so many people fall for this stuff????

More important to me than the individual ratings is the fact that the BEST score for communiques with some false within them was almost 69% !!! Since this is an undesired rating, the lowest score is the best.

Also, the best score for the half-truth and worse rating was slightly over 53% !!!!

So the BAD NEWS is that at their best, communications from these politicians contained some falsity almost 69% of the time and at their best, over 53% contained half-truths or worse!!!!

Half truths might be the most effective of all – they have some truth that people recognize and accept as true and then they very well assume that the entire message is true.

Worse than that is that we, the electorate fall for this stuff !!!

….. and my following of the campaigns so far this year indicates to me that it has only gotten worse. Last night Mr. Ryan led people to believe that an auto plant in his state was closed because of Mr. Obama’s policies or failure to do what he said he would do – and the fact is that the decision to close the plant was made before Mr. Obama was elected !!!! I suspect we will hear similar crud from next week’s Dem convention.

Is this OK? Is this what we want?

If not, how can the electorate unite and hold politicians and their supporters to a higher standard?