The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label DEMS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DEMS. Show all posts

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Thirty-four US Senate Democrats ...Thank You

View image on Twitter

There are times in our lives when one has to simply say thank you. We at the TPI offer a hardy thank you to Democrats in the US Senate who are legislating in the very manner for which they were elected.

The remaining 10 Democrat Senators who are sitting around jostling for position and placating US conservative should be damned out of politics.

Thank You!


Debunking Myths Around the Nuclear Agreement With Iran


Monday, May 12, 2014

Politifacts: BENGHAZI; Liberal Bias Dot Com: 5 Charts !!!

Liberal Bias Dot Com

5 graphs that Tea Party conservatives will LOVE, proving Obama has destroyed everything!

One of five ....and you have to view all five (with associated reading)...classic.

Since, I know you have viewed various meme about the extent of terror attacks on US Embassies from Ronald Reagan to date, I will not re-post the memes, here and now.  

Let's work through a Politifact piece on assertion of 13 such attacks under Dubya.

he Truth-O-Meter Says:

Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?

As the U.S. House of Representatives was readying a new special committee to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, many Democrats were arguing that continuing to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack -- which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens -- amounted to a political witch hunt.
On May 5, 2014, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., told MSNBC host Ed Schultz that there has already been exhaustive testimony and investigation of the incident.
"This thing is just going on and on to boredom actually," Garamendi said. "The Armed Services Committee actually did a hearing and the result was there’s nothing here. That’s obviously a great tragedy, but Ed, during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy."
Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, "there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died."
We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check.
We searched the database for descriptions between January 2001 and January 2009 that included the term "U.S. embassy." We supplemented these with a few other attacks listed in a Huffington Post opinion piece that Garamendi’s staff said was their main source for the claim. The Huffington Post column Garamendi cited purposely didn't count any attacks in Baghdad. So we decided to construct our count from scratch.
While Garamendi spoke of "embassies and consulates," we found several U.S. diplomatic targets killed in the line of duty outside official compounds -- such as in convoys or their homes -- and we included them in our count. Once we cross-referenced the attacks in the article and those in the database, we narrowed down the total to 39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel.
Of these 39 attacks, 20 resulted in at least one fatality. (Our complete list is here.) This is higher than Garamendi's claim, though if you only count attacks on embassy and consular property, there were 13.
Garamendi also understated the number of deaths. In the 20 incidents with at least one fatality, the total death toll was 87 -- quite a few more than the 60 Garamendi cited. If you only count those at embassies and consulates proper, the number of deaths drops to 66.
We should note that the vast majority of these deaths were not Americans. We counted 63 deaths that were either of non-Americans or of people whose nationality is unknown. Another three were U.S. civilians. Another 21 were workers at the U.S embassy or consulate, either of American or foreign nationality.
So, using what we think is the most reasonable definition, Garamendi's numbers are a bit low.
What about the implicit comparison he made between Benghazi and these previous attacks? That’s a little shakier.
Generally, the experts we contacted agreed that Garamendi was making a reasonable point that there has been a steady, and comparatively overlooked, series of deadly attacks on U.S. embassies in recent years.
Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks.
"Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program.
One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community."
Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real, legitimate question."
"As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."
Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University, agreed that Benghazi brings up important issues.
"We probably should have had more United States forces on site or at least nearby," he said. And the administration had a "muddled response in terms of releasing information," he added.
Our ruling
Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.


I seriously do not understated why the DNC, and related campaign oriented organizations do not retort to GOP fixation on Bangahzi with such data. DEMs must remember, when it comes to Republicans, there is no far game and there should be no mercy.

Monday, September 16, 2013

Open Secrets: Dark Money

The following is a re-blog from Open Secrets Dot Org.  

The piece is as relevant to US politics and US society as state and federal government.  Money is flowing into US politics at an alarming and dangerous rate.  Ultimately, lobbying dollars and political contributions work for business entities and special interest groups. There are few to no organizations, which pour money into Congress on behalf of "The People." It just does not happen comparable to money funneled to support 360 degree wealthy accumulation by the nation's Top 20% (ers). 

As is the case with all 'high information", the following is not a quick read.  Of course, we are aware, people really do not like long reads. Well, there are times when our tendencies contribute to "low information." Do you want to live your life as do most Fox News viewers? How about Beck viewers and listeners?  Or, better yet, people who visit Breitbart News Dot Com and actually feel they are being informed vs. entertained.  In fact, entertainment and political posturing is the basic media model for each of the three entities. 

Open Secrets, nor  do we have an answer to the horrors of purchased legislation, purchased votes, and purchased politicians However, we feel an obligation to inform. When information flows, good things eventually happen. What we do know is Citizens United open a door that leads to nothing the horrors of plutocracy. As the IRS attempted to investigate the legitimacy of the Citizens United money flood, it became immersed in conservative, "hands-off" our SCOTUS decision rhetoric  that lingers even today. 

Update, Sept. 11: For clarity, we have added two paragraphs to this story (see *) explaining that the IRS and FEC definitions of political spending are not identical, and have rephrased headlines to two charts.

Building on our previous work on "dark money" nonprofits, the Center for Responsive Politics is rolling out new information on the activities of these groups that are playing an increasing role in U.S. elections. 

Dark money groups -- politically active 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) trade associations that, under tax law, don't have to disclose their donors -- aren't supposed to spend the majority of their resources on politics. But over the last six years, a combination of Supreme Court decisions that loosened restrictions on their electoral activity, coupled with regulatory confusion, has led to a surge in their political expenditures. Direct spending on federal elections by 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) groups has risen from $10 million in 2004 to well over $300 million in 2012 -- and that's just counting what they reported to the Federal Election Commission, which doesn't include all of their political spending.

And the nature of their activity has changed in recent elections. Nearly half of the political spending by these groups in 2004 went for communications to their own members -- what the FEC calls "communication costs." Now, it shows up almost entirely in the form of negative, often misleading ads aimed at influencing the outcome of elections. In 2012, only 2 percent of the spending by these groups was directed at their own members. 


Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Great and Relevant Sequester Meme!

A response to the Facebook meme (copied as is in informal Facebook style, so no issues with spelling). Some of us really cannot criticize spelling!

(Name deleted)This is of course, completely misleading as the money the Flight controlers used came from redistributing money dedicated to upgrading airports, not taken form these programs. It is not a "fair" comparison. If the airlines didn't do this then it would become even more difficult to conduct business for the few (yes, the fewest since 1979) people who work, pay taxes and support the rest of the country... What will it take to get this government to quite politicizing everything and just do the business they are getting paid handily for. cheesh!
The problem with this response  It is completely off the mark as we consider relevance.  I hear little about taking money from one program to pay for another (Implied human services).  I hear and read much (much) more concern with the fact the sequester was broken for sake of convenience to law-makers who regularly fly back and forth to Washington, DC.  The issue for us seems more about privilege and priority vs. meager dollars for Air Traffic Controllers!  

Additionally, I hear and read more about a defeat for President Obama.  After record breaking timing in pushing a bill through both houses of congress, Obama signed the bill.  How could so many Democrats including the president cave to such a level of privileged members of Congress?

The Facebook introduction of the poignant meme is as follows.
70,000 children kicked out of Head Start. 4 million meals for seniors eliminated. 125,000 Americans without rental assistance. But your next flight will be on time. End the sequester.
A case can be made regarding paying the salaries of the controllers.  I suggest, however, a much deeper meaning form the meme.  Why are the Congress and the Executive Branch stalled in a state of 'no place" while critical programs go unfunded?  While I have no idea of the political preferences of the Facebook commenter, the comment sees revealingly conservative and typically shallow.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Keystone XL: JOBS? Pants of Fire! How About 1% (Percent-ism)?

Keystone XL & the Midwest Grain Belt

Since the first thing you saw when you opened to this article was the map above, you should have noticed something very dire.  The proposed Keystone Pipeline, as planned, cuts directly across the U.S. heartland. The heartland is a veritable grain-belt which feeds the nation and many nations across the globe.  It also serves as an agricultural-economic foundation for the nation.

BP, Trans Ocean and Haliburton tragically showed dangers of fossil fuel extraction technology. How many times did we hear BP executives say, "this should not have happened".  Are we to believe the Trans Canada CEO, as he claims the industry is predominately free of damaging accidents(also linked below "take")


Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Poll Shows.... Reasons to Get Your News From Multiple Sources.


I received an email announcement related to the following linked article and pasted information.  The email announcement was from a blog that I have grown to often view.  You will find articles from the blog on the Talent Place for Special People page, on this website; posted on another website also, www .thepardu .wordpress .com.

I thought I would share the information after reading the linked blog, and thinking about how the media impacts us everyday and most certainly influenced the 2008 and 2010 elections.   Of more importance; how information will influence the critical vote in 2012. The World Public Opinion article ,Voters Say Election is Full of Misleading Information will leave the reader with an impression worth serious contemplation.  (See at end of this article).


Monday, November 7, 2011

Unemployment A GOP Trojan Horse and a President's Achilles Heel!

If you think charts and graphs are boring, you might pass on this article. If you care for a picture of how unemployment might hurt President Obama's reelection, you should probably deal with the charts and think about the images they convey. The Republicans are not going to help with the nation's economy because the economy is their political leverage for 2012. If you know Bush/Cheney was bad, think about the prospects for 2012.  
Occupy Wall Street is making committed sacrifices, at least you and me can, "Educate, Postulate and Agitate".

Unemployment in the United States remains at the 9.0% level.  High unemployment levels have been election killers for all past administration with above 7.0 percent unemployment.  It is  impossible today to find any media without hosts and pundits are not  discussing the possible election doom of the Obama Administration.