CommonPrejudice

Break Time

Ok, reality break time. It seems every week we need it more.
So last week my lock of the week pushed (Chicago beat Minnesota by 3). I will claim that the guarantee was not to lose and thus it was indeed a 'lock.' We won't talk about my upset of the week. Overall, solid at 8-4-2.

Week 4

Indy -9 at Jets
It's a lot of points and the Jets have played well, but their pass defense is ranked 27th so I look for Indy to run it up.

San Diego -2.5 at Baltimore.
Baltimore will be exposed Sunday. You can take that to the bank.

Buff -1 vs Minn.
J.P. Losman this week: "You guys don't understand. We don't care what you are saying, what people are saying about our team, whether it's good or bad. We don't read it. We don't care. It doesn't matter to us. We're going to play hard every week and prepare to win every week no matter what it is. We're going to play hard..." Convinced me

Tenn (-9.5) vs Dallas
Dallas needs more distractions.

SF +7 at KC
I just don't believe KC is a very good team and a touchdown is too much for them to cover.

Car. -7 vs NO
Let down for NO. Last week's win saved Carolina's season. I think they'll take advantage and win this one big.

Atl -7 vs Arz.
How can you pick Arizona after last week's debacle? And many believe Atlanta played dead last week.

Miami -3.5 at Houston
Only because Houston looked so bad last week.

StL -5.5 vs Detroit
Detroit scores 56 points ... in Roy Williams' mind. In reality they score a touchdown or two and lose to the Rams.

Cinn. +6 vs NE
I've heard that NE's 'pride' will keep this game close. That and 10$ will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Jax (-3) at Wash
I don't like the Skins chances here. Don't like 'em at all.

Clev. (-2.5) at Oak.
Who will be able to sleep tonight with a game like this on Sunday?

Chi (- 3.5) vs Seat.
Seems strange that after that offensive explosion last week Seattle comes in as 3 1/2 point dogs, especially after Chicago's lucky win last week. But on Sunday night at home and with Alexander out, I think the Bears win by 6.

Phil (-10.5) vs GB
The game is over by the half. GB will only cover with some late meaningless scores, but you can't call that.

Last week  8-4 -2
Overall 28-16-2
(63.6% vs spread)

Illegal Rendition by Pakistan

According to a report by Amnesty International Pakistan is guilty of rendition, sending "illegally detained innocent people" to a country known to violate the Geneva convention.

Pakistan illegally detained innocent people on suspicion of terrorism, secretly imprisoned them, and transferred them to U.S. custody for money, human rights watchdog Amnesty International said Friday.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, in a memoir released days ago, wrote that his government has earned bounties totaling "millions of dollars" from the transfer of terror suspects to U.S. authorities...

...Amnesty suggested the lure of U.S. government rewards led in many cases to the illegal arrests of people, including women and children, in Pakistan.

Of course the United States will only torture the guilty people. And they will just know who is 'guilty.' They don't need to conduct trials or anything.

Poco Mas de Huevos

Vamos companeros
Hay que poner poco mas de huevos
Estamos en la calle nuevamente
La dignidad del pueblo
No se vende
Se defiende.

The absolute lack of imagination and mind-numbing resignation by those who find the torture legislation an abomination truly amazes me. You have to support the lesser of two evils, the Democrats, they claim, because it is the only option in a two-party system.

But when, goddamn it, is the line in the sand crossed? Lying your country into war isn't enough? Spying on you isn't enough? Failing to respond as a city is destroyed doesn't cut it? Helping take the nation and the world to the brink of an environmental catastrophe either? Threatening to use nuclear weapons? ...no? and now codifying and legalizing torture and the disappearance of people? My god.

The Democrats are a party that can not even muster a unanimous stance against the governing party on a bill that legalizes torture for christ sakes. And those who have spoken out have taken forever to do it, talk about "difficult" decisions, what harm it will to do to their troops and the lack of effectiveness of the "technique."

There is only one issue here;  basic human decency.

So much over the years has been accomplished from outside the political system. Would now not be a good time to emulate Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement with civil disobedience and mass marches and protests? In the internet you've got the greatest mobilizing tool humankind has even known. And you just sit there and say that voting for the Democrats is your only option while you angrily write your blog posts, and your emails and your comments.

If there is something so important on TV, just TiVo it.

A Logical Extension and A Crime Against Humanity

I posted the following quote by a US diplomat awhile back and I feel now is a good time to post it once more.

Have our values been so twisted by our adversary concept of politics...? Is it conceivable that we are so obsessed with insurgency that we are prepared to rationalize murder as an acceptable counter-insurgency weapon? Is it possible that a nation which so revers the principle of due process of law has so easily acquiesced in this sort of terror tactic?

When I hear anyone start to attack the torture law in the United States in terms of its effectiveness I tune out. When I hear politicians talk about "tough decisions," I am appalled. I can't imagine an easier decision than to stand up against this barbarity. When I hear Americans talk about how bad the torture legislation is because it would put their soldiers in danger, I couldn't care less - as if it is the danger to their troops that is at issue. And when I hear commentators and analysts talk about the law as a fundamental break with previous foreign policy makers and a betrayal of American's proud history of justice rather than a simply a logical and probably inevitable extension of policies that have been pursued by previous U.S. governments for a long time, I can only marvel at their ignorance. Honestly it is about time they did their own dirty work instead of contracting it out. It makes no difference to the person being tortured which country the torturer is from.

By the way the comment above was made in 1968 by Viron Vaky and concerned the US policy in Guatemala.

Waterboarding

From David Corn.com

The Washington Post simply referred to waterboarding a few days ago as an interrogation measure that "simulates drowning." But what does waterboarding look like?

The photo was taken by anthropologist Jonah Blank at the Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh in Cambodia (see the link to Corn's site) Yup, this was one of the primary 'tough tactics' (in the words of dimwitted psycho Laura Ingraham  - see arglebargle or fufurah in the left column) used by the Khmer Rouge.

Most people simply don't realize how insane, how immoral this is and the people who advocate it are. 253 members of congress in the Unites States of Torture voted to pass the torture legislation today - including 34 Democrats. Nice model of democracy you got going there.

Idiot or Moron?

Everybody nowadays is obsessed with using the term 'wanker,' to describe the typical right wing blogger. I feel I should I use something else, so I looked up 'idiot' on Thesaurus.com. And I learned something.

" ...an idiot is a stupid person with a mental age below three years, while a moron is a stupid person with a mental age of between seven to twelve years"

Now I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, so I will be honest. I can't say whether James Taranto is an idiot or a moron or something in between (the editor of the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com - unreal a fool like this is the editor of anything). So I think I will go with the old-fashioned 'chowderhead.' So congratulations James, you are CommonPrejudice's first Chowderhead of the Day (Via Media Matters - you need to read the whole post to fully grasp the depth of his idiocy ... uhh his moronic reasoning .... ummm his chowderheadness.)

Taranto pointed out that the "the 9/11 Commission reported that on Dec. 4, 1998, President Clinton received a Presidential Daily Briefing [PDB] titled 'Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks' " -- suggesting that President Clinton was guilty of the same "inaction" the Bush administration displayed in response to the August 6, 2001, PDB [the infamous "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In America] ...

Chowderhead's words:

It is unfair to condemn Clinton with 20/20 hindsight, but history is unfair. Like James Buchanan and the Civil War or Herbert Hoover and the Depression, Clinton will take the blame for inaction while a crisis mounted. True, George W. Bush didn't do much better during his first eight months in office, but he had the remainder of his terms to make up for it.

But of course, Bush completely ignored the memo:

Bush "did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so" and "found no indication" that his aides further discussed with him "the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" prior to 9-11 -- this despite the fact that "[m]ost of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented."

And Clinton responded (as the 9/11 Commission report outlines and Media Matters points to):

The same day, Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New   York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports.

Way to go Jimmy!

Don't Be So Mean

Just like true bullies, Faux News and the Bush crime family supporters run crying the moment someone pushes back. It is really rather astounding the reaction of the right to Bill Clinton's demolition of Bush spokesper...Faux journalist Chris Wallace.

"Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward – wagging his finger in my face – and then poking the notes I was holding – I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me," Wallace reportedly said....

Wallace told the website Clinton "said I had a smirk. Actually – it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing."

No, we all saw it. It was a smirk, the smirk of someone who can only smirk when they are not prepared with facts or to be challenged in their assumptions.

And you'll notice one thing. The ranting right never give a scintilla of evidence contradicting what Clinton actually said. (You can check this post if you want some verification of what Clinton said while observing the lying Condi Rice in action). It's all about Clinton's anger and/or ego. A couple of the countless examples:

Bill Krystol, of the Weekly Standard, has a theory, that Bill Clinton’s “temper tantrum” in his interview with Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, was deliberate.

----------

Bubba boils over
Pundits’ tongues are wagging over a hot-tempered Bill Clinton interview during which a Fox News host asked Bubba to defend his record on Osama bin Laden. (Jessica Fargen-Boston Herald)

----------

Bill's bullying

    Lucianne Goldberg wonders why no one has mentioned the "trailer-trash socks," which revealed some skin from former President Bill Clinton in his bombastic weekend interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace.
    Talk-radio hosts noticed other things, though, and have suggested that Mr. Wallace file "assault and battery" charges against Mr. Clinton, who repeatedly poked at Mr. Wallace and his notes. -Jennifer Harper, Washington TImes

----------

...the most self-absorbed and narcissistic politicians ever to walk the face of this planet are Hillary and Billary Clinton  - Noel Sheppard

----------
(the ad from Fox, via Think Progress)

Oh please, Mr. President, don't be so mean.

But Clinton was right on virtually every aspect. As well, Clinton states that he was not informed that he would be questioned on his terrorist record. (I read the Fox original promo before the interview saying that President Clinton would be on to talk about his Global Initiative - nothing about his record as president - but I can't  find the link) Wallace says the interview was to be about the Global Initiative "and anything else that came up." It was, despite what Wallace claims now, clearly a trap that he thought he would cleverly  spring on Clinton. However, he was not ready for someone who would actually punch back, complete with factual backing. You see, journalists who are knowledgable and prepared don't work for Fox.

And obviously Clinton was right when he said that Fuax News does not confront Republicans with the same questions.

What did Fox expect; that Clinton would roll over like a neutered Alan Colmes? So if anyone wants to dispute the factual nature of the discussion or how Faux News continuously misleads its viewers, treating them - in the immortal words of Bob Somerby - like rubes while hosting shows for psychos who favour the destruction of American cities (O 'Reilly) or invite  raving lunatics who call for the blowing up of newspaper offices and the U.N. to speak (Coulter) I'd be glad to oblige.

Or you can simply do a search at Media Matters or Think Progress for any of the names of the so-called journalists and commentators at Fox - O'Reilly, Hume, Wallace, Hannity, Stossel - and you will find a mountain of evidence demonstrating their misleading, dense, dishonest ways. By the way, it's not a smear if it is the truth.

So a right wing who supports torture, has called for first strike nuclear attacks, labels anyone who disagrees a traitor, a supporter of terrorism or Islamofacism (whatever the hell that means) or far far worse now (all of which, of course, without a basis in fact) have their panties all up in a knot when someone is aggressive with them.  Boo - f***ing - hoo. Cry me a river.

Philosophical Quote of the Day

Daily Show correspondent John Oliver notes how Bush will be required to answer the most profound philosophical questions of the day when dealing with what is torture and what isn't. Oliver asks:

If a man is beaten to death in a sound proof chamber, does he make noise?

Bonus: some live blogging of the Daily Show: The president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, (or alternatively known as the world's leader with the worst hairpiece) is the guest tonight ... strange. John Stewart's first question while pleasantly serving tea and a twinkie... "Where is Bin Laden?"

Another question, "You are in the forefront in the fight against terrorism, yet you seem to be much calmer about it than we are."

Musharraf, "Yes we are. Stewart buries his head, eats a twinkie, then goes to commercial

....

Musharraf on Iraq: "It has lead to more extremism and more terrorism in the world."

Stewart: "So are we safer?"

Musharraf: "No."

And the hot seat question:

Stewart: "Who would win a popular vote in Pakistan, George W. Bush or Osama Bin Laden?"

Musharraf: "They would both lose miserably.(laughs)"

The guy may be a military dictator but he always gives a good interview.

Quote of the Day

Rude Pundit:

If we dare accept to our horror and infinite shame that we have allowed ourselves to be represented by people who do evil, even in the name of good, then we can either be complicit - we can go about our daily lives while the stench of the concentration camp pollutes the air of the town - or we can reject evil.

Update on Declassifying the Terrorism Report

Bush earlier today:"You can read it for yourself. [It] will stop all the speculation.”

Three and a half pages of the thirty page report were released. Yes, that will certainly stop speculation, especially with comments like:

“We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives,” said the declassified segment of the report,

and

“The Iraq conflict has become the ‘cause célèbre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”

It appears the following was the part "to end all speculation." (I can't help but snicker as I type that):

“United States-led counter-terrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qaeda and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qaeda will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organisation. We also assess that the global jihadist movement — which includes al-Qaeda, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells — is spreading and adapting to counter-terrorism efforts.

Damaging its leadership and disrupting its operation - wow, pretty impressive five years after they crashed airplanes into buildings and killed 3000 odd innocent people. Even more so when the same report indicates how Iraq has created more terrorists and Al-Qaeda is spreading throughout the world

But I don't think this is how they plan to 'use' the report. This part is key:

...we judge that al-Qaeda will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organisation...

It's about continuing to keep the fear of terrorist attacks alive so they can continue to pursue their insane foreign policy. This probably includes bombing Iran. And it won't be the first time that the Bush crime family has conflated various terrorist groups along with unfriendly regimes. We know what the argument will be as they head into Iran. We've heard it before. So very very predictable. And sad.