Photos and Words of Patrick Calder

I live in Washington, DC with 1 cat named Pixel, 6 cameras, 3 computers, 158 movies, 286 books, and 1 bowling pin. I own the Design Foundry and pretend to be a graphic designer by day.

Please keep in mind that this post is more than 3 years old. Opinions change. Tastes change. Everything changes. I may still agree with or like this, or I may not. But everything is kept up here for archival purposes.

Swiftboats and Moles and Machinery, Oh My! / August 28, 2004

There’s good money in this city, being spent on large pieces of machinery that lift heavy stuff hundreds of feet in the air and place it on top of or inside other heavy stuff. Six or seven years I’ve been here, and I’ve never seen this level of construction going on. But nothing looks different.

There seems to be great amounts of concern raised over John Kerry’s former co-soldiers, and their accusations that he falsified his combat reports 30 years ago. Nobody seems to be speaking much about the likelihood that it is just another Bush-campaign tactic. Maybe it’s so obvious that it’s beyond discussing.
At the least, you would think it would be bigger news that 2 unrelated senior Bush campaign staff have resigned their positions after it coming to light that they consulted for the organization making the accusations.
Are you looking at me, and saying, “Who cares how it came to light, so long as someone brought out this truth!”? Well… I would only recommend that you remember this is politics, where truth is whatever the winners say it is. One of the men who show up in the TV ad making the accusations against John Kerry is on video tape from 8 years ago standing next to John Kerry extolling the candidates war record. So, again, whose ethics are questionable?
I’ve seen quite a bit of evidence that Kerry is a putz, and typical scumbag politician as well. But he doesn’t have a record of using the media as his own heat-seeking missile to take out anyone who makes life uncomfortable for him. Unlike some incumbents I might mention.

There’s a story in yesterday’s news about the FBI preparing to arrest an unspecified Israeli mole working in a high-level position at the Pentagon. The story is stupid enough on it’s own. That’s not the kind of story that accidentally leaks. It’s the modern equivalent of Elmer Fudd telling Bugs Bunny, “I’m hunting wabbits!”. Assuming it’s true, and that the person may be too high level of worker to simply run away, how much time do you really want to give them to prepare their defense, to establish alibis, and to destroy evidence?
The article made some interesting comments. They referred to the all-powerful “source who wishes to remain anonymous”. This naturally evoke discussions in the back of a crowded bar, or hushed telephone exchanges on the street. But the following paragraph referred to, “… the source, during their video interview with reporters …”. Does your source really have any right or expectation to remain anonymous when they are giving video interviews to multiple reporters at one time?
The point the article was emphasizing, and I doubt it came from the FBI who is the investigative agency involved, is that this Israeli source was placed in this position primarily to affect US policy towards Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The article, and several others, hammered this point home repeatedly. You’d have to be Helen Keller not to see the obvious implications. Yet another reason we’re not really responsible for all those dead Iraqis. Really. Look! They made us do it!. Uh HUH!

Damn, it’s hot today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *