These are six .flv videos of “electric sheep” from the screensaver of that name, converted from .mpeg files stored on my hard drive to .flv video (with image size scaled drastically down) and posted here inline with popPress. These (and many other sheep) will be incorporated into this blog’s design as random decorative videos somewhere in the layout.
Needless to say (and as I’ve said before and before), I think the electric sheep (some in particular as I leave the screen saver running and rendering frames on my machines, and stop and get the sheep ID and copy the associated mpeg files) are stunningly beautiful.
So here’s what I’ve dug up. A) The Haaretz.com report which it quotes, B) The Chicago Sun-Times report that Obama’s foreign policy adviser, Rob Malley, resigned in anticipation of the Times of London disclosing Malley met with Hamas during Obama’s campaign, C) The Jerusalem Post reporting:
Earlier in the day, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper published an interview with Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef in which he said that a secret meeting was held in Gaza ahead of the US election on November 4..
D) Mere Rhetoric taking an obvious slant of suspicion, and the links within it to previous articles arousing suspicion work pretty strongly, I think, E) and last that I find, Chatham Republicans quotes Power Line (whose article I can’t find), reinforcing the grave suspicions of Obama’s long and close associations with terrorist appeasers and sympathizers.
Even with these sources verifiable and authoritative, is the claim they report, originating from a Hamas adviser - credible? How do you verify his claim?
I don’t think you can, but these are some ideas I consider:
1. Why would Obama’s advisor resign unless the Hamas’ advisor’s claim had some kind of authority behind it? Either kind of authority - that people would believe the Hamas advisor’s cliam, whether he is lying or telling the truth - or that his claim is true? The power of what people believe, true or not, or the truth itself - either one is apparently threatening enough that Obama’s advisor would back out - but for what reasons? To protect both himself and the campaign from losing political sway? Or - the more menacing idea implied in several of these posts - to “take a fall for the team” - having established the presumably (meaning we presume) wanted communication with Hamas, then safely backing down while Obama moves on?
2. What motive could the Hamas advisor have in making the claim? It’s hard to guess. He could simply wish to boast - villains love that, and I know I’m generalizing.. but I think its true. Hamas apparently claims it will (or has by now?) sent congratulations to President Elect Obama. Personally, I tend to believe - but none of this can be verified! - that the Hamas advisor is being truthful and straightforward in all those claims. He doesn’t have any face to lose, it seems to me.
I think it’s very scary - with Hamas listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and many other nations - but I want a lot more evidence before I’d form any conclusion.
I’ve spent more time reading, listening to and watching the advertisements and arguments of the movement I disagree with (No On 8 ) in order to grasp their point of view.
My watch words for the following are hypocrisy and morality.
Items:
1. Disappointed “No on 8″ voters protest outside the walls of the Los Angeles Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or “Mormon”).
One thing at least the protesters aren’t happy about is that, leading up to the Ballot vote, the LDS Church had urged its members to contribute to the cause of the “Yes on 8″ campaign - and it worked. Wikipedia cites mercurynews.com that about 45 percent of out-of-state donations to “Yes on 8″ came from citizens of the state of Utah (which is mostly populated by Mormons and where the LDS Church is headquartered).
The following YouTube video, about 10 minutes, is footage of the protesters shouting “Go back to Utah!” - “You wanted Armaggedon?” - “SHAME ON YOU!! SHAME ON YOU!!” - and “TAX THE MORMON CHURCH!! TAX THE MORMON CHURCH!” - or that’s everything I picked out.
Slanderous, hate-filled messages on signs (link - Flikr gallery) from protesters condemn Mormons and/or their Church. The hypocrisy of these signs is well-described at this post at the One Thousand and One Parsecs blog, here. I would only add that the Flikr gallery evidences vandalism on Temple walls, vandalism of sacred grounds, from people preaching “love” and “tolerance.”
The source of the protesters’ ire? If, as they believe, they’ve lost a civil right, this is freedom fighting. What is a slap in the face when you’ve lost your human, your civil rights? That’s the morality of it, from their vantage. But this has started to go beyond slaps. Some apparently felt justified in physically attacking - beating to the ground - an onlooker who, out of pity for the sacred grounds, proceeded to remove the offensive signs - as reported at Meridian (link).
Granting what I think is a radically far stretch, that these beliefs justify such measures (the Democratic process is still very open! - I’m not out slugging Obama supporters because of my disappointment!) - how good are these protesters’ arguments? Well, I think the aforementioned blog post also dismantles that.
2. There’s contradiction among “No on 8″ supporters in their condemnation of religious reasons for supporting Prop 8. (There’s contradiction among Mormons, too, which is sad. Your prophets make their occasional prophetic statement - in this case supporting something - you believe your prophets are prophets, you support it too. That simple. Unless you don’t believe they’re prophets. Which admits complication.) According to a KUTV report I saw, the “No on 8″ campaign does not support the infamous ad portraying LDS missionaries invading a lesbian couples’ home and shredding their marriage certificate. However, that campaign has repeatedly singled out the Mormon church as antagonists to their campaign - their news section fairly frequently mentions the Mormon church and Utah, and scarcely mentions the wider religious coalition or other bodies opposed to their campaign. Clearly the Mormon church is consistently in their sights - and meanwhile, many of thier associates, if not the “No on 8″ campaign itself - these protestors, and the producers of that vile commercial clearly condemn motives for supporting Prop. 8. that originate in religious motivations. “SEPARATE CHURCH AND HATE!” reads a sign. “Say NO to a church taking over your government”, says the ad. Clearly many of these folks are opposed to the LDS church urging a yes vote. Confusing, in light of “No on 8″ often reporting that this or that religious institution urges you to vote no on Prop. 8. Examples: [link 1]- [link 2] - [link 3, a video, clearly displaying the No on 8 campaign logo]. There was an ad from their campaign with a man clearly stating his church says to vote no - end of ad, final point (wish I remembered the link). So how would it be not okay for the LDS church to religiously support the Proposition, while it would be okay for any other church to religiously oppose it?
Point to underscore: this is a moral question, often or usually founded in religious feeling. Religion is by definition irrational. It explains the unexplained and cosmological. (So does science, more often than we usually admit.) Opponents to the proposition openly appeal to religion. So do proponents. Because, strictly, both are thinking irrationally - that is to say, religiously - they may never agree. Therefore, appeal to religion has no effective place in discourse over state policy questions, which is what this question is. And we’re mixing those up. Religion can have appeal to individual citizens’ right of conscience, and how the people collectively vote becomes law. Religion influences the State but is not the State. No religion’s reason dictates the law. That would impinge on the religious right, or right of conscience, of one religious group, while putting forward the other. Which, as pointed out from my first link, has happened to churches. Won’t put kids up for adoption to gay couples? Blam - you can’t put up any kids for adoption anymore. Won’t marry gays? Blam - out goes your tax-exempt status. Meanwhile, gays in civil unions in California retain all the same legal rights as heterosexual marrieds. Who is losing rights? Whose religiously asserted right is impinging on the rights of others?
“One post commented wondering if there was a way for both sides to get what they wanted. There probably is. It would be for the state to acknowledge that homesexuality [sic] is a faith based practice.”
I haven’t even begun to think through the implications of that. But it made me stop.
Meanwhile, George Lucas.. disappoints me again. As if the writing in Episodes I-II wasn’t bad enough (if largely redeemed in episodes III, IV and V), now Lucas buys the line that anybody is losing any moral-civil rights, and shells out $100,000 to keep the line going.
When did you not grasp the actual machinations that give rise to an Evil Galactic Empire?
I’ve got to end on a good note. (That is, unless you disagree with me.) As a Mormon, I’d like to express a thank you to the people who said and created the following.
20781=20564=20717: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download