Chamblee54

The following is a re-post from a year ago. The subject is a good fit for King Day.
There is a featured blog on the WordPress home today called Pakalert. They posted a feature on January 7 titled “Israel Created Hamas to Split Palestine”. The thesis is that Israel helped to start Hamas as a tool against the PLO and Fatah.
PG does not claim to know everything about Palestine. This bit of revisionism does sound a bit far fetched. But the question does arise, what role did Israel play in the creation of Hamas?
In the six day war, Israel gained control of Gaza. Israel occupied the territory for a while, and has had a great deal of control over it ever since. What did Israel do to prepare the Gazans for self government?
By all accounts, it was not a friendly occupation. Israel established settlements on Gazan territory, taking up twenty percent of the land. This is in one of the most densely populated regions on earth.
Is it surprising that a radical organization like Hamas exists? Would it exist if the Israeli treatment of the Gazans had been better during the occupation? Like many other things, the present state of affairs is a done deal. You cannot go back in time and create a better life for the Gazans…and ultimately, the Israelis.

There is a video by Martha Wash making the rounds. PG wishes he could enjoy it, but Jesus gets in the way.
The video starts out with Ms. Wash carrying on about no matter how bad things get, she is going to be strong and carry on. It sounds like church music, even though neither the G word nor the J word were spoken. ( At least in the part the PG could stand to listen to).
Jesus worship is a religion of emotion and belief. These powerful emotions have been used like a weapon on PG. Jesus has put a hurtin’ in the life of PG. Listening to church music is not going to make him feel better.
Pictures illustrating this post are from the Special Collections Department of the Pullen Library at Georgia State University.

There is a video on youtube showing a bit of Dave Letterman. He is discussing his opponent, Jay Leno. The theme of the monolog is what Mr. Leno “stands for”. In this case, it is all american values like killing natives to steal their land.
Now, the question is not about Mr. Leno’s commitment to anything, other than hair spray. It should be noted that Mr. Letterman is not without sin, and neither is as funny as Ed McMahon thought Johnny Carson was. The issue for PG is, why should a comedian “stand for” anything?
Part of the cult of celebrity worship is the attention paid to the opinions of entertainers. From Jesus worshiping quarterbacks to Jane Fonda, people in the spotlight are assumed to have valuable opinions. Often these people are very good at what they do, but woefully deficient in the rest of human behavior. They should not be regarded as role models.

PG is listening to bloggingheads and looking a pictures from the GSU library. What a pleasant way to spend an evening.
The b heads chat is about Harry Reid, and the way black people talk. The word Negro is used quite a bit, and is considered acceptable. While what Mr. Reid said was perhaps phrased clumsily, the essence of what he said…that BHO was a black man who didn’t scare was acceptable to white people… was considered to be true.
The chat then turned to Trent Lott. And PG heard something that made him stop the podcast and write down what he heard. “The difference between Harry Reid and Trent Lott is that Reid used the wrong words, but the Lott had the wrong idea”.
The rest of the chat went on about telling the difference between what people say, and the words they use to describe the thought. Someone suggested a year’s moratorium on controversy about insensitive things that people say. It was said that life would go on as before.

A blogger spoke out again about drivers who don’t pay attention to the road. Texting, eating, and cell phone talking are all culprits. The solution presented here is shame…take pictures of the offending drivers, and post them on a blog.
PG commented: “Will you help in the legal defense if one of these “shamed” drivers decides to sue?”
This got two responses: Peter G opined “Sue on what grounds? Having their picture taken in public? I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t believe privacy rights and free speech restrictions are applicable when it comes to exposing people’s driving habits on public roadways.”
A counter view came from Douglas : “You cannot publish anyone’s picture without permission. When I was an avid photography hobbyist, I often took pictures of people on the street. I was taught to always get permission. A person has a right to control over his image. I think you will find, if you consult a lawyer, that you could easily run into a problem posting images as suggested.”
Even if the case was thrown out in court, or you won in a trial, the expenses of hiring an attorney are considerable. There is also the very good chance that the “shamed” party would “not get it”. While you are concerned about the impaired driving skills, the person would… with a bit of justification…worry about the reputation damage.
PG has always wondered why the church is so quiet about safe driving. Why is courtesy on the road not seen as a moral issue? The preachers scream loud and long about sexual practices, and don’t sound a peep over the way a person drives.
Update There has been another round in the discussion.
Peter G “Your “reasonable expectation of privacy” ceases the moment you set foot into a public area, where you have neither right nor control over images taken of you. Getting angry and threatening a law suit is different from actually having a case.
Just open a newspaper, a magazine, or watch the news, and you’ll see plenty of passers-by who never gave permission to be photographed and their pictures published in print or aired on television. If that were illegal, virtually all media outlets would be getting their pants sued off day after day.”
Douglas “As you said, you are not a lawyer.”
Peter G “ “The speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second, and I’m not a theoretical physicist. What’s your point?””

Listverse has a feature today about 10 men who were executed, but later believed to be innocent.
To the surprise of nobody, 5 of the 10 men are from Texas. Wasting the convicted is a popular pastime in the lone star state.
Whether this translates into the lowest crime rate in the free world is another matter.
Texas was the home of Todd Willingham, who was the subject of an article in the New Yorker. There is an investigation into his case underway in Texas now.
Jailhouse snitches testified in several of the cases. In one, “Two of the six jailhouse witnesses who testified at trial later recanted, saying they were given cigarettes, television and alcohol privileges, and conjugal visits for their testimonies.”
Five of the ten were white, three were hispanic, and two were black.
One of the men was from Georgia. On November 15, 1996, Ellis Felker was executed for a Houston County murder. Four years later, DNA tests were performed, and found inconclusive.
The long series of appeals and court appearances does not always assure that justice will be done. The courts seem to get in a mood to get the hearings out of the way so the convicted can be executed.
Pictures of the executed men are from listverse. The picture of the electric chair (Reidsville) is from the GSU library.

Joe Lieberman (?-CT) made some noise in Israel recently. Speaking at a press conference in Jerusalem, Mr. Lieberman told Israel not to worry, that congress will make sure Israel gets all the money she wants. No matter how Israel treats the Palestinians, American financial aid is assured.
Mr. Lieberman is on a mid east tour with three other senators. The other three are John McCain (R-AZ), John Barrasso (R-WY), and John Thune (R-SD). Mr. Thune stood behind Mr. Lieberman during his remarks, and made gestures with his thumbs.

The six word memoir is popular
Ernest Hemingway might have the first
“Baby Shoes for sale never worn”
the inbred cats on Key West
six toes on all four paws
Tennessee Williams did not believe sober

Bloggingheads celebrated the 75th birthday of Elvis, by talking to a man promoting a book, about Elvis. The fact that Elvis has missed the last 33 celebrations did not make the event any less festive. The cultural contributions of “the King” were enumerated, and a link was supplied to a 1957 article in Jet Magazine. Someone quoted Mr. Presley ( who performed under his birth name) as saying rude things about African Americans. The only trouble is, no one is sure when he said it.
January 8 is a lively day in musical history in other ways. In 1815, the battle of New Orleans was fought. The war had been over for two weeks.
Several other performers made their planetary debut on January 8. 1911 had Gypsy Rose Lee, and Shirley Bassey was born in 1937. Last but not least, on January 8, 1947, David Bowie was found in a cabbage patch.
With all those births, someone has to die to make room. In 1642, Galileo Galilei met his maker. Wendy’s founder Dave Thomas went to the drive through in the sky in 2002. Yvonne De Carlo made the big move in 2007.

There is a phrase these days, existential threat. The birthday of Elvis might be a good day to consider it. The existential threat to Elvis, was Elvis.
The phrase existential threat today means a threat to the existence of a nation or a people. This means a war or movement that could eliminate a nation from existence. With nuclear weapons, a nation could indeed be totally eliminated…as could all of mankind.
One country that regularly talks about existential threats is Israel. A geographically small territory, Israel could indeed be wasted by a few well placed nukes. There is concern about Iran getting the bomb. This concept…Iran with nuclear weapons…is probably the number one use of the phrase “existential threat”.
The philosophical movement called existentialism was first articulated in the aftermath of World War Two. According to Wiktionary, existentialism is “A twentieth-century philosophical movement emphasizing the uniqueness of each human existence in freely making its self-defining choices, with foundations in the thought of Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and notably represented in the works of Karl Jaspers (1883-1969), Gabriel Marcel (1887-1973), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-80). “
PG is trying to make a connection between existentialist philosophy and the concept of the existentialist threat.

Another inmate of Georgia’s death row has self executed. Leeland Mark Braley hung himself in his cell. He was found at 5:12 am., January 1, 2010.
A story about death penalty representation had this about Mr. Braley. ” In Braley’s case, Jacobs said, she knew the jury would consider his crime sociopathic, and that meant she’d need to connect that characteristic to his childhood. Braley, who was born in Korea, was dumped at a Georgia police station by his immigrant parents and later placed in foster care with a woman who refused to hold him for fear that he’d become attached to her.”
The GDC inmate query tells us the Mr. Braley was born in 1973, his race was “Indian”, and that he stood 5’10”. He had been incarcerated after some incidents in Gwinnett County, and was on parole September 2, 1998. This is the story of what allegedly happened that day.
“Leeland Mark Braley of Lawrenceville was sentenced to death for the slaying of Kelli Hammond. Ms. Hammond, 25, was stabbed numerous times Sept. 2 at the business she operated just north of Zebulon. Mr. Braley was arrested the next day in Atlanta after he used Ms. Hammond’s credit cards. In addition to murder, Mr. Braley was convicted Tuesday of kidnapping with bodily injury, armed robbery and aggravated battery. He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences and 20 consecutive years in prison on those charges. According to testimony, Mr. Braley went into Ms. Hammond’s business to solicit money. When she refused, he returned with a knife and a gun. Prosecutors said Mr. Braley cut Ms. Hammond’s throat and then stabbed her.”
Timothy Pruitt died, on December 6, after an incident at the Jackson Prison. His death was labeled an “alleged suicide”. Many believe he was killed by another inmate.

PG is up to chapter/day 28 of “A box of matches” by Nicholson Baker. The man takes self fascination to a different level. Every day starts with the time he woke up, and goes downstairs to start a fire. Firestarting is better in the dark, as is coffee making.
As he writes this, PG is listening to a file of Tom Waits in a NYC studio in 1976. It was recorded as a radio show, with just Mr. Waits on piano and somebody from a temp agency on drums. Right now the number is “Tom Traubert’s Blues” which keeps going back into “Waltzing Matilda”. There is something about a song about a dancing kangaroo, that is some sort of Australian national anthem, this leaves PG puzzled. There is a song about Gallipoli called “and the band played waltzing matilda”, which is even more tarrantular that Tom Waits. Tonight he sings like an ashtray that hasn’t been dumped out in a month.
The relationship of darkness to coffee making got PG to thinking about a dialog from a week ago. Somehow, some folks got to comparing esoteric verses out of the bible, and PG hopped into say , who cares what the bible says, it is not the word of G-d. Well, it seems like someone had a reply. PG sent a note back to him that started ” if you can’t wander in the darkness when discussing the bible, when can you?” This got the other party going, about the symbolism of darkness in the bible.
The scriptures say everyone is wandering in darkness until one “sees the light.”
It occurs to me that the “Light” image can be used in two ways: Is the “light” (bulb/torch/candle) what we seek, or do we use the light to illuminate the way or something else. The biblical literalists seem to be worshiping the light bulb…
Bruce Springsteen wrote a song called “Blinded by the light”. Manfred Mann had a hit song with that tune. The singer keeps saying “wrapped up like a douche”… that is what it sounds like. This was thirty years before douche became the all purpose insult that it is today. PG finds the concept of using a hygiene device, as an insult, to be tasteless.