That’s the name of one of my favorite Bob Marley albums. The bass line is so rich and moving on Stir it Up, Marley’s voice young and passionate. I even love the original record cover design with the simple hinge….

Anyway, it’s a rough segue (I’ll skip the analysis of Concrete Jungle, Stop that Train, Slave Driver, etc.) but I just noticed that the name has also been chosen for a new movie from South Africa about the use and impact of torture. It appears to be a story about a man who is transformed at the hands of a “country ruled by fear”:

“Catch a Fire” is a political thriller based on the true story of Patrick Chamusso, an ordinary man whose life profoundly illustrates why torture is never acceptable. It is the story of one man’s struggle amongst a nation’s, set in a divided South Africa in the nineteen eighties, climaxing in the present day.

A trailer is available here, from Amnesty International. And, surprise, it features the music of Bob Marley.

The reviews look really good:

True to [director] Noyce’s words, Catch a Fire comes to focus on the relationship between Chamusso (played with an appealing mix of defiance and youthful swagger by Derek Luke) and the police colonel, Nic Vos (an excellent Tim Robbins), who interrogates him after his initial arrest. It’s a decidedly complex relationship in which neither man is painted as a saint or a devil and both are shown to be flawed father figures doing what each thinks is right to make the next generation better for his children.

Truth being stranger than fiction, as they say, the Indymedia organization reports that President Bush has secretly gutted long-standing protections from tyranny and given himself the authority to declare martial law:

Public Law 109-364, or the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a “public emergency” and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.”

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is “martial law.”

We could speculate about all the reasons Bush might be doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he promised to the American voters during his election campaign. Or we could just acknowledge the fact that the consequences of his decisions have been and continue to be disasterous for the welfare of Americans.

Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both,” is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of ‘law enforcement.’ As such, it has been the best protection we’ve had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.

Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007’s Defense Authorization Act contained a “widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation’s governors.”

Let me say this again. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of Bush’s promise in 2001 to Governors that he would be a strong advocate for state’s rights:

Bush called for the federal government to grant more power to the states. “While I believe there’s a role for the federal government, it’s not to impose its will on states and local communities [emphasis added],” Bush said. “It’s to empower states and people and local communities to be able to realize the vast potential of this country.”

There you have Bush himself saying that federal control of the states will disempower them — prevent them from realizing the potential of the country. What’s changed? How did this self-proclaimed friend of the state (a former governor himself) become its enemy? Actually, nothing really changed, according to how Bush was portrayed by some in 1999:

His critics say Bush is poll-driven, ideologically shallow and a natural-born waffler. Bush fostered the criticism by giving vague or conflicting opinions on national issues while overseeing the state’s legislative session this year.

That all sounds perfectly accurate. Perhaps it is his poll-driven nature that drives him to use his secret orders instead of working to bring others to the table. I suspect his secret motto is “if you can’t beat ’em, cheat”. So the real question is who is the man behind the Bush curtain? His waffles all add up to far too much executive power to be random. Is this the Cheney policy engine at work?

Some amusing analysis of the exact language is available here:

It appears that signing of H.R. 5122 does more than what President Bush stated:

“…authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.”

In his statement he cites various ‘provisions’ but forgets one–Section 1076, which:

“allows the President to declare a ‘public emergency’ and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to ‘suppress public disorder.'”

In essence Martial Law with such implementations…

The New York Times has an amusing article about how kisses are seen in different cultures and over time. The Germans and Chinese seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum:

The German language has words for 30 different kinds of kisses, including nachküssen, which is defined as a kiss “making up for kisses that have been omitted.” (The Germans are also said to have coined the inexplicable phrase “A kiss without a beard is like an egg without salt.”) […] To this day, public kissing is still seen as indecent in many parts of the world. In 1990, the Beijing-based Workers’ Daily advised its readers that “the invasive Europeans brought the kissing custom to China, but it is regarded as a vulgar practice which is all too suggestive of cannibalism.”

Do you want salt with that kiss? The Chinese perspective seems like a cross between Freud and Darwin. More interesting, I think, is that the article tries to tie the emotive/relational character of a kiss to the success and safety of commuters.

Whatever its origins, kissing seems to be advantageous. A study conducted during the 1980’s found that men who kiss their wives before leaving for work live longer, get into fewer car accidents, and have a higher income than married men who don’t.