I remember a time when park benches in London were exactly that, benches. What I mean is that a controversy once brewed in GB over people sleeping on public benches and I read in the papers (long ago) that armrests were to be installed to end the issue. I do not know if this reaction is the source of all armrests on long bench-like seating areas, but armrests certainly do seem to be more common now (airports, movie-theaters) than in older seating areas (e.g. Cathedral pews). Are people more worried today about personal space than in the past?

From where I sit, armrests are an interesting type of behavior regulation. I wonder if it self-imposed (we need some way to divide spaces evenly for us, especially as weight/size averages grow, and/or want someone to keep us from lying down) or whether it is a result of some kind of offensive use or abuse that we wish to be stopped (homeless taking up residence on the benches and claiming it as permanently theirs). Movable armrests would be a good idea to solve the former problem. I suppose the reason movable armrests are not more common, however, is because the cost justification for the armrests has more to do with the latter problem. Wonder if anyone has researched the history of armrests…

From an opposite perspective, since public benches have off-peak access during the night, perhaps they should be intentionally designed and maintained to be a form of homeless accomodation. Otherwise, as this report points out, the armrests might just end up forcing the homeless to sleep somewhere even less palatable to the regulators:

“Sure it says (the city) is unfriendly to homeless,” said Andy Baines, a formerly homeless 36-year-old who is working hard at the Winston-Salem Rescue Mission to get his life right. “But you know what? There’s always somewhere else to go. We’ll find another place. It might be a couch, an abandoned building or an abandoned car.

The term “abandoned” gives a hint to the nature of the problem. The armrests raise the stakes of what is to be considered abandoned enough to be suitable for a nap. In airports, apparently the base of the seats with armrests has become the preferred spot. So instead of napping on the bench, people put their bags on the seats and sleep just below them, which seems like an unnecessary and unfortunate consequence of behavior regulation.

The BBC suggests Japan has a “new” problem:

“Being a fake priest is big business in Japan – I’ve done a TV commercial for one company,” [Mark Kelly] added. “In Sapporo, there are five agencies employing about 20 fake priests. In a city like Tokyo, there must be hundreds.”

The fake Western priests are employed at Western-style weddings to give a performance and add to the atmosphere. These are not legal ceremonies – the couples also have to make a trip to the local registrar.

“In the past almost all weddings in Japan were Shinto, but in the last few years Western-style weddings have appeared and become very popular,” said one Japanese priest.

It is important for the bride and groom to have a proper wedding, and they are not getting it from these foreign priests. “People like the dress, the kiss and the image. Japanese Christians make up only 1% of the country, but now about 90% of weddings are in the Christian style.”

Without trying to be too controversial about this, who really gets to decide whether someone is a real priest, and what constitutes a real/proper wedding? The infrastructure and regulations seem to always be under some kind of challenge as denominations fracture and feud. As a famous anthropologist once said, “marriage is as relative as time has zones”. After all, how different is this than the infamous Vegas weddings and (Elvis) priests?

The Alternet Blogs include a post with blistering condemnations by decorated US military experts:

Uber-decorated Major General John R.S. Batiste, who retired last year “on principle,” delivers a bruising, point-by-point indictment of Sect. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (video right).

This is the passage that stuck with me… and will perhaps stick with some international legal expert:

[Donald Rumsfeld] violated fundamental principles of war… set the conditions for Abu Ghraib and other atrocities that further ignited the insurgency…

There are some stark warnings from Batiste about the risk and reality of unaccountable leadership:

Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except “how to win.” He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build “his plan,” which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty. Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today.

General Paul Eaton also expresses frustration with Rumsfeld’s habit of ignoring reality:

The President charged Secretary Rumsfeld to prosecute this war, a man who has proven himself incompetent strategically, operationally, and tactically. Mr. Rumsfeld came into his position with an extraordinary arrogance, and an agenda — to turn the military into a lighter, more lethal armed force. In fact, Rumsfeld’s vision is a force designed to meet a Warsaw Pact type force more effectively.

We are not fighting the Warsaw Pact. We are fighting an insurgency, a distributed low-tech, high-concept war that demands greater numbers of ground forces, not fewer. Mr. Rumsfeld won’t acknowledge this fact and has failed to adapt to the current situation. He has tried and continues to fight this war on the cheap.

And yet, like he did with Brown in Katrina, the aloof and indifferent Bush cheers Rumsfeld along…

Democrats and Republicans alike have called for Rumsfeld’s resignation, arguing he has mishandled the war in Iraq, where more than 2,800 members of the U.S. military have died since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Cheney has faced sharp criticism for his hardline views and is viewed favorably by only about a third of Americans in polls. Bush said that “both men are doing fantastic jobs.”

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.