In Myanmar, a Former Hijacker Finds His Own 'Middle Path,' Without Regrets

Returning to Myanmar after a quarter century, one is confronted constantly by reminders of how much the country has changed. In 1989, when I last was here, a military junta ruled the nation; it had used force to crush a student protest, and was hounding the opposition figure Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters (she was placed under house arrest two weeks after I left). Public gatherings of more than three people in the capital were banned, as was any criticism of the regime. As a result, Burma, as it was known then, lived in an almost North Korea-like state of isolation, a resource-rich nation turned global pariah, frozen in a sleepy and impoverished 1960s existence. It was like Cuba in this way; a warm and inviting place where signs of poverty and faded grandeur were everywhere.

Today Myanmar boasts a vibrant press, fancy new hotels, a crush of potential (and actual) foreign investors, and a freewheeling political system in which Suu Kyi herself is a critical player. The grandeur may still be distant, and the challenges many, but the country is coming out of its shell, and emerging slowly from a long nightmare of authoritarian rule.

I took note of such changes, walking from the Strand to the Sule Pagoda in Yangon and riding a gondola from Nyaung Shwe to a gorgeous resort on Inle Lake. But for a truly dizzying example of the country’s turnaround, it was hard to beat the smiling, soft-spoken man I had tea with, one afternoon in Yangon’s Chatrium Hotel. His name was Soe Myint, and he was the 46-year-old editor-in-chief in charge of Mizzima Media, one of the most respected and successful media properties in his country. When I was last in his country, Soe Myint was a 21-year-old student at Rangoon University. “If you had met me in that time,” he said with a twinkle in his eye, “I would not have been able to tell you what I was planning in my mind. And if I did tell you, anyway you wouldn’t have believed me.”

In 1988, after the Burmese junta opened fire on student protestors, killing more than a thousand, Soe Myint and several dozen members of his Rangoon University class fled the capital and headed east for the jungle of the Thai-Burmese frontier. There they joined other young Burmese plotting resistance to the military regime, but he and his friends were quickly disillusioned. Ultimately, they crossed the border by boat — “It took two nights, and the boatman took no money from us” — and made their way to Bangkok.

Back home, the situation only worsened. After Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) trounced the ruling party in elections, the junta simply ignored the vote and sharpened its clampdown. Thousands in the protest movement were jailed. Soe Myint and his university classmate Htin Kyaw Oo kept trying to raise awareness of the situation to provoke some international response, but they found little sympathy in Thailand, and by 1990 it seemed the world was mostly interested in outrages perpetrated by another autocrat — the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

“No one at that time was paying attention to our struggle,” Soe Myint said. He and Kyaw Oo grew increasingly frustrated and were increasingly convinced they needed to do something dramatic, to “do something for democracy and human rights.”

Dissent can take all sorts of “dramatic” forms, of course. What Soe Myint and his friend came up with was this:

They would take a so-called “Laughing Buddha” statue (for “good luck,” Soe Myint thought) and wrap it many times over in tissue paper. They would buy tickets for the short Thai Airways flight from Bangkok to Rangoon. And then they would storm the cockpit, tell the pilot the Buddha was in fact a bomb, and demand to be flown to Calcutta. India, they knew, was a supporter of the Burmese opposition.

They would tell no one in Bangkok or Rangoon, not even their families and friends. They did not wish to harm anyone. But they were prepared to die for their cause.

It was November 1990, more than a decade before the September 11 hijackings, and Soe Myint had no difficulty bringing his tightly-wrapped Buddha aboard. In any event, it wasn’t a weapon; only dressed and covered to appear like one. The flight was a short one, Thai Airways’ regular one-hour, 15-minute hop from Bangkok, with 220 on board. As soon as the jet had reached its cruising altitude, the young men made their move.

Things didn’t start well.

Somehow the door Soe Myint “stormed” brought him not to the cockpit but to a bathroom. Moments later he and Htin Kyaw Oo were face to face with the flight crew, brandishing their “weapon.” Soe Myint did the talking, explaining that they were acting on behalf of the repressed people of Burma, that they meant no harm, but were demanding to be taken to Calcutta. Once there, they would demand the release of Suu Kyi and other prisoners, and the end of martial law and military tribunals.

The Thai crew complied. The two men were jailed on landing at Calcutta, their Buddha unwrapped and confiscated. But as Soe Myint had known, the Indian government was sympathetic to the Burmese opposition, and the nation proved sympathetic to the two student hijackers. They passed the next several months in a Calcutta jail, but they were treated well. No passengers filed complaints; neither did Thai Airways. Soe Myint and Htin Kyaw Oo won formal support from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other international organizations, as well as more than 30 members of the Indian Parliament. They were released to a center for refugees in Delhi.

“I soon realized,” said Soe Myint, “that we had been very, very lucky.”

The men continued their dissent from inside India. In 1998, Soe Myint founded Mizzima Media — using the Pali word for “middle path” — a kind of Burmese news-agency-in-exile. Mizzima won funding from the Open Society Institute and the National Endowment for Democracy, among others. But a few years later, a full 12 years after the hijacking, Soe Myint’s already-improbable story took another bizarre turn.

In April 2002 police stormed Soe Myint’s home and charged him under India’s Anti-Hijacking Act. A new Indian government had turned favorably towards the Burmese junta; in fact, the External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh had traveled to Rangoon just that week. And of course, the September 11, 2001 attacks had happened; now a student hijacker, however noble his cause or non-violent in practice, looked more menacing. By now Htin Kyaw Oo was living in Ireland, where he had been granted asylum; but Soe Myint was hauled to court, facing the possibility of life in prison if convicted.

At trial, Soe Myint stuck to his story. He had carried no weapon; he had never intended to hurt anyone, nor had anyone actually been hurt; it had been done for a noble, if desperate cause.

In April, 2003, he was acquitted. “I am today a free man,” he told reporters following the verdict. “But 50 million Burmese are still prisoners in Burma, under the military regime.”

A decade later, Soe Myint returned home, to his newly-democratic country. Mizzima Media is today a flourishing media property, and in another sign of the changes, its partners include business figures who were once close to the military regime. Today the press in Myanmar is a wide-open, free-wheeling institution — though it still comes in for occasional crackdowns from the government. Soe Myint himself, sipping tea in the Yangon hotel, smiles when asked about what he and his friend did on that airplane, all those years ago.

“I am sorry for pain I caused my family,” he says. His mother was jailed when the authorities raided his home soon after the hijacking. But he says his parents forgave him long ago, and that beyond that, he has no regrets.

Would he do it again? Another smile. “Today I think I would try something different,” Soe Myint said. “Today, maybe no Buddha. No hijack.”

This spring, Asia Society New York presents Myanmar’s Moment, a season of programming that will include talks, films, and performances exploring Myanmar’s past, present, and future.

LCV Releases 2014 National Environmental Scorecard

The American public’s growing concern about climate change in 2014 stands in stark contrast to the anti-environment agenda and votes of the U.S. House of Representatives, as detailed in this year’s National Environmental Scorecard.

2015-02-26-scorecard1.png

Fortunately, the House’s breathtaking attacks on our air, water, lands, and wildlife were blocked by our allies in the U.S. Senate, who grew even more vocal this year about the urgency of addressing climate change. We were also thrilled by the progress made by President Barack Obama, who continued using his executive authority to build on his historic record on climate change and other environmental priorities.

Again this year, the impacts of climate change broke records, further motivating the American people to call for climate action. 2014 registered as the hottest year on earth since record-keeping began in 1880, punctuating a trend that includes 14 of the 15 hottest years recorded this century. This warming is just one of the many impacts of dangerous carbon pollution–including rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and drought in some areas and flooding in others–each of which was detailed in this year’s National Climate Assessment, the most comprehensive and authoritative scientific report ever produced about climate’s impacts on the United States and our economy. This growing evidence of climate change helped mobilize more than 300,000 people to march this fall in New York City and tens of thousands more in cities around the world.

In spite of these developments, the House of Representatives continued its assault on the environment for the fourth year in a row. Indeed, the 35 House votes included in this Scorecard are tied with 2011 and 2012 for the most votes ever scored, with the second highest total–28 votes–having come in 2013. This is a trend–year after year the Republican leadership of the House has chosen the polluters’ agenda. So much so, in fact, that many other 2014 votes warranted inclusion and would have been included in a typical year, but did not make the top 35 votes.

Just as they did in the last several years, the House seemingly left no environmental issue untouched in 2014. There were attacks on our cornerstone environmental laws, like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. There were votes to legislatively approve the dirty and dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, to dramatically expand risky oil drilling off our beaches and on public lands, and to prevent new parks from being created. Basic science itself was not spared, as the House voted against an amendment affirming the scientific consensus of man-made climate change and in favor of blocking the EPA’s ability to use the best peer-reviewed science when determining levels of pollution that protect public health. While our allies in the Senate successfully blocked these attacks, they serve as a harbinger of the anti-environment agenda we can expect from both chambers of the 114th Congress, now jointly led by climate change deniers.

Thanks to the stalwart leadership of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), most of the House-passed anti-environment legislation never reached the Senate floor. Those attacks that did come for a vote were defeated, such as a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Indeed, the small number of votes included in this year’s Senate Scorecard is testament to the fact that much worthwhile legislation stood no chance in the face of opposition from an anti-environment minority. That is not to say that attempts were not made. But common sense legislation to extend clean energy tax credits or reduce the influence of big corporations and other special interest polluters in our elections–a major contributor to the anti-environmental turn of Congress in the post-Citizens United era–fell short of the 60 votes needed.

While the Senate may not have had the votes to legislate one way or another on the environment, that did not stop our allies in both chambers from speaking out more forcefully than ever on the need to address climate change. More than 30 Senators took to the Senate floor in March to urge action on climate change as part of a historic, all-night session dubbed “Up for Climate.” At a May rally in the Senate, hundreds of attendees and more than 30 Members of Congress all programmed their smartphones to ring simultaneously to symbolically “Sound the Alarm for Climate Action.”

For his part, President Obama continued taking historic steps to address climate change and advance other environmental priorities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a common sense yet ambitious proposal known as the Clean Power Plan to establish, for the first time ever, national limits on carbon pollution from our nation’s existing fleet of power plants, which are responsible for one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. As part of President Obama’s commitment to lead international efforts addressing climate change, the United States and China made a historic joint announcement pledging to take steps on climate and clean energy, and President Obama pledged a $3 billion U.S. contribution to the international Green Climate Fund to help developing countries cope with the impacts of climate change.

The administration’s environmental progress this year wasn’t limited to climate action. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly released a Clean Water Rule that would protect wetlands and small streams from pollution or destruction, safeguarding waters that approximately 117 million Americans rely on for clean drinking water. And President Obama used his authority to protect several stunning Western landscapes as National Monuments and expand the existing Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument into the largest marine preserve in the world that is off limits to commercial resource extraction.

Looking ahead, we remain steadfast in our commitment to addressing the greatest challenge of our time, climate change, as well as making progress on other pressing environmental and public health issues. We are grateful to our allies in Congress and the Obama administration for opposing the House Republican leadership’s anti-environment agenda and will count on them more than ever to stop the inevitable polluter attacks of the 114th Congress. And we look forward to continuing to work with the Obama administration to make even more progress on solutions that benefit the American people and the environment.

Turns Out Americans Don't Want Tiny Homes After All

Hopefully you’re not living in a tiny house with a bathroom that doubles as a home office, as in this hilarious Portlandia sketch. Still, you probably wish your home were bigger.

More than 43 percent of respondents to a survey released Thursday by real estate website Trulia said that they would prefer living in a bigger home.

Millennials, those age 18 – 34, were most desperate for space. More than 60 percent said their ideal residence was somewhat or much larger than where they are now. Not surprising for a group just starting out. But even Boomers, the age group you’d think was about ready to“Kondo” their houses and fashionably downsize, yearned for something bigger: 26 percent wanted to upsize while only 21 percent wanted to go smaller.

trulia chart

The results seem to confirm that our Recession-era penchant to hate on McMansions and idealize downsizing is over. If it ever even really existed.

Remember those times? Guilty and hungover from easy mortgages that helped people with lousy credit put down no money to buy “Starter Castles” with double-height family rooms and three-car garages, the nation proclaimed the end of the crazy-big house.

The data show that some shrinkage was certainly afoot. After years of growing ever-more giant, the size of the average new home fell slightly from its boom-era peak of 2,521 square feet in 2007, according to the Census Bureau. In 2010, the average home was a mere 2,392 square feet. Not really a big drop, when you consider that in 1973 the average home in America was 1,660 square feet and probably had, at most, two bathrooms.

Anyway, the moment of reason passed quickly. In 2013, the most recent year for which data is available, the average home was bigger than it was in 2007 — at 2,598 square feet. A majority of new homes had more than 2.5 bathrooms. Safe to say that none of those bathrooms doubled as home offices.

Of course, not many people can actually afford these new homes. As the New York Times recently pointed out, most of the new homes being built these days are meant for the rich. Indeed, homeownership rates are at historic lows.

As this new study shows, most of us are left to dream of bigger spaces and a future filled with en-suite bedrooms and rooms devoted to wrapping gifts. The American dream lives.

How Selma and Women's Inequality got tangled at the Oscars

My Oscar night boycott arose in part because of the Academy’s shameful treatment of Selma. But I have also grown weary of the uphill battle for equality for women of all colors.

My husband and I saw Selma on the heels of the electrifying, Tony-award winning play, All The Way, which explored LBJ’s first year as president. Seattle playwright Robert Schenkkan won the 2014 Tony Award for best play for this Oregon Shakespeare Festival commissioned work. We were steeped in the mid-’60s before we experienced Ava DuVernay’s vision of a pivotal moment in civil rights history.

Positioning knotty social issues as though they are actually complex, instead of simplistic, is what made both the play and the movie rewarding.

But there was loud criticism of Selma as a failure in historical accuracy.

That criticism that served only one purpose: distraction.

Pick nits with the director and you can avoid (ignore) the substantive issues spotlighted in the movie.

These distractions effectively derailed discussion about an unequivocally horrific time in our history. One that we seem to willfully relegate to hear-see-speak no evil while simultaneously watching it play out today in places like Ferguson.

Raise your hand if you knew, before seeing this movie, that there were multiple marches in Selma, marches that were started and aborted before the successful one of March 21, the one we know and celebrate?

Raise your hand if you were able to watch these scenes unmoved to tears, anger or mortification that these acts of violence against peaceful protesters were done in your name?

This is a movie criticized for historical inaccuracy?

Was DuVernay shunned because she’s black, she’s a woman, or her protagonist was a martyred black man? We’ll never know, but I believe her gender played a role in the Academy’s cold shoulder.

And after seeing She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry, I began to internalize just how far we have not come, baby.

That’s when my anger grew beyond the unjust treatment of Selma as an important reflection of shameful history.

Here are some facts about women’s inequality

First, the Academy.

The 6,028 voting members of the Academy: 94 percent white, 77 percent male. Of the 43 people on the board of governors, only six are women. Not unlike its cousin up the road in Silicon Valley, the demographics of “success” are white and male.

In its 83-year history, only one woman has been named Best Director, Kathryn Bigelow.

But the problem is bigger than the Academy and it’s broader than unequal pay.

Research from San Diego State University’s Martha Lauzen draws back the curtain on how Hollywood makes movies. In 2012, 78% (195) of the top 250 films had no female writers. Last year, 79% had no female writers. There’s more: 99% had no female composers, 96% had no female cinematographers, 96% had no female sound editors, 78% had no female editors. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Looking at the top 100 movies of 2012, women had fewer speaking roles than in any year since 2007. Less than a third of the speaking roles were female characters .

And that’s just Hollywood. A pattern of exclusion and unequal compensation is the norm, not the exception.

An analysis of the New York Times home page showed that men are quoted 3.4 times more often than women. U.S. newsrooms are about 1/3 female. And overwhelmingly, managers are men. So are newspaper opinion columnists.

Only a third of the nation’s doctors and lawyers are women, and they make less money than the men. At the earnings peak — ages 45 to 50 — women earn 62 cents for every dollar that male doctors make (based on median earnings). The pay gap extends to nurses and other health care professionals.

Indisputable facts that reflect entrenched norms, yet allude to them at your own peril.

“It’s time to have wage equality once and for all. And equal rights for women in the United States of America.” ~ Patricia Arquette

This truth was also met with nit-picking distractions.

We can argue about the outsized compensation of celebrity culture (let’s not forget sports and fashion) separately from the stark fact that, even there, women are treated differently from men. All women, black or white, straight or gay.

Distractions, people.

And this time it’s not external divide-and-conquer, like we saw with the attacks on Selma from LBJ’s alumni. It is internal sniping that can only result in maintenance of the status quo.

That’s another way in which DuVernay’s movie was powerful. She showed us how King moved forward despite similar — although far less public — sniping.

Arquette spoke the truth. DuVernay spoke a truth. Yet the Academy and the institutions it represents — including those outside moviedom — sit stubborn and inviolate.

This is why I boycotted the Oscars: I object to distractions from painful truths.

Distraction as a method of preserving the status quo is at least as old as the Roman Empire. (Probably older.)

In the face of distraction, facts alone do little to spur action. For that, we need focused anger.

“First, you’ve got to get mad. You’ve got to say, ‘I’m a human being, goddammit, my life has value.'” ~ Howard Beale, Network (1976)

It didn’t hurt Sunday night’s ratings to have only one angry white woman of a certain age refuse to turn that dial (so to speak).

We won’t get Hollywood’s attention — or any other institution of power — until all of us are angry.

We. Must. Get. Mad!

Then, we act — with feet, with fingers and with pocketbooks.

Support movies (and other media) that feature realistic women characters (not objects) and those made by women producers and directors. If a tight budget means you’d need to pass on the latest derivative blockbuster, thoughtfully consider saying no to pablum.

Tell your friends what you are doing and why. On social media, in blog comments, during phone calls, at coffee chats. Ditto those elected to represent you. And a timely letter-to-the-editor couldn’t hurt; neither will a touch of humor!

Speak up, knowing you are not alone and so that others might feel less alone.

Of course, Hollywood is only one brick in the wall. For some of you, it won’t be the first you tackle. That’s OK.

It took nearly a century for women to wrestle the right to vote from those who withheld franchise. Why should we be surprised that equal pay and true equality haven’t arrived simply because President Kennedy put pen to paper in 1963?

We can turn that law into reality if we put our collective minds and hearts to it and ignore attempts to pull us off course with distractions.

But first, we’ve got to get mad.

A longer version of this appeared first at WiredPen; see that post to learn how to get involved or for historical information about the women’s movement in America.

Night of 100 Stars Interview With Renée Taylor

I recently made a lovely new friend: Renée Taylor, writer, director, and hilarious performer of who’s most recent claim to fame was playing Fran Drescher’s mother on the hit television show, The Nanny.

After attending a preview of her upcoming one-woman show, My Life On A Diet, I got a chance to chat with her and we instantly hit it off. We understand and respect each other’s work, we understand each other’s family dynamic and background.

Ever since that night, we speak often on the phone. Renée happened to share with me her recent experience on the red carpet of the Acadamy Awards’ Night Gala. It was so funny, I had to share her story with HuffPost readers. Here, with no fat trimmed, is her interview from that evening.

My Night of 100 Stars Interview
By Renée Taylor

2015-02-26-ReneeJoeOscars2015.jpg

My husband, Joe Bologna and I attended the Night of 100 Stars Oscar party at the Beverly Hilton where there are over 150 TV interviewers and photographers. These are actual questions I was asked on the red carpet and my actual answers:

Have you ever been nominated for an Academy Award?
Yes

How many times?
Once.

Only once?
Yes.

For what?
A movie my husband and I wrote, “Lovers and Other Strangers.”

Who are you wearing?
Macy’s 75 percent off.

You look so pretty tonight, how long did it take you to get ready?
All day for my hair, makeup, lashes, two hours to get into my corset and gown, and a half hour to stretch my shoes, so that I could squeeze my feet into them.

Do you mind my asking, “How old are you?”
Well, if it will go no further than your television audience… in a few weeks I’ll be celebrating the Big 4-0. The reason it’s a secret, is if anyone in Hollywood hears, I’ll be all washed up.

How long have you been married to Joe Bologna?
In August it’ll be 50 years.

What do you attribute such a long marriage to?
Being faithful.

You mean you and your husband have never cheated?
Not so far, but I live in fear that my husband could meet a much older and more spiritual woman than me at the Night of 100 Stars this evening.

Are you on Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin and Twitter?
Yes and I’m always twerking.

2015-02-26-Joe_and_Renee_Headercopy.jpg

Learn more about the amazingly talented Renée Taylor and her work and also check out the famed Oscar Gala!

Wearable Technologies: The Need to be Scientific, Simple and Above All Philosophical

It is almost 10 years ago that I entered the fascinating and at times complex world of wearable technologies and having now the first generation of our company’s products used by elite sports and medical institutions, it is a good time to take a moment and reflect on what are the key points into transforming wearable technologies into something meaningful that will have an impact on our lives in the upcoming years.

The trip of wearables will be a long one since it is at its early years and there is massive scope of improvement in information gathering, dissemination and ultimately exploitation. Fascination will also be big part of this trip, since wearables unavoidably touch various sides of our nature, be it basic aesthetics, fashion and trends awareness, communication with our friends and peers, psychology, ethics, or even fear, of what we or others might find out about ourselves.

During a regular office meeting with one of my colleagues, we discovered premature ventricular contractions PVC in his heart, accidentally spotted by streaming his ECG live on his mobile phone during the whole meeting. I am not quite sure he wanted to know this at first – in the meantime he checked it with his doctor and he is reassured his heart is well, so I have a happy colleague again.

During the last seven years of preparing SenseCore to enter the market I first had to talk to investors that were demanding proof that our data is medical-grade in order for the technology to be valid and worth investing into. Once we hit the market, often the same people ask what is the need for such unique and high quality information. “Are wrist gadgets not good enough for the average person?” The answer is emphatically ‘no.’ When your heart rate is calculated by an algorithm, your respiration rate is calculated by an algorithm that uses the algorithmically calculated heart rate as the basis, and so on, and you keep building numbers that are based on sequential assumptions and algorithms, then it is easy to understand that people sooner or later get it and lose interest. Why carry a device that assumes things on your behalf? If you want to be entertained you are better off watching a funny video online instead of wearing dubious devices. I once remember starting my long effort to lose 45lbs and the first step was using a wrist band to count my steps. When at times the steps were still very few in the evening, I would shake the wrist band for 10-20 seconds and I would get a green score. I stopped using the wrist band there and then. Similar situation with devices that use invented heart rate variability values to tell you how tired you are, when you should train, etc. It simply gives you too much false information to stand the test of time.

While simplicity is not a good thing for information gathering and a profound technology is a requirement, simplicity is a must have when discussing usage of wearable products. Often to my dismay, I have found out that users have become so accustomed to super simplistic mobile apps’ interfaces, so that even asking them to press a button to switch on or off a device is a step too much. Button-free devices is the word. Same for the software interface. You should aim at collecting maximum information while not asking more than a few seconds of the user’s time and attention span per week. Otherwise, your products will be dropped in no time.

All the above considerations can lead to a great product, but in order to have a truly outstanding one, one needs to put something extra into it. And that is the human element in the form of a philosophy. It might sound unclear or fluffy, but that is what made it for me, convincing me that a wearable device can have a massive impact on your life. Most of SenseCore’s clients grasp the medical or sport related benefits of the technology, but they get emotional about the product in relation to the performance and well-being philosophy of a renowned sports doctor that we have integrated into it. It is a philosophy that has been applied successfully with many Formula 1 drivers for example and has been transfused into the products’ software making you ask yourself: ‘Do I know who I am? Do I know what I want?’ and ‘Am I in control of my life?’ They all sound like simplistic or scary questions, depending on what is your take on them, but only once you clarify to yourself what are your goals, commitments and only once you can really take the decisions required to make a change in your life, only then can you make good use of a wearable product and achieve progress. Answering these questions made a massive difference in me clarifying how to address some of my life’s biggest professional challenges, but also achieve small victories like losing these 45lbs.

Whoops! The Department of Justice Admits That It Misunderstood U.S. Citizenship Law

We all know that immigration law is complicated. We all know that human beings make mistakes. What we don’t expect is that our government can’t figure out who its own citizens are. But time and time again, the government disappoints. The latest culprit is the Department of Justice (DOJ), which employs the most powerful attorneys in the country.

The DOJ has the authority to issue deportation orders. In a recent decision, the DOJ admitted that it has been misinterpreting certain citizenship statutes since 2008. As a consequence, DOJ officers have been incorrectly ordering U.S. citizens deported.

The DOJ’s error involved what is known as “derivative citizenship.” If a parent naturalizes while a child is under eighteen, the child automatically becomes a citizen, if some other conditions are met. For example, if a father naturalizes, his out-of-wedlock children must be “legitimated” to derive citizenship.

Unsurprisingly, some families do not know about derivative citizenship. They are unaware that their children became citizens by automatic operation of law. But government lawyers should understand how derivative citizenship works, and apply the relevant statutes consistently.

The term “legitimated” is what tripped up the DOJ. In its decision, the DOJ explained that it misread the legal requirements for legitimation to occur–which means that it issued flawed opinions from 2008 to 2015. This creates troubling policy problems: Will the DOJ communicate its error to affected individuals? How? When? What will the government do about U.S. citizens who already were mistakenly deported? Will the government make any effort to identify them and bring them home?

My immediate instinct on reading the DOJ’s decision was to locate and inform affected individuals myself. But it’s not so easy, including for attorneys and journalists. The records of immigration proceedings are not public. Only a small minority of the DOJ’s decisions are released and available for perusal. Many are delivered only orally. If there is no appeal, there may be no written record.

Thus the government holds the information in its hands, and it remains to be seen what it will do about it. In the meantime, I hope that attorneys and other readers will share the DOJ’s decision and reach out to those who might have been misinformed about their citizenship.

Ted Cruz Makes A Crude Bill Clinton Joke And Some Important Policy News

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) gave a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday filled with so many red-meat applause lines that it will likely overshadow some important policy pronouncements he made at the end.

On two major planks of the culture wars, the senator came down on the side of states’ rights, suggesting a softening of traditional GOP federalist opposition in each case.

Speaking on the opening day of the annual conservative gathering, Cruz said he felt that decisions about marriage policy are best made at the state level.

“It is wrong for the federal government or unelected judges to tear down the marriage laws of the states,” he told the audience.

That stance is a clear rebuke of a series of lower court decisions that have ruled state marriage bans as unconstitutional. It also seems bound to clash against the Supreme Court, which will weigh in on the matter this June and is expected to declare marriage a constitutional right. But in other respects, Cruz’s remark reflects a newish frontier for a Republican presidential hopeful and a fair bit of movement for Cruz himself.

As recently as last month, Cruz was saying he would introduce a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Such a position, which was held by Mitt Romney in 2012, would establish a one-size-fits-all policy throughout the country. But on Thursday, Cruz was declaring — at least before the CPAC crowd — that marriage is “a question for the states.”

Nor was that the only thing Cruz said should be left to state lawmakers. The senator also expressed his grudging willingness to follow the same principle when it comes to legalizing pot.

“Look,” he said, after making a few pot-makes-you-dumb jokes to moderator Sean Hannity, “I actually think this is a great embodiment of what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the laboratories of democracy. If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative. I don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.”

The crowd of conservative activists applauded, which they are prone to do when Cruz speaks.

Elsewhere, he didn’t have to take any risks to get them going. At one point, Cruz made a crude joke about Bill Clinton, uttering “youth outreach” when asked by Hannity to play a word-association game about the former president. As for the other Clinton, Cruz had some pre-packaged lines. “We could have had Hillary here, but we couldn’t find a foreign nation to foot the bill,” he said, alluding to a Washington Post story from the day before about donations made to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.

For the most part, Cruz used his time to encourage the crowd to gravitate toward a 2016 presidential candidate willing to stand apart from dealmaking establishment Republicans. Cruz, who knows a thing or two about needling his own party, went through a litany of issues that he said could serve as litmus tests for presidential aspirants.

“If a candidate tells you they oppose Obamacare, fantastic. But when have you stood up and fought against it?” he said. “If a candidate says they oppose President Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty, terrific. When have you stood up and fought against it?”

As he spoke, 20 miles away, congressional Republicans were deliberating a path forward for funding the Department of Homeland Security, where the money runs out on Friday. The night before, Senate Republicans had allowed for a bill to fund DHS to be separated from legislation to undo the president’s executive actions on immigration. Only two Republicans had voted against a measure to essentially start the legislative process by which those dual bills would be considered. Cruz was not one of them. Despite his acquiescence, he was not deterred.

“Look, unfortunately Republican leadership is cutting a deal with Harry Reid and the Democrats to give in on executive amnesty. And the question why is because they are not listening to you,” he said. “There is a mendacity about Washington.”

Watch the video of Cruz’s remarks above.

Super-Rare Ancient Roman Tombstone Unearthed At Site Of Old Parking Garage

An elaborate Roman tombstone that dates back 1,800 years has been unearthed in England, and the find has archaeologists excited.

“It’s incredibly rare,” Neil Holbrook, chief executive of Cotswold Archaeology, the company that conducted the excavation, told Live Science. “We’ve only had it out of the ground 24 hours, but already it’s created a massive amount of interest and debate.”

The tombstone was excavated Feb. 25 at the site of a former parking garage in the town of Cirencester. The stone seems to mark the grave of a 27-year-old woman, as it bears an inscription that reads “D.M. BODICACIA CONIUNX VIXIT ANNOS XXVII.

If your Latin’s a bit rusty, that means “To the spirit of the departed Bodica, wife, lived for 27 years.”

(Story continues below photo.)
roman tombstone
The tombstone’s inscription.

Who was Bodica? Archaeologists aren’t sure. Since the name is of Celtic rather than Roman origin, she may have been married to a habitant of Gaul or Rome, Holbrook told BBC News.

“What’s weird is that the inscription only fills half of the panel, so there’s a space left below it,” he said. “You can see horizontal marking-out lines, so I guess what they were going to do was come back later when her husband died and add his name to the inscription.”

But the inscription was poorly written, perhaps by someone who was illiterate, Holbrook told Live Science. Bodica’s name is even misspelled as “Bodicacia.”

If there’s an answer to the mystery, it may lie in skeletal remains, including a skull, that also were found at the site.

Stay tuned.

No Room for Decadent 'Princes' in Francis' Vatican

la croix

“Following Francis” is a monthly blog on the latest happenings of Pope Francis. It is prepared exclusively for The WorldPost by Sébastien Maillard, Vatican Correspondent for La Croix, Rome

ROME — For the second year in a row, Pope Francis joined his closest high-level collaborators onboard a white coach, which left the Vatican on a Sunday afternoon for a weeklong retreat outside Rome. Taking your executive board out for a seminar may seem like usual business for any CEO, like sharing the same coffee breaks. At the Vatican, such manners are still new.

Before Francis, the pope was someone you would not come across incidentally. Even if you were a cardinal from the Roman curia, which gathers all the departments running the Holy See.

“I was once told not to stand in the hallway where the pope was supposed to walk through in order for him not to see me,” recalled a senior cardinal. Francis has abandoned these monarchical customs and introduced more modern and simple ways of management. “Before, when you wanted to meet the pope, you were eventually granted an audience some months afterwards. Today, you get your appointment just days later,” said another Vatican staff member.

You may even have the pope come straight to you nowadays. On a flight to Manila in January, journalists witnessed Francis walk up the aisle to speak to someone from his delegation who was sitting some rows behind. His predecessors would have remained seated and summoned such a person to come forward. Before the last Synod (a world gathering of bishops), Pope Francis personally attended all the preparatory meetings in premises near Vatican City. He did not have the entire meeting moved to him.

TOO HUMBLE?

This is all very humble for a “sovereign pontiff.” Too humble, perhaps?

Some Vatican insiders fear the new pope is destroying everything that made his position so historically unique and authoritative. On the contrary, for Jorge Bergoglio, this is how a Christian leader truly serves. He showed it at the very beginning of his pontificate, right after his election, when he joined his “brother cardinals” inside their minivan rather than stepping into a separate car.

This lead-by-example approach is also a way for him to make sure things get done. Getting to know his collaborators closely, not just through a formal audience, enables him to more thoroughly reform the curia from inside.

Pope Francis was elected in the aftermath of scandals linked to the mismanagement of the Holy See, which had shocked even the cardinals outside Rome. He has a mandate to reform. And he has proven to everyone at the Vatican that he is determined to do so — not overnight but step by step.

He brought in, for the first time ever, big consulting firms, such as McKinsey or Ernst & Young, to audit Vatican departments. Steering committees have been set up to advise on structural changes, such as a commission headed by Lord Chris Patten to reform Vatican media operations.

Francis takes time to watch, listen, consult and then decide. He is not a pope who reigns but one who governs.

When a musical concert was organized for him, he never showed up, leaving his center-stage seat empty and conveying a message that he had not a minute to spare for this kind of entertainment.

“Every time I met with him, I felt I was in front of some boss of a Wall Street-listed company,” said one professional expert hired to assist reform. His leadership style is one of an austere workaholic who remains the master while serving. “Francis of Assisi is what you see from the outside, but when you come close to him, you recognize a Jesuit general,” said another layperson at the Vatican.

Being a “Jesuit general” means Francis does not just want a structural reorganization, but, first, what he calls “spiritual reform.” This is what his speech to the curia before Christmas was all about. He spelled out 15 “diseases” he had sensed, including one he termed “existential schizophrenia.” According to Francis, this is a disease that “often strikes those who abandon pastoral service and restrict themselves to bureaucratic matters, thus losing contact with reality, with concrete people.”

“Spiritual reform” was also the reason behind a retreat outside Rome during Lent. Before, these “spiritual exercises” used to happen inside the Vatican, during working hours. They were not a real break. The Jesuit pope wants his collaborators to live more than this, to feel healed, like good Christians preparing for Easter.

It was said before last year’s retreat that not all the heads of departments were glad to board the coach for such an ascetic experience, where they slept all week in a monk-style bedroom with no TV. Cardinals and bishops even had to pay for their own stay — 50 to 55 euros a day, each.

For Francis, all this is his way of encouraging Vatican officials to remain faithful to what they have dedicated their lives to, and to the global Catholic community. If the pope is no more than a king in his church, then there shall be no room for princes.

More From Following Francis:

A ‘Homebody’ Out in the World Who Has Never Been to the United States
A Day in the Life of Pope Francis, Who Lives Behind This Gas Station
Moving the Church Forward on the Modern Family, One Step at a Time
Holy Ghostwriters: Behind the Pope’s Tweets and Encyclicals
Is There Life After the Pontificate for Francis?
Why Pope Francis Is so Focused on Asia