Friday miscellaneous (5/24)

First, a major warning. For any of our readers considering a Hebrew tattoo, please make sure it is translated correctly. Online translators appear particularly unreliable.

Did anyone else know that Benedict Cumberbatch (from Sherlock, Star Trek, Amazing Grace, and The Hobbit) also does comedic radio drama?

Or the story of the Paris Mosque that hid Jews from Nazis?

Here is an eviction story with an unexpected twist.

And what happens when a group of do-gooders start paying other people's parking meters? They get sued by the city, of course.

When I was in high school, my debate topic one year was immigration policy. Being a good federalist, I ran a plan that let each state work with the Federal Government to devise immigration quotas for its state. No expert endorsed--or even talked about--the idea (but then again, no negative team had an idea of what to do with it either). Now it might be actually gaining support (both Canada and Australia have already partially implemented this concept).

Reminding me of A Hero's Guide (and featuring Princess Cimorene), this article challenges to have a broader view of princesses.

Sometimes parody can capture things that the rest of us can only hint at:

President Obama used his weekly radio address on Saturday to reassure the American people that he has “played no role whatsoever” in the U.S. government over the past four years.

“Right now, many of you are angry at the government, and no one is angrier than I am,” he said. “Quite frankly, I am glad that I have had no involvement in such an organization.” 

The President’s outrage only increased, he said, when he “recently became aware of a part of that government called the Department of Justice.”

This is an interesting article on why French children aren't diagnosed with ADHD at nearly the rate of American children: "French child psychiatrists, on the other hand, view ADHD as a medical condition that has psycho-social and situational causes. Instead of treating children's focusing and behavioral problems with drugs, French doctors prefer to look for the underlying issue that is causing the child distress—not in the child's brain but in the child's social context."

And speaking of geography, here's an interesting question: are state capitals more or less corrupt when geographically removed from the population center?

This is a good review of The Great Gatsbty and its resonance with Millennials: "In sum, Gatsby’s world is our world … albeit with fewer smart phones and better clothes."

And finally, here's how to cuddle with an elephant seal (you know you want to).

Presidential leadership (Blair’s lessons, part VII)

The recent scandals involving the executive branch, and the President’s claims to know nothing about them, have reminded me of a passage in a book I read last fall on President Obama’s developing thinking regarding drone warfare.

In Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, Newsweek correspondent Daniel Klaidman outlines the administration's evolving thinking regarding the war on terror and drones specifically. While the entire book is a fascinating read, one passage stands out over the rest.

The author is describing the decision and subsequent about-face to use civilian court to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), known as the mastermind of 9/11. Through this entire time, the Oval Office kept sending conflicting messages. Here's how Klaidman describes it:

The contradictory moves could be maddening to the “front office,” where Obama’s political advisers worked. Just when they thought he’d signed off on the pragmatic choice, he would reverse course. 

* * * 

Obama seemed content to let different advisers believe different things about his position. Holder had made the decision to try KSM in federal court with the confidence that it was his decision, as attorney general, to make. But he’d also had no doubt that Obama agreed with his judgment. Emanuel had every reason to believe that Obama was with him on KSM; why else would he have authorized the Lindsey Graham backchannel? By early 2010, after one year in office, the great question about President Obama had become: what did he truly believe and how much political capital was he prepared to expend? It was one thing to have a “team of rivals,” another to let them fight without any resolution or action.

Contrast that, for example, with Tony Blair's warning for leaders (given in the context of the decision to remove Saddam Hussein).

There are leaders who agonise too much; who are forever weighing up; whose consideration of the options becomes an end in itself and a substitute for clarity of decision. Of course it’s good to think before you act, but the thinking has to be of finite duration and the action must follow. This is true in and of itself, but it is also true because when leading a country, or indeed any organization, failure to act is an action with consequences. Inaction is a decision to maintain the status quo. Maintenance of the status quo has its own result, and usually its own dynamic.

I'm afraid we have a President who has repeatedly committed Blair's error. In case after case, instead of giving a decisive direction to his own staff, he's wanted to play the analyst. The consequence is a power vacuum in the Executive Branch. When the President doesn't make the decisions, someone else has to. It may help him keep a clear conscience, but it certainly isn't leadership.

Why I Gave up Reading and Started to Read

I fear I’ve been thinking again. As it turns out, sitting on an airplane gives you a lot of time to think. Especially those 15 minutes of takeoff and landing. The only options then are to think or to sleep because they don’t let you do anything else.

Anyway, the other day I found myself gearing up for a quick power nap while my plane took off, when a Facebook friend of mine invited me to Goodreads. I accepted the invitation since it sounded like an interesting app and because I like good reads.

Little did I know what a mistake I just made. I had to power off my phone for takeoff, but as soon as I landed and switched on the phone, there the app was, waiting for me to start rating books. I figured I’d give it a shot. I eagerly hunted down my favorite books to give them good ratings. But that was not enough for my bibliophilic heart. I had to give bad ratings to the books I most hated (I took especially great pleasure in giving 1 star to the Hunchback of Notre Dame and to the Last of the Mohicans).

That night, not only was I jet lagged, but I also had a hard time falling asleep because whenever I would shut my eyes, I would remember a book that I should rate on Goodreads. Needless to say, I didn't rest much that night.

Now, all of this may have been a little unhealthy. It did, however, make me think of what it is that I love about books. I read books for two reasons:

1. To make me smarter

2. To provide me entertainment

Because of this, I have a personal policy that I rotate the kind of books I read. I take turns reading serious and fun books. Not to say that serious books can’t be fun or that fun books can’t be serious, but I look at a book and make a snap decision as to what category it fits in. This allows me to have a wide variety of books in my reading queue, giving me the ability both to  cover a topics in-depth over-time and to explore new topical areas that I am not well-versed in.

I remember when I was a kid that I was not very good at reading at all. But Pizza Hut had a program where you could get pizza for reading during the summer. I remember the dread I felt when my mom told me that I had to read if I wanted to join the rest of the kids at the pizza party. But she encouraged me to not focus on the size of the book or the seriousness of it, but rather to find what I wanted to read (thick or thin) and enjoy it.

By the end of the year I had read more than I thought I could; and I was surprised and impressed with myself for completing the project.

Pizza was a temporary prize (although I remember that I certainly enjoyed it). The real prize, however, for my summer reading drive was those words my mom implanted in me when she encouraged me to focus on enjoying myself while I read. That has opened far-off lands, complex economic ideas, fun adventures, rich symbolism, theologies, biographies, historical tales, legends, et al. Even when I am busy and only able to read 15 minutes a day, I find it to be rewarding.

In the end, I gave up the painful process of reading of reading without a purpose that could capture my heart and mind and allowed myself to read books that I enjoy. I no longer dread the next book, but look forward to it with excitement because I have learned to enjoy reading. In short, I gave up reading because I had to and started to read because I love to.

So, if you are on Goodreads, look me up, friend me, and start commenting on my reviews. That way we can share with each other both benefits of reading: to become smarter and to have fun. 

Posted By Jeremiah Lorrig

Asylum for Homeschoolers?

Last Tuesday the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of asylum for the Romeike family. You can read the opinion here. HSLDA, who is handling the case, is promising to appeal.

I’ve blogged about this case previously, but this new opinion is worth a few additional observations.

First, for anyone tempted to blame this decision on a liberal bench or an Obama agenda, none of the judges were Obama appointees. Judge Sutton, who wrote the opinion, and Judge Rogers, who wrote the concurrence, were both appointed by George W. Bush. Judge Sutton, in particular, was initially too conservative for the Democratic controlled Senate and his appointment was blocked for two years. The third judge, Judge Gilman, is a Clinton appointee who was confirmed by the Senate on a 98-1 vote. In this case, all three judges agreed that the family did not qualify for asylum status. And in a somewhat odd twist, based on my reading of dozens of asylum cases, the family would likely have had a greater chance of success with a more liberal bench. The conservative strict constructionist model does not have as much flexibility for this sort of case. So this outcome cannot be attributed to any liberal animus or agenda. It was simply a matter of applying facts to law, and these three judges were not persuaded.

Second, the court is abundantly clear that it is not addressing the issue of homeschooling rights under United States law or the United States Constitution:

Had the Romeikes lived in America at the time, they would have had a lot of legal authority to work with in countering the prosecution. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213–14 (1972); Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534–35 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400–01 (1923). 

But the Romeikes lived in Germany when this dispute began. When the Romeikes became fed up with Germany’s ban on homeschooling and when their prosecution for failure to follow the law led to increasingly burdensome fines, they came to this country with the hope of obtaining asylum. Congress might have written the immigration laws to grant a safe haven to people living elsewhere in the world who face government strictures that the United States Constitution prohibits. But it did not.

* * *  

The question is not whether Germany’s policy violates the American Constitution, whether it violates the parameters of an international treaty or whether Germany’s law is a good idea. It is whether the Romeikes have established the prerequisites of an asylum claim—a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground.

Here, the court is undeniably legally correct. The case is not about whether the family is entitled to homeschool here but rather whether their treatment by Germany is such that they can obtain status as refugees here. That is a high standard, as not every inconvenience, or even illegal action, creates refugees. It is also a completely different question than what types of government action our Constitution protects us from. This case cannot be used as a precedent to undermine domestic homeschooling rights. If anything, it is further proof that the courts recognize those rights. The Romeike family does not face deportation because they are homeschooling, they face deportation because the court has determined that they are not eligible for the status they sought.

Third, as hinted at above, the court got the law right. The issue was whether the Romeike family feared persecution on account of their religious beliefs or social group membership by the German government if they returned. The court did not reach the question of whether homeschooling is a "particular social group," but instead denied asylum because it determined that the family had not shown sufficient bad motives on the part of the German government. Again, refugee status is a high standard that all applicants must prove. For asylum to be granted, the treatment must be really bad--something nonsensical, silly, or even inconvenient or illegal is not sufficient. That's the law as Congress wrote it, and no matter how much we may want it otherwise, the court can not and should not change it.

Because of this, the whole complaint that the Obama administration doesn't recognize individual rights or refuses to recognize persecution that applies to an entire country misses the mark. While this complaint is valid, the problem stems not from the Obama administration, or with the reviewing judges and is certainly not unique to this case. Instead, it is a problem inherent in our asylum law as adopted by Congress in 1980. And homeschoolers are just the most recent group to discover this difficulty. Over the last few decades, Iranian women, Chinese parents fleeing the one-child policy, and even Chinese pastors have run into the exact same problem. The fact that a government does not single people out for persecution can be a disqualifying fact for those fleeing persecution. Unless we want judges to rewrite the laws, this is the standard. And it's true that the Pilgrims would probably not get asylum under today's immigration laws. But that is a problem with the laws, not the judges, the Attorney General, or the President.

Fourth and finally, this case reveals the restrictive nature of our immigration system. For many around the world, and apparently for this family, a desire to come to the United States legally is not enough to obtain legal status. Unless the applicant has a family member here or an employer willing to sponsor them, there is virtually no line to enter for admission. The Romeike family has to resort to asylum because they apparently cannot just apply for entry (they entered on an 90 day temporary visa in 2008 and have been permitted to stay pending the outcome of their case). So, to all the conservative commentators out there, yes, this family did do everything right. But the reality of our immigration system is that even doing everything right still often leads to deportation. And that is a problem with the law, not with the administration.

Star Trek... Into Reruns!

Update: iTunes is running a sale on all Star Trek films and TV seasons. For those of you interested I recommend you check it out.

Original Post:

I am big Star Trek fan. I've been sitting and reading articles about the new film and the series and disagreeing at various points, and realized that I was getting frustrated by them. Then I realized that "I have a blog," which means I can have my say. So indulge me while I give you a primer on Star Trek.

Gene Roddenberry

Its important for you to understand that Star Trek does not belong to one man, like Star Wars. It was created by a man named Gene Roddenberry in 1965 but even he never owned the idea, it actually belonged to Lucile Ball. At that time, she was heading a production company called Desilu which sat next door to Paramount Pictures. Star Trek aired on NBC (just like The Office and 30 Rock) from 1966-69. By its last year, Paramount purchased Desilu, acquiring Star Trek along with its other properties. Gene Roddenberry himself left the show after its second season, but even while he was there, a succession of people put their creative stamp on the series, which is one of the reasons its episodes are so diverse.  

Famously, Star Trek was canceled because network ratings figures did not use demographics like they do today. Star Trek was incredibly popular in the 18-35 "demo", but no one knew. Throughout the 1970's it became a touchstone for youth culture. It was after the release of the first "Star Wars" in 1977 that Paramount decided it wanted to compete in the sci-fi craze (the best modern comparison is the superhero film). 

This began the second longest running film franchise in history (both in years and installments), behind the James Bond series. From 1979-2013, Paramount has produced 12 films, and 4 additional tv series. Rather than to into detail on the entire history, I am going to give you my recommendations on what you should watch. Many of  the things I don't list may still be worthwhile for you once you've seen the others, and some I won't list aren't worth your time at all. Many of you will disagree with my recommendations, but this is my blog, so I get to be right. 

1) Star Trek: the Original Series

Kirk and Spock's stunt double battle to the death!

This one is easy. It's currently on Netflix in glorious HD. But don't start at the beginning, you won't like it. However, unlike modern shows, it got good very quickly. Start about halfway into the first season and then watch through the second season. If you need an even more abbreviated schedule, try the episodes "Balance of Terror," "The Galileo 7," "Space Seed" (prequel to Wrath of Khan), "Errand of Mercy," "The City on the Edge of Forever" (consistently voted the best Star Trek episode),  "Amok Time," "Mirror, Mirror," "The Doomsday Machine," "I, Mudd," "Journey to Babel," "The Trouble with Tribbles," "A Piece of the Action," and the only entry from season 3, "The Enterprise Incident." For you modern kids, the episodes all feature a 2006 40th Anniversary restoration which features new (but retro) digital effects.

2) Star Trek Films

You do not need to watch all of the films. I actually advise against it unless you are really devoted. But you do need to watch some of them in a certain order. Some of these films will be sporadically available on Netflix, but not all, which, unfortunately, means you'll have to find a friend that owns them.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - the one that made Star Trek real

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock - the one that made Star Trek feel

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - the one that made Star Trek funny

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - the one that ended the Cold War

Star Trek: First Contact - it has the Borg.

You'll notice I only listed four of the original six films. As I indicated prior, there have been many creative influences on Star Trek. These films represent one creative direction that tells a unified story, and it is this thread that maintained Star Trek in the 1980's, paving the way for the series' that followed. This is "the good stuff," and its very good. It is these films that establish the Star Trek cast as real characters. The original show presented great archetypes but ultimately didn't allow for character growth due to the format of 1960's TV. These films change that, as they grow old and truly become friends. The JJ Abrams films synthesize the characters of these films with the hijinks of the series.

3) Star Trek: Enterprise

In a way, this is a proto-version of what JJ Abrams eventually succeeded at, which is to attempt to recapture the energy and spirit of the original series with new actors. A straight reboot was considered unthinkable, but a prequel series was deemed practical. An excellent series lead in Scott Bakula really sets this series apart. Since the original, no Star Trek captain was really able to headline the show (Patrick Stewart, while excellent, was still more the head of an ensemble). Bakula's Archer was a kinder, more respectable Kirk, less womanizer and more everyman. Starting out adventurous and curious, he develops more of an edge as the series progresses, eventually almost being spiritually isolated on the show. He is supported by an excellent cast, and one of the great unsung heroes of Star Trek, writer (and fourth season Showrunner) Manny Coto. He and Gene Coon (from the original series) are probably the two best writers to have shaped Star Trek. The connections between this series and the Abrams films are clear, as the new films serve as a better sequel to Enterprise than the original series really could. This series is also available on Netflix in HD, and you should watch the third season (a season long story arc) and much of the fourth. As a fairly recent show (canceled in 2005), it's very palatable to a modern audience. A small "resurrect Enteprise on Netflix" movement has quietly begun on Facebook in the wake of leaked information indicating its Netflix viewing figures are very good.

4) Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness

JJ Abrams' films that are more films based on Star Trek than Star Trek films. Very entertaining, capturing much of the fun and essence of the original. Good entertainment, buy a ticket. I can't review STID yet because its impossible to do without spoilers. But it's worth it. Interestingly, Leonard Nimoy, who was practically exiled by the Star Trek powers that be from 1994-2005 after directing 2 of the films and executive producing one (all three of which are on my list), really supports these films because he feels they honor the work he and his colleagues did in the 60's.

5) Other Stuff

Geek Trek...

Now I left a ton of stuff off this list! I'll explain why. I hate Voyager. I've tried Deep Space 9, and while I'll admit the concept sounds cool, I have never been able to enjoy it. Watching "The Trouble with Tribbles" back to back with its DS9 homage tells you everything you need to know: it's just not fun or funny. What Deep Space 9 and Voyager are is geeky. That's not a bad thing, but it does make them niche. If you like minutiae and techno-babble you will enjoy these series. Best wishes to you.

Finally: Star Trek The Next Generation

90's Airline Crew

To many people my age and older, this "is" Star Trek. The Shakespearean, android infested, techno-centric vision of Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry's late in life attempt to retake Star Trek (after Paramount removed him following the creative failure of the first film). In tone, Next Gen follows closely that first film, largely devoid of fun and hijinks, but heavy on philosophy. The original combined philosophy with fun. The films tended to embrace the fun, while Next Gen zeroed in on the philosophy. This was largely due to technical constraints (the series was produced on video and has only recently begun to be restored from its original negatives, and intensive and expensive process). The series produced many legendary Star Trek episodes such as "The Best of Both Worlds" and an excellent finale "All Good Things," but I cannot recommend it as essential Star Trek viewing. It's dense, long, and cultish; though it was intensely popular when it aired. Check it out, if it appeals to you, great. But if you are a newcomer, attracted by the characters and relationship types of the original, Next Gen will not appeal to you the same way. That said, of all the Star Trek spin-off's, it is the most original.

Friday miscellaneous (5/17)

This book, on the WWII battle where Germans and Americans joined forces, looks amazing.

We've all heard of the unmarried cohabitation trend. But apparently there's also a married-yet-living-separate trend (as the only married member of this blogging team, I don't recommend it).

Last week we brought you the story of Sriracha. This week its the Doritos Locos Taco.

And returning to our trend of exotic locations (such as Hoth in Greenland), Tatooine is in Tunisia.

Chattanooga, Tennessee, wants to remind everyone that their internet is in fact better than portrayed in Iron Man 3. And while on a recent movie kick (we do hope to have reviews of Iron man 3 and The Great Gatsby before long), here's the story of F. Scott Fitzgerald's ordinary grave.

It's been a tough week for the President. Even Chris Matthews is souring.

Although for a little perspective on the IRS scandal, targeting is nothing new to Muslim charities.

A history professor at Cumberland University has put together what looks to be an interesting reading list on American conspiracy theories.

When Disney sought to introduce Brave's Merida into its princess collection, some cried foul when they noticed that she's gotten a makeover. Disney's response has been somewhat confusing.

For those concerned about what you support when you shop, this app--which tells shoppers which companies are behind products--may be for you.

One of the proposals for immigration reform is the right to an attorney during immigration proceedings. What do you think?

And finally, have you ever wondered what it looks like to film yourself walking backwards and then play the film backwards?