The Marijuana Industry Under Trump

Since the inauguration of Donald Trump, the marijuana industry has been on edge. After slow growth and the beginnings of a seemingly massive legal industry under the Obama administration, under which states created laws permitting marijuana that ignored federal legislation on the subject, it seems that the Trump administration may take a less generous stance.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the creation of a crime reduction task force that would evaluate marijuana "enforcement policy." While the conversation would once have asked whether the federal government would, finally, remove its legislation against marijuana, the wording seemed to suggest that Sessions was considering resuming enforcement of those same laws - effectively ignoring the states' legislation and assuming the supremacy of federal law, as should theoretically have happened under the prior administration.

Sean Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, has drawn parallels between the rise of marijuana and the opiate addiction crisis that has ravaged the central U.S. in recent years; it's important to note that the communities most strongly affected by the crisis also voted for Trump, an indication that his attention to the issue may have helped build elements of his constituency. Whether marijuana is related to the crisis remains unclear. As yet, the administration has made no decision on the subject.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/12/marijuana-industry-braces-for-clash-with-trump-administration.html

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/17/505965420/study-communities-most-affected-by-opioid-epidemic-also-voted-for-trump

Debates over "Broken Windows" Policing

In 1993, Rudy Giuliani was elected as mayor of New York City. In subsequent years, impressive gains were made; by 2000, violent crime dropped by 56%. Giuliani would credit that reduction to what came to be known as "Broken Windows" policing; the tactic, predicated on the basic assumption that petty crimes are gateways to more serious ones and that, in essence, policing petty crimes in neighborhoods where they are common will help, over time, to reduce more serious and violent crimes. This tactic seemed often to result in heightened presence of police in specific areas in order to rapidly respond to minor disorders; some argued that the eventual hotspots of police presence were located largely in poor areas - and that the crimes for which the poor would be punished, which included minor altercations, graffiti and drug use, were comparable or even the same as offenses committed by wealthier citizens to whom private spaces to commit such offenses without scrutiny were more readily available. In a place such as New York City, such circumstances also led to accusations of subtle racism, which alleged that, even if not intentionally racist, the police tended to interpret unspecific requirements laid out by the policy more harshly when policing the poor and nonwhite minorities. Proponents of the policy point out that the citizens who request police assistance in situations which fall under "Broken Windows" categories are often of similar economic statuses and demographic categories to those whom they call the police on; people who live in the same neighborhood and request each others' arrest often live as part of a cultural community.

Some question the effectiveness of the policy itself; they allege that the success under Giuliani's administration has less to do with the ways in which cops conduct themselves in the community and more to do with their mere presence, the numbers of which were increased in order to fuel the needs of the Broken Windows policy. As far as they are concerned, police presence at the scene of a potential crime discourages most potential perpetrators from attempting any sort of crime. This seems to align with statistics that indicate the beginnings of drops in crime rates with the increase in police numbers under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins.

http://www.businessinsider.com/criticism-for-giulianis-broken-windows-theory-2014-12
https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-we-need-broken-windows-policing-13696.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2014/12/edward_banfield_the_racist_classist_origins_of_broken_windows_policing.html

Audrey Hepburn

Actress, fashion icon, and philanthropist Audrey Hepburn was born on May 4, 1929, in Brussels, Belgium. During much of World War II, Hepburn studied at the Arnhem Conservatory in The Netherlands. After the Nazis invaded the country, Hepburn and her mother struggled to survive. She reportedly helped the resistance movement by delivering messages, according to an article in The New York Times. After the war, Hepburn continued to pursue an interest in dance. She studied ballet in Amsterdam and later in London. In 1948, Hepburn made her stage debut as a chorus girl in the musical High Button Shoes in London. Being one of only 14 entertainers to have won Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony awards, Actress Audrey Hepburn, star of Breakfast at Tiffany's, remains one of Hollywood's greatest style icons and one of the world's most successful actresses throughout history. At age 22, she starred in the Broadway production of Gigi which gave attention to her name. Two years later, she starred in the film Roman Holiday (1953) with Gregory Peck. And in 1961, she set the new fashion standards as Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's. In her later years, she concentrates on her children rather than her acting career and then became a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF in the late 1980s. She won a special Academy Award for her humanitarian work in 1993, and soon after passed away on January 20, 1993, at her home in Tolochenaz, Switzerland after  battling colon cancer.

“I was born with an enormous need for affection, and a terrible need to give it.”

OJ Simpson Murder Case

On the night of June 12, 1994, Nicole Simpson and close friend Ronald Goldman were found murdered outside of Nicole's condominium at 875 S. Bundy Drive, in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles. OJ Simpson, being Nicole's ex-husband, was the suspected murderer. The former NFL star was wealthy enough to afford good lawyers such as Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian, Alan Dershowitz, and Gerald Uelmen. The case was hugely popularized in American culture and trailed out for eleven months. The main reason for this was because a lot of the evidence was not packaged correctly, so it could not be used against Simpson.

Initially, the crime scene offered a substantial evidence for the investigators – evidence included blood stains in and on Simpson's Bronco, shoe prints, a left hand glove, and a black knit cap. The glove was found outside Brown's home. DNA analysis of the blood was claimed to be a mixture of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's. The cap was suspected to have dropped off of OJ’s head during the murder, which is most likely the reason why he left the glove behind while attempting to feel for his dropped cap in the dark. There was also a pair of socks found in Simpson's bedroom; DNA analysis of the blood found on the socks identified it as Brown's. The bloody shoe prints at the crime scene were identified by an FBI shoe expert to have been made by a pair of extremely rare shoes in OJ’s exact shoe size – investigators found pictures of OJ wearing the shoes right after he denied owning them. During the trial, Simpson tried on the glove found at the scene, but they were too small; thus the glove could not be used against him. Nonetheless, the majority of the trial evidence was medical and mainly based on the blood analysis of samples from the crime scene.

On October 3, 1995, the unanimous not guilty verdict was watched by more than 100 million people as it was seen live during a television broadcast. Simpson was released from jail after spending sixteen months awaiting the verdict. He was found not guilty of the murders, though a civil suit was filed against him and he was ordered to pay $33.5 million to the families of Brown and Goldman. 

The U.S military budget

The U.S Military budget
The united states military budget is 597 billion dollars (Adesnik) The world's largest military budget to the point where it is a source of massive stress on the coffers of the U.S government coupled with the government's unbalanced budget and massive debt, this is the recipe for economic duress. The lion's share of the discretionary funding goes to the DOD, this amount of funding for the armed forces has had some drastic impacts on the American populace as budget cuts are being proposed in order to secure more funding for the military. The U.S Department of defense spends more money on the military than the next 7 countries combined. But the need for such a massive military budget is questionable as many of those countries are our allies. Furthermore, the united states military is optimized to deal with other sovereign threats such as Russia and China. But threats such as China and Russia can be controlled with diplomacy and the international network of U.S allies. There are three noticeable reasons for this immense funding.


First, the political gains of supporting the military are to be noted as “Our safety requires a long-term military presence in the Middle East because that's where the plans to attack us are emanating.” (Rudy Giuliani). The thoughts of war gain support because it is done in self-defense a righteous war to protect out people is a political plus but a financial negative.


The second reason that the current administration supports the defense industry is the 1.5 million people who are on active service and the 1.5 million who are working in the defense industry and a military budget cut would see these workers lose their job or have their quality of life lowered. and haveing 1.5 angry individuals and their families would not bode well for any politician.

The third reason I discovered while researching the defense budget is the lobbying budget for the defense industry is around 127 million dollars annually every year. This lobbying leads to the election of politicians who have a viewpoint that the lobbyists agree with, or even a downright opinion switch. The systematic political backing of the weapon industry directly contributes to the massive amounts money spent on the weapons industry. This coupled with the political incentive and mounting pressure to keep people satisfied with a massive military budget has the political system prime for increasing the military budget in order for politicians to ensure a reelection.

The Torture Debate

The debate over the effectiveness of torture has come close to the center-stage of American politics since Donald Trump entered the political arena. On January 26 of 2016, Trump told Fox News, "Look, we have people that knocked down the World Trade Center, we have people that go into a club and they blow everyone up . . . They go into a club and they machine gun everybody down. And then, they, we're not allowed to waterboard?". Several other conservative members of Congress have echoed this idea after Trump brought the issue back up. Because of the reemergence of this debate, it is important to understand both sides of it. 

It is first essential to note that the UN and the Geneva Convention have defined torture and outlawed it. The UN states that torture is defined by any act done by a public official that inflicts physical or emotional pain on a person for a specific purpose. The Geneva Convention has a similar definition, but it is specified for prisoners of war, and both firmly outlaw it. However these international laws have been ignored by the U.S before, most notably during the Bush administration, which often approved the use of torture on Middle Eastern prisoners of war. It seems this lack of regard to international stipulation has applied itself to the current pro-torture side of the debate in U.S politics. 

In advocating for the use of institutionalized torture, most would bring up the "ticking time bomb scenario". This scenario hypothesizes a situation in which a terrorist attack is known to be impending, and there is a person that knows details of the attack. In this situation, it seems morally correct to torture this person and have a chance at saving innocent people from the attack. Proponents of institutionalized torture say that the net amount of pain would be minimized by torturing the person and having a chance at obtaining the necessary information to stop the attack. 

However, on the other side of the argument, experts say that minimizing pain would actually involve the opposite. They say that institutionalized torture damages the democratic foundations of a nation enough for it to outweigh possible deaths that could be prevented through the use of torture. On this side of the argument, it is believed that America's reputation as a force for good would be reduced, and its connections to organizations like the UN would be damaged. Also, terrorist organizations like ISIS would be able to motivate more members of their society to join them. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/trump-on-torture-again/
http://www.apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/26/does-torture-work-and-is-it-worth-the-cost-donald-trump

Attacks on the American first amendment by the thugs of a foreign power.

Attacks on the American first amendment by the thugs of a foreign power.
The first amendment has been taking a lot of flak recently with several protests on both the right and the left determined to silence the opposition. The battlefield recently has been college campuses across America but the fact is that the first amendment is a right that needs to be defended no matter who is speaking as Voltaire stated "I disapprove of what you say, But I will defend to the death your right to say it." the first amendment is the keystone of American democracy and its collapse will see the collapse of American democracy as we know it and I believe that the majority of the American people disapprove of the silencing of opposition parties but the attack on our rights by a foreign power is most disturbing. The foreign power that silences the voices of the American people is the Turkish president.  His bodyguards attacked peaceful protestors without provocation the Washington D.C police department denounced the actions of the Turkish detail as a violation of American rights. The state department gave a stern reprimanding to the Turkish government while senator John Mckain remarked: "we should throw their ambassador the hell out of the United States." this view was shared by our own senator Dianne Feinstein. The negative view of the Turkish government primarily stems from the oppressing of the freedom of speech first internally and now externally. The attack on our rights by an authoritarian state should not be tolerated yet those who have assaulted Americans will leave unpunished but the damage to our rights has been done and we must protect our rights from the aggressions of the thugs of an autocratic state, lest we become ones ourselves.

Sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/18/erdogan-bodyguards-clash-protesters-dc-lawmakers-respond

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/politics/in-new-video-turkish-president-sits-through-violent-protest.html