Monthly Archives: April 2018

Lacey and Larking Discuss Joe Arpaio

Published / by healthadmin

There have been a number of questionable presidential pardons in the past, but President Trump’s first pardon is one that is not only controversial, but has a weekly effect on social discourse of America.

Resident Trump awarded his first pardon to the strictest sheriff in America, Joe Ariaio of the Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff’s Department. And while he has a reputation of notoriety, his most impulsive acts revolve around the room for imprisonments of the owners of the Village voice, Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey.

10 years ago, a group of Maricopa County selective enforcement unit agents arrested both the CEO and executive director of Village voice media, like him and Lacey.

On the same day as the arrest but earlier in the day, their publication featured an article discussing a probe being conducted against Village Voice Media’s Phoenix New Times publication on behalf of the grand jury. What they did not know was that the grand jury had been investigating them as individuals.

Arpaio became increasingly frustrated with the repetitious coverage that exposes excessively aggressive law enforcement tactics that was traced back to the day he was inaugurated in 1992. The well-known Tent City, as well as the multitude of cases charged against inmates, women and immigrants have been a topic compensated about frequently throughout multiple publications.

United States District Judge Murray Snow ruled that Arpaio infringed upon the constitutional rights of many of the immigrants he detained, but most of the cases were handled out of the public site before 2011 came.

The lawsuit brought against him 13 years ago cause those cases to emerge at the surface which allow for Arpaio to be charged, finally, for the unconstitutional violations he committed against Latinos and immigrants.

Arpaio insisted that he was innocent of the charges against the, yet he still continued to profile Latinos. This gained the attention of investigative reporters, which led to articles that exposed the near-criminal behavior of Arpaio. At this time, Lacey and Larkin both began reporting on Arpaio ‘s questionable occurrences, with multiple pieces fueling confrontations between them and the department that work under Arpaio.

After a while, the sheriff’s department grew tired of the bickering and decided to arrest the two men, which strangely occurred after a special prosecution counsel had been targeting them then formed a grand jury top report on the Phoenix New Times.

They were only imprisoned for 24 days, and which case they were released only to file a lawsuit against Arpaio. The suit was set to reveal more information about corruption and malpractice until it was settled for $3.7 million.

About Jim Larkin

As a former student of Arizona State University who dropped out in 1972, Jim Larkin partner with Michael Lacey, serving as a CEO in order to operate the Phoenix New Times. As a conservative anti-war voice on campus, the weekly publication spoke for the students who served as active protesters.

Larkin focus on the advertising side of the business, and with his hard work, the publication increases audience size, expanding its’ circulation by covering political and social issues. He

About Michael Lacey

Born the son of a construction worker, Michael Lacey serve as the executive editor of the Phoenix new Times publication after he dropped out of school in 1970.

As a former student of Arizona State University, Lacey spent four decades running the publication, but in 2012, he agrees to sell the company At the time of the sell, Village Voice Media Holdings, the company that owned the publication, had accumulated 56 million viewers online and 9 million print readers.

They publication had been awarded hundreds of journalistic honors, and even awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

Learn more about Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin: https://twitter.com/JimLarkin_ and http://james-larkin.com/press/

Daniel Taub Independent Article Recap

Published / by healthadmin

The Independent article portrays Daniel Taub’s opinion of the Geneva accord, being that it is a danger to all, in its shortcoming to ensuring the containment of the threat posed by Iran in its nuclear ambitions.

The article in its opening goes on to describe the recent events occurring in the Middle East in terms of new treaties.

It talks of the new possibilities for Israel, and Israel’s original view that the Geneva accord will not do enough. Furthermore, it explores the phenomena of predominantly Sunni countries, such as Israel, in forming new alliances in order to combat the Tehran-sponsored Shia alliances in the Middle East.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are now becoming partners in a preventative fight against nuclear Iran. Learn more about Daniel Taub: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-will-still-make-a-nuclear-bomb-israel-s-ambassador-to-the-uk-daniel-taub-argues-the-geneva-deal-8965373.html

Daniel Taub is Israel’s ambassador to the UK. He was born in the UK in 1962 and attended school at University College in both London and Oxford. In addition to this he studied at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and soon after moved to Israel in 1989.

Post moving to Israel Taub didn’t immediately sway towards a career in politics. His initial ambitions landed him with the Israeli Defense Forces as a combat medic where he was also serving as a reserve officer in the international law division.

Two years later in 1991 he ended his career as a combat medic, and started a new one, working for the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Here he held various diplomatic as well as legal posts. From here he took his experience at the Israeli Foreign Ministry and turned this into a position as the Israeli ambassador to the U.K., where he served from 2011-2015.

Currently Daniel Taub works as the director of strategy and planning at the Yad Hanadiv Foundation. Read more: Daniel Taub | Wikipedia and Daniel Taub | LinkedIn

In looking back to the Independent article on Taub’s comments towards the Geneva accord, we can see that Taub’s opinion is as follows.

Taub feels as though there are many radical states from Tehran to Gaza. Due to this he also feels as though the considerable amount of worrying on the account of nuclear Iran is fitting.

Taub uses this as a segue in order to then talk about the way in which these mutual interests by nations can be used in order to deepen relationships.

He expresses that the fundamental strategic concerns by nations in the Middle East towards other nations such as those between Israel and nuclear Iran, should be a means of putting aside differences and usual paradigms in order to prevent catastrophe.