USA Network has picked up the pilot for a new scripted true crime series based on the infamous unsolved murders of Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, “Unsolved” will be based on the experiences of LAPD Detective Greg Kading, who led the law enforcement task force responsible for investigating both high profile murders.

Kading, who documented his experiences in the book “Murder Rap: The Untold Story of Biggie Smalls & Tupac Shakur Murder Investigations,” is consulting on the project and will also serve as its co-executive producer.

Tupac was shot four times while riding in a car driven by record producer (and all around sketchy dude) Suge Knight, after attending a Mike Tyson boxing match in Las Vegas on September 7, 1996. He died six days later, on September 13, 1996, from internal bleeding in a Las Vegas hospital.

Six months later, Biggie met the same fate. While stopped at a red light in his Suburban SUV on March 9, 1997, the driver of a dark colored Chevrolet Impala pulled alongside him, rolled down his window, and unloaded four shots into the East Coast rapper.

Both murders were never solved, and for decades fans and conspiracy theorists have agonized over what really happened to the the feuding hip hop stars.

“Unsolved” will be written and executively produced by Kyle Long of USA’s hit legal show “Suits.” Anthony Hemingway, who worked on several episodes of FX’s true crime breakout “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story,” will direct the pilot.

In Kading’s self-published “Murder Rap” he theorized that Suge Knight and Sean “Diddy” Combs were responsible for the murders and that the LAPD suppressed evidence.

This isn’t the first time both rappers have had their lives portrayed in biopics. The 2009 drama “Notorious” chronicled the life and death of Biggie (a.k.a. Christopher Wallace), and was met with mediocre reviews.  Tupac’s biopic “All Eyez on Me” is set to appear in movie theaters in 2017, with “Notorious” star Jamal Woolard reprising his role as The Notorious B.I.G.

Given the popularity of the show’s lead characters, this series will likely garner just as much buzz as “The People vs. O.J. Simpson”–if not more.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post True Crime Watch: Tupac & Biggie Murders Explored in New TV Pilot appeared first on Law Street.

Spring is in the air. While the daffodils and tulips are emerging, for some, so are the baby bumps. New parents have many responsibilities and choices to make once their little bundles of joy are out in the world. Working mothers in the United States must make one especially weighty decision: to go on maternity leave, or to go straight back to work? The choice is not as cut-and-dry as some may think—both financial and emotional factors must be considered. A family must also consider whether or not they will pay for the services of a babysitter or nanny, care for the child themselves, or enlist family and friends to help care for the child. But are policies in the U.S. to this effect changing?

In America, the concept of maternity leave is quite common, but what about paternity leave? New mothers are afforded “bonding” time, but what about fathers? As it turns out, new parent–both moms and dads–are allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid family leave after the birth or adoption of a child, according to The Family and Medical Leave Act.

There are many caveats to this act, however, and not all employees may be qualified to receive its benefits. Even if an employee qualifies, he or she may not choose to take off from work if it could cause a financial hardship, given that the leave is unpaid. There may be a solution here–perhaps the United States should adopt the policies of other countries that allow parents to go on paid parental leave. Norway allows parents to take a leave of 36 weeks and receive 100 percent of their wages; Australia allows each parent 12 months of leave, of which 18 weeks are paid.

While the U.S. may need to update its parental leave policies, one major American city has recently revised its childcare options. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has announced the city’s implementation plan for free, full-day, universal pre-kindergarten.

Mayor Bill de Blasio. Image courtesy of Kevin Case via Flickr

Many New Yorkers have speculated as to the need of such a program, but it seems the numbers speak for themselves. In the first three weeks of enrollment, 51,000 New York City families signed up for the mayor’s pre-K program. More families will undoubtedly sign up before the enrollment deadline for the program on April 24, 2015.

The funds needed for the program were raised by tax increases. But what if the funds had been put toward implementing paid parental leave instead of universal pre-K? Going forward, what if people were given a choice between paid parental leave OR universal pre-K? Allowing New Yorkers to reject or accept alternate parental systems may be an innovative way to test out options that could be afforded to the rest of the country.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paid Parental Leave: Are There Alternatives for U.S. Parents? appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the tragic and monstrous attacks on America on September 11, 2001, it is important to continue commemorating and honoring that day, and it is important to keep discussing that day’s stories and contexts. One survivor of the attacks is asking for just that. This year, Greg Trevor wrote an op-ed for New Jersey’s Star-Ledger requesting that September 11 be memorialized as a “National Day of Discussion, where Americans actively seek ways to find common ground across political, religious and cultural divides.” He suggested this as an alternative to 9/11 being commercialized like Memorial Day or rarely brought into mainstream attention like Pearl Harbor Day. America should listen to this survivor and talk about our feelings toward Islam, and our judgments about religion in general.

This summer, the Arab American Institute polled Americans about their attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims. Its key findings include sad statistics: just under half of Americans “support the use of profiling by law enforcement against Arab Americans and American Muslims,” while an increasing “percentage of Americans say that they lack confidence in the ability of individuals from either community to perform their duties as Americans should they be appointed to an important government position.” In the 13 years since 9/11, these numbers have only gotten worse. It’s part of a persistent Western Islamophobia. One Gallup article details this fear that so many in the West have of Muslims. At 48 percent, Muslims are the religious group most likely to feel racially or religiously discriminated against by Americans. There is great concern among Muslims internationally, too, about how the West treats them. Because the terrorists who orchestrated 9/11 were Muslim, a great deal of latent Islamophobic sentiment was released after the attacks. How are we addressing this reaction?

President Obama recently reaffirmed his statement that Islamist extremists, from Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State, are not truly Muslim. Saying that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” he claimed that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Obama has made this claim before, and his predecessor affirmed the same. Less than a week after 9/11, President George W. Bush said that “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” On the one hand, these proclamations from American presidents are laudable and can do much to temper Islamophobia in the U.S. On the other hand, it isn’t their place to make claims like that about an entire religion.

Let’s get something straight: religion is kind of complicated. There are a lot of religious texts, doctrines, and mandates that condone, value, and encourage violence. This isn’t restricted to Islam. The Old and New Testaments, too, have inspired a great deal of violence. Religions that originated in the East are not free from it, either; this summer Buddhists in Burma again attacked their Muslim neighbors.

Yet peace is prevalent in religious texts, too. Love, compassion, and understanding are fundamental in many religions, Islam included. Both these presidents are Christians, but they were more than willing to paint the over one billion adherents with one broad brush. I do not think that one person of any religion should make a broad claim about each of its adherents. Religion is a complex web of faith that we should be wary of characterizing singularly. President Obama is right in that Islam is a peaceful practice. President Obama is wrong, too, as devout Muslims have looked to their texts for justification of sick violence.

Politically, it’d be preferable if religion could be summed up by either “peace” or “violence” or some other trait. But religion’s complexity, dynamism, and diversity make it interesting, relevant, and beautiful, even. Of course, the aspects of violence contribute in no way to that beauty. Should people use religion as a justification for violence? Never. But to ignore that violence is a part of religion’s history, present, and most likely its future is unfortunately a mistake.

This is why we need a Day of Discussion. This is why we need to talk, learn, and grow. We can’t be prejudicial of Muslims, but we sure can be prejudicial of the terrorists in Iraq and Syria. We have to be mature enough to condemn those Muslims and not condemn all Muslims. Hindsight allows us to condemn the Spanish Inquisitors who persecuted people of other faiths. Those Catholics did horrible things, but we can’t condemn all Catholics or Catholicism generally. Making these distinctions is important, and generalizing is dangerous. If we listen to survivor Greg Trevor and sit down to talk about it a little more, I think we would be on the right path.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence, Religion, and the Need for a 9/11 Day of Discussion appeared first on Law Street.

Conflict between religion and science is nothing new; starting in the seventeenth century, Enlightenment philosophers began to criticize religious traditions in favor of strict reasoning and the scientific method. More recently, a study led by Princeton economist Roland Bénabou argues that highly religious states lack scientific innovation. Controlling for factors such as per capita GDP, education, and foreign direct investment reveals the persistent obstacles to innovation that religion imposes. Measuring by the number of patents filed, countries — and even American states — show “a strong negative relationship” between religion and scientific innovation.

This study is vital to understanding the nature of religion in society and public life. Unfortunately, the scope and rigor of the research give credence to the claim that religion can be an impediment to progress. Considering that religion will not, and should not, go away any time soon, how do we reconcile its tendency to block scientific innovation with its importance in civilization? Full disclosure, I can’t say that I know the answer, but here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, this study may evoke concern about religion’s place in politics  But if we ignore religion in our politics and shove it to the margins of public discourse, the religious issues that we encounter won’t suddenly disappear. Instead, they will remain pervasive without an open forum for solutions and compromises. This study should, if nothing else, inspire us to bring religion into public discourse so that our leaders can foster open scientific inquiry. The study even cites the beginning of Islam’s spread and the “initial willingness of Muslim leaders to engage with logic and rational sciences.” Although opposition to such innovation was soon after opposed, progress was made “in chemistry and in medicine, and the use of the experimental method became widespread.”

Indeed, throughout much of ancient and modern human history, religious institutions have actively supported scientific endeavors. For centuries, throughout Europe and the Middle East, almost all universities and other institutions of learning were religiously affiliated, and many scientists, including astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus and biologist Gregor Mendel (known as the father of genetics), were men of the cloth. Others, including Galileo, physicist Sir Isaac Newton and astronomer Johannes Kepler, were deeply devout and often viewed their work as a way to illuminate God’s creation.

– Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project

Further, we should remember that patents in modern technology are not the only measure of societal progress. Research in sociology suggests that religion actually played a key role in the development of communities. New York University professor Jonathan Haidt examines some of the most important sociological development theories in his book, The Righteous Mind. He discusses how, evolutionarily, humans “have a few group-related adaptations” along with those that natural selection gave us on the level of the individual. Religion helps progress “gene-culture coevolution,” forging stronger groups and communities through cultural and genetic evolution. As Haidt writes, “religious practices have been binding our ancestors into groups for tens of thousands of years.”

Undoubtedly, scientific innovations and technological advancements are key to growth; be it economic development or further cultural tolerance, science and reason can be powerful forces for development. That being said, the ancient communities that evolved into today’s great nations are indebted to religion’s role in bolstering their abilities to cooperate. So, while religiosity can be an obstacle for technological innovation, it has historically been a force for creating strong moral communities and binding groups together.

Choosing one way to measure how a state or society advances can help us track progress, but it is dangerous to ignore other metrics for understanding human development. We should keep in mind the positive effects of religion, and not declare it unfit for political discussion. Our rational discourse and scientific creativity would suffer from doing so.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros) is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and is looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government.

Featured imaged courtesy of [Wally Gobetz via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Role of Religion in Scientific Innovation appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Germany edged out a win against the United States in an intense soccer match that ultimately qualified both teams to the next level of competition. Here at Law Street, my coworker Trevor Smith and I decided to use this exciting World Cup game as an excuse to exercise our nerdy legal sides and compare drinking laws in the two nations. After interviewing the crowd at a watch party in DC’s DuPont circle, and researching each country’s laws, we think it is safe to conclude that Germany also wins the drinking law matchup.

In Germany, there are very few restrictions on public alcohol consumption. Most cities ban drinking in their public transit systems, but other than that, they allow drinking on the streets and in their parks. In the United States, there are a few states that allow public drinking in specific entertainment-designated areas, but that’s pretty much it. In DC, where we interviewed people viewing the Germany-U.S. game in a public park, the law states that alcoholic beverages cannot be open in any street, alley, park, sidewalk, or parking area.

The viewing party was the perfect place to interview soccer fans, as many had watched games in a similar locale in Germany, where they were able to have alcohol present. One onlooker told us that in Germany people would typically drink only to get tipsy because of the high alcohol prices at such events. He told us that the presence of alcohol at the events had no negative repercussions and that it made for a better experience. Another man, while motioning at the entire crowd, told us that in Germany, it was “this times 100,” and that it was one “big long party.” Another individual told us that this was “the perfect setting for a beer.”

All but one individual we interviewed told us that they would buy alcohol if it was for sale at the event. With hundreds of people present at the event, the city could have easily made thousands of dollars from alcohol sales, and would also have been able control the flow of alcohol present. That control is important, because there were clearly people in the crowd who brought their own alcohol. We saw beers emerging from bags and many people drinking from bottles that could have been filled with pretty much anything. Many of the people we interviewed said that they considered bringing their own alcohol from home, but decided not to for fear of getting caught by the police or fired

A couple of individuals weren’t so keen on alcohol being present at these kinds of events.  An older gentleman told us that,  “if alcohol is out of the system, everyone has more fun.” He also said that there was a different mindset abroad towards drinking. He thought that Americans would not be able to handle public drinking very well and that, “chaos would probably ensue, we tend to overdo it.” Another woman expressed concerns that Americans would not be able to adapt to open container laws at first, but said, “in the long run it would be a positive change, as people got used to their newfound freedom.”

One question that we asked every individual was if they thought open container laws should change or stay the same. Not surprisingly, all those we interviewed who have been abroad thought the United States should change its open container laws. There were also those who thought serving alcohol at public events should be reserved for viewing parties like the one we attended, but were hesitant to commit to the broad kind of laws Germany has.

Although there was no legal alcohol present at the viewing party, it was clear that everyone still had a great time. But, we do agree with the majority of the fans that were watching–alcohol could have both improved the game’s atmosphere and brought in revenue for the city. The stereotype of Americans as too rowdy, or too rambunctious, or too destructive is sometimes true, but only because we put alcohol on such a pedestal. There are high school kids in Germany who are able to buy a beer, and then walk down the street while drinking that beer, but many American college students can’t even walk into a bar. A more relaxed and normalized attitude towards drinking might keep people from overdoing it.

So maybe one day this will be the norm!

Check out the bracket below to see which countries that made it to the knockout stage have the most relaxed drinking laws. We created our bracket by examining which countries have the most generous laws when it comes to drinking in public and drinking age!

Round of 16:

Brazil vs. Chile

Winner: Brazil. In Brazil you’re allowed to drink in public places. Chile’s laws are a bit stricter–it’s usually illegal to drink publicly.

Colombia vs. Uruguay

Winner: Colombia. Both countries allow you to purchase and consume alcohol at the age of 18, but Uruguay loses this round because they’re trying to enforce stricter alcohol laws, like a ban on happy hour

France vs. Nigeria

Winner: Nigeria. In France you cannot drink in public, but Nigeria has much looser open container laws!

Germany vs. Algeria

Winner: Germany. Germany has a lower drinking age and more relaxed open container laws.

The Netherlands vs. Mexico

Winner: The Netherlands. The Netherlands has no national laws against drinking in public–although some cities have individual laws against it. Many areas in Mexico do not allow public drinking, so the Netherlands comes out on top.

Argentina vs. Switzerland

Winner: Switzerland. While open container laws don’t vary much between the two countries, you’re allowed to start drinking beer and wine at the age of 16 and spirits at 18.

Belgium vs. USA

Winner: Belgium. In Belgium you’re allowed to start drinking beer and wine at the age of 16, and liquor at 18. The United States requires an age of 21 for every type of alcoholic drink. Also public drinking is allowed in Belgium, unlike in the United States.

Greece vs. Costa Rica

Winner: Greece has open container laws allowing drinking outside. Costa Rica does not.

Quarter-Finals

Germany vs Nigeria

Winner: Germany. Both have open container laws, but the drinking age is two years earlier in Germany.

Greece vs. Netherlands

Winner: Greece. In Greece, you can buy alcohol at 18 in a bar, but there is no age limit to buying alcohol at liquor stores. The Netherlands has much stricter laws.

Switzerland vs. Belgium

Winner: Belgium. While both have similar drinking and open container laws, it is more socially acceptable to walk down the street with a beer in Belgium.

Colombia vs. Brazil

Winner: Colombia. Both are lenient when it comes to drinking, but some cities in Brazil, for example Recife, have started to crack down.

Semi-Finals

Greece vs. Belgium

Winner: Belgium. Belgium wins because in some places in Greece, public drinking is not socially acceptable, even if it is lawful.

Colombia vs. Germany

Winner: Germany. Germany wins, because you can buy and drink alcohol publicly at a younger age

Finals

Belgium vs. Germany

Winner: These two countries often debate who makes the best beer. But Germany wins this particular contest because of their lower drinking age.

Go forth and have fun! But make sure that you always follow the local drinking laws, regardless of where you are, and stay safe whenever you consume alcohol!

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Trevor Smith (@TSmith1211) is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Neil Cooler via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The World Cup of Drinking Laws appeared first on Law Street.