sometimes we just gotta blame the government

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/11/security-at-us-consulate-in-benghazi-in-disarray-prior-to-2012-attack-state/
The article "security at US consulate Benghazi in disarray prior to 2012 attack" reveals new information about the state of the security of the benghazi consulate of the day of the attack in 2012. This new information was acquired through emails that have recently been released. The emails state that the sonsulate was being gaurded through an independent security agency located in Libya. However, these emails also state that this independent contractor was not legally allowed to work in Libya because their license was considered invalid. It has been determined that the security status for the consulate was at an emergency level mere hours before the attacks began. These attacks ended up killing 4 americans.

The people located in this consulate were employees of the state department. It was the state departments job to supply them with the necessary security for them to be safe in a very dangerous part of the world. The inability of the state department to control the situation was what led to the loss of american lives. It has been 2 years since this event and we are only now finding out that there was in fact a failure on our governments part to keep its own employees and citizens out of harms way. There has been a lot of speculation as to what exactly happened on the day of the attack, but these emails paint a clearer picture of how much the current administration is attempting to hide from the public about this unfortunate event.

The supreme election

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/11/28/why-the-supreme-court-should-be-the-biggest-issue-of-the-2016-campaign/
This article "Why the Supreme Court shouls be the biggest issue of the 2016 election" is about the relatively new idea of the Supreme Court having a huge impact on the next presidential election. The article states that the idea that a supreme court justice may retire in the near future may be a huge determining factor in how many people come out to vote and who they vote for. Becasue the court is split 5-4 to the republicans, a death or retirement could significantly swing the majority in the courts either way. So this means that if a judge were to retire after 2016 then the president will have the power to appoint who they like to that position, essentially appointing somebody with the same political views as them which could have tons of ripple affects.

I had never thought of this before. It was super interesting to me becasue of how important the courts, especially the supreme courts, are to the people and the issues. Just recently they have had many important rulings that affect all of us each day like their ruling on the Hobby Lobby case and their impact on changing the rules on legal marriages in the U.S. I think that this is something that could be just as important as keeping majority in congress becasue of the rights that the Supreme Court has on significantly affecting lives in the U.S.

Most powerful man in the world thinks gay is the way

http://www.metroweekly.com/2014/10/obama-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage-in-all-50-states/
In the article "Obama: Constitutional right to same-sex marriage in all 50 states" the president talks about how he believes that the fourteenth amendment protects same-sex marriage in all 50 states. He thinks that the only reason that the courts have not passed it is because the 'stars have to align' for any big ruling to happen in the U.S. He also said that the decisions by the courts to not hear the same-sex marriage cases is a big step forward because although they arent ready to say yes, they are not going to choose to deny it either.

In my opinion same-sex marriage should not be passed in all fifty states, but unfortunately i think eventually it will be passed in most states. Although I am against gay marriage, I think those for it like the president have a strong case. It is similar to things like equal rights for african-americans. Even if they have a strong opinion for why they shouldnt have the equal rights, it still is the fact that they deserve equal rights no matter who they are. By law they should have the rights i think, but morally I do not agree with it.

Will Cassidy "runoff" with all the votes?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/2014/11/05/louisiana-senate-shifts-to-runoff-mode/18549555/
The article "Louisiana Senate race shifts into runoff mode" basically talks about the second senatorial election that is going to happen in the state of Louisiana in early December. Because no candidate was able to get over the 50% threshold, they are required to do a runoff race between the two highest vote-getting candidates. The incumbent democrat Mary Landrieu was able to slightly edge the leading republican candidate Bill Cassidy by a popular vote of 42% to 41%. Now that the two candidates have a month before the state votes again, they must once again rally their supporters to the polls. It is thought that although Landrieu had more votes than Cassidy in the original election, Cassidy will be able to gain the edge to win in this runoff. This is due to the fact that there was a second republican candidate who got 14% of the votes during the election who took many votes away from Cassidy. Now that his second republican is off the ballot, it is highly likely that he will gain many of the republican votes that are now undecided.

I think that the concept of a runoff is a very good idea. I think in this situation it makes a lot of sense and was built specifically for this purpose. There was only a slight edge for the democratic candidate over the number one republican candidate, but now that they are the only two on the ballot that means that there are a lot more republican voters that will now either vote for Cassidy or choose not to vote. I think that Cassidy will end up winning the runoff.

This decision is a highly impactful one. The switch between an already established senator to a young, inexperienced one is very different especially when it will be a switch from a democrat to a republican. If landrieu ends up winning it won't mean much change since she has been the senator for the past 6 years.

SD Reservations could decide our state senator

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/south-dakota-s-native-american-vote-could-tip-the-state-s-senate-race-20141028
The article "Native American Vote Could Tip the State Senate Race" is an article centered around a key demographic that could greatly affect who the next senator of our state is. The article speaks on the emphasis of the Native American vote during this midterm election. In South Dakota, the Native vote has gone mostly to the Democratic candidate in senatorial elections, but this year an independent candidate may steal a percentage of that vote which could tip the scales in the favor of the Republicans.

I think that its amazing to see how even though an independent candidate is highly unlikely to win, they still have a major impact on the elections of two party dominant country. I think that the fact that a minority such as the Native American population can affect the election shows that our election process works because every vote counts.

It will be interesting to see who wins the election and also to see if the Native American population really does sway the vote the way this article says it can. 

One man, one chair

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/politics/thom-tillis-empty-chair-debate/index.html?hpt=po_c2
In the article "Tillis faces off against empty chair" it speaks of the senate race in North Carolina. Specifically, it talks of the most recent debate between the two main candidates Tillis and Hagan. The only problem was that only one of them decided to show up. Hagan had already declined the offer for the fourth debate in this race, but that didn't stop Tillis from showing up and going through the hour long airtime of the debate talking next to an empty chair. Tillis's campaign didn't stop with just the debate, they then used the absence of Hagan as a way to say that she wasn't a capable candidate.

I think that this is a pretty funny story. I also think that it was genius for the side of Tillis's to choose to still go to the debate even knowing that nobody would be there to debate. This article proves that these senate races become extremely heated and each side will do anything in order to win even using something that is completely reasonable like an opponent deciding that three debates are enough as a way to attack him or her.

Jimmy Johns seems a little greedy

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/22/news/jimmy-johns-non-compete/index.html?iid=SF_E_River
The article "Jimmy Johns under fire for Worker contracts" speaks of a report that Jimmy Johns has began to put into their low-wage employee's contract a no compete clause. This means that the employees are not allowed to work for other sub shops in the area. The goal lawmakers say is to keep these workers under their payroll because they will be to scared to quit if they can't find a job.

This article definitely affects the economy of the surrounding businesses because even if they are offering better jobs for these employees they have no way to get them to work and they must look harder and harder for workers.

I think this is smart business for Jimmy Johns because even if they aren't great employers they can still keep employees because they do not think they will be able to find jobs. If I were a competing business i would be outraged because they are taking away possible employees.

Eat a good meal, and make some money while doing it

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/blog/human-interest-news-stories/restaurants-offer-incentives-for-diners-to-drop-their-devices/ This article named "Restaurants Offer Incentives for Diners to Drop Their Devices" offers a new take on going out to eat. It speaks of restaurants from places like New Jersey, Texas, and Canada who are all giving out incentives for those eating at their restaurants to use "good table manners" to praying before a meal and even to merely not use their phones during the duration of the meals. These incentives range from 5% off the receipt to free desserts.

I think that this is an awesome idea for more restaurants to use. I for one am constantly on my phone at restaurants and i know that most people are just like me. Offering incentives for it makes it so that we have a reason to engage in conversations with those at our tables. I would probably go to a restaurant and abide by those rules to get a small amount of money off so i am sure many others would as well.

This article and the ideas that it speaks of affect the businesses because although they must give out some incentives, they are also gaining business from more patrons at their restaurants. It affects the patrons also because they are spending more money going out to meals more, but they are also getting money off their meals and things like free desserts just for following some rules.

Representative rebukes Obama's plan

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/05/top-republican-urges-obama-to-reconsider-no-boots-on-ground-mantra-in-iraq/ The article, "Top Republican urges Obama to reconsider ‘no boots on the ground’ mantra in Iraq" speaks of a highly respected republican member of the House of Representatives urging the President to reconsider his strategy in Iraq. The decision that the U.S. government has made in response to the hostile takeover in Iraq by the terrorist group ISIS is to provide air support, but to not put soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Republican member of the house Mike Rogers says that we must not make this a mantra because it means that we are taking a defensive strategy and keeping our capabilities limited. He also said that we must put some Americans in harms way in order to take down the terrorist group. This way of thinking has already been challenged by the secretary of state John Kerry and is much more radical than most other republican colleagues of his. 

In my opinion, we need to open ourselves up to the idea that we may need to send in troops, but as of now it is much to early to talk of that. Right now we shouldn't keep saying that we will never send in any troops because that does not sound like a strong stand against the group. We should say that our plan is to do airstrikes now and then we will re evaluate as the situation changes. 

This could have an affect on the thoughts of some republican citizens because of they see this stance from a respected house member then they may agree that this is the right way to approach the situation. This also makes it sound like the whole government isn't behind this decision and i believe that we need to seem like we are all behind this kind of a decision for us to look like a strong front against the ISIS group.

Freedom of Press anybody?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/30/reporter-claims-was-told-not-to-talk-to-crowd-at-michelle-obama-event/
In this article, a reporter named Meg Kissinger of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel tells the media that she was told by aides to first lady Michelle Obama to not speak with members of the crowd. Meg, who has been reporting for 35 years, says that in all her years she has never experienced such a thing. She said that it was her right to talk to whomever she wanted and she did just that ignoring the "rule."

In my opinion this is something that cannot be tolerated. For the wife of a president who has been labeled 'unconstitutional' this is just another reason for me to be skeptical of what is going on in the white house. The first lady was there to drum up support for a candidate and obviously there was some kind of opinion from the crowd that the white house did not want us to know about. It infringes on the right of all people to freedom of the press.

This affects the people of the country because we do not know now if we have heard the whole story of some reports. How do we know that this hasn't happened before and the reporter may have actually listened? We really cannot say.

More guns, or less guns. Who's to say?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/08/us/gun-laws-states/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
The article"States tighten, loosen gun laws since newtown" speaks of the recent states which have changed their gun laws since the Newton shooting. Surprisingly, the article states that not only have gun laws in certain states been restricted, but there have also been many states who have also loosened their restrictions. There have been at least five states who have tightened their gun laws while over a dozen have actually loosened them.

There are two things that have happened that has been discussed in this article. Some states have tightened their gun laws, and some states have loosened them. The affect of tightened gun laws would restrict the amount and type of people who are able to own and carry a gun. On the other hand, the loosening of gun laws will allow people to further protect themselves from those who could harm them.

I personally can understand the arguments for both loosening and restricting gun laws. I would say that restrictions would be smarter than loosening. Those who are qualified to carry and use guns should still be able to have them even with tighter restrictions, and it may stop a crazy person from getting ahold of a gun.

response to article

My response to the article was at first just like the rest of the class. I thought that it was a poor representation of how my classmates actually felt about the politics in our state. After some time and the editor of the paper speaing with the class though, I feel like there was a slight overreaction to the article itself. I still disagree with her choice in quotes, but I now understand that it was our choice to be interviewed and while we are in the presence of a reporter we need to be more attentive of what we are saying. You cannot expect an interviewer to pick and choose the quotes that you think reflect you in a good light. Sadly, they have an agenda before an article is written and have the power as the writer to manipulate what is being said to fit their view. It is the author's right to give her opinion of what she believes we think just as it is our right to tell the paper that the article is wrong.