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.