Super PACs aren't favored by everyone

Super PACs are a big advantage for presidential candidates, but do the donors really appreciate them? The article titled Election 2016: Jeb Bush Donors Balk At Pricey Demands discusses how donors who donate to the Jeb Bush super PAC are not receiving the praise and thanks from Jeb Bush that they deserve. Donors giving somewhere in the million dollar range or more are still receiving personal phone calls or meetings with
Jeb, but those who give between 5 and 15 thousand dollars have received no thanks or time to lobby a cause. This article also explained super PACs and the Citizens United decision, so it was very relative to our class.

It was interesting to learn how much campaign financing has changed recently. I wonder if both candidates and donors will continue to embrace super PACs in the future or if they will bring more negative response like this article. The article said that Jeb is not allowed to coordinate with this super PAC, but if he is still able to talk to donors and possibly hear their input on legislation, will he feel obligated to please the large donors?

How accurate are marijuana polls?

The article titled Here's how much the public opinion on legalizing marijuana has changed shows a graph of research conducted by the PEW Research Center showing the huge shift that has taken place recent years regarding America's view towards marijuana legalization. 53% of Americans favor legalization which is the highest amount of support ever in America. Those between the ages of 18 to 34 had the most support.

From looking at the chart it appears that support will continue to rise and eventually lead to legalization in more states, especially once people see that they will now be considered a majority if they support legalization of marijuana.

I was surprised that this survey was only conducted among telephone calls to 1,500 citizens. The article does not say that people were called around the country either. It seems hard to believe that this poll is super accurate, but it will still probably influence the minds of many people.

Ferguson situation may be coming to a close

In the article titled Ferguson Police Chief Resigns a Week After Justice Department Report, author Meghan Keneally discusses the result of a report that was released on March 4 describing racial bias in policing in the area around St. Louis. This was a mutual decision between the police chief, Tom Jackson, and the city's administration. Jackson will still receive his salary for another year along with health insurance. Ferguson will either search for a new police chief or be dissolved and taken over by the St. Louis police department.

This will probably please those who were on the side of Michael Brown, especially since Tom Jackson is the 6th person to resign or be fired after the report was released. This seems like a decent outcome for both parties since Jackson will still be paid despite his resignation.

This article also shows how long racial tensions can last and how serious they can be. There will likely be a lot of pressure placed on the next police chief.

A gun range in a dense neighborhood?

"Opponents of front yard gun range to petition state for new law"
Patrick Leary lives in a dense residential neighborhood in Florida and has children. His next door neighbor, Joey Carannante, owns several guns and didn’t like driving to a gun range to shoot his guns, so he set one up in his yard, within 30 feet of Leary’s home. Under current law, this is perfectly legal. Leary launched a petition last week to outlaw homemade gun ranges in residential areas and had 1,600 people sign it the first day. He is being supported by several local political leaders and police men, but local officials have little power in this situation since in 1987 the Florida legislature passed a law saying state statutes pertaining to gun regulations supersede those of local municipalities.

This example shows the importance of the right to petition, so that citizens can have an impact on local and state laws by gaining popular support.  With the huge number of people standing behind Patrick Leary, this will likely show people that it is possible to take action and get laws changed by being active and showing civic virtue.

Thankfully, I have full confidence that this will be a successful petition and the state law will be changed. It is ridiculous that people can have private gun ranges in their yards in residential neighborhoods.

Good luck hacking us again North Korea

The article, "U.S. Government to Announce New Cyber Threat Center," discusses the announcement of the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center that will be a national center that analyzes cyber security threats. It will attempt to "connect the dots" between threats and inform agencies about these threats, hopefully before hackers can do any damage. The creation of this agency follows President Obama's promise to combat cyber threats that he made during his State of the Union Address closely after the cyber attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment.

This agency will hopefully stop cyber threats in this country before they happen as hacking becomes an even more dangerous word. No agency previously had the responsibility of analyzing cyber security threats throughout the country and connecting the threats, so the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center is a new investment that should pay off. I think that this is a necessary step in keeping our country safe, since cyber warfare is becoming a larger threat. Hopefully it will be a thing of the past, but chances are slim.

Measles spark vaccination debate

In the article titled "Measles Put Congress on Spot," Jeremy Diamond discusses the controversy that many politicians are talking about, should children be required to be vaccinated? Vaccinations are currently a state law, and all 50 states have varying vaccine requirements. People are arguing that the federal government should mandate certain vaccines that children should be required to receive. Others argue that vaccines can lead to down syndrome and should be a decision made by parents. However, four medical experts explained that there is no medical evidence linking vaccines to down syndrome. This controversy has come about following the spread of measles from Disney Land to 14 states, including South Dakota, even though measles was thought to be eradicated in the US.

This issue may lead to federal control over some vaccines for children if measles continues to spread. It may also lead to more parents vaccinating their children.

Diseases cannot be kept within state boundaries, so I think that all states or the federal government should require children to receive certain vaccines. I thought this issue was best summed up by Sen. Michael Rubio: "If enough people are not vaccinated you put at risk infants that are three months of age or younger that have not been vaccinated, and you put at risk immune-suppressed children that are not able to get those vaccinations," Rubio said. "So absolutely, all children in America [should be vaccinated]." Vaccinations are not just about the health of those who do or don't receive the vaccination, it is about all of the other people around the person who become exposed to the disease.

Employees Duped by Employer

In the article "Supreme Court says retiree health benefits can expire," Richard Wolf talks about a Supreme Court ruling on Monday that ruled that if a contract is not clear about the duration of benefits for retirees, the company can use their own discretion, and in this instance terminate life insurance benefits for former workers.  The judges found it odd that the contract that the company had with the employees was not clear.  However, the judges also warned that lower courts may interpret similar situations by what is intended by contracts, unlike the Supreme Court.

The main effect of this ruling is that if a contract gives a benefit to a retiree, that does not mean the benefit lasts for life unless explicitly stated. This will hopefully cause employers to be more specific in future contracts, and maybe employees will pay closer to contracts that they sign. However, this court ruling will probably not have as large of an effect as most Supreme Court cases.

I feel bad for the employees who are stripped of their life insurance, since for the rest of their life they are still technically retirees of that company. The employees were told by their employer that they had lifetime life insurance, but they probably did not read through the contract and just trusted their employers.