In It For The Money Again!!

    The first cutting of legislation began with a Republican Senator named George Norris in 1934. In 2010, the proponents for a unicameral legislature are democrats. The reason for this is to bring efficiency, transparency, and accountability back to government. Transparency, efficiency, and accountability will not come if the state government is unicameral, most of society problems will not be fixed because the job will be overwhelming.
    Currently Nebraska is the only state with a single legislative body in the United States. It has been like this since 1937. So why does half a dozen of states want to cut the size of legislature? This is because cutting the size of legislature will cost half as much to run as the old one. If the government is smaller, where will all the money go that is being saved on running one legislature? The answer to that is no one knows.
    Therefore, the purpose of cutting down legislature to save millions of dollars, for themselves because no one knows where all that money is going to go. The government is designed for two legislative bodies to ensure legislation receives sufficient attention. So one legislature might not only corrupt the government more, it will create a loss in jobs, which is bad for the economy. 
    The only reason there is a debate over a  unicameral legislation is because state government is secured with cash. Due to the recent recession many state governments have spent over their budget, now they are trying to get more money by taxing others, and cutting legislation. This kind of actions tells you government is only in it for the money and not in it for the interest of their constituents.
    If a bicameral legislature is barely serving the people needs, how will a unicameral ever be able to do a better job? The answer is they will never be able to do a good job because it is less people in the legislature and there will never be time to serve the people fully.

What's On Your Ipod Does Not Make You A Bad Role Model!!!

In The Wall Street Journal, Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote the article President Obama's 'Rap Palate.' In the article Williams writes about what President Obama has on his Ipod. In the article Williams comes to the conclusion that President Obama is not a good role model when he learns that Mr. Obama listens to rap music.

Thomas Chatterton Williams holds a B.A. in Philosophy from Georgetown University and a Master's degree from the Cultural Reporting and Criticism program at New York University.Williams is the author of LOSING MY COOL: How a Father's Love and 15,000 Books Beat Hip-Hop Culture. He currently writes for The Wall Street Journal, mostly about the dangers of Hip-Hop culture. His latest article is about President Obama and the Rap music on his Ipod. 

The intended audience is the U.S. population especially does who are against Hip-Hop music or the Obama administration. Williams argument is based on President Obama not being a good role model because of the type of music that is on his Ipod. Thomas Williams thinks it is the wrong message for the President to be sending black Americans. Williams said, "Naming thuggish rappers might make Mr. Obama seem relatable and cool to a generation of Americans under the sway of Hip-Hop culture, but it sends a harmful message-especially when, in black America,  some 70% of babies are born out of wedlock." This statement is trying to say that because you listen to Hip-Hop music it encourages young black Americans to get into illegal stuff and it also encourages them to have children out of wedlock. I disagree with this statement because no one can force you to do something you do not want to do. 

I disagree with Williams argument because what's on your Ipod does not you a bad role model. Just because Mr. Obama is the President it does not mean he cannot listen to whatever type of music he likes. It is his personal belongings and that should not be brought to the public's knowledge. The statement Mr. Obama made last year at the NAACP gathering that, " our kids can't all aspire to be LeBron or Lil Wayne. I want them aspiring to be scientists and engineers, doctors, and teachers, not just ballers and rappers." It does not mean he is contradicting himself by listening to rap music, he was just trying to make the point that not every child can be a LeBron James or a Lil Wayne so they should aspire to be more than that because they all have the potential to be better. In the end, music does not make you who you are, your dreams and aspiration does.