BoppWeBlog

Now that we are about a year away from the election, I’m hearing a lot about the campaigns of the presidential canidates. It seems that one of the main discussions taking place is the amount of money these canidates are raising. I don’t know specifics of how much money has been raised, but I know that records have been set.

So why don’t we level the playing field, and put a cap on what presidential canidates can use for campaigning? I know this isn’t an original idea, nor is it an unpopular one. I suppose the people who would disagree with me are those who have a majority of the money in this country; the same people who have a majority of the control in this country. And of course the last thing someone with control wants to do is give it up.

This country is about freedom, and this idea may go against what some may consider freedom. After all, maybe people should be able to raise as much money as they want. We live in a country of free enterprise, where anyone can make as much as they are able to do, so perhaps the same should apply to campaigning.

But there is another aspect of freedom that seems to be oppressed when no limit is placed on the finances of campaigning. Only people with money can run with a chance of winning. The rich get richer, and the modest don’t stand a chance.

Technically this subject gets far more complex, like how much money, who gets money, and where does the money come from. But maybe it’s time someone looks into evening things out by putting some rules in place to stop those with all the money from gaining all the attention.

Taken from ‘Nonviolence’ by Mark Kurlansky and the Dalai Lama. Written as 25 lessons in the history of nonviolence Each one of these is at least one blog in and of itself. Many of these require much more information to be fully understood. But nonetheless each one is a great conversation starter, and will get you thinking. Hopefully I’ll expound on these ‘lessons’ in coming blogs.

• There is no proactive word for nonviolence.
• Nations that build military forces as deterrents will eventually use them.
• Practitioners of nonviolence are seen as enemies of the state.
• Once a state takes over a religion, the religion loses its nonviolent teachings.
• A rebel can be defanged and co-opted by making him a saint after he is dead.
• Somewhere behind every war there are always a few founding lies.
• A propaganda machine promoting hatred always has a war waiting in the wings.
• People who go to war start to resemble their enemy.
• A conflict between a violent and a nonviolent force is a moral argument. If the violent side can provoke the nonviolent side to violence, the violent side has won.
• The problem lies not in the nature of man but in the nature of power.
• The longer a war lasts, the less popular it becomes.
• The state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot conceive of power without force.
• It is often not the largest but the best organized and most articulate group that prevails.
• All debate momentarily ends with an “enforced silence” once the first shots are fired.
• A shooting war is not necessary to overthrow an established power but is used to consolidate the revolution itself.
• Violence does not resolve. It always leads to more violence.
• Warfare produces peace activists. A group of veterans is a likely place to find peace activists.
• People motivated by fear do not act well.
• While it is perfectly feasible to convince a people faced with brutal repression to rise up in a suicidal attack on their oppressor, it is almost impossible to convince them to meet deadly violence with nonviolent resistance.
• Wars do not have to be sold to the general public if they can be carried out by an all-volunteer professional military.
• Once you start the business of killing, you just get “deeper and deeper,” without limits.
• Violence is a virus that infects and takes over.
• The miracle is that despite all of society’s promotion of warfare, most soldiers find warfare to be a wrenching departure from their own moral values.
• The hard work of beginning a movement to end war has already been done.

~Mark Kurlansky