BoppWeBlog

I like most people in this great country am looking forward to change.  But what do we know about the good things accomplished during his term.

Most will agree that the media is in some form or another biased, tends to lean toward the liberal side, and will always be quick to point out the problems in our political system regardless of who is in office.  This may never change.  Reporting on negative topics and bringing about fear is what consumers want, and is what will ultimately be delivered since that is what will make the most money.  (I intend to write on the problem of perpetual fear, and commercialization thereof in our society at some point in the future)

Since the negative has been communicated to us on the inadequacies of George W. presidency, what are some of the positives?  What good things have been overlooked for the most part.

A popular relief effort is being taken on by many to help solve the HIV/AIDS pandemic.  And it should be noted that Bush has done so much more for this problem than those before him.  He has tripled the amount provided to helping solve the AIDS pandemic.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030129-1.html

I would love to hear what you think.  Please leave a comment describing what you think some of the positives of the G.W.Bush era have been.

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.