As I was listening to the radio the other day, I became more and more certain that the Bush administration will start military actions against Iran.  This is because Bush and his cronies are lame ducks who don’t have to worry about public opinion.

In the sham called high school civics, we were taught that after FDR’s record four-term presidency, the two-term limit was imposed to prevent a popular president from “gaining too much power.”  However, if we re-think this, it becomes obvious that a two-term limit suddenly grants presidents the freedom of having no accountability to the public because they don’t have to worry about re-election during the second term.  Term limits are actually un-democratic because the public is not given a chance to keep the best person in office.  The lack of accountability also ensures that a president can take actions which will benefit the party rather than the public.  Bush has not fully benefitted from his massive expansion of presidential powers, for example, but somebody in the future likely can and will.

Furthermore, term limits may actually reinforce the two-party system because if a president was popular, we’ll be likely to vote for the same party’s candidate again, rather than an individual who more closely approximates the previous president’s stance on issues.  Those opposed will likely gravitate towards the other part best situated to contend for the position.

Two-term limits for presidents also could help ensure that nobody in that position can ever spearhead too many big changes to the status quo.

The two-term limit is an excercise in curtailing Americans’ democratic freedom to choose the best candidate for the job and allows the “lame duck” presidential administration to ignore public opinion and act without accountability.  I welcome all thoughts and comments on the subject.

The below is quoted from Venezuelananalysis.com and gives a stark contrast to what American corporate news outlets would have us believe about Venezuela’s government and, in particular, Hugo Chavez.  Note that the US government only seems to pass laws that strengthen intelligence-gathering organizations and weaken civil liberties, while Chavez calls such measures “indefensible.”

Also, can you imagine George Bush ever saying America is a country devoted to human rights?  Even if he did, I’d laugh out loud at his track record, which includes 6- or 7-figure death tolls for Iraqi civilians.

Opposition and human rights groups had vehemently criticized the law because, among other things, it required citizens to cooperate with intelligence agencies when they requested information. Chavez himself admitted a mere week after signing the law that this particular article was indeed “indefensible” and would require a re-writing of the law.

The law as it was originally passed would not stand because his government is “a government of human rights, a socialist government that does not persecute, does not accept persecution, nor will it persecute anyone,” said Chavez on Tuesday.

The next time you see or hear someone bashing on Venezuela’s government or Hugo Chavez, take a moment and remember which country is the world’s #1 terrorism sponsor and whether you’ve ever heard George Bush say the phrase “human rights.”  If you want a president who cares about human rights instead of corporate rights and intelligence-gathering, vote for Ralph Nader this November.

Oliver Stone isn’t wasting any time, he’s working on a film while the prez is still in office!  I’m still waiting for Danny Devito  to reprise his role as the Penguin for a film about Dick Cheney…

Meanwhile, Bush and co. are avoiding accountability for that mess they’ve made 

Alls I know is my boy Nader wouldn’t easily lend himself to exploratory films about past alcoholism and failed presidencies…