Noam Chomsky Offers Alternative View on U.S.-Russia Relations

From 2018 --

At the link below you will find Noam Chomsky's views on U.S.-Russian relations as the second decade of the 21st Century heads toward its close.   There is a video of an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, as well as a written transcript.  With a little time and mental focus, I believe you will see what Prof. Chomsky, esteemed former MIT instructor, is getting at.


I do remember how, over the years, the spirit of detente with Russia soured, and relations deteriorated almost to the point of the Cold War.  This process accelerated in the early part of the 21st Century. 

I regard the Trump domestic policy to be disastrous.   However, sad to say, this is nothing new in America.  And certainly, we must protect our sovereignty.

Further, as I have reported here over and over again, it was not the Russians who were responsible for the victory of OML in 2016.   That nefarious feat was accomplished by nine methods of Republican voter suppression as documented by the well-regarded journalist, Greg Palast. 

For now, the Chomsky interview will serve as well as any other for helping us re-focus on just what is at stake in international relations, errant President or no.  


Noam Chomsky on U.S.-Russian Relations 

What the House Is Doing Apart From Impeachment: Much

It is a refreshment to see all the work the various sub-committees of Congress were doing just today alone.  While the impeachment inquiry gets the news it is heartening to see hearings on everything from cyber threats to -- well -- hearing!

Let's celebrate Congress for a change.  After so many years of inaction and acrimony, it is a thrill to see actual work being done on behalf of the people.

This is a foundation of accomplishment worth building on.

Bravo, Speaker Pelosi, and the House of Representatives!


https://www.house.gov/legislative-activity

Via Bloomberg:

Biden Braces for Rivals’ Attacks on Son at Democratic Debate 
Really?!

Here we have what I most disdain about our way of electing Presidents:  the televised debates.  This was not always the case.  But in recent years these "debates" -- which have always actually been nothing but joint news conferences (albeit confrontational) -- have become seemingly an opportunity for the non-leaders (in the polls) to take shots at the leader.

There is a certain way that criticizing an opponent can be useful, even healthy.   No one should have a free pass to the Presidency.  But, if attacking a candidate's son is considered part of the back and forth, the dignity of the office itself is in danger.  Sadly, this is not a new phenomenon.  But in the era of television, the danger of histrionics is magnified, and the ill effect spread far and wide.


N.B.:  Why does CNN seem to be the exclusive debate sponsor?  And, in case you were wondering, yes, I do miss the League of Women Voters.

___
(In its time this was a unique and extremely important way for The League of Women Voters to contribute.  Again, I miss them very much.)

Former Sen. Harry Reid Says OML Would Not Be Easy to Beat

Newsmax claims to be "Independent. American."  Those are two good things to be.  Whatever their claim, they do have news about former Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and his views on OML as well as Senate Republicans in general.

Mr. Reid is making at least two assumptions.   He is assuming the Master of the Oval Office will not be removed from office by either impeachment, resignation, the 25th amendment, or imprisonment.*  (Are there other non-violent ways?)   Ruling out all of these methods of removal might be a little unrealistic.

However, assuming OML is nominated by the Republicans or what is left of them, would he, in fact, be difficult to defeat?  It is something to consider, especially if he is "a very, very smart man," as Mr. Reid says he has come to believe.




Page also includes links to article about the supposed danger of impeachment to Democrats:

Former Sen. Harry Reid Says OML Would Not Be Easy to Beat


*Could a President serve in office even while imprisoned?  This has never seemed a remotely real possibility until this bizarre, unreal [P]residency. 

At This Tumultuous Time

Such sadness and concern envelope the political realm of our country.   The concern spreads and overflows this bountiful land full of good and beautiful people, confused though they are.

While possible foreign interference in our elections is a real worry, of far greater concern at this time is the suppression of votes involving a racist component.   Careful researcher, Greg Palast has documented the removal of 14 million persons from the voting rolls in the most recent period.  This is the true horror of now.  These voters, many of color, and with Hispanic-sounding names have been purged through a program called Crosscheck, originally developed by Kris Kobach of Kansas, and now spread to many other states.  (For further information see sidebar at right.)

But the people are aroused and they are tuning in.  A majority now favors impeachment of the President.  The story of the land of the free is still the story of the brave as well.  

"Your Mission Should You Accept It...."

 

Theme to "Mission Impossible," extended version with conductor's explanatory introduction.  (Music starts a few minutes in.)

Life's lesson to be learned:  the Impossible Missions Force never seemed to have a mission it could not accomplish.

Impeach the VICE-President?

What if it is shown that the President broke campaign finance laws in order to be elected?   What if, against all odds, it is revealed that the Republicans used nine methods of voter suppression, some illegal, to get Our Military Leader elected?

This issue has already been addressed at the link below.

Vice-President Could Be Impeached Says Law Professor

Trump Must Resign

For the good of the country

Policy of Detente with Russian should continue under new President

A Simple Proposal

In his landmark book, Move Fast and Break Things, author Jonathan Taplin quotes a letter of Thomas Jefferson from Paris where he was stationed back to James Madison who was serving at the Constitutional Convention.  Jefferson was concerned that there was no bill of rights proposed.  He wrote:

I will now add what I do not like.  First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of  religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies [emphasis added], the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land, and not by the laws of Nations.

This shows clearly Jefferson's concern that among the other  rights, a restriction against monopolies was necessary.  Jefferson had witnessed the monopolies of the English companies in the new world and knew how excessive power from monopolies as such was as great a threat as restrictions on freedom of the press or religion.   But Hamilton, representing as he did the big New York financial interests, objected strenuously and the "restriction of monopolies" was not adopted.  It was not until the anti-trust laws more than one hundred years later that protections against trusts and combines were written into law.

Sadly, more than anyone else, Robert Bork helped to enshrine a new doctrine of supposed "consumer welfare" as the test by which all proposed anti-trust actions would be judged.  That is, as long as prices were falling, Wal-Mart could take over the whole retail economy, as far as he was concerned.   Left out of his procedure was any concern for over-concentration of political power or predation.*

So, the anti-trust laws have essentially been put on the shelf, only trotted out from time to time for the biggest mergers, and even then only in the context of "consumer welfare."

The relevant portion in Chapter 6 of Move Fast and Break Things is well worth the reading.

But this problem could be taken care of by simply adopting an Amendment to the Constitution which would do little more than restore Jefferson's original proposal to restrict monopolies.  But this time, said restriction would be in the Constitution itself.  We could do this.  In fact, we must do this or its equivalent.   Otherwise, corporations will increasingly run rough-shod over our laws and the Constitution itself.  



*see quotation of Robert Reich, p. 112