Rolling back antitrust was part of rolling back the New Deal and other progressive measures adopted even before the New Deal, antitrust trumpeted by Republican Teddy Roosevelt, for one.
In a seminal 1979 essay on what he termed the “political content” of antitrust, former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky argued that “political values,” such as “the fear that excessive concentration of economic power will foster anti-democratic political pressures,” should be incorporated into antitrust enforcement. In recent years, this view has been echoed by a growing number of antitrust scholars, who argue that the way antitrust enforcement has been conducted in the US for the past 40 years—solely through the prism of “consumer welfare”—is ill equipped to deal with the new threats posed by digital platforms.
The blame for the outsize influence that Facebook and other digital platforms have over the political discourse, said Lynn, rests squarely on the shoulders of the antitrust community: “For 200 years in this country, antimonopoly was designed to create freedom from masters. In 1981, when we got rid of our traditional antimonopoly and replaced it with consumer welfare, we created a system that has given freedom to master.”
Killing antitrust was to benefit the plutocracy at the negative expense of everything else. Antitrust was a half-measure to begin with, just like unionism. We should have full economic democracy rather than bringing back antitrust and reinvigorating labor unions.
This is a good article outlining some of the many deliberate lies by Barack Obama, who still gets lauded by "liberal" media.
Eric Zuesse left out the lies about Iran's nuclear-weapons program, as it never even existed and Obama knew it. He left out the lies about the US spying on Americans, though Clapper was caught out on it and had to admit that the US was spying on all of us. He left out the lies about Syria's Assad and the chemical-weapons attack, which the Assad government did not commit. Obama knew. That's why he went along with the Syria chemical-weapons deal and the Iran nuclear deal. He also lied about Guantanamo. As Commander-in-Chief, he could have closed it with a simple Presidential order.
Those are just highlights that stand out in my mind. I didn't research his lies to write this post. I didn't want to list the nearly endless stream.
Of course, while he was running the first time, Obama tipped his hand many times about his reactionary positions. The masses just ignored that though, even while I was writing here and elsewhere that he was a complete phony and would severely disappoint, which he proved to be and did.
Good points from Matt Taibbi:
Trump's policies are extreme, but the government separating children from parents is not a new thing: Not on the border, not in immigrant communities and not in poor neighborhoods – where women on public assistance live in regular dread of state inspectors taking their kids away over picayune welfare violations or complaints from neighbors.
It's also true abroad, where voters have spent over a decade now tacitly signing off on a whole kit-bag of evil (but mostly invisible) War on Terror policies, many of which involve breaking up families without any kind of due process. If an Afghan family is separated in the forest and nobody sees it, did it really happen?
Trump's policies on the border were and are monstrous. But those photos of children in captivity, which rightfully have been nearly as damaging to America's reputation as the Abu Ghraib debacle, didn't appear out of nowhere.
Does he mean the images I just discussed as bunk?
I hate, I mean DETEST, claiming morality while using immoral means to supposedly fight immorality.
Look, a blanket policy or practice of separating children from their parents is not justified just because families cross the US border as claimed or actual refugees, period! However, fighting against such a blanket policy by employing deception to any degree in an attempt to sway the general public is itself inherently evil and must also be fought. Those who engage in such evil tactics are not to be trusted. If they do it in one instance, they very typically do it in others, all without the general public becoming aware that the general public has been tricked into agreement.
Frankly, everyone should come to realize that the welfare of children in question is not the prime concern of those employing the deceptive tactics. The real driving force lies in those seeking greater personal wealth, power, and control in the corporate/plutocratic sense. Once in power or back in power, trying to get them to do the right thing is every bit as difficult as trying to get those ousted to do them.
The "liberals" give more on identity-politics in a libertine way, but try getting them to institute full economic-democracy (the root that really matters, as all the rest of the good would follow naturally). Try getting them to end all the US wars. Try getting them to enter into full, global denuclearization or total disarmament. Try getting them to be consistent in their condemnation and praise of other nation-states and their leaders.
Can You Think of Any Other Ways to Spend $716 Billion? Sure. Give $2,185.66 to every single person living in the USA ($716,000,000,000 ÷ 327,589,916 = $2,185.66).
An even better plan would be to do it on a progressive curve so those would the least would get the most and those with the most would get the least right down to nothing. I'm not sorry Jeff Bezos.
This is how every allegation against (wild accusations about) Russia made by the Clintonites and neocons should have been handled in all government and mainstream and alternative media. Why? It's honest.
... the hackers infected computers that controlled the satellites, so that they could have changed the positions of the orbiting devices and disrupted data traffic, Symantec said.
... Symantec did not directly blame the Chinese government for the hack. It said the hackers launched their campaign from three computers on the mainland. In theory, those machines could have been compromised by someone elsewhere.
There are 74 countries worldwide where homosexuality is still illegal — Russia isn’t one of them. It is even punishable by death in some countries, a few of which happen to be close allies of the United States, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates. In fact, just last year the U.S. was one of 13 countries to vote against a UN resolution condemning countries with the death penalty for gays so as not to upset those allies.
It's true that The West’s real interest in Chechnya isn’t gay rights. That doesn't stop plenty of people in the US clamoring for real against Russia over what they mistakenly call homophobia.
The article expresses a number of things as emphatic statements where I see questions at best. The Moscow Apartment Bombings is a case in point. I read in great detail about them from both sides of the story. The involvement of FSB agents was never shown to be incorrect, only censored. As to whether Putin knew, I can't say. He may not have. I don't know the fates of the particular agents involved, as the whole thing was flushed down the memory hole. None of that should be construed as an endorsement of all entities who put forth the FSB as Moscow-apartment bombers. I disagreed with plenty of them over plenty of other issues.
Furthermore, I totally disagree about Glasnost. It was a good attempt and certainly not designed to reduce the People's rights but enhance them. Frankly, it was a huge mistake on the part of the Russian people not to get behind Gorbachev's efforts. Gorbachev wanted to keep the country intact while incrementally bringing in needed reforms. I don't think the People were prepared (educated) for it. That was Gorbachev's mistake, but how could he have known? It was all rather new to everyone there.
With Perestroika, Gorbachev was trying to usher in a more democratic (social democracy) style government. That was not a bad idea at all, as the central planning of the Soviet system before was a disaster in the end. Perestroika was experimental and needed to have been designed to be modified as various aspects proved counter-productive; however, again, the People weren't prepared for that level of democracy at the time.
Gorbachev receive no help from the West either because the West was anxious for the dissolution of the USSR and even Russia itself.