Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

Antitrust Matters Matter by Linda Goudsmit

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/21286/antitrust-matters-matter

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com http://lindagoudsmit.com

United States antitrust laws regulate the organization and conduct of business corporations on state and national levels to provide fair competition for the benefit of consumers. Why are they necessary?

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the answer:

“Free and open markets are the foundation of a vibrant economy. Aggressive competition among sellers in an open marketplace gives consumers – both individuals and businesses – the benefits of lower prices, higher quality products and services, more choices, and greater innovation. The FTC’s competition mission is to enforce the rules of the competitive marketplace – the antitrust laws. These laws promote vigorous competition and protect consumers from anticompetitive mergers in business practices. The FTC’s Bureau of Competition, working in tandem with the Bureau of Economics, enforces the antitrust laws for the benefit of consumers.”

The Sherman Antitrust Act, passed by Congress in 1890 under President Benjamin Harrison, was the first Federal act that outlawed interstate monopolistic business practices. It is considered a landmark decision because previous laws were limited to intrastate businesses.

In 1890 Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii were not even states. The Transcontinental Railroad that connected the eastern United States with the Pacific coast was in its infancy. That was then, this is now. Today there are 50 states, world travel is commonplace, and antitrust matters matter to every person on Earth.

Why? What do antitrust matters have to do with me? The answer is EVERYTHING.

The Diplomatic Big Bang by Ahmed Charai

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12515/diplomatic-big-bang

Diplomacy is changing before our eyes.

“The unspoken objective is to constrain the U.S., and to transfer authority from national governments to international bodies. The specifics of each case differ, but the common theme is diminished American sovereignty, submitting the United States to authorities that ignore, outvote or frustrate its priorities…. By reasserting their sovereignty, the British are in the process of escaping, among other things, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.” — Ambassador John R. Bolton, Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2017.

The Singapore summit is indeed historic. First, it is so because just a few weeks ago we were closer to a nuclear war than to even the semblance of a peace process. The way we got here is surprising, because it did not obey the usual rules.

A few days ago, during the G7 summit held in Canada, US President Donald Trump upheld his decisions on tariffs and his positions on the trade deficit. These stances followed his decision to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement and the Iranian “nuclear deal”. It is clear that the new US administration challenged the alliances inherited from the Cold War. President Trump, a businessman, not a politician — one of the reasons he was elected — is asking America’s trading partners just to have “free, fair and reciprocal” agreements. It is probably not all that unusual to feel affronted when asked for money or to regard the person asking for it as mercenary or adversarial. It does not always mean that this feeling is justified.

In short, President Trump’s arguments, which sound like a leitmotif, go back to the economic aspect of things. NATO? Why should it be normal that, in order to defend Europe, the American taxpayer pays the heaviest part. Free trade? Why should America suffer a trade deficit with so many countries? Climate change? The results of the Paris Climate Change conference, COP 21, were apparently not only costly but questionable, and to critics, looked like a list of unenforceable promises that would not have come due until 2030 — if ever.

Augusto Zimmermann Universities and the Banishment of Truth

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/06/universities-banishment-truth/

ANU’s rejection of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation has made it, in the words of one commentator, ‘a laughingstock’. To that appraisal add a toxic and shameless hypocrisy which sees that university and others eagerly accept cash for ‘Islamic centres’ where Western ideals are actively opposed.

You may have heard of the decision by the Australian National University to buckle under pressure from some academics to pull out of negotiations with a wealthy private donor, the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation, over funding for a scholarship and teaching program in studies of Western Civilisation. Vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt announced the ANU is withdrawing from negotiations on the grounds of academic freedom, despite no attempts to have such freedom limited by the Ramsay Centre.

Curiously, the university’s own website makes it clear that the Ramsay negotiators were not desiring an undue level of influence over delivery of the programs.[1] On April 30, 2018, the website of the ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences was indicating the university would be in control in any deal with the Ramsay Centre. Apparently this was not nearly good enough for these university academics. As law professor and Quadrant contributor James Allan puts it, Australian academics, especially in the Arts and Social Sciences, ‘lean massively to the left side of politics’ and so they have developed a sort of anti-intellectual hatred for anything that can potentially contribute to a better understanding of Western culture and values. As Professor Allan explains,

The complaining academics to which [the ANU’s Vice Chancellor] succumbed were afraid they would not have autonomy when it came to appointments. But if the Ramsay Centre gave them full autonomy they would pick near on wall-to-wall lefties, and that would result in teaching students quite a different account of Western civilisation than the donor intended. Mr Ramsay, like me, saw Western civilisation (warts and all) as having created the best place for humans to live ever. That goes doubly for women and minorities. You don’t have to sacrifice academic scholarship in the slightest to prefer a degree program that overall was supportive of Western civilisation’s many virtues and on balance scored comparatively best in the field grades”.[2]

Tying Hillary’s Emails to the Russian ‘Collusion’ Probe By Lee Smith

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/15/tying-hillarys-emails-to-the-

The 568-page report released Thursday by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz may help explain why the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails and the probe of the Donald Trump campaign team’s possible ties to Russia appear to bleed into each other.

The IG report, titled “Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election,” details the FBI’s investigation and eventual closure of the case regarding Clinton’s use of a private, non-government email account, and her private server. The report devotes particular attention to former FBI director James Comey’s July 5, 2016 statement exonerating Hillary Clinton from criminal wrongdoing in her handling of classified intelligence.

The report, according to its executive summary, looked at the changes FBI leadership made in several drafts of Comey’s statement. In particular, it focused on “a paragraph summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that hostile actors accessed Clinton’s server . . . and at one point referenced Clinton’s use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary.”

Horowitz’s report is referring to a draft of Comey’s speech dated June 30, 2016, at 9:50 a.m., which states:

[Clinton] also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries. That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email.

In the draft circulated at 4:24 p.m. the same day, the reference to the president, as the IG report remarks, “was changed to ‘another senior government official,’ and ultimately was omitted.”

What’s Really Happening With North Korea? By Angelo Codevilla

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/16/whats-really-happening-with

Most commentary on the Trump/Kim summit is evidence of partisan stampede thinking. Herewith are the insights of an old professor of international affairs, who does not know what is on Trump’s or Kim’s mind any more than anyone else, but who strives to be dispassionate.

The 33-year history of negotiations about “denuclearizing” the Korean peninsula is too well known to recount here. Suffice to say that, for Americans, it has been a triumph of hope over experience, for the North Koreans an unfailing fount of assistance in the building of a redoubtable force of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles capable of reaching and commanding respect from America. For China, it has been an incomparable tool for showing other Asians that America cannot protect itself, much less them. The salient question is how this round might possibly be different.

The standard conservative answer, that Trump faced Kim with the choice between denuclearizing or being crushed, is just nuts.

Crushed how? Certainly not militarily. The United States has no way of destroying North Korea’s missiles. We have no way of knowing where they are. Nor do we know where most of its nuclear programs are located. And if we did, no one advocates starting a nuclear war to do it—especially since China has made clear that it is on North Korea’s side.

Feminist Academic Launching Masters Program in ‘Masculinities’ By Toni Airaksinen

https://pjmedia.com/trending/feminist-academic-launching-masters-program-in-masculinities/

Stony Brook University in Long Island, New York, will soon become the first college in the nation to offer a master’s degree in the emerging field of “Masculinities.”

The Master’s Program in Masculinities will be a 30-credit online program offered through the school’s Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities, which aims to “disseminate research that redefines gender relations to foster greater social justice.”

The center counts feminist icons such as Gloria Steinem, Eve Ensler, and Jane Fonda among its Board of Directors, and it is led by Michael Kimmel, a feminist academic who most recently wrote a book on “angry white men” suffering from “aggrieved entitlement.”

Speaking to PJ Media, Kimmel said Thursday that the degree will likely launch September of 2019, pending state approval. The proposal for the degree is “now working its way up the SUNY ladder to Albany having passed all Stony Brook screens,” Kimmel explained.

“The curriculum of the course is to study masculinities through the lenses of the social sciences and humanities,” said Kimmel, adding possible courses could be on “literary representations of masculinities” or on “male development from within the framework of developmental psychology.”

Kimmel was quick to note that he doesn’t use the phrase “toxic masculinity.” Instead, Kimmel says he takes an “intersectional” approach to the study of masculinity.

“As to our approach … we focus on a life-course perspective, are sensitive to variations among men, and adopt an intersectional approach, as would be the norm in Gender Studies programs today,” said Kimmel.

Target audience? Well, that depends. Kimmel anticipates that students will come from a variety of backgrounds. Some likely will have just graduated college. Others, he believes, will be teachers and counselors looking to deepen their understanding of boys and men. CONTINUE AT SITE

Sydney Williams reviews “On Grand Strategy” by John Lewis Gaddis

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

“Grand Strategy: The alignment of potentially infinite aspirations with necessarily limited capabilities.”“This, then, is a book about the ‘mental’ Hellespont that divide such leadership,on one shore, from common sense on the other. There ought to be free and frequent crossings between them, for it’s only with such exchanges that grand strategies – alignments of means with ends – become possible.” JohnLewis Gaddis

This is a short book (313 pages), with a large sweep of (mostly) Western Civilization, especially of its military leaders and observers. Professor Gaddis is the Robert A. Lovett Professor of Military and Naval History at Yale. As well, the book is, as Victor Davis Hanson wrote in a review for The New York Times, “…a thoughtful; validation of the liberal arts, an argument for literature over social science, an engaging reflection on university education and some timely advice for Americans that lasting victory comes from winning what you can rather than all that you want.”

In ten essays, Professor Gaddis carries us from Xerxes, Pericles and Octavian to the Founders, Napoleon and Bismarck. He juxtaposes Augustine with Machiavelli, Elizabeth I with Philip II and Clausewitz with Tolstoy. He focuses on three U.S. Presidents: Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, showing us why Lincoln and FDR were successful, while Wilson failed to realize his dream “to make the world safe for Democracy.”

He cites maxims. Isaiah Berlin quoting the Greek poet Archilochus of Paros: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Augustine: “The higher glory is to stay war itself with a word, than to slay men with a sword.” Machiavelli: “…a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good.” Clausewitz, author of the unfinished On War: “war…must be subordinate to politics and therefore to policy.” F. Scott Fitzgerald, who said brilliance is the ability “to hold opposing ideas in [one’s] mind, while retaining the ability to function.”

Harvard Hospital Taking Down Portraits of White Men Portraits of medical legends moved because they ‘reinforce white men are in charge’ Elizabeth Harrington

http://freebeacon.com/issues/harvard-hospital-taking-portraits-white-men/

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, is taking down its prominent display of its past medical legends because too many are white men.

Diversity and inclusion initiatives prompted the removal of 30 portraits from the hospital’s Bornstein Amphitheater because the paintings reinforce “that white men are in charge,” one professor said. The Boston Globe first reportedthe news, writing that past white male luminaries will be dispersed to “put the focus on diversity.”

Portraits that had hung in the amphitheater for decades will now be moved to less visible areas like conference rooms and lobby halls.

Dr. Betsy Nabel, the president of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said she made the decision to get rid of white men after reading the minds of minority students looking at the portraits.

“I have watched the faces of individuals as they have come into Bornstein,” Nabel told the Globe. “I have watched them look at the walls. I read on their faces ‘Interesting. But I am not represented here.'”

“That got me thinking maybe it’s time that we think about respecting our past in a different way,” she said.

More Misery in Missouri The university continues to struggle with fallout from the 2015 protests.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-misery-in-missouri-1529103599

Indulging protesters can be expensive, as the University of Missouri is discovering three years after students successfully demanded the resignation of the president and chancellor. Last week the school said it will have to eliminate 185 positions on top of 308 cut last year.

Apparently fewer parents want to send their kids to a school where activism eclipses academics. Between the fall 2015 and 2017 semesters, freshman enrollment dropped by 35%. Lost tuition accounts for $29 million of the university’s current $49 million budget shortfall.

In response, Mizzou has had to lay off employees, decline to renew expiring faculty contracts, and leave positions unfilled after retirements. The university is also cutting back on travel and phasing out low-demand courses, among other austerity measures.

Mizzou claims more aggressive recruitment from neighboring states’ schools has contributed to the enrollment decline. And it says growing maintenance, research and personnel costs have contributed to the budget strain. But “we know the perception of Mizzou was a key factor in the difficulties we had over the past two years,” adds spokesman Christian Basi.

Much of the public outcry concerned free speech, and Missouri has tried to improve on that score. Since 2015, all campuses in the Missouri university system have adopted the Chicago Principles, which guarantee “the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn.” But other speech policies at Mizzou remain ambiguous, earning it a mediocre yellow rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education that tracks free-speech on campus.

In May 2017, the university signed a $1.3 million contract for three years of outside PR help. This year it has spent $1.8 million on ads to recruit and enroll new students. The school has added $8 million to its scholarship budget and will decrease the cost of student meals and housing next year.

Jordan Peterson and Conservatism’s Rebirth The psychologist and YouTube star has brought the concepts of order and tradition back to our intellectual discourse. By Yoram Hazony

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jordan-peterson-and-conservatisms-rebirth-1529101961

Jordan Peterson doesn’t seem to think of himself as a conservative. Yet there he is, standing in the space once inhabited by conservative thinkers such as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr. and Irving Kristol. Addressing a public that seems incapable of discussing anything but freedom, Mr. Peterson presents himself unmistakably as a philosophical advocate of order. His bestselling book, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” makes sense of ideas like the “hierarchy of place, position and authority,” as well as people’s most basic attachments to “tribe, religion, hearth, home and country” and “the flag of the nation.” The startling success of his elevated arguments for the importance of order has made him the most significant conservative thinker to appear in the English-speaking world in a generation.

Mr. Peterson, 56, is a University of Toronto professor and a clinical psychologist. Over the past two years he has rocketed to fame, especially online and in contentious TV interviews. To his detractors, he might as well be Donald Trump. He has been criticized for the supposed banality of his theories, for his rambling and provocative rhetoric, and for his association with online self-help products. He has suffered, too, the familiar accusations of sexism and racism.

From what I have seen, these charges are baseless. But even if Mr. Peterson is imperfect, that shouldn’t distract from the important argument he has advanced—or from its implications for a possible revival in conservative thought. The place to begin, as his publishing house will no doubt be pleased to hear, is with “12 Rules for Life,” which is a worthy and worthwhile introduction to his philosophy.