The Mueller Report: Starring John Lithgow And Annette Bening June 28, 2019June 27, 2019 But first, take six minutes to meet someone you’ve likely never heard of, just named to lead the Human Rights Campaign. What a remarkable story HIS is. (Thrown out a window to avoid assassination?) And now, if it’s not practical to read the Mueller report, take 90 minutes to watch it performed? Have a great weekend.
A Tax You Should Love June 27, 2019June 25, 2019 ” . . . over the last three decades, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw their net worth grow by $21 trillion, while the wealth of the bottom 50 percent fell by $900 billion . . .“ With that in mind, people in the top tenth of that one-percent are calling for a wealth tax you and I wouldn’t have to pay. Read their call to action: A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF A WEALTH TAX JUNE 24, 2019 TO: 2020 Presidential Candidates We are writing to call on all candidates for President, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, to support a moderate wealth tax on the fortunes of the richest 1/10 of the richest 1% of Americans—on us. The next dollar of new tax revenue should come from the most financially fortunate, not from middle-income and lower-income Americans. America has a moral, ethical and economic responsibility to tax our wealth more. A wealth tax could help address the climate crisis, improve the economy, improve health outcomes, fairly create opportunity, and strengthen our democratic freedoms. Instituting a wealth tax is in the interest of our republic. Polls show that a moderate tax on the wealthiest Americans enjoys the support of a majority of Americans—Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.’ We hope that candidates for President will also recognize the force of the idea and join with most Americans in supporting it. Some ideas are too important for America to be part of only a few candidates’ platforms. The concept of a wealth tax isn’t new: Millions of middle-income Americans already pay a wealth tax each year in the form of property taxes on their primary form of wealth—their home. The kind of moderate tax on the richest 1/10 of 1% that we support just asks us to pay a small wealth tax on the primary source of our wealth as well. Several candidates for President, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Representative Beto O’Rourke, are already supportive of the idea. The first specific candidate proposal, introduced by Senator Warren, would provide millions of families with a better shot at the American dream by taxing only 75,000 of the wealthiest families in the country. The proposal is straightforward: It puts in place a tax of 2-cents-on-the-dollar on assets after a $50 million exemption and an additional tax of 1-cent-on-the-dollar on assets over $1 billion. If you have $50 million or less you are not paying the tax. It is estimated to generate nearly $3 trillion in tax revenue over ten years. This revenue could substantially fund the cost of smart investments in our future, like clean energy innovation to mitigate climate change, universal child care, student loan debt relief, infrastructure modernization, tax credits for low-income families, public health solutions, and other vital needs. That a moderate tax on a minuscule number of Americans could raise so much revenue simply reflects historic levels of wealth among America’s richest. The top 1/10 of 1% of households now have almost as much wealth as all Americansin the bottom 90%. Those of us signing this letter enjoy uncommon fortunes, but each of us wants to live in an America that solves the biggest challenges of our common future. We are in favor of a wealth tax for at least six key reasons: A Wealth Tax Is a Powerful Tool for Solving Our Climate Crisis. In addition to better rules on carbon pollution, more American investment is needed now to tackle climate change. This could both accelerate innovation and speed implementation of solutions that create a clean energy economy and a low-carbon future. A wealth tax asks those of us who have benefitted most from our economic system to help fix one of its most devastating and fatal flaws. A Wealth Tax Is an Economic Winner for America. It would be a powerful instrument for greater economic growth and success. Reinvested both across America and among those less wealthy than ourselves, a wealth tax would extend prosperity. Along with resources for climate crisis investments, America needs a revenue source for other public investments in addition to private investment and philanthropy. Greater public investment in America’s aging infrastructure, child care, and education will not only solve important problems but will also increase productivity in the long run and promote sustained and broad-based economic growth. Easing student debt would boost entrepreneurship and homeownership rates, which have significantly declined as the costs of higher education have skyrocketed. A wealth tax could help with innovation and job creation—America’s entrepreneurial economy, despite its many successes, needs strengthening.” Put simply, a wealth tax would strengthen the American economy in ways that benefit all Americans. A Wealth Tax Will Make Americans Healthier. America’s most experienced public health experts point out that more resources are needed for major public health challenges like cardiovascular disease, the nation’s top killer, and high levels of opioid addiction.” High rates of inequality have been linked to lower life expectancies. The wealthiest Americans are now estimated to live up to 15 years longer than the poorest Americans, and individuals living in disadvantaged communities are more likely to die before the age of 75, regardless of their income level. With a modest tax on the most wealthy families to fund investments creating opportunities for lower-income and middle-income families, we can improve public health outcomes and extend life expectancies. A Wealth Tax Is Fair. A wealth tax would help close the large gap in effective tax rates between very rich families and everyone else. Warren Buffett has pointed out that he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. The top 1/10 of 1% are projected to pay 3.2% of their wealth in taxes this year, while the bottom 99% of households are projected to pay 7.2%. This imbalance creates resentment and makes it harder for working-class Americans to achieve social mobility. Taxing extraordinary wealth should be a greater priority than taxing hard work. The most fortunate should contribute more. A Wealth Tax Strengthens American Freedom and Democracy. It would slow the growing concentration of wealth that undermines the stability and integrity of our republic. Countries with high levels of economic inequality are more likely to concentrate political power and become plutocratic. The founders of America knew this, and feared that an economic elite might become ensconced as leaders and erode the effectiveness of the republic. Today, major policies seldom come to pass without the prior support of wealthy elites or other wealthy interests. Division and dissatisfaction are exacerbated by inequality, leading to higher levels of distrust in democratic institutions—and worse. That’s one reason we don’t view a wealth tax as a sacrifice on our part: We believe instituting a wealth tax would lead to political, social, and economic stability, strengthening and safeguarding America’s democratic freedoms. A Wealth Tax Is Patriotic. In our republic, it is the patriotic duty of all Americans to contribute what they can to the success of the country, and the wealthiest are no exception. Others have put far more on the line for America. Those of us in the richest 1/10 of the richest 1% should be proud to pay a bit more of our fortune forward to America’s future. We’ll be fine—taking on this tax is the least we can do to strengthen the country we love. What about the arguments against a wealth tax? They are mostly technical and often overstated. Some raise important questions about implementation and enforcement. But as the Warren proposal shows, we can limit potential evasion and reduce tax cheating by building on lessons learned in the United States and other countries. Others question whether assets owned by many ultra-millionaires and billionaires, including private equity and art collections, can be accurately assessed for tax purposes. But such assets are frequently valued—upon resale, donation, bankruptcy, divorce, or death. Some have argued that a federal wealth tax is unconstitutional. But here again, some of the country’s most prominent constitutional scholars—including two former heads of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice—have argued convincingly that a wealth tax is constitutional. Far-reaching policy proposals nearly always require considerable effort to iron out complexities —and that effort has always been made when the cause is important enough. The process of instituting a wealth tax would in itself likely improve the measurement tools to facilitate implementation. Those of us who have signed this letter believe it is our duty to step up and support a wealth tax that taxes us. It is a key to both addressing our climate crisis, and a more competitive, stronger economy that would better serve millions of Americans. It would make America healthier. It is a fair way of creating opportunity. And it strengthens American freedom and democracy. It is not in our interest to advocate for this tax, if our interests are quite narrowly understood. But the wealth tax is in our interest as Americans. That’s why we’re joining the majority of Americans already supporting a moderate wealth tax. We ask that you recognize its strong merit and popular support, and advance the idea to tax us a little more. To see who these patriots are — and the footnotes backing up their assertions — see the full PDF.
God’s Gift To The World June 26, 2019June 25, 2019 Could it really be Trump, as half of all Republicans polled seem to believe? First He sent Jesus, then Trump? Here’s a different take, in case you missed it: “How to Break the Republican Lock on God.” Watch the debates tonight and tomorrow. We have so many good candidates — not one of whom is a vulgar pathologically lying sociopath. Yet we could still lose. This, from Politico, strikes me as required reading: Dear Democrats, Here’s How to Guarantee Trump’s Reelection. “You’ve got a historically unpopular opponent in the White House, but there are nearly a dozen ways you could still blow this.”
Max, Chica, and Kenny June 25, 2019June 23, 2019 As if you were not already persuaded . . . This Man Ate Expired Food For a Year and did not himself expire. (Thanks, Barry.) . . . 84 percent of consumers at least occasionally throw out food because it is close to or past its package date, and over one third (37 percent) say they always or usually do so. That food waste in landfills generates carbon dioxide and methane, a greenhouse gas 28 to 36 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. And you are not just wasting calories and money. You are wasting all the resources that went into growing, packaging and transporting that food. . . . Here is a terrible story of how the Justice Department has been corrupted to encourage obstruction of justice. (Thanks, Glenn.) And here is a wonderful story. Not political in any way. Just human. And canine. With a surprise ending. (Thanks, Peter.)
Something Else Democrats Stand For June 24, 2019June 22, 2019 Friday’s post on “fairness” — What Do Democrats Stand For? — prompted Mike Martin to respond from Phoenix with a different F word. “The Democratic Party,” he writes, “is the party of the future. The Republican party is the party of the past. “The Democratic party favors addressing climate change because it threatens the future. We favor policies that increase free public education and free public childcare because young people are the future. We tax the rich because they represent past successes that should now help pay for the future. We favor environmental protections and anti-pollution regulations because they protect the future. We believe in creativity and innovation as the way to build the future. “In almost every case, when there are differences between Democrats and Republicans the difference is whether to embrace the future or protect the past. Democrats support science because that is the gateway to the future. Democrats support diversity because the future requires that people with different perspectives work together for the common good. “Democracy is fundamentally the idea of giving everyone the opportunity to forge a bright future. “When I was in the Marines, the cliche was to ‘seize the high ground.’ Democrats should seize the future as their high ground, as what they value and what they seek to protect. C.P. Snow writing in The Two Cultures described one of the cultures as ‘they have the future in their bones.’ Democrats must become known as the party that, regardless of the issue or policy, has the future in its bones. We need to explain every issue, every policy, every position, in terms of the future.” → Yes! Click here.
What Do Democrats Stand For? June 21, 2019July 9, 2019 We know what Republicans stand for: Tax cuts (even if they’re mainly for the rich) . . . smaller government (though it’s Reagan, Bush, Bush, and Trump who exploded the deficit; Clinton and Obama who shrank it) . . . assault weapons without universal background checks . . . climate denial — all that. (Have you seen what Trump’s Ag Secretary is trying to do to his department’s scientists? Horrifying.) Republicans stand for corporations. They now have a coal lobbyist running the EPA, a pharma lobbyist running HHS, an oil lobbyist running Interior, and a defense lobbyist running Defense. (Yet Trump supporters believe he is draining the swamp of lobbyists. Watch. ) But what do Democrats stand for? I would argue it can be boiled down to: FAIRNESS. It’s not FAIR almost all the gains of the past 40 years have gone to people at the very top of the economic pyramid — even as their tax rates have been slashed. Or that CEO pay has grown 90 times faster than worker pay. Or that the minimum wage hasn’t been raised with inflation. It’s not FAIR health care and prescription drugs are wildly more expensive here than in any other industrialized nation. It’s not FAIR federal student loans can’t be refinanced the way home mortgages can be. It’s not FAIR an NRA membership card is valid voter ID in states where a state-university-issued student ID is not. Or that Republicans purposely try to make voting difficult for people of color. It’s not FAIR only poor citizens have to stew for months in jail awaiting trial because they can’t make $500 bail. Or that, though they use drugs at similar rates, the imprisonment rate of African Americans for drug charges is almost 6 times that of whites. It’s not FAIR Republicans will allow only Republicans to appoint Supreme Court justices. It’s not FAIR we’ll have to breathe dirtier air because the EPA is run by a coal lobbyist. It’s not FAIR Democrats won the popular vote in Pennsylvania in 2012 — but just 5 of the 18 Congressional seats (to take just one example I can’t get out of my head). It’s not FAIR gays can get legally married on Sunday but legally fired Monday. Or that toddlers are separated from their parents at our Southern border. Or that Republicans block the universal background checks 90% of Americans favor. Or that the people of Washington D.C. suffer taxation without representation. Or that Republicans killed the comprehensive immigration reform that passed the Senate 68-32 . . . and killed the infrastructure bill that would have put so many to work at good jobs revitalizing our infrastructure. Or that DACA kids — who’ve never known life in another country — live in fear of deportation. Or that women seeking an abortion in Missouri are subjected to state-mandated assault — an unnecessary vaginal probe that both doctors and patients oppose. You can add “empathy,” “opportunity,” “community,” “progress,” “diversity,” “science,” “diplomacy” — “freedom from want and fear” — lots of things. But “fairness” may encompass them all. To help fund the early organizing and registration needed to set things right, click here.
Love June 20, 2019June 19, 2019 Jim Burt: “You may recall that during his 2016 campaign, Trump at one point attempted to establish his Christian bona fides by referring hilariously to ‘Two Corinthians.’ Despite his open and obvious immorality, he seems to have established himself as the darling of white evangelicals in the U.S. Franklin Graham and Falwell Junior are among his acolytes. One of the biblical passages one never hears them quote is from what Trump would call ‘One Corinthians’ — specifically I Corinthians 13, attributed to Paul. It’s beautiful, profound, and anathema to people of the Graham/Falwell/Trump persuasion, though I suspect Graham’s father Billy thought more highly of it.” If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[b] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. “The original was in Greek, but it passed through Latin on its way to us, and the Latin word used for love in the passage was not ‘amor’ but ‘caritas,’ the root of our word ‘charity.’ It means ‘caring love,’ or perhaps ‘loving care.'” “Sort of says it all, doesn’t it?” → Amen. Here is Franklin Graham this month leading “Pray for Trump” day. (Not as in: pray for his long-lost soul; but, incredibly, pray that he prevails.) And here is the story, if you missed it, of how Jerry Falwell, Jr. came to endorse Trump. It had nothing to do with love or Jesus (though possibly with lust).
A Letter From Thor June 19, 2019June 20, 2019 In 1998, a precocious 23-year-old, Thor Halvorssen — a relative of Simon Bolivar on his mother’s side — came to a book-signing I did and took me to dinner. (Who is this kid? And why would he know the maitre d’ of Philadelphia’s fanciest French restaurant? But okay.) We’ve been friends ever since, skeptical though I was at first; and he’s gone on to do amazing things . . . not least: launch the Human Rights Foundation and its annual Oslo Freedom Forum. Thor writes: Right now, the Chinese government has jailed more than 1.5 million Muslim-minority Uighurs in prison camps in the northwestern province of Xinjiang. Yet, the world says very little. Beijing claims to just be “re-educating” troubled individuals. Most companies and governments have continued their relations with Beijing, business as usual. “Never again” is happening again. Two weeks ago, we chose to put the Uighur crisis on the world agenda. In front of an audience packed with policymakers, journalists, business leaders, and philanthropists, Nury Turkel, a Uighur activist, gave our keynote talk. You can watch it here. It was gripping and vital and, now, none of us who were there in that theater — and none of the thousands who were tuning in online — can say that we don’t know what is happening to the Uighurs. Since Nury’s talk, his story has been featured in media around the world; design firms have donated their time to help him with his campaigns; technologists are working with him to design tools that Uighurs can use to stay safe; short films are in production about cultural genocide and technological surveillance; and donors have made pledges to help the Uighur community spread awareness about what is happening to their families in Xinjiang. This is how the Oslo Freedom Forum gradually changes the world. This year at the Oslo Freedom Forum we were joined by extraordinary speakers including: · The highest ranking diplomat to ever escape North Korea · A journalist boldly exposing the system of slavery behind Qatar’s 2022 World Cup · A technologist using satellites to uncover prison camps inside dictatorships · One of East Asia’s most famous singers, now turned democracy protest leader · An Academy Award-winning filmmaker who exposed the Russian doping scandal · A young student from Malawi who now rescues girls from child marriage While the stage content certainly stands out among top global conferences, the key catalyst of the Oslo Freedom Forum is the variety of the participants. More than 100 dissidents from more than 50 countries attended the Oslo Freedom Forum. They met with 75 top international journalists, 50 creatives and technologists, and more than 100 philanthropists or delegates from companies and foundations looking to make a difference. Practically, what this means is that in any given conversation at the event, an activist from — say, Russia or Cameroon or Venezuela — is speaking to someone who can help them tell their story; someone who can finance and scale their work; and someone who can help make their impact more effective on the ground. The ripple effects are significant. I already mentioned what Nury’s talk has begun to spark. A few other examples from recent years include Yeonmi Park, who went on to launch a best-selling book about North Korea; Manal al-Sharif, who kickstarted a global campaign to win women the right to drive in Saudi Arabia; Denis Mukwege and Leymah Gbowee, who went on to be awarded Nobel Peace Prizes for their vital work in Liberia and the Congo; and Srdja Popovic, who has met dozens of activists in our network and helped them build effective peaceful campaigns to change policy in more than a dozen countries. We look forward to inspiring more of these ripples and sharing them with you over the coming months and years. Even just days after this most recent Oslo Freedom Forum, we’ve seen some great content come online from attendees, including: · A podcast featuring Financial Times Beijing tech correspondent Yuan Yang and Buzzfeed News tech editor Megha Rajagopalan on how China is using artificial intelligence to control its population. · A stage talk from Denise Ho, the cantopop mega-star from Hong Kong, about the rise and future of the Umbrella Movement. Through connections made in Oslo, Denise was already able to write an op-ed in The Washington Post and go on air on CNN. · A series of journals and profiles by Jay Nordlinger at the National Review that give you an insider perspective on the Oslo Freedom Forum and some of its more amazing characters. Read Jay’s lively journal here and his profiles on speakers from Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe. · A Forbes feature and a fascinating podcast featuring entrepreneurs and researchers from Iran, the Philippines, China, India, and Nigeria discussing how individuals are using cryptocurrency to evade government controls. On the policy side, in Oslo we had top-level decision-makers in attendance ranging from the Foreign Minister of Norway to the U.S. government’s point person on developing “smart sanctions” to the European Parliament member fighting fiercest for privacy rights. On the tech side, we had leaders from companies including Facebook, Planet Labs, Twitter (you can read about their proud support for our work here), and YouTube, who all came to Oslo to voice their support for dissidents and learn how their platforms can better help the cause of freedom. On the philanthropy side, the grant-giving attendees in Oslo collectively give away hundreds of millions of dollars to charity. Over the past decade, the Oslo Freedom Forum has grown into a powerful program that impacts policy, law, and charitable giving on a global scale. I wanted to share a few more highlights from the event so far: · A fireside chat between HRF chairman Garry Kasparov and information warfare expert Molly McKew on the dark side of technology and the damage that dictators are doing to our democracies through technology. · Defending the Defenders, a ceremony hosted by Norway’s Ministry of the Environment and the City of Oslo and presented by CNN in Oslo’s City Hall, where environmentalists from Russia, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Uganda shared their experiences trying to protect the planet under dictatorships. Most people fail to realize the level of criminality experienced by environmentalists inside dictatorships. The truth is that tyrannies tend to be the world’s worst polluters and producers of environmental catastrophes. · Articles in Bloomberg and The Guardian featuring interviews with Ambassador Thae Yong Ho, who gives us unparalleled insight into the mind of Kim Jong Un. · Global coverage in Norwegian, Thai, French, Portuguese, Chinese, and Spanish-language media. · A press freedom lunch where more than 50 journalists from around the world paid tribute to fallen OFF community members, with remarks from Karen Attiah, Khashoggi’s editor at The Washington Post. · Podcasts with world-renowned historian and On Tyranny author Timothy Snyder on the global erosion of democracy, and with former UN high commissioner of human rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein on the global fight for freedom. · A diverse range of breakouts and workshops covering everything from how to cope with PTSD to why we need to celebrate privacy to how the drug war deteriorates freedom to an insider’s view of the Saudi phone hacking scandal. · A BBC Hard Talk episode with Oslo Freedom Forum speaker Iyad el-Baghdadi. · The debut of the Activist Tech Bar — sponsored by the cyber-security company Avast — a place for attendees to bring their phones and computers to digital security experts to assess our digital safety. · A series of interviews by China Uncensored with special features on Hong Kong, North Korea, and the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. · Unite moments on stage between activists and our sponsors, like this one between Twitter’s global head of philanthropy and Zimbabwean democracy advocate Evan Mawarire. · The launch of HRF’s Freedom Fellowship, a 12-month program for 10 civil society leaders from authoritarian countries, where they will get world-class training in the areas of movement building, leadership, digital security, fundraising, and public relations. I look forward to sharing more highlights with you later this summer, once a range of profiles, articles, short films, and new collaborations surface. Slowly but certainly the Oslo Freedom Forum is becoming one of the world’s can’t-miss events. We are grateful for your support as we continue to advance the program around the world and help it take root in Oslo, New York, Taipei, Mexico City, and beyond. “Never underestimate the power of one committed 23-year-old to change the world,” Margaret Mead might have said. “He or she will grow up, and, over time, just might.”
How The FBI +Used+ To Spend Its Time June 18, 2019June 17, 2019 I’m so sorry I didn’t tell you about Rebellion Stonewall that aired Sunday night. But through the magic of technology, you can watch it anyway — and without the commercials, so just 45 minutes — by clicking that link and signing in via your cable service or Hulu or whatever. It’s really good. And then tonight, at 9pm on PBS, you can watch The Lavender Scare. See how FBI agents used to spend their time — which was not a little ironic, given that their boss, J. Edgar Hoover, was himself homosexual. (This Wikipedia entry is not so definitive; but . . . seriously?) Curtailing my normal verbosity to give you time to watch.
“Outrageous Congressional Perks” June 17, 2019June 16, 2019 [Hey! Don’t forget: second quarterly estimated tax due today.] But first: Why Andrew Yang Matters — you read about him here first! Justice Kavanaugh Wants Us To Know He’s Won (thanks, Glenn — you’ve ruined my day). And now: Five myths about Congressional perks. Short form: > Members DO pay into Social Security, just like everybody else. > Members and their staff ARE subject to ObamaCare. Their only way out: coverage through a spouse or parent, or buying coverage on their own, without federal subsidy . . . like anyone else. > Members do NOT receive a big pension after one term. (E.g.: After 16 years, former Congressman Steve Israel gets $40,000/year. Not nothing — but hardly the $174,000-after-just-one-term frequently alleged.) > And no — #4 and #5 — they DON’T get free DC housing (unless sleeping on their office couch) and have NOT given themselves raises in the last ten years. That said, I sure would like your help sweeping out of office those representatives — and senators — who see their role as attempting to block any progress under a Democrat, as with Obama; and defending the indefensible, as with Trump. Click here. We should daily demand that Senate Republicans at least take up — and ideally pass — the 10 bills Democrats in the House have passed this year to make normal Americans’ lives better.