Ocasio-Cortez’s plan would thus be a return to the 20th century norm — in fact, not even that, because the cutoffs for those very high tax brackets were often much lower than $10 million, even after adjusting for inflation. Conservatives and anti-tax activists, naturally, were quick to condemn her idea. But as Paul Krugman pointed out, the plan would be unlikely to cause much damage to the economy.

Raising the income tax rate to 70 percent or higher would be a tremendous misstep for the federal government and taxpayers, with the only beneficiaries being high-priced accountants and attorneys.

The fundamental flaw in the US tax system is that we tax wages, not wealth. If America were to follow Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s lead, high income workers would be facing higher taxes, up to 70% for those with more than $10 million of taxable income. Many upper-income earners would be tempted to move, or retire, or shift their financial plans to show fewer wages and all of them, as workers, are shouldering a hefty tax burden as is. Meantime, the truly rich, who do not have to work, or work in the ways ordinary folk do, would continue to pay nothing on their accumulated wealth. That’s crazy.

…the vast majority of terrorists don’t enter the United States at the southern border or anywhere else, because they are already in the country. Of the 455 jihadist terrorism cases since 9/11, 84% involved US citizens or permanent residents, and every lethal terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11 was carried out by a US citizen or legal resident.

…border walls work. The only thing that prevented the recent caravan of thousands of Central Americans from stampeding into the U.S. and disappearing into the the country was the border wall. Unfortunately, it’s only 14 miles long at this point. The wall stopped their progress north, and is the main reason — along with a strong show of force by the courageous men and women of the Border Patrol — why they are still in Mexico today.

[The] two major arguments opponents have made against a barrier — which will be a wall in some places, a fence in others — so that it meshes as closely as possible with the physical terrain: (a) it will be ineffective; and (b) it will be too expensive. As to the first assertion: Were it true the second question would be unnecessary. But both Israel and Hungary have erected border barriers, which have reduced by 99 percent the number of illegal migrants crossing their borders.

Finally, Tlaib voiced her support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign for Palestinian rights, echoing Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. With voices in Congress in favor of BDS, this offers hope to Palestinians and their supporters in the United States that these newly elected lawmakers will form the progressive voice that protects and advocates for the rights of Palestinian Americans, just like they would for any other unfairly attacked constituents.

Is she just trying to top the ruckus she’d already raised by publicly taunting President Trump with a vow to “impeach the motherf - - - - r”? Objectionable as that remark was, it didn’t venture beyond the uncouth and obscene. Her latest tirade is a far broader and lower smear, which also puts the lie to her claim that she merely opposes Israel.

There is a fair debate to be had about the balancing act between combating the BDS movement and free speech, though opponents of the legislation also have to grapple with the fact that existing laws prevent governments from contracting with businesses that engage in discriminatory practices, and the movement to boycott Israeli Jews certainly is discriminatory… But Tlaib obliterated that messaging strategy when she pulled out the anti-Semitic guns, saying advocates of the bill “forgot what country they represent.” The idea of Jews as having divided loyalty, and of using their influence to convince others to act against the interests and principles of their own country, is an age-old anti-Semitic trope.

Although he was a territorial hawk who opposed the very concept of “land for peace,” Arens was a genuine liberal, a true disciple of Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Just like he thought Israel should be this big, he also thought it should be this just. That is why he vehemently opposed the Nation State Law which he said would alienate Arab citizens, and that is why as the minister in charge of Arab affairs he fought to raise government spending in Arab towns.

Arens was considered a strange bird in Likud even before the party abandoned his values. He lacked the cynicism, the determined ambition and inflated ego that disappointed him in Netanyahu, but could have made him premier. He was a security hawk and a gentleman, and his death gives rise to nostalgia for his style and good manners, which characterized him to the end.

Looking back at his actions, one can imagine an alternative history for Israel. A “what if” history. I think he would appreciate such intellectual exercise.

What if Arens had the upper hand in the late 1970s, when he was part of a small faction opposing the peace agreement with Egypt? He never retracted his opposition to the Camp David Accords. Yes, he would say, peace with Egypt has its many advantages. And yet Arens believed that Israel’s decision to hand back all of Sinai to the Egyptians, to the last mile, was a strategic mistake that still haunts Israel. It was a precedent from which Israel can’t quite release itself. If Egypt got back the territory, why not Syria in the Golan Heights? Why not the 1967 line in the West Bank?

Up until now, I’ve always believed in the pragmatism of China’s reform-era leadership, despite the brutality of many measures taken during that period. Yet China is no longer in the reform era. Instead, it is entering a new period, one that may make observers look back fondly on the relatively light touch of the country’s past leaders.

Religious freedom, however, is a vital human right that deserves to be respected even in authoritarian countries. The Trump administration can’t dictate what the Chinese government does toward its religious citizens, but it can make sure that the world is fully aware of its abuses — and that at least some of the abusers pay a price.

The Vatican should reconsider its arrangement with the Chinese government. But what can be done more generally in response to Xi’s war on religion? The United States and several European countries have condemned it, but any nation that values freedom of religion should unite in denouncing China’s treatment of Muslim Uighurs, Christians, Tibetan Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners. In particular, Muslim-majority countries, strangely muted regarding the persecution of Muslim Uighurs, must protest these abuses even at the risk of endangering the benefits from China’s “Belt and Road” infrastructure projects.

There are many reasons for Apple’s drop in sales, but the main one is also the simplest: The smartphone market is mature and there is simply no more room for the kind of rapid growth we’ve seen in the past decade. Two companies, Apple and Google, appear to have actually bumped up against the limits of capitalism: With smartphone sales plateauing, there is in essence no one new left to sell to.

The last big innovation explosion — the proliferation of the smartphone — is clearly ending. There is no question that Apple was the center of that, with its app-centric, photo-forward and feature-laden phone that gave everyone the first platform for what was to create so many products and so much wealth… Now all of tech is seeking the next major platform and area of growth. Will it be virtual and augmented reality, or perhaps self-driving cars? Artificial intelligence, robotics, cryptocurrency or digital health? We are stumbling in the dark.

It worries me that Apple is a single-product company. Among its other revenues, iPad sales are one-tenth of iPhone sales eight years after tablets were launched. By comparison, Samsung mobile phone sales only represent 36.6% of its total revenues. Wearables by Apple are not taking off either – and the company is not monetising its platform business by selling customer data to the same extent as digital rivals such as Google, Amazon and Facebook.