[ad_1]
But, she writes, instead of abolishing the college (too hasty) or attacking gerrymandering itself (too hard), we could kill both dragons with one stone.
If you’ve been following her recent work, you won’t be surprised to see that the stone Danielle has in mind is an expanded House of Representatives.
Here’s the logic: More House members, and thus more electors, would dilute the advantage the electoral college gives small states, while still retaining what Danielle calls a necessary “smidgen of additional protection.” Slay!
And more members — say, three elected from every existing district in a single ranked-choice vote — would defeat gerrymandering by ensuring mixed-party representation from nigh every corner of the country. Double slay!
One bonus reform from Danielle: She explains the many benefits of ditching the party primary system for an “all-comers preliminary” in which every kind of candidate would vie for a spot on the general-election ballot — Democrats, Republicans, third-party competitors, independents.
Speaking of independents, contributing columnist and “committed independent” Matt Bai is fed up with how the No Labels group is making his political identity uncool.
“By espousing a bunch of mushy, meet-in-the-middle policies,” Matt writes, No Labels “advances a dated and uninspiring idea of what a dissenting political movement should be.”
The independent-ism he subscribes to is much bolder: a willingness to assemble a platform of positions one believes to be right, no matter where they come from or how polarizing they might be. It’s by this model that Matt believes in both urgent climate change action and entitlements means testing.
Or, to borrow from the Bible: Solomon didn’t actually split the baby; he took the time “to discern who had the righteous cause.”
Of course, there is an appropriate time and place for dismembering an innocent. Vox has a very fun story this week about the common childhood pleasure of breaking down a Barbie.
But the Barbies in columnist Alyssa Rosenberg’s dreamhouse are treated with care and respect, despite the occasional pressure for feminist moms to eschew the toy.
Alyssa explains that a lot of the most frequently cited “Barbies are bad!” research is actually pretty spotty. There’s scant evidence that make-believe Malibu playdates cause body-image issues or winnow little girls’ (or boys’) eventual career paths.
In fact, Alyssa’s kid loves her mermaid Barbie and Eleanor Roosevelt Barbie in equal measure, and “if right now she believes that all women have it in them to be both first lady and half fish,” Alyssa writes, then this parent is “happy to have Barbie in our house.”
Why stop there? Cartoonist Edith Pritchett imagines even more Barbie models our dire world might have in store for us: Climate Anxiety Barbie thinks corporate greed and political apathy are fueling our extinction! Pandemic Barbie has beans!
And, of course, there’s Barbie, Destroyer of Worlds. In case you missed yesterday’s newsletter, read Tyler Austin Harper on the doll’s overlap with J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the A-bomb.
Chaser: What, exactly, can Climate Barbie — or any of the rest of us — say about the weather without “politicizing” it? Humor columnist Alexandra Petri is trying to work out the right’s rules.
From editorial writer Lee Hockstader’s column on all those words, words, words. “Those plans,” he writes from Latvia’s capital, “and the dollars, euros and political will to fulfill them, remain in doubt.”
The Baltic states themselves have been beefing up, Lee writes, to prepare for a potential Russian invasion within the next five years; Latvia has even reinstated its draft. Still, researchers game out that the capital, Riga, would fall in just two or three days if Russia’s army marched on it.
These countries need NATO help beyond lengthy resolutions, Lee writes, because “without renewed resolve from Washington and major European capitals, the Kremlin is likely to regard NATO’s front-line states as tempting targets, and soft ones.”
Even on my sunny vacation, a Metro ride, Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road trip, shuttle bus and ferry away from D.C., the news of a potential Jan. 6 indictment of former president Donald Trump ricocheted like an ill-hit beach volleyball.
If it comes, columnist Jason Willick writes, it will be explosive — even if it’s a juridical dud. “Despite its legal flimsiness,” Jason says, “a Jan. 6 indictment could damage Trump in a general election more than any other case against him.”
His column breaks down what could be flaws in the contemplated indictment, as well as how it would hurt both Trump and our institutions.
- Columnist Marc Thiessen has his eye on Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, whom he calls a rising star other Republicans should emulate — despite Trump’s attacks on her.
- China seems to think a popular protest anthem in Hong Kong could subvert the power of the Communist Party and endanger national security. Contributing columnist Keith Richburg explains the ridiculous crackdown.
- Columnist Greg Sargent explains the hidden way Bidenomics is already weakening Trump’s 2024 hopes.
It’s a goodbye. It’s a haiku. It’s … The Bye-Ku.
Of a pitched battle and, woe!
Have your own newsy haiku? Email it to me, along with any questions/comments/ambiguities. See you tomorrow!
[ad_2]
Source link
