While we’re waiting for Borealis to go to the moon (they probably have a patented technology for doing that, too) — do not lose faith in Borealis because, however considerably speculative it remains, it’s a virtual sure thing compared to what we started with back in the last century . . .

. . . and while I embark next week on my first-ever cruise (with a bunch of liberals and we get to have dinner with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes) — so who knows how well the Internet will work off the exotic coast of Ft. Lauderdale and/or whether I’ll be too cheap to pay for it . . .

. . . I give you three really long, fascinating, important articles from the pre-election issue of The New Yorker:

1. HOW HANS VON SPAKOVSKY TRIED TO SUPPRESS THE VOTE

By Jane Mayer.  This guy seems really to believe in what he’s doing.  If there is a single felon who lost his right to vote for having sold a bag of weed 30 years ago — but only lost it in some states and now, after decades of voting legally elsewhere has moved into one of those states but, not realizing that, voted anyway — this guy, Hans Von Spakovsky, will stop at nothing to thwart this conspiracy to subvert democracy.

And if the lines to vote in Democratic districts can be three or four hours long — or eight — all the better.

2. WHY IT WASN’T ENOUGH

By Ryan Lizza.  You know all that money I kept asking you for, and that many of you joined millions upon millions of people in giving?  This is the story of how we spent it.

It is — in a deeply geeky way — thrilling.

3. AND WHY THERE’S WAY TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS

By George Packer.  Last week I linked to Slate’s story on “How Political Campaign Spending Brought Down the Roman Republic.”  This profile of Jeff Connaughton brings to life the all-too-frustrating way Washington works — which is to say doesn’t work — and the urgent need for reform.

One concrete piece of which could occur on the first day of the Senate’s new term January 3, when Democrats will move to bring the filibuster rules back toward sanity.  (For example, requiring that for a senator to filibuster, he or she actually has to filibuster.)

Have a great weekend.  (You’ve seen “Lincoln,” right?  Taken together with these three New Yorker articles, it seems to me one would have the equivalent of a riveting college course in American political science.  With no exams or term papers.  All in three or four stimulating hours.)

 

 

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditmail
 

Comments are closed.