Democrats must think their “For the People Act” is worth helping re-elect President Trump, in order to weaken right-leaning institutions.

Help Trump’s re-election? Oh yes. H.R. 1 entrenches incumbent politicians and lobbyists who benefit from opaque campaign finance laws, and it discourages average Americans from participating in national elections.

The bill is a broad, imaginative, and ambitious set of responses to the most pressing challenges facing American democracy, many of which preceded the 2016 election, but almost all of which were brought into sharper focus by it. Implicit in the choice to take up an electoral-reform bill as the first act of the new Democratic majority in the House was the decision to confront not only these injustices but, more fundamentally, the forces that have allowed them to come into existence.

Right now, the FEC is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans and notoriously dysfunctional… H.R. 1 would overhaul the FEC by reducing its six commissioners to five, with no more than two for each major party and one independent. One of these commissioners would be designated by the president to serve as chair, responsible for hiring the agency’s staff director, submitting its budgets, and running it on a day-to-day basis. These changes would bring the FEC more in line with how most independent federal agencies run, except that, unlike those bodies, the president’s party would never have a majority.

According to emails seen by BuzzFeed News, Klobuchar consistently rebuked her staff in all caps, often over minor mistakes and at odd hours, frequently sending messages between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. The senator would reportedly become angry if a staffer did not charge her iPad or if they used staples instead of paper clips. Her reputation as a demanding boss was so well known that, in 2015, retired Nevada Senator Harry Reid reportedly told her to reconsider her management tactics.

She has had some of the highest staff turnover on Capitol Hill, but the stories would have more credibility if the critics lent their names. Perhaps the Senator is simply less tolerant of millennial demands. The stories are notable mainly because they contrast with Ms. Klobuchar’s Minnesota Nice public persona.

When reputation is in play, for instance, it would be surprising if the rumor mill wasn’t influenced by stereotypes and biases. Does a female senator get a bad reputation for behavior that would be considered tough but fair in a male member of Congress? Are a handful of episodes more likely to generate a “bad boss” reputation for a woman than for a man, perhaps because some staffers (and ex-staffers) are quicker to take offense when a woman is harsh with them?

Labor has seen its fortunes tumble in recent years, hit by a rightward shift among Israeli voters, turmoil in the party, and the emergence of new political players that have eroded its base. But it still won 24 seats (in an alliance with the small Hatnua faction) in the 2015 elections, compared to the winning Likud’s 30 seats. Its support has collapsed since then, surveys show, under the leadership of current chairman Avi Gabbay.

It is no secret that in Israel, what determines the results of elections are security issues rather than socioeconomic ones. As long as Labor and its predecessors were perceived as “bit’honistim” (security-minded) – and in recent decades, if it placed a former chief of staff at its head – its chances of winning increased significantly. Presumably, if and when Israel reaches a modus vivendi with its neighbors, Labor will be able to win elections on the basis of socioeconomic issues – if it will manage to survive the current elections.

The question is not who is elected on Monday and how high they get on the list, but rather where the Labor Party is heading. Even if it somehow passes the election threshold, does it truly have the right to exist as a small party with less than 10 seats? What makes it unique? What differentiates it from other parties on the center-left political spectrum? I believe the answer is simple – Labor is not built for ordinary days, it’s made for grandness.

GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans.

Suggesting that a Jewish organization is buying off American politicians is both demonstrably false and stunningly anti-Semitic. American politicians are pro-Israel because Americans are…

Words matter Rep. @IlhanMN. Anti-Semitism is on the rise in the US and abroad. The use of this tired anti-Semitic trope about Jews and money is inappropriate and upsetting. As Americans and Jews, we expect our politicians to condemn bigotry, not fuel it.

Hip-hop and the Grammys have a famously awkward history. Although Run-D.M.C. was nominated for a Grammy in 1987 (Best R&B Performance By a Duo or Group), the Best Rap Album Grammy debuted in 1989—with DJ Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince winning the award—but famous rappers boycotted the show when it was announced that the Best Rap Performance category wouldn’t be a part of the telecast. MTV held an anti-Grammy after-party hosted by Yo! MTV Raps at L.A.’s Cat & Fiddle pub that wound up being quite the TV event if you were a rap fan—especially one who never got what was so great about “Music’s Biggest Night” in the first place.

At last year’s Grammys, the narrative was tightly focused on rap’s prominence among nominees in the major categories after historically being overlooked. However, Lamar was eclipsed by the retro R&B of Bruno Mars.

There were some significant hip-hop wins this year — but it might have been too late for the community to care.

The Grammy award still carries currency in the music industry, but it’s becoming increasingly apparent that it’s no longer a relevant measure of success for black artists. Childish Gambino’s “This Is America,” with its overt messages about racist violence in the country, took home both Song of the Year and Record of the Year. Though Donald Glover’s work across several genres has reckoned with the effects of white supremacy, “This Is America” is a particularly strange choice for both these awards: The song is far less effective (if also perhaps more enjoyable) without its visual accompaniment. The message behind its selection registers less as a celebration of Glover’s musical accomplishment and more as an endorsement of his inter-racial dialogue-starting capabilities…

In our age of ultra wokeness, menstruation still has a hint of taboo around it… Could the emoji have been a little more obvious? Subtle is better than nothing, sure, and with the original period pants idea turned down, chances are a tampon or sanitary towel (surely not a million miles from that weird pile of notes with wings) would be rejected too. The beauty of the red droplet is it can mean everything and nothing; it drips with meaning but equally, doesn’t have to.

Love them or loathe them, emojis have become a part of our modern vocabulary… It’s ridiculous that Unicode offers 1,088 emojis, including a long nose goblin emoji, a floppy disc, a unicorn emoji and a smiling poo emoji, but there is no period emoji. The exclusion of a period emoji is a just another way to silence speech around menstrual health which contributes to stigma, shame, leading to yet more silence.

Speaking as a woman who agrees that women should not feel shame or stigma about normal bodily functions, I would like to point out that it trivializes menstruation to act like a single emoji will break down the stigma. What next, a lightning bolt for cramps? A chocolate bar for cravings? A grimacing face for general sadness and despair? Oh wait, we already have all those.

American feminism has recently fixated on the “period stigma,” but we can avoid stigma without ideas so trite as an emoji or so garish as “ free bleeding.”