The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is still mulling S.J.Res. 59, the authorization to use military force that would replace the 2001 AUMF (good), but actually expand the President's unconstitutional authority to wage war wherever he likes (so bad it's not worth the good). And this bill has a bipartisan sheen, with three Democratic co-sponsors out of six total. So why is the Senate taking so long to consider it? Because they know it's a pile of dung -- and, more to the point, they know we know it's a pile of dung. I suppose they'll wait until right before the election to jam it through, and squeal about TEH NASHUNUL SECURITEEZ!!!!! when we oppose them, though they're taking so long with it we could easily retort that it must not really be that important. Now would be a good time to call your Reps and Senators (using the tools in the upper right-hand corner of this page, or the bottom of this page, if you're on a cellphone) and tell them to reject S.J.Res. 59.
Meanwhile, H.R. 6043/S. 3032, the STATES Act, would allow states that have legalized marijuana to enforce their own marijuana laws without interference from our federal government. Oddly, our President has endorsed this bill, setting up yet another quarrel with his Attorney General, Mr. Sessions, who acts like pot is the root of all evil. Less oddly, though, the STATES Act has almost as many Republican sponsors (in both House and Senate versions) as Democratic sponsors. Why, it almost looks like actual bipartisanship, in that both parties seem to like it and the American people seem to like it! Why do I suspect we're being set up for a massive disappointment -- say, when the House version passes, but the Senate weighs it down with poison pill amendments? None of that will matter if we speak up loudly enough, so the Drug Policy Alliance helps you tell your Congressfolk to support sane drug policy by passing the STATES Act.
Finally, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell the USDA to enact a real genetically-modified food-labeling standard, and not the BS one they're trying to enact, then MoveOn still helps you do that. Some things haven't changed with the change in Administrations, and one of them is the USDA's determination to pretend they're enacting a "clear" GMO labeling standard when they're obviously trying their damnedest not to. You don't exempt sugars and oils from your standard, since just about everything has one or other in it. You don't exempt gene-editing from your standard as if "gene editing" somehow isn't "genetic modification." And you certainly don't let corporations put hifalutin scanning codes or website addresses on their labels in lieu of a simple statement like this product has GMOs in it. The USDA also literally put a happy face on some of their sample GMO logos! You have to ask: what are they so afraid of?