Earth Justice helps you tell the EPA to stop mining corporations from dumping their waste into our waters. You may be asking yourself, self: doesn't the Clean Water Act prevent mining corporations from dumping their waste into our waters? And it's a valid question. The answer is yes, the Clean Water Act did -- until 2002, when Tha Bush Mobb EPA simply redefined the term "fill material" (which the Clean Water Act does not prohibit from the nation's waterways) to include all sorts of coal mining waste. In 2004, Tha Bush Mobb included even more Frankensludge in that definition. Anyway, silver lining: what the Executive branch of 2002 and 2004 did, the Executive branch of 2011 can undo, and if the House really wants to pass some sort of "resolution of disapproval" prohibiting the EPA from protecting Americans from drinking Frankencrap, they can go ahead and do that. A lot of them will get re-elected, given the Democrats' lack of spine, but let's at least be honest about how we all feel -- I don't want to drink Frankencrap, Republicans do want me to drink Frankencrap if it'll make their corporate cronies richer. I think that will be a clear enough choice for the American people.
Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee has snuck a huge poison pill into S. 719, the Intelligence Authorization Act, and this poison pill would allow the Director of National Intelligence to strip whistleblowers of their pensions. Not just whistleblowers convicted of leaking classified information, which I also oppose, since I'm old-fashioned and would prefer that judges hand out sentences. No, the DNI would have the power to strip pensions from whistleblowers accused of leaking classified information, and, as you must know from viewing the "liberal" media, accusing is a fairly easy thing to do. It gets worse, of course: the accused whistleblower can't get a hearing in court, but has to submit to the DNI's administrative review, and how do you think that will go? Golly, I must have missed that part of the Constitution which says the accused can be sentenced to a damn thing. And I think the Senate's game here is pretty obvious -- they're trying to raid as many pensions as they can (with the big prize, Social Security, still in their sights), and they hope that by putting forth a bill stripping accused whistleblowers of their pensions, we'll all acquiesce to stripping convicted whistleblowers of their pensions. The National Whistleblowers' Center helps you say no to their insidious plan.
Finally, I regret to note that Paul the Better has echoed Paul the Lesser's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This was a big deal last year, you may recall, big enough that Paul the Lesser walked his position back in a manner he could have done on Rachel Maddow's show without evading the question for twenty painful minutes. Paul the Better won't walk this back, of course, but I'm stunned that his reasoning is so similar to his son's: that people who own property have an absolute right to discriminate on their property. And my response is the same: all people have a right to free association, whether they own property or not, and no one's "right" to discriminate is absolute. And putting "Whites Only" signs in your restaurant isn't the same as, say, deciding to sell only high-end watches: the latter "discriminates" against people who can't afford them, but anyone could, through luck and pluck, become someone who can afford them (though of course I wouldn't recommend it), whereas a black person can't change their skin color, ever, and thus can't ever get on a level playing field as far as exercising their right to free association. Oh, well. As a Presidential candidate, he still looks better than all of the other Repubs put together, but I'm now more inclined to think that's an indictment of them.