Nine nations reached a deal that would reduce Iran's nuclear capability in exchange for a relaxation of economic sanctions against it, and naturally the American right is pooping its pants over it -- when a putatively "moderate" Republican Senator accuses the President of wanting Iran to get nuclear weapons, you know it's bad. But the real problem right-wingers have with the deal is that it doesn't give them an opportunity to parade their testicles in front of everyone like the "war on terror" does -- international inspection regimes, after all, don't get them hard. (I see no need to gender-equivocate here.) Five of eight non-Iranian nations would have to agree to reinstate sanctions if Iran fails to comply, which (as Igor Volsky explains) removes the veto power China or Russia would have preferred. Hell, it even sounds like democracy, and you know how right-wing warmongers feel about democracy -- at least, about democracy that doesn't give them everything they want. So the Friends Committee on National Legislation helps you tell Congress not to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal.
Meanwhile, the House Agriculture Committee passed H.R. 1599, the so-called Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, out of committee this week. H.R. 1599 would, as you know, keep states from enacting GMO labeling laws, since the "states' rights" doctrine apparently only extends to keeping black folks down, and would also make GMO labeling voluntary, as if it's not already voluntary -- and worse, as if a voluntary GMO labeling system doesn't already exist. You know the four-digit numbers on stickers on your produce? Ever see a five-digit number on a label beginning with "9"? No, you haven't, because that's the label indicating the produce has been grown with genetically-modified organisms, and no one's using it. Because they wouldn't sell anything if they did. Why don't the big food corporations try convincing people GMO food is fine, rather than trying to buy laws from Congress or fearmonger about food prices and "frivolous lawsuits"? The Organic Consumers Association helps you tell your House Rep to oppose the anti-GMO labeling bill, H.R. 1599.
Finally, Breast Cancer Action helps you tell your Senator to vote against S. 697, the so-called Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Why? Because the bill that bears the late Senator's name insults his memory -- he authored far better chemical safety reform legislation before his passing. And though Congress last tackled chemical safety regulation nearly 40 years ago, this bill wouldn't force our government to evaluate chemical safety on any realistic schedule, wouldn't allow states to pass stronger chemical safety laws, wouldn't adequately fund chemical safety regulation efforts, wouldn't target "hot spot" communities that suffer from more chemical exposure, and wouldn't allow our government to take swifter action against more dangerous chemicals -- let alone force chemical corporations to prove their chemicals are safe before they reach the market. Do we not deserve these things, as good Americans? And do we not deserve leaders who will accomplish these things in our name, instead of leaders who let chemical corporations have all the say about everything?