The Global Partnership for Education will meet in December to see whether it should continue with its mission of getting girls basic education worldwide -- or go bigger and try to get girls secondary education (up through 12th grade) worldwide as well. Now Malala Yousafzi helps you tell the GPE to strive for the goal of getting secondary education for girls all over the planet. You may well ask: given the resistance some folks in this world have to girls getting education under any circumstances (Mr. Yousafzi herself, you will recall, got shot in the head by Taliban soldiers because she advocated girls' education), should we really push this matter, especially given that the GPE didn't originally expect to achieve its goal in primary education until this year? The answer is yes -- not just because we never bow to evil, especially when evil goes around shooting people, but also because you don't get what you need unless you ask for more of what you want. If the GPE doesn't go for the bigger ring here, they'll still have heard from us, and they'll be more likely to go for it next time.
Meanwhile, H.R. 1737 soon goes before the full House. What would H.R. 1737 do? It would rescind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's recent rules cracking down on auto loan-issuers who discriminate against minority borrowers -- including African-, Hispanic-, and Asian-Americans, who seem to pay higher interest rates on their auto loans than other Americans do. The bill would also force the CFPB to jump through a few extra hoops before issuing such rules in the future, and I don't object to public commenting periods, obviously, but I do object to auto-dealing corporations acting like treating all their customers fairly is some unconscionable burden, and I also object to making the CFPB study the "effect on small businesses," because a) there won't be enough of one to justify the mandated effort and b) big corporations really need to stop using small businesses as human shields. So Americans for Financial Reform helps you tell your Congressfolk to reject H.R. 1737, and preserve justice for minority auto-loan borrowers.
Finally, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell the EPA and the DOT to issue the most vigorous freight truck fuel efficiency regulations possible, then the Union of Concerned Scientists still helps you do that. Question for the folks who claim that we should just let the market raise fuel efficiency rates for freight trucks, since the big corporations that haul stuff around the country would benefit from the resulting lower costs: if all that's true, then why hasn't it happened? Freight truck fuel efficiency standards haven't changed in 40 years, and, surprise, surprise! Neither has their fuel efficiency. Big corporations would rather just fire workers to cut future costs than actually spend money to cut future costs, even when spending money, in this case, would be a one-time expense. And we're not even asking freight trucks to get 40 MPG -- we're trying to raise their efficiency from six MPG to eight MPG. When freight trucks comprise 7% of the vehicles on the road but use 25% of the fuel, two extra MPG makes a big difference. Even if it costs some CEO some money.