H.R. 1927, the so-called Fairness in Class Litigation Act, would force folks who join in class-action lawsuits to affirm that every last one of them suffered "the same type and scope of injury as the named class representative or representatives." Sound innocuous? It's not: the law already demands enough such commonality in classes, and no two people are that alike or go through exactly the same circumstances in life leading to the exact same injuries. And the bill's opponents call it the "Volkswagen Bailout Act" for a reason: it would cripple the ability of good citizens who've been damaged by Volkswagen's cheating on emissions controls -- to the point where corporations would be emboldened to do very bad things on a very large scale, knowing they would face no accountability. The House may vote on H.R. 1927 this week, so you may want to call your House Reps (using the tools in the upper left-hand corner of this page) and tell them to oppose the "Volkswagen Bailout bill." They'll never see it coming.
Meanwhile, Anna Sanchez has started a petition on Change.org, which helps you demand that the Department of Defense lift breed-specific bans on dogs on military bases. Apparently Ms. Sanchez can't keep her bulldog on military housing, and if that sounds a little strict, note that her military housing officer says the dog's jaws "look very pitbull." A veterinarian has testified to the contrary, but why make decisions based on actual expertise? And for the record, every pitbull I've known has been a loving companion -- they tend to be a bit boisterous and protective of the pack, but the intelligent dog-owner can mitigate these with good training -- and our society's animus toward pitbulls might as well be racism, especially considering that the belief that pitbulls go around biting everyone is anecdotal, not scientific (the CDC can't confirm that any dog breeds are "more likely to bite" than any other). All breed-specific bans do is confirm the prejudices of the ignorant. And we have enough of that in America.
Finally, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell Congress to force cable corporations to offer channels a la carte, so you don't have to pay for cable channels that offend you, then the Parents Television Council still helps you do that. Why? Because if we keep paying for cable channels that offend us (cough all the cable news channels cough), they'll have no incentive to stop doing what offends us. Cable news channels will have no incentive to stop serving up sensationalist and/or rage-inducing crap, no incentive to stop putting on "experts" who are little more than paid shills for polluters, torturers, and usurers, and no incentive to challenge the rank stupidity of our elected officials. Morever, their advertisers will have no incentive to stop advertising with them, since the number of people who watch them will be, theoretically, the same as the number of people who pay for them. Big corporations understand one thing: money. Don't give it to them, and they'll start listening.