Yet another Congressional "resolution of disapproval," H.J.Res. 86/S.J.Res. 34, would overturn the FCC's recently-enacted rules protecting your online privacy. because, apparently, that is exactly the sort of thing that really, really resonates with Americans. Please, Congress, they say with one voice, let our internet service providing corporations sell our online data to whomever they like, since their right to make money is more important than our right to privacy! Or, perhaps, that's what the good Americans in Congressional heads say. I haven't emphasized this enough, but all of these "resolutions of disapproval" don't just repeal regulations that actually serve the American people, but they forbid the agencies issuing the regulations from ever addressing the matter again. So the Electronic Frontier Foundation helps you call your Senators and tell them to reject the anti-privacy H.J.Res. 86/S.J.Res. 34.
Meanwhile, a Public Herald investigation has turned up evidence of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) misconduct in investigating at least 170 water safety complaints over the past decade-plus -- most of which seem to concentrate in areas where gas drilling corporations use fracking to get their natural gas out. The DEP kept these complaints secret for many years, supposedly because they didn't want to "cause alarm," though if your water smells like gas or lights on fire or makes you ill you're already pretty alarmed, amirite? Seriously, if you're a law-and-order type, you wouldn't want to think that your government, which you've charged with keeping polluters from befouling the water you drink, wash, and bathe with, is deliberately failing to protect you. So Food and Water Watch helps you tell PA state Attorney General Josh Shapiro to investigate this possible misconduct.
Finally, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell the Department of Labor to keep the "fiduciary responsibility" rule that forces pension advisors to put retirees' well-being ahead of their own lust for mammon, then PennPIRG still helps you do that. Do it with a quickness, though, because the Department is only accepting comments until tomorrow; possibly they hope the short commenting period will yield a plethora of comments like yes, I would very much like my retirement money to be shoehorned into investments that don't necessarily work for me, but that make my advisors even richer, because they're so much better than I am! Seriously, the "need" to "evaluate" further the subject of whether pension advisors should, given the choice, do what's best for you or what's best for themselves is so absurd that you must conclude the Trump Administration cares more about its rich friends than it does about you. Still, give 'em hell, because hell is what they deserve.