So that video showing Sinclair "local" news anchors all saying the same damn thing: is that not the best argument ever against monopolized media? And is it also not the best argument ever against letting Sinclair buy Tribune Media so it can have even more TV stations spouting the same thing? Hence Free Press helps you tell the FCC to reject the proposed Sinclair/Tribune merger. The FCC, under Ajit Pai, doesn't care what you think -- well, not unless you present "new facts into the record" or "serious legal arguments," and if it contradicts their freedom-only-for-corporations philosophy, then not then, either, really. Still, duty is duty, and if we want actual local TV news stations to cover actual local TV news, then we have to fight for it, as we have to fight for anything worth having. Even if we must have right-wing windbags on the local news, they should be local right-wing windbags.
Meanwhile, the EPA Inspector General has been investigating Administrator Scott Pruitt's various spending habits, and Climate Hawks Vote helps you tell the IG's Office to expand its investigations into Mr. Pruitt's possible corruption. It sure doesn't look good for Mr. Pruitt once you add up his $40,000-plus "cone of silence" phonebooth, his rock star-style security entourage, his flying First Class on the taxpayer dime because one coach passenger cussed at him, and his $50-a-night-only-the-nights-you-stay condo he rented from an energy lobbyist's wife. But of course our President reportedly has Mr. Pruitt's back, and I doubt that'll change, since gutting regulations that actually help Americans is the one ideological cause to which our President will always remain a slave. So, as always, we must make the change.
Finally, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell the USDA to abandon plans to privatize and speed up hog slaughter inspections, then the National Employment Law Project still helps you do that. It seems like every time someone gets food poisoning it makes the news, so why would our government want to embrace policies that will inevitably result in more food poisoning? Pretty much for the reason I described in the previous paragraph: the current Administration believes that all regulations that actually help people must be destroyed, because regulations that help people invariably prevent corporate executives from gilding the plumbing in their 19th vacation homes, and when faced with the choice between the right not to be made sick by your food and the "right" to even more unearned money, our Administration will always choose the latter. Unless we get in their grills, that is.