Thieves in the Temple.

Soft shock.

Mr. Obama again pledged to get the South Korea "free" trade deal done, this time saying the pact would "support" American jobs. I guess it's something that he finds it distasteful to say it would "save" American jobs, but that doesn't make it a good deal. The KFTA would cost America almost 160,000 jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The pact would also let Korean corporations excuse themselves from American law whenever it helps their profits. And Sen. Portman (R-OH) plans to sponsor a resolution granting "fast-track" authority to Mr. Obama to ram the deal through Congress. A Senator from Ohio would do this, as his visibly pro-fair trade Democratic colleague is up in 2012? That's the chutzpah of a Senator who beat an almost nonexistent opponent by 20 points. So firedoglake helps you oppose Mr. Obama's "free" trade deal with South Korea.

No doubt you've heard about all the chaos in Egypt over the past week, and you may also have heard that the ruling Mubarak regime shut down all cell phone and internet communication in the country right before cracking down on protestors, this after arresting opposition figures who'd spoken out online. (Memo to Glenn Beck: that's what a "government takeover of the internet" looks like.) It gets better: Boeing-owned Narus of Sunnyvale (not Sunnydale), CA sold Egypt deep packet inspection equipment that tracks internet and cell phone traffic. Naturally Narus suggests their technology only aims to help corporations "monetize" internet traffic, not to help governments oppress their citizens. In other news, monkeys fly out of my butt. Free Press helps you demand that Congress set very high standards for the use of DPI technology, so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. Naive, you say? We get nothing when we demand less than the best.

Finally, you ought to know how the filibuster reform fight went. It didn't go very well; the Democrats who "feared" that if they changed the rules, then Republicans would go ahead and change the rules, too, won the day. No rational observer would see the fight this way, of course -- Republicans didn't wait for Democrats to start placing holds on bills and nominees they didn't like before they did it, and they filibustered everything this past term, which Democrats hadn't done before, either. And, er, winning a "gentleman's agreement" that the filibuster wouldn't be reformed by majority vote this Congress or next is just that, an agreement between men who fancy themselves as "gentlemen" when they're not. As I said before, getting rid of secret holds isn't a small thing. But failing to reform the filibuster when you have the chance is a small thing, and done by small men. I wonder why I expected better from them.

I'm a spider.

Sens. Cantwell (D-WA) and Franken (D-MN) have introduced the Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011, which would ban certain anti-net neutrality practices -- such as prioritizing among content and charging content providers for expanded access -- while also extending net neutrality protections to wireless providers. The Republican establishment won't like it, because it doesn't let corporations do whatever they want, and the Tea Party establishment won't like it, because the corporations told them not to like it. But a lot of rank-and-file Republicans and Tea Partiers will like it, because it does promote freedom -- the freedom of the individual consumer, that is. The consumer expects to be able to go anywhere they want on the internet, and should continue to do so. And Verizon dares sue the FCC over its weak net neutrality rules because it violates their First Amendment rights to free association? Their plans to make the internet just like cable TV violate my First Amendment rights to free association, frankly, and I suspect anyone who uses the internet will feel the same. I think this bill merits a call to your Reps and Senators.

Meanwhile, the Obama Department of Education has proposed a "gainful employment" rule, which would force higher education institutions to turn out students who can gain employment and pay off their student loans or else risk losing federal funding. You've no doubt seen internet ads telling us that the "gainful employment" rule would deny two million students the opportunity to go to college, but those two million students go to for-profit, higher education institutions heavy on "career education" programs (places like DeVry and Argosy), where a disproportionate percentage of students simply stop paying off their loans. You know, because they can't. Because they don't get the better jobs they were promised. In other words, the rule doesn't "deny" two million students the opportunity to go to college, but would give those two million kids a better shot at a good college, by demanding more of the college they attend. I mean, if you're trying to get a better job, and the place you go in order to make yourself more likely to get a better job routinely fails to make you more likely to get a better job, and still saddles you with debt, why on earth should the taxpayers support the place that screwed you? I'd think supporting the "gainful employment" rule would be very fiscally-conservative of you. So Color of Change helps you tell the Obama Administration not to fund bad education programs. No matter how much the for-profit schools try to swamp us with their bad advice.

Wonderful world, beautiful people.

The Democrats are showing signs of weakness on filibuster reform, which nobody could have predicted -- nobody except anybody who draws breath, that is. Democrats still plan to hamstring Senators from putting secret holds on bills, and may even end the practice of "rotating" holds on bills (cf. the Local Community Radio Act), and these are not small things, but now they're not planning to make a filibuster a real filibuster -- they're just extracting a promise from Republicans not to filibuster so damn much in exchange for more consideration of Republican amendments. After all, when have Republicans ever broken a promise? Time to get on the horn to your Senators and give them what-for. And let them know that you don't care if these rules rebound against Democrats starting in 2012. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Public Citizen still helps you oppose the "free" trade deal with South Korea. You and I know this "free" trade deal will destroy American jobs and subjugate American law to Korean corporations' desire for profit, and most Americans agree with us. And we know that in the recent past, "free" trade agreements have had a tough time passing even in Republican Congresses. And we also know that this particular Republican House would like to deny Mr. Obama any victories. But we should never underestimate politicians' ability to sell out to their corporate paymasters, nor should we underestimate their ability to cite the bad economy and the need to compete. Especially that last one -- you don't need to compete with corporations who get fat off slave wages, you need to keep them out of your country. And the really bad news? Even worse "free" trade agreements are on tap, all coming with the same excuses. So give your Reps a holler.

Finally, the Afghan Congress did pass the Elimination of Violence Against Women Act in 2009, a first step toward recognizing women's rights in Afghanistan -- yet women still go to jail for resisting abuse, enslavement, and forced marriage, all of which the EVAW outlaws. Does that make sense to you? I didn't think so. The law still limits a woman's ability to leave a home and still permits the husband to withhold financial support from his wife if she won't have sex with him, so enforcing the law isn't exactly a high bar to meet. Thus the Afghan Women's Justice Project helps you tell Messrs. Obama and Karzai to enforce the law. Mr. Obama might consider this a teachable moment -- that when you pass a law, you kinda have to enforce it. Or he might disappoint us, again. But at least he'll know we're watching.

Several arrows later.

You've heard by now that House Republicans dream of cutting "non-security" spending back to 2008 levels. And you know what that means: they'll do nothing about all that waste and fraud in defense and homeland security, while cutting vital programs in housing, health care, and transportation. And ain't that always the way? They try to balance the budget on your back, not on the backs of their corporate paymasters. But NETWORK, the national Catholic social justice lobby, helps you send a simple message to your House Reps: "The burden of deficit reduction should not fall on programs that provide critical support for our most vulnerable families and communities. Please do not single out these programs for cuts, while exempting the huge amount of defense spending. Responsible deficit reduction must consider cuts to military spending, and new ways to raise needed tax revenue from those who can afford to pay." You can add to that if you like, but I think it's pretty elegant.

Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council mulls a resolution demanding that new Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem halt immediately. But dig this: though the U.S. has made the same demand, Mr. Obama is under heavy pressure to instruct his U.N. Ambassador to veto the resolution -- which would, of course, kill it, since any U.N. Security Council member has veto power over resolutions. Why Mr. Obama would ever oppose a resolution echoing his stated policy oh yeah that's not as unprecedented as it sounds. In any case, Just Foreign Policy and Jewish Voice for Peace help you urge Mr. Obama to support the resolution. It doesn't sound like much, but it is, since the U.S. has long been in the habit of vetoing resolutions like this. And let me say one more time that being a friend to Israel does not demand that we rubber-stamp whatever Israel wants to do. It's just like being a friend to anyone else.

Finally, closer to home, new Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett has vowed to reverse the moratorium on new drilling in Pennsylvania state forests. You know what happens next: more money for big corporations, less pristine land, more polluted air, more tap water you can light on fire. And Pennsylvania still doesn't have a severance tax for natural gas drillers, like every other state that drills like mad. Why should the state government give away all its advantages? Are gas drillers going to pull out their five hundred mile-long drills and set up shop in Ohio? Anyway, Penn Environment helps you tell Gov. Corbett not to repeal the moratorium on new drilling; the letter they offer is a bit terse, but you can add to it. The gas drillers can already drill across huge swaths of the state. How much is enough for them?

The great leveler.

Americans for Financial Reform helps you write your state Attorney General about the foreclosure crisis. Some forty state Attorneys General have sued big banks for foreclosing on homes without clearly demonstrating that they even own the homes, but the problems are even deeper than that -- big banks aren't following rules (or adhering to their own agreements) that force them to modify mortgages, either. You may tell your AGs that mortgage servicers must offer sustainable loan modifications -- including lower interest rates and principal reductions -- and should not be allowed to foreclose on a property while also pursuing a modification review. You may also tell them that mortgage servicers must give remedies to homeowners who have already lost homes because banks disregarded the law. Banks, of course, will pressure AGs to let them off easy, even after all the wreckage they've caused. But I think you-do-wrong-you-fix-it is a pretty simple concept, and I'm hopeful that state Attorneys General agree.

Meanwhile, the House Republicans have introduced H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, but it's considerably worse than its title. H.R. 3 wouldn't just make bans on federal funding for abortions permanent -- it would extend that ban deep into the private health care system, going so far as to prohibit deductions for any medical expenses relating to abortion care. And the Republicans wrote the bill vaguely enough (as they always did back in the day!) that reasonable people don't know for sure where the prohibitions end. But you know, there's a lesson in here for Democrats, if they're willing to learn -- you always ask for more than you think you're going to get. In the meantime, I think opposing H.R. 3 is worth a phone call to your Reps. Abortion is still legal, after all, and I think abortion opponents have a moral duty to make it illegal, rather than just make it impossible for working-class women (and not rich women) to get it.

Finally, the USDA stands ready to approve Monsanto's GMO alfalfa, possibly with "geographic restrictions and isolation distances" that the wind will overcome sooner rather than later. We've been fighting against Monsanto's Frankenfalfa for a while, and for good reason: alfalfa is one of the most common legumes on the planet, and is a staple food for cattle. You already know that Monsanto's Frankenfalfa can cross over and invade fields with organic alfalfa, thus rendering the animals who eat it, and who produce meat and milk, essentially inorganic. You may not know, however, that Monsanto created their Frankenfalfa so it could resist their own powerful herbicide Roundup, which itself helps creates weeds that are far more resistant and require far more powerful and dangerous herbicides in turn. Yikes, why do corporations have so much trouble just growing food? CREDO helps you tell Mr. Obama to stop the approval of GMO alfalfa. He has no particular legal authority to do so, I suppose, but I'm sure a phone call from Mr. Obama would carry some weight with Mr. Vilsack.

UPDATE. I'm having trouble using the CREDO link in the third paragraph -- and I'm not really sure why they need your email address and zip code anyway. You could just call Mr. Obama at 202.456.1111 or, if that fails, leave a comment at the White House's website.

Dry land.

Consumers Union helps you tell your state legislators to stop outrageous health insurance rate hikes. State regulators haven't done much to rein in health insurance premiums, but (as we've seen in California, with Blue Shield's planned 59% rate hike on individual premiums) that's mainly because they don't have the tools. Consumers Union urges you to tell your state legislators to introduce a bill that would (among other things) make health insurers justify their rate hikes, force hearings on rate hikes on individuals larger than 10%, and give states the right to disapprove rate hikes. You'd even ask for states to take corporate profits into account when deciding whether to approve a rate hike, because when health insurers hike rates into the stratosphere, it's often not about spiraling health care costs -- it's about stealing as much of your money as they can for as long as they can. A national single-payer system would take care of most of these problems, but we need to give states tools in the meantime. These are some good ones.

Meanwhile, CREDO helps you tell the EPA to ban (and then properly investigate) a pesticide that might be responsible for wiping out honey bees. (The absence of honey bees, as we discussed years ago, would be a very bad thing for a lot of crops, and thus also for us.) The pesticide in question is clothiandin, manufactured by Bayer CropScience, and agribusinesses use it to treat corn and canola crop seeds, among others. But dig this: the EPA only just approved clothiandin last year, after permitting its use in America "conditionally" for seven years. It gets worse: the EPA gave final approval of the pesticide on the basis of exactly one study, conducted by -- you guessed it -- Bayer. It gets even worse --scientists from both Bayer and the EPA knew the study was bunk, but the EPA still approved the pesticide. Now, none of this compels us to conclude, absolutely, that clothiandian causes (or helps cause) Colony Collapse Disorder. But we have good reason to think it might be responsible, so we ought to stop using it until we know for sure. Seems to me that would be the conservative thing to do.

Finally, American Rights at Work joins the drive for filibuster reform. They remind us that the Employee Free Choice Act passed the House repeatedly in the latter part of the past decade and also had large majorities in favor in the Senate -- but never became law, because filibusters are so easy to start and maintain these days. You don't even have to talk to sustain a filibuster nowadays! You can raise your finger, say you're filibustering, and then go off to the theatre, while the rest of the nation awaits a vote on food safety legislation so they don't get poisoned by the next head of lettuce they buy. Of course, S. Res. 10 would also end secret holds and end the practice of filibustering the start of debate, which also contributed to the complete slowdown of work in the Senate over the last year-plus. I must say it's encouraging that (after the first week) I've heard almost nothing from right-wingers about how S. Res. 10 will cripple minority rights or whatever. I just hope that silence doesn't presage a truly demoralizing Democrat cave.

Penny rants for Thursday, January 20, 2011: special "the media still sucks!" edition.

FCC OK's Comcast-NBC merger; media reform activists now missing even more teeth. Just as only Nixon could go to China, apparently only a Democratic President and a Democratic FCC Chair could deliver so much of the people's internet to the corporations. They'll claim they were beseiged by corporate interests, but last I looked, corporations could not vote. Last I looked, also, actual bipartisan majorities -- of actual people, as opposed to corporate "people" -- stood against media consolidation, just as they stood against corporate control of the internet, another area in which the FCC didn't act on the people's behalf. One of two things is true about Mr. Obama and his minions: they obsess so much over "the art of the possible" that they are too timid to broaden the palette of the possible with good works -- or that's all just what they want us to think. Either way, their shame is infinite and irredeemable.

Meanwhile, I thought I dispatched Sarah Palin's persecution-complex-or-that's-what-she-wants-us-to-think last week, but in the face of shame, too many right-wingers just double down. "Pogroms" against conservatives? It's like they want to be Jews without doing any of the hard work that comes with being a Jew. Let the record show that liberals have not come together in the streets and burned down right-wing businesses, homes, and churches, but have merely criticized right-wingers, and criticism, last I looked, was not the same as vandalism, murder, or terrorism. And the sum of the Washington Times's evidence of the "pogrom"? An indeterminate number of undescribed "baseless charges of racism, sexism, bigotry, Islamophobia and inciting violence" (they must be baseless, because they didn't bother to list them!) and Paul Krugman calling Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck "hate-mongers." Being called a "hate-monger," again: not the same as vandalism, murder, or terrorism. Yikes, what if we started calling them really bad words? You know, like "Communist" or "Nazi"?

I'd just got done talking about the drama and spectacle and emotional manipulation in contemporary media when Bill O'Reilly lamented that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann wouldn't come on his show even after he defended them. Why would he have them on, you ask? So they could say, "I'm going to come on and say how this has affected me personally." Jesus Mary and Joseph what normal human being could possibly care about such a thing? The media rarely if ever asks average citizens like us how we feel when another corporation lays off another couple thousand workers just like us. If Mr. O'Reilly were to ask Ms. Bachmann or Mrs. Palin how they "feel" about their largely self-inflicted crises, he'd just be emotionally manipulating his viewers -- he'd be stoking the rage in their votaries, and training the rest of his viewers to be passive spectators watching endless overblown dramas. Our media should be above that, even though it's easier (and cheaper) to chase spectacle around all day.

Finally, I'm happy to report that I've found a truly great television program that savages our media culture, and as usual for these times, it's a comedy -- Onion SportsDome. It may not just be the funniest program I've ever seen, it might also be the most unnerving. Take the "Who Would You Kill" segment, for example -- which you shouldn't let children watch, unless you're going to sit with them and explain to them why this isn't a good way to be. In a time where saying you wish Dennis Kucinich would "burst into flames" isn't a career-killer, watching grown "senior analysts" try to one-up each other about which sports figures they're going to horribly maim and murder just isn't as far from real life as we need it to be. The less courageous among us might complain that satire like "Who Would You Kill" might, you know, give people ideas. I'd respond that understanding satire is a fairly necessary critical thinking tool -- and that anyone who listens to their friends and neighbors talk knows that people have these ideas already. And the way things are going, it won't be very long before the nth iteration of Glenn Beck seriously goes on about which Democrat he wants to kill. Holding up an only slightly-warped mirror to media culture, as SportsDome does, might help us avert this catastrophe.

This is happening.

Now I'm hearing that a few Democrats are afraid of reforming the filibuster because, you know, if they change the rules, Republicans can change the rules, too. Because, as we know, the Republicans have never changed the rules on their own. Please understand that I don't really think the Democrats' problem is cowardice -- I really think the problem is that they're just the pro-choice wing of the Republican party and looking like a bunch of cowards lets people think they care about doing the right thing when they fail to do the right thing. None of that matters: if you communicate your will as your duty commands you, they'll do the right thing, because they'll have no damn choice. Common Cause helps you demand that they reform the filibuster and get some work done for once. The relevant bill is S. Res. 10, a Tom Udall (D-NM) production, now with 24 co-sponsors.

Here's something I've been meaning to find for a long, long time: Commercial Alert's petition supporting the Parents' Bill of Rights. I've spoken at length lately about how the "liberal" media's lies bear some responsibility for the spate of right-wing violence over the past few years. But the "liberal" media also bears some responsibility for the commercialization of children, as described in Juliet Schor's excellent 2002 book Born to Buy. The Parents' Bill of Rights asks you to support a set of bills that must be dead letters by now, but that doesn't make them bad ideas: banning advertising directed at children under 12, keeping ads out of public schools, and giving communities air time to respond to ads (to name just three) would all help take power away from corporations and give it back to parents. Parents have the right to mold their children into the best people they can be. But corporations prevent them from doing the best they can, and we need to change that.

Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the Citizens United v. the FEC decision, in which the Supreme Court asserted that corporations have the rights of people, as nefarious a decision as the Court has spewed forth in the last century. Really, an artificial construction, which hardly even qualifies as a thing, having the rights of people? All so corporations can continue to get away with murder by killing jobs, stealing wealth from workers, and despoiling the environment. Public Citizen will sponsor some events commemorating the historic decision in Washington, D.C. today and tomorrow, if you can get down there. And if you haven't signed their petition calling for a Constitutional amendment declaring that folks are folks and corporations ain't, here it is.

I will remain.

The House votes on Obamacare repeal today, but I'd rather talk about a bill sponsored by Vermont's Congressional delegation, the State Leadership in Healthcare Act. Not yet on thomas.loc.gov, the bill would (per this draft at Sen. Sanders's website) allow states to opt out of Obamacare on the first day of 2014, rather than the first day of 2017. Sens. Wyden (D-OR) and Scott Brown (R-MA) have mooted a similar bill. One potential aim of the bill: to work around the question of whether the "individual mandate" is constitutional, since the individual mandate also kicks in on the first day of 2014. But the Vermont legislature has seriously mooted a Medicare-for-all program, which is very likely the more urgent aim. I support this latter aim, and you might, too, with a phone call to your Reps today. Such a call might suggest that there's more going on in the world of their constituents than whether Barack Obama is up or down today.

Speaking of health care at the state level: Blue Shield planned a 59% rate hike on individual insurance premiums in California. Since then, California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones asked for a delay in that rate hike so he could more closely review it, and what did Blue Shield say? Nah. Why would it say anything else? It's a corporation, and it only cares about money. So CALPIRG helps you support AB 52, which would give state regulators (such as Mr. Jones) the power to block health insurance rate increases. It's hardly an unreasonable request. If an insurer wants to make a reasonable rate hike, how is it a burden to justify it? Answers including the phrase "because it costs the companies money" will not be admitted -- after all, "because it costs our consumers money" doesn't seem to have swayed Blue Shield.

Many rivers to cross.

The National Women's Law Center helps you tell President Obama to oppose cutting Social Security benefits in the name of deficit reduction during his State of the Union address next week. You know the drill: people rely on Social Security, women and people of color especially, and Social Security is still $2.6 trillion in the black and thus doesn't contribute one penny to the deficit. You may also want to remind him that he campaigned on raising the payroll tax ceiling (currently, no income over $107,800 has a Social Security tax levied upon it). But here's another meme you might try out: the numbers may have changed in Congress, but the people's will has not. Being at least as smart as I am, I'm sure Mr. Obama's thought of it. But the important thing is that you, the people, thought of it, and reminded him it's true.

Meanwhile, Consumers Union has created a model Medical Harm Disclosure Act for state legislatures, in order to require hospitals to document and report publicly incidents of patient harm. Lots of things can happen to you in hospitals -- having the wrong arm amputated is, of course, rare, but getting an infection while in a hospital, sadly, is rather less rare, as is getting the wrong medicine prescribed, getting a bad IV stick, or getting pressure ulcers, all of which (and I know this from experience) are avoidable. Also, the people's will is at your back here: over 9 in 10 Americans think hospitals should be made to report serious medical errors, while over 6 in 10 think such reports must be made public. Some may argue that a hospital's "privacy rights" take precedence over any reporting requirements, but of course I don't believe the rights of a thing take precedence over the rights of people. So Consumers Union helps you ask your state legislators to pass a medical harm disclosure law.

Readings for Monday, January 17. 2011.

United for a Fair Economy has released their annual "State of the Dream" report; you may find a summary of its contents here. You'll note the expected findings -- that black and Latino folk generally don't make as much as white folk (at least at the median income level) and that black and Latino folk don't hold nearly as much wealth as white folk, either. But I didn't expect (and I'm a little ashamed about this) that the right wing's most fervent recent crusades -- against unemployment insurance, public sector workers, and "entitlement" spending -- just happen to make matters worse for blacks and Latinos, as well. The far right will no doubt rail against any new charges of racism, but I don't think the relatively low rates of employment for blacks and Latinos in the private sector, for example, make the private sector look good. And, really, we don't want to pay public health inspectors like private sector janitors. Hell, we don't want to pay private sector janitors like private sector janitors.

Meanwhile, Bill Quigley at Counterpunch provides an even more expansive snapshot of how we've failed Dr. King's vision. Dr. King, of course, did not limit his dream to that of racial equality, but of defeating militarism and materialism as well, and the "liberal" media has by and large "forgotten" how much they despised him when he railed against the evils of corporatism. I feel compelled to add that redlining (the common practice of herding black folk into specific neighborhoods so they don't "bring down the property values" in others) hasn't just made targeting minorities with subprime loans like "shooting fish in a barrel." It's also given more blacks cancer and asthma, as they're forced to live near industrial plants the white folks don't have to live near.

What is to be done, part 226.

I haven't been all that impressed with the linkage of Sarah Palin to the Tucson shootings. There. I said it, and I'm glad. She sure hasn't helped her cause by stoking her persecution complex the way she always does, but I still think the connection between her and Mr. Loughner is rather tenuous (do we know for sure that he obsessed over SarahPAC maps?), and (more importantly) I think we've used her a bit too much to stand in for the real problem: the manipulative media culture which she represents. And, perhaps not surprisingly, said media culture has misdiagnosed the problem as a "lack of civility in public discourse." The problem isn't that our politicians and talking heads aren't "civil" enough, or use too much violent language -- it's that they're bought-and-paid-for liars, doing the bidding of their corporate paymasters.

The arrest of one Charles Habermann, for threatening to kill Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), instructs us more, I think, about the real problem with the media. Mr. Habermann thought Mr. McDermott a "Communist," which, not surprisingly, is a word many right-wing commentators have used to describe Mr. Obama and other Democrats, despite the fact that Communism fell over 20 years ago and most Democrats today stand to the right of Richard Nixon on domestic policy matters. Mr. Habermann is also apparently concerned about taxes, though federal income taxes were considerably higher when he was 8 years old and even higher than that when he was 2 -- and, not surprisingly, the Koch brothers-funded Tea Party movement received a lot of uncritical coverage on "liberal" media outlets over the last two years for protesting "high taxes." And, finally, Mr. Habermann was outraged about Mr. Obama's right-wing health care overhaul, which the "liberal" media covered almost exclusively as if it were the most left-wing option anyone could imagine -- even as clear majorities in poll after poll preferred single-payer. Now, if Mr. McDermott really was a Communist, really did believe in usurious taxation, or had really fought for single-payer health care, I wouldn't be concerned about Mr. Habermann's "lack of civility" (though, of course, I'd still be concerned about his alleged criminal behavior). But I submit that the media did enable (if not outright manufacture) Mr. Habermann's grievances.

Don't misunderstand me -- no "liberal" media knucklehead should go to jail over anything I've just described, and I assume there must be something unique to folks such as Mr. Habermann and Mr. Loughner that makes them break the law and foment tragedy while the vast majority of their ideological brethren get all the catharsis they need from watching Glenn Beck's clown act. But a sane, moral, and healthy media -- one that gives people the information they need to know, without all the drama and spectacle and emotional manipulation of today's sick, immoral, and decadent media -- is an end worth fighting for in and of itself, and would allow us to isolate sociopaths a lot better than we do now. And the first step toward a sane, moral, and healthy media is to loosen the bonds between the media and corporate control. After all, all the media behavior I described in the previous paragraph played into the corporate madness for mammon, did it not? The stock market continues to break records, and corporate profits were just at an all-time high this past quarter, all while official unemployment remained a hair under 10 percent.

Loosening the bonds between corporations and media is a big job, and despite large Democratic majorities over the last two years (including, you know, that crucial one-seat majority in the President's office), it has, if anything, become an even bigger job. Fighting corporate control of the media begins with all the things we've been doing here over the years -- demanding a la carte cable packaging and solid net neutrality protections and more low-power FM stations, while opposing consolidation and cross-ownership of media outlets. The fight continues with much more comprehensive policy prescriptions -- Constitutional amendments preventing corporations from enjoying the rights of personhood and from owning one another. Over the next few weeks, I plan to codify these ideas, and others, into a Newswatcher's Bill of Rights (suggestions for a better title greatly appreciated), which I hope will focus our thoughts more concisely on a matter that, quite frankly, has broad and deep support across the ideological spectrum. Look out for it.

Distant early warning.

This didn't take long: MetroPCS, America's fifth largest cell phone carrier, plans to limit customer access to any site that uses "advanced HTML," including Netflix and Skype. Basically you'll be paying through the nose for those services, and folks with the cheapest data plan won't be able to use anything but YouTube. Oddly enough, the "net neutrality" "rules" the FCC adopted last month just so happen to expressly prohibit phone carriers from blocking competing video/voice applications. I guess MetroPCS plans to argue that Skype really isn't a "competitor" of theirs. Anyway, Free Press helps you tell the FCC to investigate MetroPCS's plans. We ought to be able to do whatever we like on the internet, and we ought to be able to do it on our phones. And the idea that the phone companies can't handle that, and need to selectively throttle network activity as a result? Well, that sure doesn't sound like the can-do spirit that makes this nation great.

Meanwhile, the Oil Spill Commission put out its final report this week, proposing many reforms that would protect Americans from future spillageddons -- stronger safety and environmental standards, bigger fines for oil polluters, and the creation of Regional Citizens' Advisory Councils, to name three. Ah, but here's the rub: Congress has to put these reforms in a bill and pass the bill in order for them to become law. You might think, after all the bad PR oil companies got in 2010, that the new Republican majority wouldn't dare discard (or water down) the Oil Spill Commission's reforms. If so, I fear you would be underestimating the new Republican majority in this regard. Sure, they're trying to appear all statesman-like this week, what with recent events and all, but I guarantee you they'll be back next week protecting their paymasters. Of course, I'd be happy to be wrong, and I'll be happy to say I'm wrong if I'm wrong. Public Citizen helps you tell Congress to do the right thing.

In other news, Elle magazine went and bleached up yet another actress of color (Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, who hails from India) on its January cover. I really thought we, as a culture, were past thinking that whiter is prettier than any other skin color, but I've been getting far too many of these action alerts over the past six months. All right, all right, yes I'd consider "one" to be far too many action alerts, but I've gotten rather more than that. I hate to say it, but a lot of girls still look at Elle, and seeing a non-white actress with paler skin and redder hair than normal will make them think they're just not as pretty if they're not as white. So change.org helps you tell Elle to stop with the Optic-white-is-the-right-white shenanigans already. I'd hate to think all of this has anything to do with the skin-whitening industry (yes, industry) in India. That's advertiser money I'd be ashamed to take.

Finally, CREDO helps you tell Senate Democrats not to water down filibuster reform in order to please Republicans. After all, they don't have to -- when the Senate comes back in a little less than two weeks, they'll still officially be on their first day of business, and can thus change the rules with only a majority vote. Republicans will whine, but I don't care about coddling everyone's whining so much as I care about doing the right thing, and the reforms Sens. Udall (D-NM) and Merkley (D-OR) have proposed will make the Senate run better. Senators won't be able to filibuster the start of debate, like they can do now. Senators will have to actually filibuster, actually stand up and read the damn phone book, rather than simply refuse to debate a bill and then hop off to dinner. And Senators won't be able to secretly hold bills anymore, rather than be little one-man dictatorships. I suppose the "liberal" media still has around two weeks to recast all of these common-sense reforms as the outrageous demands of the liberal base, which is how they scare people from doing anything right. But if they do that, they're wrong, and they don't deserve to win, and we shouldn't let them win.

Another great day for freedom.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has introduced H.R. 96, the Internet Freedom Act, and, as you might expect, the bill promotes the opposite of "internet freedom." The bill would prohibit the FCC from issuing any regulations regarding the internet -- which might be a bit troublesome, since the FCC has to issue regulations just to enforce existing laws. Memo to Mr. Genachowski: this is what happens when you compromise with people who want everything their way -- you write industry-friendly "net neutrality" "rules," and then the Republicans try to hamstring you from doing anything else, ever. Opposing this Orwellian monstrosity merits a phone call to your Reps. You know what else merits a phone call to your Reps? The opportunity to tell them, if they're Republicans, that net neutrality is not "government control of the internet"; it's the government preventing corporations from controlling the internet, so consumers can control their internet experience. Feel free to add and the Christian Coalition agrees with me if they're the kind who talk a lot of smack about God and stuff.

Meanwhile, just as I was lamenting having to collect my disparate thoughts on the Arizona shooting, here comes Sarah Palin to focus them. A "blood libel" against her? Really? Journalists were accusing her of killing children to use their blood to bake matzoh balls? (For your reference, an actual blood libel looks more like this.) But even worse than the inevitability that the "liberal" media will now think it's OK to use the words "blood libel" to refer to just about anything, even worse than the ongoing persecution complex of an individual who made over $30 million last year, nay, even worse than her blithe dismissal of the gold standard-obsessed Mr. Loughner as "apparently apolitical," is her absolute conviction that all crimes "begin and end" with criminals. Crimes "begin and end" with criminals only for the purpose of prosecution, and though I'd have fought to the death to prevent Sarah Palin from going to jail for using politically charged rhetoric in advance of a shooting, saying no one bears any responsibility for the actions of others in their community is just another way of saying there's no such thing as community. I wonder why she would want us to believe that.

Adventures in solitude.

Rep. Lamborn (R-CO) has introduced two bills (H.R. 68 and H.R. 69) defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 2013 and eliminating "certain public radio funding" immediately. H.R. 69 (the public radio bill) would like you to believe that the deficit is the main reason for ending such funding. But this can't possibly be true, since NPR received less than $2.5 million in CPB grants in 2009, and the CPB itself gets less than half a billion dollars from the federal government. (The federal budget deficit, as you know, is well over one trillion dollars.) You may call your Reps and Senators and tell them you oppose both bills, mainly because public broadcasting and public radio still prove very popular, no matter what controversy right-wingers might manufacture against them -- but also because Mr. Lamborn's "deficit-reduction" talk is horsedoodle, and the people deserve better than that from their Congressfolk.

Asking current Reps to give up their government health care before repealing Mr. Obama's far-from-liberal health care bill might be a stunt, but I'm going to encourage you to sign on to it, because it does speak to the very soul of Republican hypocrisy. A few Republicans, to their credit, have elected to forego that very nice government health care they don't believe in, but the rest are tripping over their own tongues. You probably know that Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) ran on repealing "Obamacare" and then whined that he had to wait a month to get his own health care. But you may not know that Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA) thinks his health care is "open to the public," when it's not, or that Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) pretends the choice is between his government plan and no health care. What are we going to do with these people? Besides make sure they don't win any more elections, I mean?

Meanwhile, House Republicans have introduced a trio of bills designed to cripple the EPA. H.R. 97, a Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) production, would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act; H.R. 153, a Ted Poe (R-TX) production, would block the EPA from using funds to implement a cap-and-trade system; and H.R. 199, a Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) production, would delay any EPA greenhouse gas regulation for two years. I don't personally care about H.R. 153, because I'm not a cap-and-trade guy. I am a regulation guy, though, so I'd urge you to call your Reps and register your opposition to H.R. 97 and H.R. 199. That last item might actually have legs, since it mirrors a legislative priority of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). Certainly the large amount of coal mining that goes on in West Virginia has nothing to do with it.

Finally, I offer my condolences to the families of those six folks who died in Arizona on Saturday, and I also wish for a speedy recovery for the dozen-plus others who were injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D), who remains in critical condition after being shot in the head.

Is it tomorrow yet?

You may recall that Anthem Blue Cross tried to jack up health care premiums on individual policies by 39% last year in California. And they got so much bad PR -- they even dropped the rate hike proposal! -- that no one would ever try such a thing again, right? Well, not exactly. This year Blue Shield wants to raise rates on its individual policy-holders by as much as 59%. I'd feared insurance companies would spend their time jacking up rates before the Obama health care law's halfway decent provisions kicked in -- but that doesn't mean we have to take it. CALPIRG helps you tell California's new insurance commissioner to hold a public hearing on the matter. The Commissioner can't stop the rate hike, but he can embarrass the hell out of Blue Shield. And that might be all it takes.

Meanwhile, closer to home, Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe plans, once again, to introduce a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In some parts of Pennsylvania you can light your tap water on fire and in others your tap water might give you cancer, but Mr. Metcalfe doesn't care -- only sees one kind of enemy, apparently, the kind he thinks he can pick on to score political points. Now, even in a fairly regressive political climate such as Pennsylvania's, we've been able to beat back a gay marriage amendment three times in four years. But that's only because we stand up and speak out, so the ACLU of Pennsylvania helps you do that, again. And be warned: Mr. Metcalfe is now chair of the House Government committee in Pennsylvania, and soon plans to inflict Arizona-style immigration "reform" on the state. Like I said, the man just picks on people. Can't the good people of Butler County find someone better to represent their will?

Finally, I note that, though the Senate began discussing rules reform two days ago, it has adjourned until two Wednesdays from now; apparently they can still change the rules on the day they return, because they didn't meet for a full day this week and thus can count part of the next day as part of the first day. That's kinda lame on the face of it, but it could be even worse: I shudder to think that the Democrats have actually designed the reform effort to fail, because two weeks of actual days will pass between Day 1 and Day 1a, and that's plenty of time for the right wing to lie about what the Udall/Merkley reforms actually mean. David Waldman, who's as reliable a source on the inner workings of the sausage factory as anyone, still seems hopeful that at the end of the day we won't have secret holds anymore and that Senators who want to filibuster will actually have to stand up and filibuster. But I think this matter warrants more phone calls to your Senators. (The Senate has updated its contact info.)

All I want is a fighting chance.

On Sunday, economist James Galbraith called for the lowering of the Social Security retirement age for the next three years. While Mr. Galbraith worries that older workers will keep younger workers out of the workforce now that there aren't as many jobs, I worry about those older folks even getting jobs, when corporations often consider them unemployable. Either way, the proposal makes sense -- you get new workers into the workforce more easily and take pressure off older workers who might find no one wants to hire them. And those added expenditures, to pay the folks who elect to retire at 62 (again, only over the next three years)? Well, we could pay for them by raising the payroll tax ceiling above its absurdly low level -- currently the payroll tax doesn't affect any income over $106,800, which flies in the face of all morality and reason, not to put too fine a point on it. No force in the world prevents you from proposing these intiatives to your Reps and Senators via phone call. The "liberal" media will pretend you're a fool -- why, we have to raise the retirement age, because, you know, the deficit! -- but you and I know better.

Meanwhile, John Cole at Balloon Juice alerts us that the state of Pennsylvania, unlike other states, allows gas drillers to dump their wastewater right into the rivers and streams that provide drinking water for the citizenry. In some areas of Pennsylvania, you can light your tap water on fire, and it's nice to know that your tap water could also give you cancer. Pennsylvania state regulators have tightened regulations somewhat over the last year, but corporations continue to circumvent those regulations, just as you and I continue to eat and breathe. And, thanks to Tha Bush Mobb, the Clean Water Act exempts gas drillers from many of its relevant provisions. Sen. Casey's FRAC Act would have repealed those exemptions, but it's a dead letter now. Possibly he'll reintroduce it, but no law prevents you from calling for the repeal of Clean Water exemptions for gas drillers in the meantime. In your phone calls, you may want to refer to the expansive Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article which prompted Mr. Cole's post.

Some more.

Mr. Obama plans to submit his South Korean "free" trade deal to Congress very, very soon. He claims this "deal" will create American jobs without saying how, whereas the Economic Policy Institute predicts the "deal" will actually kill almost 160,000 American jobs. The "deal" also essentially exempts South Korean corporations from following U.S. law if it causes them any financial loss. And it allows foreign corporations to attack U.S. laws in foreign tribunals. And it explicitly bans anyone from enforcing the International Labor Organization Conventions. All this, apparently, so that South Korea will buy some 75,000 more American cars without enforcing their own safety, fuel economy, and emission standards. But look on the bright side: the President no longer has "fast-track" authority to enact "free" trade deals, because Congress let it lapse in 2007, and a bipartisan majority of Congressfolk almost certainly opposes the South Korean FTA. The trick, of course, is to remind them that supporting or opposing something just because it's an Obama initiative isn't their first duty; their first duty is to their constituents, who, also, almost certainly oppose the South Korean "free" trade deal by an even larger and more bipartisan margin. So Public Citizen helps you call your Congressfolk.

Meanwhile, word on the street is that Senate Republicans have actually come to Senate Democrats for a deal on filibuster reform. I put that in italics because I never thought I'd write it. Democrats have a one-day window to reorganize the Senate under new Senate rules which can be enacted by a simple majority, and all 53 remaining Democratic Senators have signed on to filibuster reform that would actually force Senators to stick around to filibuster, versus simply signaling that they won't allow a vote on a bill and then going out to dinner. But there's still a chance that the Democrats will cave because, you know, they're Democrats, so you might want to call Sen. Schumer (chair of the Rules Committee) at 202.224.6352 and tell him no deal with Republicans on the filibuster. And, uh, don't listen to Sen. Alexander's ramblings about how this could backfire on Democrats. Of course Republicans could, one day, have a majority again, and of course Democrats will be generally pretty spineless when they do just as they are when they don't, but the way Republicans acted during the last Congress -- performing actual "election nullification," Mr. Alexander, by filibustering dozens of bills and placing hundreds of secret holds on bills and nominees with broad bipartisan support -- was so shameful we must prevent it from happening again.

The past is a grotesque animal.

Did you know we just elected Paul Ryan (R-WI) President? Neither did I! And yet the new Republican House majority has proposed a rule giving the House Budget Committee Chair (who is Mr. Ryan) the power to set spending ceilings without a vote of the full House. Well, the full House would have to vote to cede Mr. Ryan that power, but after that? After that, you, the citizen, have no power to demand of your Representatives that they represent your will on spending, and that's far more undemocratic than using deem-and-pass to pass the health care law with a simple majority vote, which one Republican decried as "treasonous." Undoubtedly the Republicans will tell us that Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the House has to hold a vote on a budget. Presumably they also think that sounds anything other than cowardly or powermad. New House Speaker John Boehner's contact info is here. I think "this rule prevents the citizens from giving their honest counsel to their Representatives about spending" wins the argument, frankly.

Meanwhile, December 28, 2010 was a day ending in "y," so you know some putative Christian was feeling sorry for himself in print somewhere, and behold! Gary Bauer wrote something called "If Christians Were Treated Like Muslims," alleging that Christians don't enjoy the same benefits Muslims enjoy in America, like being looked at funny on airplanes by Juan Williams or getting routinely attacked by Pat Robertson. Luckily, Open Left's Paul Rosenberg absolutely eviscerates it. Long story short: "Because Christianity is so deeply woven into the fabric of American life -- including its many internal disagreements -- Bauer resents the fact that it makes him not feel special." (Italics, for once, in the original.) Clearly I haven't said enough lately that when the majority complains about how oppressed it is, I want to throw up.

The harder they come.

The last Congress postponed planned cuts in Medicare doctor payments for another year, but they still didn't fix the problem permanently, meaning seniors, veterans, and disabled folk will, in a year's time, have their health care threatened, again. I suppose it's good news that Congress found the will to put off the cuts despite a "liberal" media telling everyone that unemployment insurance and Medicare and Social Security (and not, for example, undertaxed executive pay) cause the deficit. But a far more reactionary Congress takes office this week. And with even Mr. Obama sounding the clarion call for deficit reduction on the people's backs, the new Congress might find cover to do far worse. But none of this matters; only the people's will matters. So the Patients' Action Network helps you tell Congress to fix Medicare doctor payments once and for all.

Meanwhile, the New York Times tells us that "Public Union Employees Face Rising Public Anger." Forty paragraphs later, I found the following evidence to support that thesis: a) a teacher who clashed with New Jersey Governor Christie earlier this year has since received an indeterminate number of nasty e-mails and facebook postings; b) a Washington Township retiree doesn't want public employees to give up their pensions but adds "don't ask for no more"; c) an unnamed retired cop thinks Mr. Christie should go after "free-loading freeholders" rather than teachers, and d) an Atlantic City card dealer says teachers have to "take it in the ear, too." To think that right-wingers have worked so hard to stoke this "public anger" and that is all they get! If the Times had found three New Jersey residents who'd said some variation of "yeah, times are bad, but if you work hard you should get a secure retirement," would it have presented a different article? I note, also, that the article twice counters the ridiculous public-employees-make-way-more-than-private-employees meme -- but not until after letting some Manhattan Institute fool tell us that "(p)ublic unions have had no natural adversary" in state governments. Always, they "forget" the corporation!

UPDATE. The Times headline is now "Public Workers Face Outrage as Budget Crises Grow." Less inaccurate, but still not useful -- I don't think public workers face "outrage" from anywhere other than the far right. The original headline still shows up as the page's title on my browser (as of 10.55 am EST).