Well, the House apparently plans to vote on H.Con.Res. 51 (which would end the war in Libya) today after all -- along with some watered-down version Mr. Boehner hopes will peel votes. You can thwart his machinations by writing or calling your Rep in support of H.Con.Res. 51. Note that even long-time Republican fool Dan Burton of Indiana is a co-sponsor of H.Con.Res. 51, and that Arizona Senate candidate Jeff Flake (currently also a Republican House Rep, though rather less a fool than Dan Burton) also supports the bill, saying "Republicans have been too eager to support some military ventures abroad. And this, I think, is perhaps a little more consistent with traditional conservatism." Naturally I do wonder where this wise counsel was when a Republican President started all these wars, but I'll take it now. Especially since Mr. Boehner won't.

Meanwhile, FAIR helps you tell the "liberal" media to start covering liberal alternatives to the Ryan budget. For too long most Americans have thought the Ryan budget -- that "serious," "bold" document which cuts taxes for the rich and cuts taxes for corporations and privatizes Medicare without even reducing its cost -- is the only game in town. But the Progressive Caucus in the House released a "People's Budget" at the same time, and while the "People's Budget" isn't progressive enough for me, it would raise taxes on the wealthy, it would enact a financial speculation tax, and it would balance the budget in 10 years without repeatedly showing the needy the back of its hand. Moreover, liberal alternatives to OMG CUT SPENDING NOW!!!!!! are quite popular with, you know, the American people. But of course the "liberal" media won't cover a liberal alternative to the Ryan budget -- unless we shame them into doing so. I'm going to remain an optimist and assume any of them have any shame.

Meanwhile, if you haven't addressed oil tax loopholes with your Senators, the Sierra Club still helps you tell your Senators to close tax loopholes for oil corporations. If your Senators are writing you back, they may be citing the "need" to encourage drilling in the U.S. to reduce oil dependence. Of course that's bunk -- oil corporations would rather hold on to land and not drill on it precisely so they can write it off on their taxes -- but, more precisely, it's beside the point. Why on earth must large, profitable corporations get billions of dollars in tax breaks they clearly don't need? And why do we give the tax breaks as an "incentive" for good behavior, rather than, I don't know, giving tax breaks after good behavior? I mean, you don't give your kid his cookies and then hope he does his homework, do you?

Finally, some good news: the Supreme Court may have ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns, but shareholders at some big corporations are fighting back by demanding more disclosure of their corporation's political spending. Shareholder resolutions can be considerably more powerful than you might think: if a shareholder resolution even gets 25 or 30% of the vote, the CEOs get antsy, because that represents a large chunk of shareholders who might suddenly sell their stock and embarrass the hell out of the company, and then the CEO will have to explain what went wrong. And this is a welcome development, because for too long right-wingers have told us that a corporation only has an obligation to its shareholders, while they've never compelled corporations to tell their shareholders very much of anything (other than financial information). I hope we will soon see that this is not now, nor has ever been, a world where love of money is all.