The news media is pigging out (sorry, I’ll try to contain myself) with 24/7 coverage of the potential pandemic and breathless reports that this is the new Black Death and millions could die. According to MSNBC, “H1N1 swine flu is seen as the biggest risk since H5N1 avian flu re-emerged in 2003, killing 257 people of 421 infected in 15 countries. In 1968 a “Hong Kong” flu pandemic killed about 1 million people globally, and a 1957 pandemic killed about 2 million. Seasonal flu kills 250,000 to 500,000 people in a normal year, including healthy children in rich countries.” However, as I write this, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that, only 12 people have died so far of this outbreak of H1N1.

To put all of this in further perspective, it is useful to compare these numbers to the annual number of deaths from other causes. According to WHO:

• 1 million people die from malaria each year
• 2 million from AIDS
• 2 million from air pollution
• 7.4 million from cancer
• 17.5 million from cardiovascular disease
• 1.6 million from tuberculosis

In other words, we KNOW that 31.5 million people will die each year from causes that in large part could be prevented, but 7 deaths a pandemic makes? Have we, as Simon Jenkins suggests in the Guardian all gone demented? Perhaps. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that WHO knows what it is talking about and that a lot of people could get sick from this virus, the question then becomes whether it is the virus we should fear or our ability to react to it.

Like any other disease, the first question should always be what is causing it and how can we prevent it, not the pharmaceutical industry driven approach of how can we (profitably) treat it with drugs such as Tamiflu, which as I noted during the bird flu scare is made by a company in which former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield has a significant financial stake.

Another critical point is that unlike birds that can fly pretty much anywhere, human and pig interaction is for the most part limited to farms, especially factory farms and circumstantial evidence indicates that this outbreak may have originated at a Smithfield Foods facility in Perote, Mexico. Grist reports that, “Smithfield operates massive hog-raising operations Perote, Mexico, in the state of Vera Cruz, where the outbreak originated. The operations, grouped under a Smithfield subsidiary called Granjas Carroll, raise 950,000 hogs per year.” According to Grist, 30% of the population living near the plant have become ill with flu-like symptoms which they believe is due contamination from the hog factory.

But as Narco News points out, the real culprit in swine flu may be NAFTA which went into effect the same year that Smithfield opened its Mexican facility in the aftermath of being hit with huge fines for environmental pollution in the U.S., “The so-called “swine flu” exploded because an environmental disaster simply moved to Mexico where environmental and worker safety laws, if they exist, are not enforced against powerful multinational corporations.”

The issue of whether agri-business run factory farms are the source of the problem has been all but ignored by the U.S. media. Instead we are being told to stay home if sick and seek medical care if really sick. Nice advice presuming you have paid sick leave benefits and health insurance. And even for those able to seek medical care, there are real questions about the adequacy of whether our problem-plagued healthcare infrastructure to handle a massive additional medical incident. As John Nichols points out, we need to reinstate funding for pandemic response; disaster preparedness and infrastructure maintenance aren’t luxuries, they are a necessity, something we surely should have learned from Hurricane Katrina.

So while we need to take this threat seriously, we need to do so in the context of the many existing health pandemics that already exist, we need to take steps to insure that our healthcare system itself is healthy and we need to address the root causes of what allowed the conditions in which the H1N1 virus manifested and take the necessary steps to correct policies that endanger public health.

But I am deeply troubled by the opening moves of the Obama Administration. We need to not lose sight of Obama’s intention to step up operations in Afghanistan. And we should be very worried that his energy policy sees an ongoing place for nuclear and coal technologies, neither of which are safe, clean or cheap in any form and it astounds me that Obama has not taken the time to visit and address the enormous coal ash spill in Tennessee. This cavalier dismissal of this ecologic plundering of our planet does not bode well for badly needed leadership in environmental policy. And the appointment of Tom Vilsack, a long time supporter of corporate farming, sends a dangerous signal for food policies in a time of escalating costs and hunger. And Eric Holder’s role in the Marc Rich pardon certainly leaves one to question his ability to uphold justice.

One wonders also where is a clear vision for a health system that provides medical care without bankrupting those it serves to benefit big pharma and the insurance industry. And I for one have little faith that a man who forgets to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes can lead us out of this economic crisis. As David Korten points out, “our economic crisis is, at its core, a moral crisis.” Nor do I understand Obama’s silence on the atrocities committed in Gaza, saying that there is only one president at a time is not an excuse for silence in the face of war crimes and gross violations against human rights. It is also just mystifying why the deeply homophobic Rick Warren was asked to be a part of the Inaugural festivities.

The one area that I do feel somewhat hopeful for in terms of real change is women’s human rights and reproductive health. Joe Biden has been a staunch supporter of the Violence Against Women Act and the International Violence Against Women Act and the Convention on All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. There is also every indication that the Obama Administration will not continue to support the hugely ineffective abstinence programs and that the Global Gag rule will be rescinded in short order freeing up badly needed family planning funds both here and abroad.

Finally, as Elizabeth Holtzman points out, it is paramount that Obama address the Bush Administration’s violations of the Constitution because not to do so would signal yet another grievous disregard for the laws of this country. And Keith Obermann points out on Countdown that it is not sufficient to simply say we won’t torture again, it is absolutely necessary to prosecute the crimes of the past or they will happen again.

As Robert Jensen rather eloquently phrased it, “Like many others on Tuesday I will breathe a sigh of relief when Obama is sworn in, but I won’t breathe easy,” because it remains to be seen whether Obama can bring real substantive change or whether his election merely signals a return to business as usual in the pre-Bush years. If the latter is the case, we are in deep trouble, so deep that we cannot afford more than a one day honeymoon. When the sun comes up on Wednesday morning, it is time to get back to work and let the Obama administration know the mandate for change that swept him into office was not a hope but a demand.

“One option women have today is that they don’t have to dress like a man to make it in politics — although the frenzy about Palin’s $150,000 designer shopping spree shows there are limits to what the public will accept.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes no bones about favoring Armani suits and Chanel shoes — and has been criticized for it; Clinton has developed a consistent fashionable look with regular hairstyling and St. John suits. Palin, with her long hair, slim skirts and red high heels, is surely the first national female candidate to be called “hot,” as Alec Baldwin did last weekend on Saturday Night Live.

Missing in action in this look at women and the election is any analysis of how this campaign has been business as usual in terms of women’s concerns being reduced to little more than the abortion issue, a point made oh so clear by John McCain’s air-quoting of women’s health as “an extreme pro-abortion” position.

The Post piece also completely ignored the groundbreaking two woman Green Party ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente. No surprise there because their campaign has been routinely disappeareded not only by mainstream media but as Amee Chew points out, the liberal media have (with few exceptions, notably Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman) also ignored their campaign.

The failure to support and acknowledge McKinney-Clemente is unfortunate for several reasons. First, the two party stranglehold on the American electoral process has become disastrously dysfunctional. It is already clear that many voters will be denied their right to vote because of voter roll purges, long lines and other tactics and that many of our electronic voting machines are not accurately reporting votes, either purposely or accidentally. These are the reasons why the 2000 and 2004 elections were ‘won’ by George Bush, not because of third party candidates such as Ralph Nader as some have charged.

Secondly, in our current system, all but the best funded candidates are almost immediately shut out of the political dialog, thus limiting that dialog to a callously shallow repertoire of non-productive and usually non-realistic talking points and accusations. Third party candidates who offer an alternative vision end up in something of a hamster wheel situation where they are not considered serious candidates because you don’t hear much about them and you don’t hear much about them because the media won’t consider them to be serious candidates.

What the Washington Post has labeled transformative is the accomplishment of women in a patriarchal, deeply misogynistic system. When women like McKinney and Clemente dare to speak the truth on so many issues and to confront that system, there is nothing accidental about the systemic near blackout of coverage of their campaign across the media spectrum.

There are obvious structural changes that need to be made to our electoral process –abolish the Electoral College, a shorter campaign season, mandatory verifiable voting and an end to the two party domination of our elections because only then will we have the benefit of the voices of wise women like Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente who offer a vision of true transformative change not only for women but for everyone. I urge you to take the time to read their platform and listen to their words.*

As Rosa Clemente said in a recent speech, “We are not the alternative; we are the imperative.” And that is why I am supporting the candidacy of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente.

*As I write this, the McKinney-Clemente website is down and there are unsubstantiated reports that it has been hacked, therefore it is impossible to learn more about their platform at this time, although hopefully that will be rectified soon. Another site does however have many links to her work and of course a websearch will find plenty of material.

Author’s note: I have no doubt that many who read this have their fingers poised above their keyboards ready to ask how dare I risk the chance of a McCain presidency by suggesting a vote for anyone other than Obama. I urge them to read more closely. In point of fact, although I live in a state that is so completely expected to go for McCain that the candidates have barely spent any time here, I will vote for Obama for the simple reason that McKinney is not on the ballot here. However if she were, I would have voted for her. In states where the outcome is less clear, I would probably vote for Obama. But if, like me, you are concerned that the current system is very badly broken, please give serious thought about giving third party candidates the support they need to help reclaim our democracy.

During a recent community conversation in Louisville, KY, Loretta Ross, the National Coordinator of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective offered what I think is a far more productive framework for discussing the abortion issue. Ross posits that abortion is only part of the issue of reproductive health and rights, which she points out include not only the right not to have a child but also the right to have a child.

On their website, SisterSong defines reproductive justice as an intersectional theory that integrates reproductive health and social justice emerging from the “experiences of women of color whose communities experience reproductive oppression. It is based on the understanding that the impact on women of color of race, class and gender are not additive but integrative, producing this paradigm of intersectionality.” The site also points out that,

“The intersectional theory of Reproductive Justice is described as the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, environmental and economic well-being of women and girls, girls, based on the full achievement and protection of women’s human rights. It offers a new perspective on reproductive issue advocacy, pointing out that as Indigenous women and women of color it is important to fight equally for (1) the right to have a child; (2) the right not to have a child; and (3) the right to parent the children we have, as well as to control our birthing options, such as midwifery. We also fight for the necessary enabling conditions to realize these rights.”

Obviously that language goes far beyond the run-of-the-mill pro/anti abortion rhetoric. By using this framework, we can start to see abortion not as an isolated issue of choice, but part of a far more complex set of issues. And the truth is, despite Roe v. Wade, “choice”, like so many other choices is a right of privilege. If you are poor, or live far from a clinic, there is not much of a choice.

Ross also stressed that abortion needs to be seen as a human rights issue and points to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares the right of every person to live free of slavery. And being forced to bear children is most certainly a form of slavery as Ross is quick to point out.

The flip side of the abortion rights issue, the right to have children is every bit as important a matter within the framework of Reproductive Justice. Although it is an issue in this country, it is even more so in less developed nations that have high maternal mortality rates.

Every year, more than half a million women die of complications of pregnancy and childbirth as a result of economic, cultural and political injustice. More than 99% of those deaths are preventable. Jane Roberts, co-founder of 34 Million Friends of UNFPA points out that. “Lack of family planning commodities and of health care workers to educate about and furnish family planning to eager consumers is the root cause of the 40 million abortions which take place every year, half of which are risky, illegal, unsafe. If the world really cared for its women, this would not be happening. About 70,000 women die during the abortion or the immediate aftermath, millions more suffer temporary or permanent disability. Then they are “compassionately” offered PAC (post-abortion care) by our government and others.”

Yet as a recent UN report points out, the “sharp decline in international funding for reproductive health is threatening global efforts to reduce poverty, improve health and empower women worldwide.” According to Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the UN Population (UNFPA), “The result is increasing numbers of unwanted pregnancies, rising rates of unsafe abortion, and increased risks to the lives of women and children.” Obaid also noted that, ”research indicates that ensuring access to family planning alone would reduce maternal deaths by 20 to 35 percent and child deaths by 20 percent.”

As Ross points out, it isn’t that choice is not an issue, but rather that it is one of many connected reproductive justice issues that need to be addressed. And that is the conversation we should be having.

In Kenya, women are being gang-raped in refugee camps. In Afghanistan, young girls are forced into marriage. In Mexico and Guatemala women continue to disappear, the victims of brutal rapes and murder. In Iraq, women are being indiscriminately killed in the name of male honor. In the U.S. military, women are more likely to be assaulted by their fellow soldiers than by any enemy. The list, truly, is endless.

While International Women’s Day is, and rightly should be, a day to celebrate the lives and accomplishments of women, a recent statement by the Gabriela Network is correct in pointing out that IWD is, and also must be, more than that:

We need to return our Day and our Month to their rightful and correct significance in both national and international arenas. Though March was meant to be a celebration of women’s achievements, International Women’s Day and International Women’s Month were also meant to be the time when the women’s voice regarding national and international events was meant to be the loudest. State violence has been foremost in women’s minds, as this has been the most destructive of life and the conditions for the well-being, not only of womankind, but of the entire human species.

March 8th has been co-opted and turned into a so-called commemoration of women’s achievements, as though there were no more need for further achievements. It is time to return March 8th to its historic role as the day women challenge government decisions and policies inimical to peace, justice and the preservation of the human species. It is time for March 8th to be known as the day when women unite and march against state policies dangerous to the health and safety of the nation.

This must be a day when we name and acknowledge the atrocities that are daily perpetrated against women throughout the world. It must be a day to honor our strength and wisdom and renew our commitment to ending these assaults on our lives.

On International Women’s Day we must indeed insist on being, as Alice Walker so eloquently put it, the ones we have been waiting for. International Women’s Day is a time to stand in the place that we are, and in that place to stand with and for the women of the world.

As you observe International Women’s Day, please hold a special place in your hear for women who will be gathering despite the grave danger of doing so, particularly the women in the Kandahar province of Afghanistan who are planning a march and the brave women celebrating in Iraq who tell us, “There will be no civil society without liberated women.”

With strength, with wisdom, with solidarity.

Happy International Women’s Day.

(Note: You can learn more about IWD and find comprehensive coverage of this year’s celebration on the Feminist Peace Network website.)

With few exceptions, I really wonder what kind of kool-aid these folks are consuming. The Attorney General blatantly lies under oath, the Veep doesn’t even think he’s a member of the Executive branch and the President has broken so many laws that treason is the only possible word that would describe his tenure. The need for impeachment is not in question, it is an immediately necessary act to defend our Constitution from assault by our government.

But while the crisis facing this country continues to grow, Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers have staked out their impeachment-free table and are framing this as an election issue. As the Rev. Lennox Yearwood eloquently points out:

To uncritical supporters of the Democratic Party, I say this is not a time for partisan politics. To use the American people’s frustration with Bush as political leverage in the 2008 elections, and to ignore the constitutional responsibility the legislative branch has to hold the executive branch accountable through the impeachment process, flies in the face of our democracy.

He goes on, “The challenge we face as activists and leaders is how can we possibly bring an end to this madness when the Democrats in power are not with us?”

Last week, Rev. Yearwood, along with Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern and 400 suporters delivered petitions with one million signatures in favor of impeachment to Congressman Conyers, who heads the House Judiciary Committee. I’m not sure what part of one million signatures Conyers, Pelosi and the rest of Congress don’t understand, so let’s try this one more time, I promise we’ll keep it real simple, no room for misunderstanding.

Get a blank piece of paper and in big capitol letters that fill the page, write the following one word:

IMPEACH

Fax that word to Nancy Pelosi (202) 225-4188 and John Conyers (202) 225-0072 and your Senators and Representatives. If enough papers of impeachment as it were pile up, we will literally put that word right back on the table where it belongs in such force that it cannot be ignored. And then maybe, before it is too late, we will be able to begin to reclaim our country.

No mention of Charles Gibson’s past on Good Morning America and of course Rather stipulates that he has the highest regard for Katie Couric. Uh huh. As columnist Ann Althouse pointedly asks,

1. Is Rather insinuating that having a female newscaster is part of the process of “tarting up” the news? I know he doesn’t precisely make that connection, but, to me, it’s just glaring that the word “tart” means prostitute.

2. Why on earth does it matter what time the news is on? If something is wrong for the evening news, why isn’t it just as wrong for the morning news? I think what is unstated is that only women are watching those morning shows, so the standards are lower.

It is worth remembering that when Couric was hired, there was all this hoopla about her credentials and America being ready for a woman news anchor. And now CBS’ Les Moonves says that numbers show that just a few months later we’re not? Oh and by the way, let’s also not forget that CBS’s numbers were already in the toilet when Couric took over the evening news slot.

We will probably never know if Katie Couric is a creditable news anchor because she is attempting to survive in an atmosphere where the white male powers that be in newsrooms everywhere consistently sensationalize the news, asking us to believe that Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton are just as important as the Iraq war and global warming. As Jon Stewart recently pointed out on The Daily Show, CNN cut away from a story about General Peter Pace’s resignation to go live to the courtroom where Ms. Hilton was getting in a car, they even went so far as to call in an expert, Tommy Chong (as in Cheech and..) to comment on the case. Not a shining example of having your priorities straight.

So are the news gatekeepers pushing tartiness? A recent AP piece proclaimed “Porn is becoming the ideal of what’s sexy,” explaining, “(T)he message is clear: In today’s world, sex doesn’t just sell. The pervasiveness of porn has made sexiness — from subtle to raunchy — a much-sought-after attribute online, at school and even at work.” If that isn’t blatant enough, try the new “Anchorwoman” reality show that will, as Jenn Pozner explains on the WIMN’s Voices Blog, “feature a busty blonde bikini model and former WWE wrestler as an on-air anchor of KYTX Channel 19, a local CBS affiliate in Tyler, Texas.” Not much room for doubt there.

Nonetheless, there is a case to be made that despite the language used, the key point is that the dumbed down tripe that passes as news these days is unacceptable. But it is also true that media sexism is alive and well and tartifiction, as Mr. Rather so (dis)gracefully put it, is hardly the only form of media misogyny which has many guises including ridicule, exclusion, discounting, discrimination, etc. Not only is that damaging to women but it creates a deliberately distorted view of the world that harms us all. And that is a crucial issue and to lose sight of it in the discussion of ‘yes, but what he really meant to say . . .’ only perpetuates the misogyny.