In reading about the leading environmentalists in the world, it was interesting and disheartening to note only two women made the list. Women widely do most of the work in this world (75%, including most at home and much of the out of home work). Yet, when it comes to talking about making change, we seem to forget about the leadership and support roles women play that make it possible for change to occur. I applaud Salon.com for covering envrionmental policy in a manner that challenges the backwardness of the current administration. However, focusing primarily on men provides yet another example of women as invisible. And, yes, there is a connection between women being rendered invisible in the media and in other facets of life.

Everyone seems to be discussing abortions in terms of motherhood and fatherhood. One of the most important elements of reproductive choice is the right of women to control what happens to their own bodies. Yes, motherhood and fatherhood are big, complex, scary but often are rewarding. However, the basis of reproductive choice starts with women saying what happens to their bodies rather than someone else deciding this. While what happens nine months later most often plays into the decision of whether or not to remain pregnant, the real core issue is the right of women to decide what to do with themselves. A parallel argument might be to perfect vascetomies, force them on every pubescent boy, and reverse them if/when they decide to have a kid. Sound preposterous? Then how come others deciding what a woman can and cannot do with her body does not sound just as bad?

The Inuit article comments that the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a positive factor in globalization because it acts as an equalizer for developing countries to negotiate in the global marketplace. The WTO in actuality benefits the industrialized countries moreso than the developing world. The industrialized countries, in particular the US, pushed for the rules that govern the WTO. You can guess these rules aren't expressly in favor of bringing an actual level playing field to world trade. In addition, the cost of bringing a case to the WTO is often too staggering for developing countries, therefore they bring fewer cases than they woud like and from which they would benefit. Because the WTO is a global body as such does not mean it is all that equitable.

I suggest anyone who wants to understand more about the plight of poor nations and people read some Vandana Shiva before simply following the party line and supporting the WTO as the organization that can make things better. If more people read and understand the arguments being made against the current form of globalization by the poor, people of color, women, the marginalized in general, we would be a thousand steps ahead of where we are now because we would actually see and understand more than one side of the argument.

And, please, can we stop using anti-globalization to describe anyone who thinks a fairer world is something we can attain? Most of the people being labeled as anti-globalization are against the system as it is set up now and not isolationists and would-be hermits who want nothing to do with technology, communication, and sharing. Words are power and how we use them is important.

It's a biological fact. The problem is the social and political will to make it possible for women to breastfeed their babies. Except when medical conditions do not allow for breastfeeding, there is every reason to encourage it, meaning we need to be much more supportive of paid maternity leave, education, subsidized/free breastpumps instead of formula, and so on. The medical and psychological research on breastfeeding and its benefits to both the woman and the baby most strongly supports this practice. In order to benefit individuals and society, we really need to move to more widespread breastfeeding. The irony is, the billboards are sponsored by a government that does not provide the overall support and services necessary to promote breastfeeding.

What about blaming gays and legalized abortion for Katrina as the religious right did in this country? The extremists in this country usually blame those they oppose (ACLU, feminists, lesbians, abortionists...) for causing natural disasters and terrorist attacks. How are they different from the extremists who claim a Muslim god and attack women for bringing on the wrath of said god?

86 percent of counties in this country have no abortion provider. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between thos counties and the increase in unwanted pregnancies. Bet there is.

Words are power and the misuse of words puts power in the wrong place. It is time journalists stopped using terms that are incorrect and do not exist except for a small group of extreme conservatives who are very much trying to sway public opinion through emotive means--even the quotation marks in 'partial birth' abortion are not enough of a signal this is not a medically accurate term. Maybe if we stop using the far right's terms in reporting the news, the public would actually be more informed. The correct term, at least one of them, is late-term abortion.

What does that mean? Your comments state he looks more like the American public than the skinny guys in power (though Cheney's not that small), including his support for life. Hastert is a longtime anti-choice proponent. If you mean his anti-choice stance, then he doesn't resemble most Americans--who are pro-choice. Secondly, pro-choice folks are for life too and the anti-choice folks need to stop insinuating the opposite. You make a really broad statement that, if taken on what is implied, is incorrect.