In AlterNet, I report on how the Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives are using social media — and which party is doing it better.

And I’ve been blogging regularly at Mediaite — a few of my most recent posts:

• TIME Editor Rick Stengel Justifies Controversial Afghanistan Cover to Katie Couric
• A look at the NYT piece on America’s secret wars in Yemen and elsewhere
• And my interview with Mark Coatney, the man who is teaching media organizations to use Tumblr

According to research by American University’s Women & Politics Institute, female lawmakers have composed 13.5 percent of the total Sunday show appearances by all representatives and senators this year.

The suggestion that the Sunday shows are less hospitable to women has prompted a debate over who’s to blame among network producers, Capitol Hill political operatives and women’s advocates.

Some academic researchers and press secretaries for women in Congress say the network bookers have a men-in-suits mind-set that leads to familiar faces appearing over and over — and vital women’s voices being muffled on Sunday shows that historically are an important platform of Washington power.

The shows’ producers bridle at the criticism, saying that, despite their strong interest in booking more women, the shows must be topical and reflect the reality that men still hold more of the most influential and newsmaking positions in Congress.

To which I have to say: yeah! But this isn’t really new. This has been a problem a lot of people have been complaining about for years. I’ve written about it dozens of times. So have many other women. Media Matters did a study on it in 2007. So, I don’t think it’s particularly groundbreaking news to us; but at least, it’s encouraging to see a very mainstream, well-read publication like Politico devoting a full-length feature to this topic.

Ultimately, the international uproar coming out of this situation is not the product of one isolated incidence of violence but of a series of actions that have taken place for years in Gaza and have, until now, been largely ignored by most of the world and certainly by the United States. Israel has imposed an embargo allowing only food and humanitarian aid into Gaza – nothing else. Which means that they can’t build any homes, schools, hospitals or other infrastructure in Gaza because no supplies can get in.

This, in turn, has kept Gaza in a terrible state of poverty for years. And this situation has been going on for far too long with much of the world ignoring it – so maybe now, as a result of the Monday attacks, international attention is finally being turned to Gaza.

As Foreign Policy magazine writer Marc Lynch tweeted today: the focus of coming days should be on Gaza itself, not just the boat.

UPDATE: This extremely interesting graphic from The Economist shows just what is and isn’t blocked from getting into Gaza.

Furthermore, one point I want to make is that a lot of people are saying: “This time Israel has gone too far.” Well, Israel has been “going too far” for a long time in how it treats Gazans — this isn’t the first time. But I’m glad at least it seems like the mainstream media and citizens are taking note this time and are equally disapproving of the events that have taken place.

If you’re looking for additional coverage on the issue, here’s a roundup of excellent posts and analysis from some of the smartest bloggers on the topic, in my opinion:

An epic post from Glenn Greenwald (it’s long but I highly recommend reading the whole thing):

It hardly seemed possible for Israel — after its brutal devastation of Gaza and its ongoing blockade — to engage in more heinous and repugnant crimes.  But by attacking a flotilla in international waters carrying humanitarian aid, and slaughtering at least 10 people, Israel has managed to do exactly that.  If Israel’s goal were to provoke as much disgust and contempt for it as possible, it’s hard to imagine how it could be doing a better job.

Andrew Sullivan:

It looks to me as if the Israeli government has again replied to a gnat with a bazooka. The disproportionate use of force, the loss of life, the horrifying impact of the blockade of Gaza in the first place: it makes Israel look like a callous, deranged bully, incapable of accepting any narrative that it cannot control and responding instinctively with disproportionate violence.

The suicide continues … and US aid to Israel, especially military aid, should be suspended until the Israeli government starts acting like something other than a rogue state.

Marc Lynch, one of the smartest Middle East bloggers there is:

I’m not going to try to keep up with the breaking events, as world governments and publics scramble to figure out how to react.  Instead, I’ll just say that the bottom line for Washington is that the U.S. can not ignore this or try to hope that it will pass quickly so that it can resume business as usual.  It is rapidly spiraling into one of the most intensely galvanizing issues in the Arab media — and around the world — since the Israeli war on Gaza itself.   If Obama goes ahead and meets with Netanyahu as if nothing happened, then his administration’s outreach to the Muslim communities of the world is effectively over.

Stephen Walt, also in Foreign Policy:

My second question is: “Will the Obama administration show some backbone on this issue, and go beyond the usual mealy-mouthed statements that U.S. presidents usually make when Israel acts foolishly and dangerously?” President Obama likes to talk a lot about our wonderful American values, and his shiny new National Security Strategy says “we must always seek to uphold these values not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.”  The same document also talks about a “rule-based international order,” and says “America’s commitment to the rule of law is fundamental to our efforts to build an international order that is capable of confronting the emerging challenges of the 21st century.”

Well if that is true, here is an excellent opportunity for Obama to prove that he means what he says. Attacking a humanitarian aid mission certainly isn’t consistent with American values — even when that aid mission is engaged in the provocative act of challenging a blockade — and doing so in international waters is a direct violation of international law. Of course, it would be politically difficult for the administration to take a principled stand with midterm elections looming, but our values and commitment to the rule of law aren’t worth much if a president will sacrifice them just to win votes.

…Over the next few days, keep an eye on how politicians and pundits line up on this issue. Which of them thinks that Israel “crossed a line” and deserves criticism — and maybe even sanction — and which of them thinks that what it did was entirely appropriate? Ironically, it is the former who are Israel’s friends, because they are trying to save that country before it is too late. It is the latter whose misguided zeal is leading Israel down the road to further international isolation — and maybe even worse.

Arabist:

Yesterday’s murders were an unwarranted attack on civilians by elite units of one of the most fearsome and best-equipped army in the world. It’s not a “blunder” or poorly planned attack — the decision to raid the boat is itself illegal, immoral and is what needs condemning.

And, my good friend and rising blogosphere star Alex Lobov:

Before I talk about the diplomatic aftermath I would like to first of all throw in my opinion on this, though it’s probably self-evident and those of you that follow this blog will already know it. Israel deserves nothing but condemnation in the strongest possible terms for what it has done here. There was absolutely no good reason for it. At this stage, I do not believe that the activists on the boats were really armed. I believe that they may have tried to defend the ship from being boarded, but consider that it was in international waters at the time, I don’t see what’s illegitimate about that. Boarding a ship in international waters may well constitute an act of piracy thus making self-defense perfectly reasonable.

On Postbourgie, Shani highlights an interesting study from the Chronicle of Higher Education blog. The study found that children who grew up in a house with 500+ books stay in school three years longer than kids who grew up in homes with fewer books.

Thus it seems that scholarly culture, and the taste for books that it brings, flows from generation to generation largely of its own accord, little affected by education, occupational status, or other aspects of class … Parents give their infants toy books to play with in the bath; read stories to little children at bed-time; give books as presents to older children; talk, explain, imagine, fantasize, and play with words unceasingly. Their children get a taste for all this, learn the words, master the skills, buy the books. And that pays off handsomely in schools.

It definitely worked for me. I was a bookworm to the max as a kid, reading so many books my parents sometimes asked me to read LESS and go spend some time outdoors playing kickball or whatever. Until high school, when I became too busy with academics and extracurriculars, reading for pleasure was one of my favorite things to do. In summers, I’d take a book and read outside. And when the weather was too hot to handle, I’d seek refuge in the air-conditioned library, full of hundreds of books and magazines.

Shani also points out in her post that not everyone can buy hundreds of books, and wonders where library memberships fit into this research – I’d have to agree that I wonder if kids whose parents hold library memberships and take them to the library regularly develop the same appreciation for reading and ideas. For me as a kid, getting to go the library was always a treat ; my parents took us almost weekly, and moreso in summer to help stave off boredom from not being occupied with school all week. Taking me and my brother to the library regularly was a good thing for them because it helped keep their kids occupied so we wouldn’t drive them up the walls at home. For us, though, I think it had a profound impact on how we grew up and what we value now. It instilled in both of us an interest in learning about the world around us, and taught us to question everything.

Today I’m on the internet almost all the time, but still have a lust for reading… I’ve just put a large part of my reading efforts into Google Reader. But I still love buying and reading fresh, clean, new books from bookstores, and think it’s incredibly important that today’s kids and students are still being encouraged to read books, and not the iPad kind. By the time I was in high school I was reading less books for pleasure – presumably because I was busy with academics, extracurriculars, and with trying to get into college, but I wonder if it also had something to do with the fact that the internet was growing in popularity by then. In high school I would much rather spend the hours after class IMing my friends (remember AOL ?!)  than reading a book; the only books I managed to read through those four years were the ones assigned to us in school.

I’ve written before about my questions on what will happen to books in an increasingly digital era; given the new research that’s out there about the impact books have on children as they grow, it seems books are more important than ever. I don’t think it matters whether the books are at home or in a library, as long as kids have access to books on a regular basis and are encouraged to read for pleasure, both by parents and teachers. That, I think, is what it takes to develop that “scholarly culture” found in bookish families – not just access to lots of books, but also encouragement from adults to kids to spend their time reading books.

In case you missed it yesterday, the White House released a new album of Flickr photos of the last year in health reform that has been burning up the internet.  My Twitter feed today has been filled with people ooh-ing and aah-ing over the photos.

White House photographer Pete Souza captures a glimpse of behind-closed-doors moments at the White House from this past week and the past year as the White House worked to pass the health care bill — and they are, well, heartwarming. We see Hillary Clinton hugging President Obama; White House staffers cheering, applauding, and hugging as they watched Congress vote on the bill late Sunday night; Obama fist-bumping a young doctor who grins ear-to-ear; Nancy Pelosi holding her grandson and grinning next to Obama a day before the historic House vote.

Flickr is not a new tool; people have been using it to share their important moments with friends and family for years. But the Obama White House is the first White House to use Flickr to share their photos and are publicly documenting private moments that, until now, had remained hidden from the American people.

On another note, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also recently got on Twitter and though he started off slow, he has adjusted to the medium pretty quickly. This morning he cracked jokes with the rest of the Twitterverse, telling his followers that this video of a misguided White House staffer who bears a resemblance to Gibbs was most definitely not him. And then, perhaps most notably, after the historic bill-signing ceremony today, Gibbs responded to Vice President Biden’s earlier f-bomb in his excitement over the health care bill with a tweet remarking “Yes, Mr. Vice President, you’re right…”

Read the rest here.

A new report from the Center for American Progress gives stark details on what it means for single or unmarried women in our economy today that our classic definition of “family” hasn’t changed in decades. Although they make up just under half of U.S. women, unmarried women represent 60 percent of women without health insurance, 63 percent of unemployed women, and 75 percent of women in poverty. They are less employed, make less money, and perhaps most significantly, face additional discrimination and financial burdens because of the pervasive assumption that every family has a male “breadwinner.”

As Ms. reported this Fall,  government policies such as Social Security, designed decades ago, were crafted to support so-called “family men” who worked 40-hour weeks at the same job for their whole career. Health insurance, car insurance, retirement plans–nearly all are still defined by one’s marital status. Thus single women face higher costs for all of these things simply because they are single. This continues even though, in a radical shift from the 1960s, nearly half of American women are now unmarried.

The report finds hope, however, in several pieces of legislation currently in Congress that would address the needs of unmarried women.

Click here to read the rest at Ms.

Every year internet geeks gather for five days in Austin, TX to discuss the state of interactive media — and more importantly, what the future holds next — at South by Southwest Interactive. This year, old school tools like Facebook were barely mentioned: the hottest topics were online privacy, location-based social networks like Foursquare and Gowalla, and perhaps most interestingly: the future of journalism.

The social media and Twitter elite demonstrated this week that they are increasingly more and more concerned about the state of journalism and what it will take for traditional media to survive the digital revolution taking place around them – and there was no shortage of panels obsessively deconstructing this topic.

In “Media Armageddon: What Happens When the New York Times Dies?” (hashtag: #endtimes — a little morbid if you ask me) a group of panelists including Daily Kos’ Markos Moulitsas talked about when (not if) the New York Times would die, while NYT’s own media columnist David Carr played the role of “MSM piñata.”  The panel rapidly turned into a heated discussion of Daily Kos vs. NYT — which one is more credible and which one would survive through the current tumultuous media landscape.  The panelists also frequently brought up Gawker Media, citing Nick Denton as an example of a publisher who had managed to build a successful model for online news. “I think Gawker is arching our direction,” Carr noted. “They have great reporting, research, and writing.” He added that he gets scooped by Gawker “all the time” – having often spent hours researching a story only to find Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan had already written 900 words covering everything readers needed to know about it. Nick Denton was flattered.

Click to read the rest at Mediaite HERE.

Below, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a great IWD video message, repeating her 1995 statement in Beijing that women’s rights are human rights. Well said, Hill!