Lately, I’ve gotten a lot of inappropriate comments and hate mail. Rather than just deleting those, I’m setting up a comment policy. As long as a comment is clean and fair, I’ll always post it. I’m not going to delete a comment simply because I don’t like what someone has written, or you disagree with me.

1. Don’t use profanity.

If you use foul language in your comment or name, your comment goes directly to trash. I don’t care what else you’ve written. I try to maintain standards here.

2. No anonymous comments.

If you leave an anonymous comment, it goes straight to trash.

3. No fake email addresses.

Recently, someone named “usuck” left a comment and used at@yahoo.com as their email address. Yeah, no cigar.

I invite debate and discussion. Keep it polite and fair, and I’ll post your comment. Don’t spam me. A few weeks ago,  someone left 7 different comments with different thoughts. That was just annoying.

I always view comments as someone visiting another person’s home. Just because we’re not sitting down face-to-face, you shouldn’t be rude. If you came over to my house for a dinner party or event, would you address me as “usuck?”  My blog is my property. When you leave a comment, you are commenting on something I own. If you want to be rude or crass, go create your own blog.

Update: To highlight how immature people are, below is an updated comment that my friend, “usuck” wrote tonight. I know that civility has never been present in the political world but grow up. If the actions of one individual blogger bother you that much, stop reading. I might also add that you may be taken more seriously if you don’t sound like a text message that a 14-year-old girl wrote. I may try to pull his/her previous comment from trash. Trust me. It definitely didn’t “destroy my entire logic.” Oh, the hubris of liberals!

Author : UStillSuck (IP: 98.122.61.163 , cpe-098-122-061-163.sc.res.rr.com)
E-mail : at@yahoo.com
URL    :
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=98.122.61.163
Comment:
Nice. My comment completely destroyed your entire logic, so what do you do? Complain about about a username.

Update II: Usuck/UStillSuck’s comment was still in the trash folder, so I added it to the post, “Celebrating Abortion.” Please tell me if you are as blown away as me by his/her logic as I am. Suddenly, the blinders have been lifted, and I’m not pro-life! </sarcasm>.

Update: Some pit in hell must be icy today because I nearly agree with Amanda Marcotte on something. Although, I do enjoy the “joys of housework,” and look forward to spending a few hours each week cleaning my apartment. Also, as a life-long crafter, Martha Stewart ideas are generally overrated.

In a post displaying all of the hubris that comes from being a liberal feminist writer, Newsweek’s Margaret Wheeler Johnson admonishes those under 35 for taking the time to cook. In response to a New York Times article on bread recipes, she writes:

The question that occurred to me reading every one of these pieces is how anyone trying to succeed in New York or a similarly pricey and competitive cosmopolis finds the time or reason to engage in elaborate culinary exercises like bread making. Perhaps these articles are geared to a middle-aged, upper-middle-class demographic secure in their careers with some leisure time to spare. But the Times articles also validate the idea currently floating in the zeitgeist that while building our actual careers, we under-35-year-olds should also be joyously training ourselves in the art of fresh-market-simple-slow-nouveau soul-food preparation. Think of the multitudinous cook-offs, the astonishing amount of cookware urban twenty-something engaged couples receive as shower and wedding gifts, the “young artisanal food scene,” or Noteatingoutinny.com. The overall implication is that if you stock your freezer with Trader Joe’s frozen entrees, or worse, anything non-organic, if you aren’t making your friends buttercream-frosted birthday cakes or whipping up truffle frittatas, you do not live “seasonally, locally, sustainably, cost-efficiently and healthily”; you are immature and possibly lazy; and the worst of all possible Gen Y fates, you are NOT WELL-ROUNDED.

What’s wrong with cooking? Even though I live in a busy metropolis and work hard at my career, I haven’t felt society pushing me towards culinary action. I have a crazy commute, several blogs, including a cooking blog, numerous weekly volunteer commitments, and relationships to maintain but I still find the time to cook each week. Why? Because I like it. Am I offending Ms. Wheeler Johnson by being more well-rounded than her?

I simply disagree with Ms. Johnson’s opinion that Millenials shouldn’t cook:

The truth is that unless you are a chef by profession or truly love cooking, spending a minimum of seven hours a week in the kitchen—and that’s just making dinner—is not the best use of an ambitious youngish person’s time. Wouldn’t the energy we expend making the meatloaf our mothers never did, or feeling guilty that we don’t, be better spent connecting with peers, putting in extra hours at work, or pursuing personal projects? If you want an Amy’s loaf, get it from Amy’s. Otherwise buy a sleeve of Nature’s Own, and leave the no-need bread for retirement.

Actually Ms. Johnson, cooking is not a waste of time for educated young workers. IT’S CALLED BEING A GROWN UP. Responsible adults think ahead about what they’re going to eat in order to be healthy and use their financial resources wisely. I’d rather spend a few hours a week cooking than spending my money eating out every night or defrosting TV dinners as Ms. Johnson suggests.

For many, baking or cooking is a way to relax. I spend my work hours in digital media and then come home to blog. Cooking provides an outlet to use a different part of my brain. There are many days that I spend writing emails or building websites while I’m thinking about a recipe or dying to try out a new cookbook. I’m not alone. My best friend’s husband calls her love of the Food Network, “cooking porn.” Why is cooking offensive?

Cooking also provides a better way to control our diets and budgets. Eating out is expensive. When trying to save money, the experts always say eliminate Starbucks and restaurants. One day when I’m finally free of credit card debt and student loans, will I look back and regret all my missed opportunities for Chinese takeout? Also, those Trader Joe’s dinners that Ms. Johnson praises are typically high in fat and sodium. As a Trader Joe’s customer, I’ve checked. The best way to stay on a budget and eat healthy is to cook.

Perhaps Ms. Johnson also failed at the most basic Millenial skills–time management and multi-tasking. Typically, I cook several meals on the weekend, freeze the leftovers and enjoy them during the rest of the week. I also package fresh veggies in sandwich bags after grocery shopping, so that I can throw my lunch together quickly in the morning (with a re-usable and fashion-forward lunch box even the trendiest Manhattanite would approve). It hardly takes time. Just a little planning.

Cooking also helps those concerned about buying environmentally-friendly products, fair trade or special diets. A friend of mine is now eating gluten-free at the advice of a doctor. Try going to a restaurant and finding gluten-free food. It’s difficult. My mother is a vegetarian, it is still hard to eat out decades after the vegetarian movement took off.

Honestly, what’s Ms. Johnson’s deal? Cooking isn’t sexist. Millenials who cook are just as likely to be men or women. It’s not a waste of time to enjoy being in the kitchen. Apparently, it is a crime for the New York Times Dining & Wine section to publish a recipe. Something struck a nerve with Ms. Johnson. I just don’t understand why she had to share it with everyone else.

It’s official. The University of Tennessee will grant an honorary degree to Al Gore.

Per UT’s web site:

Former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore will be honored by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, with only the third honorary degree granted by the campus. The degree was approved by the UT Board of Trustees at their meeting today.

Why UT? Why? There are many other examples of non-controversial Tennesseans who should be honored before Gore. Why is the University willingly walking into the controversy surrounding the former vice president and Climategate? The Trustees really want to honor a man who could possibly be questioned before Congress for promoting inaccurate information?

I’m truly bothered by the fact that this degree comes AFTER Gore endowed a professorship at UT. In my four years at the university from 2000-2004, there was absolutely nothing from the Gore family on campus. It really looks as though the University is trying to cash in on the crisis that Gore manufactured and then capitalized on through ventures like “carbon off-sets.” According to the press release:

Gore’s appreciation and personal interest in the institution of higher education is apparent as he serves as faculty member/visiting professor at various institutions across the country. A UT Knoxville faculty member holds the Nancy Gore Hunger Chair for Excellence in Environmental Studies, endowed by Gore to honor his late sister. Gore also is a distinguished member of the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy’s board of directors and honorary co-chair of the Tennessee 4-H Club Foundation Inc. with UT Extension.

That’s a new endowment. The Center for Public Policy is also a new program at UT that opened up in 2004 or 2005. Until the last five years, the Gore family has had zilch to do with the UT system. I remember it was something of a slap in the face when Gore opted to teach at MTSU shortly after he lost the 2000 election. I was sophomore or junior in Knoxville at the time. The absence of Gore’s involvement at UT sharply contrasts with the long history that Howard Baker has with the University and the legacy of service and commitment that Dolly Parton has shown East Tennessee. Gore’s connection with the UT system is tenuous at best.

I’m ashamed to be a Vol today. UT has a ripe history of stepping into PR disasters with back-to-back embarrassments of presidents, arrests of athletes, and a shifty football coach. Through all the scandals of the UT system, I’ve always cared about my alma mater. Now, it appears that the Board of Trustees are selling out the University to gain PC points and a pile of cash.

Good job, UT. You may win a few points with the far-left and extreme environmentalists, but you proceeded to tick off a lot of alumni.

Upset? Call the University at 865-974-3265 or email Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek at chancellor@utk.edu or join the Facebook page.

As a University of Tennessee alumna and proud Volunteer, I have never been more disappointed in my University.

The UT Board of Regents wants to award Former Vice President Al Gore an honorary doctorate. They’re voting on it it today. According to the Knoxville News Sentinel:

The proposal was approved by the UT Board of Trustees Academic Affairs and Student Success Committee, but the proposal will go before the full board for final approval this afternoon. Trustees are on the UT Martin campus for their winter board meeting.

As a donor to the UT system, I pledge to NEVER give my alma mater another dime if this happens.

If you are just as outraged as me, call the Chancellor’s office at 865-974-3265. Tell the administration and the Trustees that this is not acceptable. Also join the Facebook Page.

Why does UT want to recognize someone who is currently in the spotlight for pushing questionable science? Regardless of how you feel about Climate Change, should you give such a high honor to someone who is possibly a flake? Al Gore should not be honored by the University. It’s even more sketchy since he endowed the department chair of the degree he would be getting. Can anyone pay to play to get an honorary degree?

Look at the situation.

The now infamous hockey stick graph that he used in an Inconvenient Truth has been debunked.

The IPCC is distancing themselves from Climate Change science.

Senator Inhofe is threatening to haul Gore before the Senate for a hearing on Climate Change.

There are calls for Al Gore to return his Nobel Prize, which is one of the reasons the UT Trustees want to recognize him. Per the KNS article:

Board vice chairman Jim Murphy encouraged trustees not to view the honorary degree as an endorsement of Gore’s advocacy areas or political beliefs but as a way to recognize Gore as an accomplished Tennessean who has received national acclaim. By shying away from awarding honorary degrees to people who are deemed too controversial, “more people would be disqualified from receiving honorary degrees,” Murphy said.

“Not many Tennesseans have received the Nobel Prize – that alone distinguishes Al Gore from many other folks,” Murphy said. “The area of his current advocacy is an area UT and Oak Ridge National Lab have a significant area of expertise, and it’s an area we need to promote that area across the globe. Nothing will do that more than (presenting the honorary degree to Gore).”

This can only bring disgrace and ridicule to the University of Tennessee. Why recognize someone this controversial? The earned media isn’t worth the reputation and potential loss in donation dollars. This is a bad move.

As the Center for a Just Society noted, Al Gore has not been very prominent in answering the recent challenges to Climate Change credibility:

In the face of the embarrassing Climategate scandal and an unprecedented winter season that has for the first time ever delivered measurable snowfall to all 50 states, Al Gore’s absence from the public stage has been conspicuous.  Perhaps he’s taken a page from Punxsutawney Phil’s playbook and is hibernating in hopes of a sunnier forecast come April.

Why is the University doing this now? In a time when corporations and scientists are distancing themselves from climate change research, this only makes UT look foolish and will hurt them in the future. Students at Penn State have protested the actions of Professor Michael Mann. Why does UT want to willingly walk into this controversy?

Also at Instapundit and Post Politics.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed a number of feminism blogs and even the Wall Street Journal discussing the new Butch Bakery cupcakes sold in New York City. Billed as the “manly cupcake,” it comes in 12 different varieties such as, the Jackhammer, Campout and Driller.

While some of them sound really good like the Rum & Coke and Sidecar, my first reaction was to laugh. Do guys really look at desserts and deem them too feminine to eat? During my years working in various PR sectors, I’ve thrown a lot of events and fundraisers and attended even more. I’ve never seen men refuse sweets because they were too “girly.”

I think it’s an interesting gimmick, and I’m not going to fault anyone for being an entrepreneur. It does strike me as odd because the most masculine examples that come to mind never acknowledge the “masculinity” factor. Unless it’s some Tim Allen comedy routine, did the Marlboro Man or John Wayne ever discuss the inherent sexism in cupcakes? The concept of a manly cupcake simply conflicts with the image of masculinity. Would Don Draper put down his Lucky Strike to pick up a Butch Cupcake?

Is this an interesting sales pitch or masculinity interpreted through the eyes of an urbanized, metrosexual male? According to the web site, “Our objective is simple. We’re men. Men who like cupcakes. Not the frilly, pink-frosted sprinkles-and-unicorn kind of cupcakes. We make manly cupcakes. For manly men.” (They need James Earl Jones to narrate the site for the most impact.)

Are real men going to seek out the most masculine type of cupcakes available or wander clueless into the nearest Walmart and ask the bakery department for cupcakes because their wife/girlfriend/mother sent them? Is this like the dessert version of the cocktail? Real men aren’t going to eat cupcakes covered in sprinkles or order fruity cocktails with paper umbrellas?

I also feel like we’ve arrived at some pre-apocalyptic point in society when reality has turned into a Mel Brooks/Monty Python satire because people are seriously discussing the gender implications of cupcakes.

Today is the much-hyped political circus. I can’t help but think this going to be like a big Hollywood movie. Some special effects, dramatic pauses and feel-good platitudes but at the end of the day the same old scene that gets played over and over again.

Susan B. Anthony List announced that Congressman Marsha Blackburn will be one of the Republicans at the summit. Blackburn is a tough, fiscal and social conservative. It also helps to have a woman articulating pro-life views. Plus she’s from Tennessee. Not that important of a factor, but she’s part of the delegation from my state.

Independent Women’s Forum raises some good points. Let’s scrap this bureaucratic monstrosity and find real answers that actually lower costs, such as tort reform and portability. The only problem is that those two issues directly hurt special interests that are long-time Democratic supporters. Thus, President Obama is at a crossroads. He can pass actual health care reform that will save money and make the market more affordable for all Americans. Or he can grow an increasingly bloated government with money that we don’t have and lower the quality of healthcare for all Americans. Option A actually helps people, while Option B protects his special interests. Sadly, I’m fairly certain that Obama will go with Option B, particularly since unions have been given special consideration.

But can he actually pass something? Can the anointed one, who entered his presidency with approval ratings in the high 70s and majorities in both houses, actually pass some type of major legislation before the mid-term elections? It’s not looking so good for the Dems. I hope that my Democratic friends on the Hill are job hunting.

Hot Air and Daily Caller question if Pelosi has the votes. House numbers have changed since the December vote while outrage over healthcare has only increased. February to November is a much shorter time period to remember a vote than December to November. House Democrats need this vote over and forgotten, and the American people are clearly tired of this debate. A CBS survey reports that 53% of Americans don’t believe we can afford to pass this legislation, which is more expensive than the Senate bill and provides funding for abortions.

Then there’s the problem of the vice president. Perhaps, we should make a new euphemism: out of the mouth of Biden.

Once upon a time, I used to find common ground with liberals on the abortion issue. We both agreed that all sides were too polarized to actually accomplish anything and that society could make some changes to decrease the demand for abortion. I’ve long advocated that birth control should be more readily accessible and abstinence-plus courses taught in high school. I also believe that passing laws that limit abortion are better than fighting to overturn a Supreme Court decision. Saving lives should be the goal–the lives of both women and children.

Not anymore.

I don’t know if life has been devalued so much that the brutal shock of abortion isn’t chilling, or if pro-choice forces are so backed into the corner that they’ve become stubbornly entrenched into their talking points. Today, I saw two things from feminist sources on the web that truly disgusted me.

A woman is now tweeting her abortion. Four weeks into her pregnancy, she decided to obtain the RU486, the “abortion pill” and is chronicling it for the internet masses. Broadsheet writes:

Instead, she explains in a YouTube video pasted below, her aim is to remove the shame and “demystify” the experience of terminating a pregnancy, “so that women know, hey, it’s not nearly as terrifying as I had myself worked up thinking it was.” She says, “It’s not that bad, it’s not that scary. It’s basically like a miscarriage.” (Remember, we’ve already written about a woman who tweeted her miscarriage.) In her Twitter feed, she talks spotting, nausea, cramps and Vicodin. She doesn’t make it sound like a walk in the park — and of course it isn’t, her body is working to expel the embryo from her uterus — but there is something reassuring about how she matter-of-factly walks us, and herself, through the whole process. It’s as though she’s live-tweeting the aftermath of a routine medical procedure, like a wisdom tooth extraction.

Tracy Clark-Flory, who’s quickly surpassing Jessica Valenti levels of callous idiocy, likens abortion to having a tooth pulled:

In fact, before I went in for what felt like terrifying oral surgery to remove a backasswards tooth from my sinus cavity — freaky, right? — I went on YouTube and watched footage of similar procedures and video blogs of people’s recovery process. It replaced all of my far-fetched nightmarish visions with concrete, factual information. Without that, I might have gone running for the hills — or at least passed out in the waiting room. Considering that abortion is so prone to politicized distortions and outright lies, Jackson is doing women a real favor. This isn’t another case of overshare-itis, it’s an example of how amid all the frivolous cacophony of Facebook, Twitter and the like, some folks are, like, actually doing good. Oh, Internet, you enigma you.

Babies. troublesome teeth. They’re all the same, right? Having a dentist pull a tooth with Novocaine is so similar to having saline shot into your uterus until it burns a fetus alive or a giant vacuum suck out the live fetus because that’s the reality of abortion. I doubt the baby being aborted would tweet such a pleasant experience if it were possible.

It’s also not like footage of abortions hasn’t existed before now. When did Silent Scream come out…1984? It’s been online since the concept of online video was around, long before YouTube. “Facts” just don’t exist to abortion supporters until it suits their needs.

Secondly, one of the feminists I follow on Twitter linked to ImNotSorry.net, a web site dedicated to women sharing “positive” experiences with abortion. My stomach turned when I read this. I wish this was just denial, but it goes deeper. This is callous and cruel. I imagine a serial killer message board would be similar.

Honestly, pro-choicers remind me of two-year-olds in mid-tantrum. They know that their parents are right, but they’re going to dig into their fit and scream as loud and long as possible. It is impossible to argue with them because all rationality is gone. They don’t care if the “political right” that they argue for is unbelievably violent and cruel. (Were livestock treated as an aborted fetus, it would be deemed animal cruelty, but that’s our screwed up world. Read the Humane Slaughter Act if you don’t believe me.) The point is that they want it available. All other truths and consequences be damned. Every sick woman who tweets or blogs works to further desensitize the horrors of abortion. This helps them achieve their goal of devaluing life. That’s their end game.

We teach our kids in history about the Holocaust and wonder how it happened. Yet, we sit back and allow abortion to continue in our society, while increasingly-sick pro-choice groups revel in their ability to systematically murder our young. How can you read these sites and not be utterly ashamed at what our society allows?

Once upon a time even pro-choice supporters admitted that abortion was a terrible thing and should be limited. Not anymore. Now they celebrate it.

Update: Since my friend, “usuck” had such issues with my comment policy, I decided to post his/her comment. I don’t even think it makes sense. It is completely unedited, grammar and all.

There are anti-choice people that blow up abortion clinics, kill doctors and women, but only someone with two brain cells would say they represent all anti-choice people. When focus on extreme or idiotic pro-choice people then make blanket statements about all pro-choice people, contrary to your belief, is not rational and intelligent thought. I’m pro-choice because I believe women and girls have the right to determine if they want to sacrifice their body for 9 months. It’s a woman’s choice and hers alone. The only uterus you have domain over is your own, not anyone else.

And abortion is not murder. They are two entirely different legal concepts. Read a book

The Network of enlightened Women, a group that I wish had been around when I was a student, asked me to write a guest post. It’s up over at their blog.

Go over and read it and discover why I’m a proud conservative woman.

All over the web and media, people are making a big deal out of the Ron Paul victory in the CPAC Straw Poll. As soon as I saw the results Saturday night, I really wasn’t surprised. I’m also going to disagree with some friends on this one.

It wasn’t because Ron Paul will be the nominee in 2012. The odds are overwhelmingly against him.

It’s not because the majority of attendees were supporters. They weren’t. It was fairly split among a lot of different candidates or undecideds.

Ron Paul won the straw poll because two organizations manipulated it.

Dr. Paul is successful because he appeals to a fanatical base of supporters. They are sizable, but they aren’t the majority of conservatives, nor are they a majority of Tea Partiers. They have two extremely well-organized and motivated organizations, Campaign for Liberty (C4L) and Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). Having worked with a number of YAL chapters, the individuals drawn to those organizations will walk through fire for Dr. Paul.

I’ve witnessed first-hand what these groups will go through. Think about the Paul moneybombs and countless activism events. Do those reflect the majority of conservatives out there? Absolutely not. It should not surprise anyone that there was likely a concerted, organized effort to manipulate the outcome of the poll.

To understand CPAC, you have to understand the set up. The Marriott is huge with multiple levels. At every single escalator and staircase, Ron Paul supporters were bombarding you with information. By day three, it was obnoxious, especially for people like me who were busy running around and working.

You also need to understand how the straw poll is collected. CPAC places poll locations throughout the conference on Day 1 and Day 2. The actual instrument is lengthy and can take 10 minutes or so to complete. Note that the poll is completely self-selective. The people who take it are the ones who are either eager to share their opinion on the 2012 race or have the time to take it.

As I’ve written numerous times, I have no idea who I will support in 2012. I also didn’t have much free time on Day 1 and 2, when the surveys were collected. When I went to take the poll on Day 3, it had closed. How many people were like me and simply forgot to take it? We’ll never know.

What you’ve not seen reported in the media is the actual number of participants in the poll. There were around 10,000 registered attendees, yet only 2,395 people volunteered to participate in the poll. Barely 25% of attendees participated in the poll! Of those 2,395 people, only 31% supported Dr. Paul. That breaks down to around 743 votes. 743 people out of 10,000 is hardly worth mentioning.

While I agree with Patrick Ruffini that this is a good sign that younger people are motivated for conservative/libertarian causes and that the model of C4L and YAL should be replicated throughout the movement, it does not show that Dr. Paul is the leader of the conservative movement.

The media is obsessed with declaring that someone is the leader in order to fixate on that person and destroy his/her credibility. They want it to be Rush or Palin because those are already polarizing figures. Dr. Paul would be nearly as good because of the fringe movement that surrounds him. It’s easier to silence the uprising of Americans when they are painted as far-right loonies.

Please understand that I respect Dr. Paul. I agree with him on most subjects. The issues of foreign policy and the military are my two biggest objections. This post is not to tear down the efforts of C4L or YAL. I know many people involved with those campaigns, and they have my respect and admiration. However, take the Paul victory with a grain of salt. When you combine low participation with a group of highly-mobilized, highly-connected volunteers, it is possible to manipulate the results.

Feminists are up in arms that CPAC attracts…WOMEN!

Via Feministing and Broadsheet, I watched this video that the Daily Caller put together. Not only did it feature several of my former co-workers, but it was also silly. The premise was dumb, yet the women interviewed tried to explain why they were there.

No where in the video did the women say that their reason for attending was “boys, boys, boys” as Tracy Clarke-Flory alludes. Actually, if you listen to the video, the majority of the women are attending for work. The college students articulate that they are attending to learn about the issues and support candidates.

Even in the twisted world of feminism, I thought learning about issues and supporting candidates was supported. Oh, silly me. I forgot that different rules apply to conservatives. We’re supposed to shut up and pretend we don’t exist.

Oh crazy feminists, get over yourselves and do the math. CPAC proactively reaches out to college students with steep discounts on ticket prices. Traditionally 50% or more of the attendees  are college students. Since more women are now matriculating than men…connect the dots. Also, attendance was up 20% overall this year with at least 10,000 people registering.

I realize that this this is difficult to swallow since it proves:

1. CPAC, the representation of all that is evil to the universe of liberals, is growing. 10,000 is a lot for any conference on any subject or political ideology.

2. Women are actually conservative, including college-aged women.

3. Conservative women aren’t ashamed of being attractive.

4. With more and more conservative organizations targeting women and inviting them to attend events like CPAC, it’s hardly surprising that they would show up.

It really is amusing to read through liberal blogs and newspapers and see what the left pulls out of CPAC. It’s like they attended a completely different conference than the one that I saw.

I think I make it pretty clear that I have zero respect for both Jessica Valenti and Meghan McCain here, but Jessica really out did herself with saying “just when you think CPAC can’t get any creepier.” Really? Just Really? This video freaked you out that much? With all the actual evil in the world done to women, those women at CPAC are the worst?