Like most bloggers, I get a log of blog pitches. As a communications professional, I regularly reach out to bloggers and have led training sessions on blogger relations. When I get a good pitch, I generally email the person to thank them. Most of the time, they are simply horrible.

Today, I got a pitch that shows what happens when a Google search for certain keywords is done without looking at the context of those keywords. Given my recent comments on climate change, I’m not the best candidate to approach about this. I hope the language barrier was an issue, but Christin uses perfect English in her pitch. Also, generic blog pitches are never the best way to go.

How does a blog have CO2 emission of 8 lbs per year? A blog doesn’t exist outside of cyberspace. There are no physical properties to a blog. I’m all for planting trees. As a conservationist and nature lover, please plant more of them, but do it to simply plant a tree. Don’t approach me about planting a tree to eliminate virtual carbon footprints.

I know that much of the health care debate has surrounded the government funding of abortion, and we all know where I fall on that debate. However, I had not read how the Senate bill would implement the policy until I read this Washington Times article:

The groups are divided over whether the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortions. Status quo, as dictated in the Hyde amendment, bans taxpayer funding of the procedure in programs such as Medicaid, except when the life of the mother is at risk or in cases of rape or incest.

Members of the Pro-Choice Caucus say that they don’t like the Senate bill because it requires women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums.

The line, women who want an insurance policy that covers abortions to pay for the abortion coverage entirely on their own and send two separate checks to cover premiums, makes my blood run cold.

The Pro-Choice Caucus infers that there are women out there who pro-actively pay for abortion insurance. Insurance is an economic decision to invest in services that you will possibly need. When you opt into getting a specific policy, you are acknowledging that the odds are against you. For example, if you live on a mountain, are you likely to get flood insurance?

Women who opt for this coverage would make a premeditated decision thinking, “It is likely that I will get pregnant unexpectedly. If I do, I want to abort any child that I conceive.”

Perhaps I’m naive. I’ve always believed that even those who support abortion view it as a worst case scenario. Lately, the left has managed to shock me by endorsing abortion with glee. It’s as though pro-abortion advocates are shouting, “Who cares if abortion is murder? I’m ok with that. In fact,  I’m going to be a cheerleader for it because a woman’s “right” the most important factor. To hell with everything else.”

Just look at Feministing’s response to Mary Ann Sorrentino, former Planned Parenthood executive director in Rhode Island, when she questioned Angie Jackson’s live tweets of her abortion.

Sorrentino’s piece reads like she’s telling Jackson to be ladylike, to be a “good girl.” There are certain things a woman just shouldn’t speak about in public. This isn’t the feminism of a previous generation – it’s an argument that the divides between public and private should be maintained, with women’s experiences kept in the private sphere. It’s an argument for silence, for stigma, and for an appropriate way of being a lady.

This goes against the approach to destigmatizing abortion that I learned from pre-Roe organizers. The Redstockings Abortion Speakout in 1969 began a traditional of women telling their abortion stories publicly to humanize the procedure, to bring it into the public sphere, and to remove shame. These women didn’t listen when they were told their stories should be kept private. Jackson used new technology to share the experience as it was happening, a new twist on an old consciousness raising technique.

In removing the stigma of abortion, feminist forces aren’t justifying this debate, they’re celebrating it. They are reveling in this legal right regardless if it is good for women. Forget the gory details and pain that Angie Jackson’s tweets revealed. She’s raising the collective consciousness of womankind! To hell with anything else. As long as the feminist agenda is advanced, nothing else matters.

Anyone else sickened by this?

Back in August, I nearly bought a t-shirt emblazoned with the Gadsden Flag to wear at the 9/12 rally. I decided not to spend my money and thought “How many rallies could I possibly attend to justify buying this shirt?”

In hindsight, it would have been a good investment in protest attire.

FreedomWorks has issued a call for another protest on March 16 to kill the Obama healthcare bill. The President has declared that the bill must be through the House and Senate by March 18, so he can conveniently schedule a photo-op before he flies off to the Pacific.

Wouldn’t you hate for the overwhelming opposition of the American people to conflict with Obama’s tight schedule? How rude of us.

Offline, I’ve gotten a lot of criticism for writing about this Al Gore situation at UT. In the long-run, I fully agree with all of you that this doesn’t matter. As I’ve said numerous times, honorary degrees are publicity stunts. But I’m truly bothered by what UT is doing. Good news! You’ll get a break. I’m going back to  Chattanooga this weekend for a wedding, so I doubt that I’ll have time to write.

When I first heard about this ridiculous decision to politicize UT’s commencement, I instantly thought of the promotional campaign that UT was running my senior year of high school. It’s one of the reasons I originally looked at the University. Despite growing up in Chattanooga, I had never felt a desire to become a Volunteer.

Coming off of the 1998 National Championship, UT ran a campaign that said, The University of Tennessee/2 Nobel Laureates/7 Rhodes Scholars/6 Pulitzer Prizes/10 Astronauts. We also play a little football.” I remember landing at the airport in Nashville after my senior trip to LA in 2000 and seeing the ad. For the first time, I got really excited about college. Since I attended an uber-Baptist high school, every teacher clearly expressed his/her disappointment in me for not choosing a Christian college, and my parents had their own qualms about sending me to such a big school.

There was a poster that accompanied it, but I can’t find a graphic of it. Once upon a time, I had a copy, but it got destroyed in one of my many moves. The poster had the slogan printed on an awesome photo of Neyland Stadium. It captured UT perfectly. Great football (at the time) and athletics combined with strong academics. That poster made me realize that there was more to UT than just Peyton Manning and Jeff Hall. (My best friend and I had  bit of a crush on Jeff Hall in high school.)

What happened to recognizing those people? I realize that not all of them are probably alive. In fact, it’s sad that I don’t really know who any of those people are. The 10 astronauts are a lot cooler than Al Gore, but that’s a personal preference.

This morning, I was greeted by an email alerting me to the fact that the Drudge Report had linked to a Knoxville News Sentinel story on what I’m naming DegreeGate. A KNS poll is overwhelmingly against it.

Now, I know that web polls are hardly scientific, but 96% against the decision should be telling. Then Red State picked up on the story.

Oh UT, why? Why did you willingly walk into another controversy on the heels of the Kiffin scandal? I also appreciate the smug column from KNS telling people like me to, “Get over it.” Well, KNS, I refuse to get over it. I’m outraged at the actions of my alma mater, and I plan on making as much noise about it as possible. I’d also like to explain a thing or two to editor who wrote this paragraph:

Some objectors have pointed specifically to Gore’s involvement in the global-warming debate, suggesting that man-made climate change has been disproven by the “Climategate” e-mails. That’s far from true. Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander is among those who still say climate change must be addressed, and he certainly shouldn’t be disqualified from some future honorary degree. In fact, he would be an excellent choice.

You see Climategate is a big deal. The East Anglia CRU emails and subsequent stories prove that the data that created the infamous “hockey stick” graph is completely flawed. Al Gore used the hockey stick graph in his documentary. The same documentary for which he won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, and the main reasons that the administration cites in giving him this degree.

Essentially, KNS is defending the decision by the University to award a man who has knowingly spread misleading information and refuses to acknowledge that. That is academic fraud, and it is shameful that my alma mater, a research institution, is willing to be complicit in what could be the biggest scandal of the 21st century.

The Facebook page has 1,100 people less than one week after it was started. Drudge has linked to the story. Red State is covering it. Doesn’t the University realize that it’s only going to get worse the closer we get to graduation? People are only just now learning about it.

Many have argued that Gore deserves this as a public figure. Why do universities award honorary degrees? Essentially, they’re PR stunts and a nice recognition to prominent figures.

However, what happens when the university awards a degree to a controversial and polarizing figure? Well, alumni like me get ticked off and withhold fundraising dollars. The university needs to weigh the opportunity costs of recognizing a political figure or threatening their donation base.

Now, if Vice President Gore would come clean and say that he apologizes for fraudulently using bad data, and that we need to put more open-minded resources towards the climate change debate, I’d be ok with UT’s decision. Until then, I’m going to be an unhappy and very vocal alumna.

In UT’s defense, I just got off the phone with Megan Smith in the Chancellor’s office. She was very nice and reacted the way all PR people are supposed to. I’ve been on her end of the phone before and feel for what she’s either going through or likely to go through. However, UT made a huge mistake here, and it keeps getting worse.

A number of people that I respect have attacked me for making this “political.” It’s not that at all, and I’m offended that friends are trying to silence me. I deeply care about my alma mater, and my blood runs orange. It always will. My four years at UT were amazing, and my education was outstanding. However, as the leader in the climate change debate, Al Gore is suspect when the science ends up being questionable. As I said in my original post, if Climate Gate is remedied or climate change proven, give Al Gore every prize you want.

My main concern is with the University. If Climategate keeps getting worse, Gore’s reputation is going to be incredibly tarnished. Any organization that recognizes him for his work on this issue will look foolish. As a leading research institute, UT has an obligation to only support legitimate and honest research. Why doesn’t UT wait and see how Climategate plays out?

This is not a personal vendetta or a political fight. This is questioning why my alma mater is partnering with a promoter of bad science. Ultimately, my right to freely express my opinion and protest the actions of my alma mater should be respected. Nothing less than that is acceptable.

Despite promises from Obama and a strongly-supported measure in the House, the new version of the health care bill funds abortions. Americans United for Life Action have a new ad urging Congress and Obama to prohibit any federal funding from going to abortions.

Susan B. Anthony List also has more information about abortion and the Health Care Summit last week. This is a major problem. Americans should not be required to fund abortions with tax dollars.

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.

Last week during Snowmageddon, I missed posting the awesome igloo that Senator Inhofe and his family built in DC.

As a former constituent of Al Gore and one of the voters that helped protect the country from having that lunatic in the White House, I thoroughly enjoyed Senator Inhofe’s antic.

Climate change hasn’t gotten much coverage here simply because I’m not a scientist. I took a few climatology courses in college, so I’ve followed the issue of global warming closely. However, I’m not qualified to debate the nuances of this issue.

Why am I writing about it tonight then? Because it frightens me that the EPA is about to launch regulations similar to cap-and-trade.

Amidst Climategate and IPCC revelations that keep leaking out and weakening their “claims” that the earth is warming, should a regulatory agency radically change how energy is taxed and used in this country?

According to a Pajamas Media article, Senator Inhofe is once again drawing attention to the questionable science behind the policies regarding climate change. Last week, he gave a floor speech questioning the EPA:

Inhofe’s speech didn’t directly call for any particular action on the part of Congress, but it did point out that the Obama administration has asserted that if a cap and trade bill doesn’t pass, it could achieve similar effects by a simple finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that carbon dioxide is a pollutant — a finding the EPA actually made late last year. However, as Inhofe pointed out in his on-floor remarks, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had testified to his committee that the CO2 finding was largely based on the IPCC reports.

Today, the New York Times mentioned the EPA in an article on Obama pondering the use of executive orders:

Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so. His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.

Is anyone else bothered that a regulatory agency is about to change policies that could impact every single person in this country based on a politicized science?

Climate change is possible. I’m not one of those conservatives who turn a deaf ear towards environmental issues. I’m probably one of the greener conservatives out there.  As a Christian, I believe that it is our duty to take care of the earth and our environment. However, climate change enthusiasts have gone overboard on this issue.

We should not make any drastic changes to any U.S. policy without being 100% sure of the science that drives it. History shows that science of the moment is not always correct, yet anyone that has questioned the science of anthropogenic climate change has been nearly crucified. It’s eerily reminiscent of how the Catholic Church controlled science and persecuted Galileo and Copernicus when they questioned prevailing thought.

Perhaps I went to an old-fashioned high school, but I was taught that the scientific method questions every hypothesis until all other possible conclusions are ruled out. There are endless hypotheses that have not gotten much press or consideration in policy debates. Senator Inhofe is absolutely correct in questioning regulations and bills regarding climate change.

In light of the revelations of the East Anglia CRU and the IPCC coming clean time and time again, neither President Obama, Congress nor any regulatory agency should even consider acting on climate change. This entire issue should be tabled for a while and allow the science community to debate without politics or agenda.

It bothers me that we’re not even allowed to debate this issue. The science is questionable, yet believers expect us to blindly follow their views and radically change our lives. That is not acceptable. We should not be called stupid or ignorant because we dare question policy changes. If scientists and believers are so confident in their research and findings, they should welcome rigorous debate and questioning and not bully those of us who are cautious.

Michelle Malkin has a post up today about new revelations from the IPCC and East Anglia.

All over the web, I’ve read the reaction of feminists to the Tebow Superbowl commercial and almost universal laughter at their charge of domestic abuse. When I first saw Amanda Marcotte’s tweet and then saw that NOW, Women’s Media Center and other organizations were going with that angle, I rolled my eyes. This was clearly a group that picked an unwise battle, came out on the losing side and was desperately trying to save face.

After seeing Megyn Kelly’s interview with Women’s Media Center spokesperson, (always use gender neutral speech when referencing feminists) Shelby Knox, I remembered a few facts about the feminist movement’s relationship with domestic violence. After the video, let’s examine other high-profiles of domestic violence* and the feminist movement. It’s not such a supportive history.

Superbowl Sunday 1993
The week prior to the Superbowl, numerous women’s groups announced that calls to domestic violence shelters dramatically increased the day after the Superbowl. Watching men beat each other up on the gridiron caused men to rough up their wives, girlfriends and mothers.

Wrong! It turns out a “coalition of women’s groups” in California had fudged some numbers from a study conducted at Old Dominion University and actually misquoted an expert on domestic violence in their press release. However, the damage was done. If you Google “Superbowl, domestic violence” hits come up for nearly every year since then. Christina Hoff Sommers also examines the evolution of this myth in Who Stole Feminism?

O.J. Simpson 1994
In her book, The New Thought Police, Tammy Bruce recounts here experience in leading the California NOW chapter’s efforts to fight domestic violence after Nicole Brown Simpson was found murdered. Regardless if OJ did it or not, there was clear evidence that she has frequently abused in the relationship. Bruce use the high-profile story to lead candlelight vigils and increase advocacy efforts to fight domestic violence. She was making so much noise in California that conservative Christians were donating money to their domestic violence efforts.

A problem emerged when higher-ups in the NOW told Bruce to stop. She was making the NAACP and other minority partners upset. In the grand scheme of leftist politics, race counted more than sex (according to Leslie Sanchez’s book, We’ve Come a Long Way, Maybe, this was also was a factor in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign). According to the hierarchy of Democrats, feminists couldn’t highlight the domestic abuse issue in the OJ Simpson case because OJ was black. Despite the good that might come about, it ruffled feathers in the liberal coalition. Bruce was maligned by the highest levels of NOW and the feminist movement and officials distanced themselves from her.

Bill Clinton, late 1990s
Despite mounting evidence that Bill Clinton took advantage of women and potentially raped them. Aside from Monica, which would have been deemed inappropriate by any private workplace, (Harassment of interns should never be tolerated even when “consensual.”) there was Juanita Broadderick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. Not one feminist group stood up to Clinton. Like the Bruce situation, they sacrificed one for the team in order to protect their waning voice in Democratic politics.

Domestic Violence in LGBT Relationships
Domestic violence PSAs and images are very stereotyped. What do you call a man’s sleeveless undershirt? A wifebeater! Where do you think that name came from?

A dirty little secret among feminists and other liberal groups is that domestic violence is just as prevalent among LGBT intimate partners as it is among heterosexuals. That mans that middle-aged white men are not the most dangerous individuals around, as feminists would have you believe. Anyone can perpetrate violence against an intimate partner, women against men, women against women and men against men. When was the last time you heard that talked about during Domestic Violence Awareness month?

Feminists are quick to play the domestic violence card when it suits their purposes. However, whenever it might place them in a sticky situation or make their friends look bad, it doesn’t happen. Every time they cry wolf about an issue and then fall back on a domestic violence charge, it cheapens the actual problem of domestic abuse in our society. Every false charge hurts women (and men and children) who are stuck in violent situation. Having seen and talked to kids and women who were real victims, it makes me sick to see them attempt to gain political capital from a bad strategic decision.

High profile groups such as NOW and Women’s Media Center may give lip service with a few PSAs and press releases throughout the year, but they cause real harm to the small groups and hard-working advocates fighting this terrible problem in society. On the same day that they called Pam Tebow’s tackle “bizarre” or “violent,” a real case of high-profile abuse by a Warren Sapp, former NFL player and Dancing With the Stars finalist, was reported. Did you hear any feminists condemn his actions? Joe Henderson, columnist at the Tampa Bay Tribune has a problem with the situation:

NOW fights legitimate issues and has been a strong (if occasionally strident) voice against real problems in society.

This isn’t one of them.

A statement like this actually hurts women’s causes because it comes across as irrational wide-eyed rhetoric, especially when you consider the timing.

Hours before the Tebow ad ran, former Tampa Bay Buccaneer Warren Sapp was arrested in Miami on a misdemeanor charge of domestic battery against a woman.

Where was Terry O’Neill on that one? (H/T NeW)

Groups that claim to fight domestic violence should not be selective when it has the potential to get their names in the news and raise a few dollars. Either they fight every case or they don’t engage. Sadly, there are enough high-profile domestic violence cases that they could made an difference if they actually lived up to their name. Instead, they tried to fight pro-lifers and looked like idiots, so they changed strategies and exploited a cause that has the potential to inflict real damage in the lives of women.

I’ve been rather critical of First Lady Michelle Obama and rightfully so. For all her gardening and anti-obesity photo-ops, she’s frightfully out of touch with the average American family. I track her wardrobe, and she easily wears $1 million worth of clothing in a year. She wore $50,000 alone last January. When Nancy Reagan did that during the 80s recession, she was vilified.

Kudos to her for being graceful on the topic of Sarah Palin. First Ladies are usually tactful and stay above the mud-slinging. However, this administration hasn’t done a very good job of staying above the fray on anything. The Prez  and his staff like making their opinions known whether they are warranted or not.  Mrs. O easily could have said something catty and the media wouldn’t have called her on it. Good for her for displaying class in an amateur administration.

Last night on Larry King Live, she managed to support women while staying apolitical:

“I think it’s wonderful to have strong female voices out there, but I don’t know her,” said Obama.

“What’s your read on the former governor of Alaska?” King had asked, setting up an exchange with classic cable television cat-fight potential.

“You know, I don’t have a read. I try not to make, or set, opinions about people that I haven’t had any, you know, substantive interaction with. I mean, I know what you see on TV and when –” Obama replied.

“Does it irk you when she criticizes?” King pressed.

“You know, democracy is about critique. And the president is not immune to criticism,” said Obama.

Obama also declined to be drawn out on the subject of the Tea Party convention. “You know, I’m — I’m focused on what’s in front of me. And right now, that’s ending childhood obesity in a generation — getting this done,” she said.

On Good Morning America yesterday, she also could have attacked Palin:

“I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course,” Michelle Obama told Robin Roberts in an exclusive morning television interview on “Good Morning America.” “That’s what leadership is. But people have the right to criticize the president of the United States.”

Michelle Obama’s comments came in response to recent criticism from Sarah Palin, who told Tea Party conventioneers in Nashville, Tenn., this weekend that she wants to ask Obama supporters, “How is that hope-y, change-y stuff working out for you?”