The Gossip on Roberts and the painful wait for the confirmation hearings

Since Tuesday night, gossip has been damn near monopolized with news of Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, John G. Roberts. Well_no_shit. All throughout the blogosphere and the major television media outlets, Roberts’ history and political philosophy has been dissected and even questioned as to whether it would spell the end of Roe and women’s reproductive rights altogether. I’d say no more than forty-five minutes after Bush’s announcement on Tuesday, my email inbox was bombarded with ‘take action’ emails from NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Organization for Women, and Planned Parenthood. I answered all of them and signed all the petitions.

And naturally when I received all of those alert emails, they included directions and times for all the emergency pro-choice rallies, but just about all of them took place in cities such as San Francisco, Washington DC, and New York City. Come on people, you know I live in Indianapolis–I had to include that info when I registered. Must you be so cruel to me?

You can’t go to any political blog without seeing this story and then not read any commentary on the fate of Roe v. Wade. Certainly not at Pandagon where Amanda has done an excellent job in keeping us privy to the latest in Roberts’ past anti-Roe legal activity, the anti-choice ideologues who endorse him, (scroll down a bit to see the links) and denouncing this “let Roe go back to the States” nonsense. And there has been talk of his past anti-union legal activity as well. No doubt you’ve heard that the Democrats and Moderates aren’t all that worried about Roberts and are hesitant to say or even believe that this could lead to a showdown on Capitol Hill. The Senate Judiciary Committee will ‘likely begin confirmation hearings on Roberts after Labor Day’ according to the previous CNN link. And we all know the Republicans are walking on sunshine because at long last, they have been given the prospect of finally having someone who could truly tip the balance the other way when it comes to decisions concerning abortion-rights.

But what will happen during those confirmation hearings? Will the committee go easy on him, be mildly critical about his history, or will they grill him? Will the Democrats listen to those of us who look to them to ensure and protect our civil rights and liberties and take a closer look at his record–especially concerning his anti-Roe legal history? Could this lead to a Congressional stalemate, with the Democrats threatening to filibuster and bring business on the Hill to a halt, and then the Republicans countering with the Nuclear Option? Could they just at least give us a good drama? And could the Democrats, for once, not cop-out on the issue of women’s reproductive rights, prove themselves to us as Amanda says here, and remember Roe’s importance to the millions of women who vote for them? Oh the suspense is killing me…..especially waiting to find out what will happen to Roe. Kudos again to Amanda for her fine work on this story.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Supreme Court Issues | 17 Comments

Please Call Karen Minnis Today! Right Now! Please!

Who is Karen Minnis, you ask?

She’s the Speaker of the House in Oregon. And she’s the main barrier standing in the way of Civil Unions for lesbians and gays in Oregon.

Basic Rights Oregon believes that they have the votes needed to pass a Civil Union bill in Oregon – but that can only happen if Karen Minnis allows SB1000, the Oregon Civil Union Bill, to be voted on. As the BRO Blog says:

Call Speaker Minnis now at 503-986-1200 and tell her:

  • The people of Oregon ought to know where their representatives stand on SB 1000.
  • Bring SB 1000 to an up or down vote on the House floor immediately.

It doesn’t matter if you’re an Oregonian or not – give Karen a call, and ask her (politely is more effective) to let the House vote on SB1000. And if you’re an Oregonian, BRO has some additional suggestions for you.

And if you’re a blogger, please consider linking to this post, or BRO’s post, ASAP.

I don’t do a lot of posts like this, because I want to save them for times when I really think calls can make a difference. Today is probably the essential day, and calling takes thirty seconds. Civil Unions aren’t the ultimate goal, but they can mean a hell of a lot – they can mean insurance, and hospital visitation, just for a start. Please call Karen today.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 13 Comments

"Alas" was offline for about 16 hours

As many of you noticed, “Alas” was offline for about 16 hours, from late yesterday afternoon to early this morning. We’re back online now, obviously. The rest of this post is a detailed discussion of what went wrong and what I’m planning to do about it.

Continue reading

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 12 Comments

Pregnancy is a process

I’m 23 weeks pregnant: almost two-thirds of the way through. So far, I’ve been lucky enough to enjoy a normal, complication-free pregnancy.

Which means that I suffered two weeks of feeling vaguely sick during every waking moment, unable to face any food apart from crackers and chopped apples. I vomited at the sight of blood for the first time in my life. I had days when exhaustion overwhelmed me and I couldn’t do anything but sleep. For the whole of the first trimester, hormones sent my emotions so far out of whack that a DIY show could reduce me to floods of tears.

I’ve given up or cut down on favourite foods and drinks that, although harmless to me could do untold damage to my baby. I had to take a vile-tasting liquid medicine for a recurring condition rather than the usual straightforward tablet, which contains an ingredient that could harm the baby.

My nipples became so tender that I had to wear a bra even in bed. By the time that had stopped, my breasts had grown large enough to make me uncomfortably self-conscious. A visit to the bank manager is now torture because my waistline has thickened so much that none of my smart clothes fit. I have to take exaggerated care whenever I lift anything that it doesn’t press against my stomach.

These are all minor niggles compared to the joy of knowing that I’m having the baby I always longed for. And when November comes and the oxytocin works its magic, none of them will bother me again. But it has had one effect on me: what patience I ever had with the argument that “if you don’t want the baby you can just put it up for adoption” has vanished forever.

Women who want an abortion don’t object to the fetus, they object to the pregnancy. If the technology existed to remove a fetus unharmed from its mother and transfer it into an artificial womb, with no more complications than an abortion presents, abortion would disappear. Putting the baby up for adoption doesn’t solve the problem: the woman is still forced to act as a life-support system for nine months.

I want this baby passionately, and I still wish it was possible for me to take a break from being pregnant every now and again. Just pop the baby into an artificial womb for a couple of hours and do my own thing without having to worry about how it might affect the baby. And if I feel like this with a wanted pregnancy, how much worse would a woman feel who became pregnant as a result of contraceptive failure and remains pregnant because she’s been denied access to abortion?

Pro-lifers often brush this question under the carpet. There’s no admission that pregnancy is a process, and one that uses up a woman’s physical and emotional resources, sometimes alarmingly. They treat pregnancy as a passive state, purely a question of not having an abortion.

That’s not how it is. I may not be consciously controlling the progress of this pregnancy, but I’m not waiting passively for my due date either. I’m not the same person, physically or emotionally, as I would have been had I not become pregnant. For me, those changes are worthwhile: a small price to pay for my baby. But to insist a woman accepts them against her will, despite being by her own admission not ready for motherhood, is neither fair nor reasonable.

Edit: When I said that artificial wombs would eliminate all need for abortion, I thought I was stating the majority pro-choice position. Turns out there’s a lot more to the question than I believed. For “disappear”, please read “be enormously reduced”.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights | 70 Comments

Power Line on the Minimum Wage

While looking for something else, I came across this post on the right-wing blog Power Line, attacking a groundbreaking study of the minimum wage by economists David Card and Alan Krueger. From a summary of the study by John Schmitt (pdf link):

The study received widespread attention, not because its findings were unusual (most studies since the mid-1980s have found that moderate increases in the minimum wage have little or no impact on employments), but because its methodology was so careful and convincing. Card and Krueger surveyed 33 1 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and 79 restaurants in eastern Pennsylvania in the two months before the April 1, 1992 increase. They then reinterviewed the same restaurants about eight months later. The study’s unique design allowed them to use the restaurants in eastern Pennsylvania, where the minimum wage did not increase, as a control group to gauge the response of the New Jersey restaurants.

By comparing changes in employment in the two states (a procedure they referred to as “differences-indifferences”), Card and Krueger were able to estimate the employment effects of the New Jersey increase. Using this approach, they found that the differences in employment growth between the two states were not statistically significant. They concluded, therefore, that the minimum-wage increase did not lower employment in New Jersey.

Tihs is important because the main argument against the minimum wage is that raising the minimum wage hurts low-income workers by raising unemployment among low-wage employers (such as fast food restaurants). If this isn’t true – if small increases in the minimum wage don’t actually hurt employment significantly – then the case against the minimum wage becomes much, much weaker.

(The minimum wage is also especially important to feminists because women are more likely to earn the minimum wage than men. Raising the minimum wage probably has the effect of reducing the wage gap between men and women, and also between some people of color and whites).

To refute Card and Krueger’s study, Power Line quotes a 1995 Reason Magazine article by Benjamin Zychler, which accuses Card and Krueger of using bad data:

Moreover, the Card/Krueger study turns out to have a major flaw: The survey data upon which it depends are lousy.

Suspicious of the Card/Krueger data and findings, the Employment Policies Institute [EPI] gathered the actual payroll records from the Burger King franchises in the Card/Krueger zip codes and compared them to franchises surveyed in those zip codes. The survey data were wildly inconsistent with the payroll records.[…]

So Neumark and Wascher [two right-wing economists working with EPI] reviewed the payroll employment data gathered by EPI. When they applied the payroll data to the same econometric model used by Card and Krueger, they got completely different results. The variation in employment changes declined markedly, and analysis of the new data yields an estimated 4.8-percent decline in New Jersey employment relative to the Pennsylvania sample as a result of the higher minimum wage. Where payroll data could be compared with survey data for specific restaurants, Neumark and Wascher also found numerous errors in the Card/ Krueger data. […]

In short, using the actual payroll data instead of the survey “guesstimates” effectively refutes the Card/Krueger findings yielded by the New Jersey/Pennsylvania “natural experiment.”

That seems pretty damning, doesn’t it? The problem is, Power Line has quoted an article which was written when the story was only halfway through. It turns out that there is “lousy data” here – but the lousy data wasn’t Card and Krueger’s.

The attack on Card and Krueger relies on payroll data gathered by EPI – an anti-minimum-wage think tank funded to a significant extent by the fast food industry. Even Neumark and Wascher had to admit that the EPI was not a neutral party. Normally this sort of problem is solved by transparency; researchers make their data and methods available to the public (or at least to other researchers) to prove that they haven’t cooked the data.

However, EPI has refused to do that. Essentially, the attack on Card and Krueger consists of a biased think tank saying “we have data that proves Card and Krueger are wrong. But it’s super-secret data that we won’t let anyone check, so you’ll just have to take our word for it.”

To get around the “super-secret data” problem, the economists the EPI was working with, Neumark and Wascher, gathered their own data. The results didn’t make the EPI’s secret data look good. From The American Prospect:

When Neumark and Wascher analyzed the Employment Policies Institute sample and their own sample separately, a funny thing happened. The slightly expanded Employment Policies Institute sample indicated that the minimum wage did have a significant negative impact on employment in New Jersey (at least in one of the two statistical tests). But Neumark and Wascher’s own data found no statistical difference in employment growth in the two states. Quite unintentionally, Neumark and Wascher had vindicated Card and Krueger.

Neumark and Wascher scrambled to explain their results. They maintained that the combined data provided the best basis for determining the employment effects. But their position was undermined by major differences in the two samples. The Employment Policies Institute restaurants showed much more uniform employment changes than those in the Neumark and Wascher sample. In fact, basic statistical tests demonstrated convincingly that the Neumark and Wascher sample showed so much more variation in employment changes across restaurants that it was highly unlikely that the two samples were chosen randomly from the same population of restaurants.

In response to the controversy, in 1997 the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics made relevant payroll data for New Jersey and Pennsylvania available to researchers. The BLS payroll data is the most authoritative data available; it cannot credibly be accused of being gathered in a biased manner, or of being a “guesstimate.” The results? Not surprisingly, the actual payroll data contradicted the “secret methodology” data right-wingers prefer; raising the minimum wage in New Jersey did not lead to decreased employment.

Furthermore, researchers were now able to examine BLS data from 1996 – when an increase in the national minimum wage caused the minimum wage to go up in Pennsylvania, but not in New Jersey (because NJ had already raised their minimum in 1992). Once again, the data showed no increase in unemployment in the state raising its minimum wage, compared to the state that didn’t.

In short, Power Line’s attempted refutation of Card and Krueger’s study is based on a fraud. The best evidence available shows that there are no significant effects on employment caused by reasonable increases in the minimum wage; and the only way the right has been able to refute this is by using data so embarrassing and dishonest that they don’t dare let other researchers examine it.

The right’s cooked “super secret” data aside, the best evidence available shows that low-wage workers benefit from raising the minimum wage. (Well, duh.)

Posted in Economics and the like, Minimum Wage | 65 Comments

"The GOP is still barking up the wrong tree"–Marian's Blog

This past week was Indiana’s annual ‘Black Expo’ in downtown Indy, where African-American history and African culture were celebrated, and the event was widely and commendably covered by the local media. Unfortunately, I had to work (grr), so I was unable to attend. The media coverage of the event was excellent, and I kept up with the daily happenings of the expo via the news and my car’s radio. There were only two negatives (for me at least) with the whole event. Number one; one of the sponsors of this splendid celebration of African-American history and African culture was the Indiana chapter of the ‘Right to Life Foundation,’ an anti-choice organization. Number two; Bush made a visit to the expo along with GOP leader Ken Mehlman–bringing their new strategy to “recruit” African-American voters. Needless to say I wasn’t all that thrilled to hear of his visit and was actually thankful that I had to work and miss it. Marian of Marian’s Blog, wasn’t too thrilled either, especially concerning the insidious tactics used by the Bush-Mehlman Pact to woo the African-American attendees of the expo.

[…]The Bush-Mehlman junket was part of what I’m naming the New Republican Southern Strategy. The ‘strategy’ seems pretty much to be an attempt to dilute or neutralise the Black vote while organising dissatisfied Whites. Those too are my own words. The tantalising question of what some White Americans may be or ought to be upset about – and at whom – will be subjects for future posts on this blog. The New Republican Southern Strategy extends well beyond the US South, though Indiana, which borders the state of Kentucky, culturally is not completely “Northern.” The Bush-Mehlman Hoosier trip was arrogant and anti-historical in the way it targeted Black Americans. These are the same people who violated the voting rights of thousands of Black Americans before and on Election Day 2000. Now George Bush and Ken Mehlman have the gall to stand before Black Indianans asking for a political blank check.[…]

Yes, the man has gall alright. Bush is using his “capital” and “mandate” to buy more and then spend it. Probably *not* in a way that would be beneficial to the voters who handed him that ‘political blank check.’

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Race, racism and related issues | 2 Comments

FDA sets a deadline for Plan B decision and Bush's views on contraception

Two interesting news briefs from ‘Feminist Majority’ that I just couldn’t have been passed up. The FDA has promised to make a decision on Plan B by September 1 of this year. Gee, will the FDA continue to play politics with women’s health and reproductive rights, all to appease Bush and the anti-choice/anti-contraception ideologues? (Probably.)

Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt has promised that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will make its decision about the over-the-counter status of emergency contraception by September 1, 2005. Leavitt’s announcement comes after a series of delays on Barr Laboratories’ application for the sale of Plan B, a brand of emergency contraception, over-the-counter. At the expense of women’s health, the FDA has continued to put off making a decision despite two expert FDA advisory panels that voted 23 to 4 to recommend its availability in December 2003.

[…]”After more than two years of waiting, American consumers and American women will finally get an answer,” said Senators Murray and Clinton in a joint statement. “While we continue to have concerns about the lack of leadership and independent decision-making that Dr. Crawford and the FDA have shown in this case, we have been clear all along that our hold on this nomination is about one thing only: the FDA’s failure to provide an answer on Plan B.”

It’s all about keeping us guessing and begging for an answer–begging for women’s reproductive rights and health to be ensured and protected. It’s some sick game to them. Toying with women’s health and reproductive rights, and treating them as “inconveniences” or “unimportant special interest issues,” clearly demonstrates what little regard and esteem our government holds women’s civil rights and liberties–as reproductive rights (*autonomy*) and health are apart of those things. Now, it’s time to ask Dubya Bush about his personal stance on contraception…

Nineteen members of Congress have sent a leader to President Bush asking him to clarify his position on contraception. Led by Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), they seek an answer to a question White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer on May 26. At the press briefing, when asked about the President’s position on birth control, McClellan replied “… I think the President’s views are very clear when it comes to building a culture of life … and if you want to ask those questions, that’s fine. I’m just not going to dignify them with a response.”

Has McClellan ever dignified a journalist’s question with straight forward answer?

“The President demonstrates yet again how out of touch he is with mainstream America. Contraception is one of the keys to ensuring that abortion is a choice that is rare. There should be absolutely no ambiguity,” said Wasserman Schultz.[…] “If the President cannot respond to a simple question on whether he is opposed to birth control, then women’s access to birth control is at risk.” In the letter, the members of Congress urge the President to take a clear stand on contraception, saying “responsible men and women need the President to stand up in support of their rights to contraception, not to shy away from the issue.”

A noble ‘dare‘ on the President, however, Bush and his Press Secretary McClellan are notoriously skillful in the art of never directly answering a question. Or giving ambiguous and extremely vague answers that can be interpreted as a simple, “ha-ha, I’m side stepping the question all together and playing word games that you’ll never figure out.”

[…] “Doctrines of privacy and equality for women are simply not separable: Eroding one imperils the other,” writes Ellen Chesler in Ms. magazine’s Urgent Report on the Looming Fight Over the Supreme Court. […]

Knowing exactly where Bush stands on the issue of contraception will probably give us more insight as to the fates of Roe and Griswold, as his judicial nominee will more than likely reflect his own personal views on women’s health and women’s reproductive rights.

*Update*–thanks to an email I received, here’s some info on how emergency contraception really works.

Posted in Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics | 3 Comments

Sydney and Amp, Peers in Drawing

Sometimes artists complain that creating is a lonely act, but does that always have to be the case? Not in our household! Here you see Sydney and Amp working side by side. Awwww….

In this picture, Amp is working on an illustration for a role-playing game created by Emily Care. It’s unclear what Sydney’s working on, but it involves a lot of scribbles.

Here, as you can see, Sydney offers Amp some constructive criticism.

Oh-oh – someone mentioned what artists get paid, and now they’re both pissed!

Posted in Baby & kid blogging | 19 Comments

Just Finished Reading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

I just now finished reading the new Harry Potter novel, which I enjoyed quite a lot.

Here are some scattered thoughts. Don’t read on unless you don’t mind spoilers.

Edited to add: No, really, there are serious, serious, spoilers here – some very key plot points revealed. Don’t click unless you’ve read the novel or don’t mind spoilers at all.

Continue reading

Posted in Popular (and unpopular) culture | 182 Comments

"PlameGate", the Bush Administration, and Rove's treason

Our current presidential administration loves its false sense of entitlement to never being held accountable, never allowing any critical questioning of its credibility (and silencing those who dare to do so), and shamefully absolving themselves from taking responsibility for any wrong-doing or major screw-up, whether it’s by Dubya himself or one of its own such as Karl Rove. Reprehensible wrong-doing and screw-ups such as misleading the country about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, then refusing to acknowledge that there were no WMD’s in Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with the tragic 9/11 attacks (oh but then it conveniently went from “finding those WMD’s and Saddam was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks” to “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and spreading democracy), failing to take precautions that could have prevented 9/11 (never mind how many warnings they received on Bin Laden planning an attack against us), and now “PlameGate“.

“PlameGate” is scandal based on one man’s, Karl Rove’s (with the help of his lackey, columnist and conservative political pundit Robert Novak), shameful and egregious attempts to defame and silence a dissenting critic of Bush’s war in Iraq, by tarnishing and ruining the career of his wife, a CIA operative. How childishly petty. Rove apparently thinks he’s still in Junior High and writing a slam-book against ‘that bitch whose man bad-mouthed his man.’ Well the chief presidential advisor, the Benedict Arnold of our time, recently testified before a Grand Jury concerning the “PlameGate” investigation.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of a CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.[…]

And I’m sure he (Novak) told Rove this with no intention of smearing her name or using it to further some malignant hidden agenda. Riiight.

The conversation eventually turned to Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration’s use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

[…]Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and — in an effort to discredit some of Wilson’s allegations — informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, the source said.[…]

An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson’s wife in a confidential conversation as someone who “apparently works” at the CIA.

Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.

He’ll receive a medal as well from Dubya, just as George Tenet did, despite his (Tenet) own fuck-ups with *factual* intelligence gathering and then misleadings concerning the war in Iraq.

[…] Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly outed his or her identity.

How_the_hell could a high government official such as Rove not know that a CIA employee could potentially be a covert operative? It’s the fucking CIA! That’s not exactly your everyday office space. No one is that stupid, however, people are that abusive for political gain.

Rove’s conversations with Novak and Cooper took place just days after Wilson suggested in a New York Times opinion piece that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.[…]

No hidden agenda there, right Novak (and Rove)? You would never go after Plame just to get to her husband Wilson, as some sort of despicable scheme to silence a dissenting critic of Bush’s Iraqi war? No, no–of course not.

On Thursday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada pressed for legislation to strip Rove of his clearance for classified information, …. Instead, Reid said, the Bush administration has attacked its critics: “This is what is known as a cover-up. This is an abuse of power.”

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, said Democrats were resorting to “partisan war chants.”

Typical. Oh and there was nothing partisan when the Republicans demanded that Clinton be ousted from office for lying about screwing an intern. Lying about that apparently warranted an independent prosecution, Grand Jury testimonies, impeachment hearings, and calls for heads to roll. But when it comes to calling for an investigation into Karl Rove’s treachery in a shameful political ploy to denegrate a critic of the Bush Administraion’s Iraqi war, via ruining his wife’s career as a CIA operative, it’s “partisan politics.” Nice.

Across the Capitol, Rep. Rush Holt, D-New Jersey, introduced legislation for an investigation that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the Plame disclosure.

Pressed to explain its statements of two years ago that Rove wasn’t involved in the leak, the White House refused to do so this week.

“If I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Nice snub there, McClellan. You’re getting awfully good at it as of late (see here and here). The delusional sense of entitlement to teflonhood by this administration never cease to astound me. And remember the definitions for the words ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’? N.O.W. does….

Treason, noun, “The crime of betraying one’s country” (Compact Oxford English Dictionary). High treason: “Violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state” (Oxford English Dictionary). Traitor: “one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty” (Merriam-Webster). Sound familiar?

Last week, MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell reported that Karl Rove was the White House source who revealed the identity and thus threatened the life of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. Rove was apparently acting at the time to discredit allegations made by Plame’s husband, Joseph C. Wilson, IV, who had publicly refuted the White House claim about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. In other words, Rove exposed and endangered a female CIA operative – to get to her husband. This was not only an offense against Plame, whose life and work were put in jeopardy, it was an offense against our country and our government.

There has already been a call for George W. Bush to immediately suspend Rove’s security clearances, pending the outcome of the government investigation. After all, he’s leaked highly confidential and dangerous information for political gain before, why wouldn’t he do it again? By all rights, PlameGate should be a scandal of the highest order, certainly as well-publicized as any of the minor scandals during the Clinton Administration.[…]

Bush himself said that he would “take care” of anyone who leaked vital government information and names (and by “take care” I would assume being given a medal or some other political perk)…..

“If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. “If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”[…]

One more from Bush for some laughs and giggles, and irony…

[…]Even though I’m a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.[…]

So…when is Rove’s presidential honor and award ceremony? If Bush would give a medal to George Tenet no doubt he would give one to Rove. Pardon my cynicism of Dubya’s unconvincing promise to punish those who leak government info and break the law, but oh please let Rove’s award ceremony take place in the Rose Garden (even roses can smell like shit, people)! Here’s a timeline for background info on the PlameGate/Rove scandal.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics | 14 Comments