Saturday, July 30, 2005

How to De-gay Folks

Ex-gay Watch has two recent postings that give people who are inexperienced in ex-gay logic some insight. Both are hilarous and sad in different ways.

The Daily Show's Samantha Bea talks about the "gayification" of NASCAR with an ex-gay man. Click here for the video. Worth the short wait.

On a more serious note, Eartha Melzer of The Houston Voice was allowed to attend an Exodus ex-gay convention (as long as she was accompanied by an Exodus representative). The following is an excerpt from a session titled 'Making Your Marriage Work.'

‘Making Your Marriage Work’
Mike suggested attending a workshop on “Making Your Marriage Work.”

Frank Worthen, an Exodus founder, and his wife, Anita, offered tips on how the ex-gay male can marry a woman and meet the expectations of family and friends. They addressed a classroom packed with about 60 people, about half with what appeared to be their spouses.

“Men are ready for marriage when their desire to be protected becomes a desire to protect,” Frank Worthen said. “A man should also have three years of celibacy,” he added, “and have been free of pornography and masturbation for some time.”

They were many questions.

A middle-aged man with a crew-cut wanted to know he needs to be “free of masturbation.” He was seated next to a woman.

Frank Worthen asked the crowd, “What should be done if a man begins to have same-sex fantasies while making love to his wife?”

A man in the audience said he and his wife pray whenever they make love.

Anita Worthen told the crowd that married couples are responsible for keeping one another sexually satisfied, and that this can present special challenges in a relationship with an ex-gay partner. A wife needs to be prepared to offer extra help so that her husband can have an erection, she said. Also, she said some men do not enjoy the feel of a woman’s skin.

“How can this be overcome?” I asked.

Frank Worthen said men need to become “hard and masculine” in order to be able to enjoy the soft, mushy feel of a woman. To become firmer, it is OK for a man to work out a little bit, he said, just not too much.

He also said that many wives wonder whether their ex-gay husbands will expect them to engage in the “unnatural” sex practices to which they imagine their husbands have become accustomed. Not so, Frank said, and he recommended that couples avoid oral sex, which could stimulate gay fantasies.

The Worthens said physical intimacy should proceed slowly, and it is best to wait until marriage to experiment with deep kissing. There should be no commitment to sexual performance on the wedding night, they said, and some prudent couples wait a year after marriage before even attempting sexual intercourse.

Frank Worthen also warned the crowd that gay friends are a one-way ticket back to “the lifestyle.”

His wife said wives should be prepared to submit to their husbands’ plans. Her husband instructed audience members to practice communication: Be a good listener, put down the paper, he said, make eye contact, and pretend you care.

Talk about unnatural. I feel sorry for women who are internalizing the lack of desire their husbands have for them while constantly being expected to provide "extra help" (Let's see, which one tonitght, the French maid oufit or the Miss Jane Hathaway costume?) to make up for it. This certainly brings a new dimension, however, to the notion of "wives submit to your husbands."

Tuesday, July 26, 2005


Rosie Swingin'
Originally uploaded by Troy Smythe.
My friend Rosie, a frequent commenter here at Growing Sense, lives in Philly where she is finishing her PhD in art history at Temple. We became friends when she recommended that the museum we worked for hire me. She told me later that her gut indicated I was someone she could take shopping with her. You have to know Rosie to understand how significant such a declaration is.

The fact that I can get Rosie to come back to Indy for visits amazes me. She is very metropolitan. Though she was born Catholic in Oklahoma, a lot of people assume she is a New York Jew when they meet her.

We eat a lot when she is in town. Actually I eat a lot. Rosie is more of a quality over quantity kind of person. I've always admired that about her. I've never had the discipline to chose one over the other myself. Rosie loves good food, especially watermelon, which she DOES eat a lot of. We ate three between us while she was here (John doesn't care for watermelon). We also made two kinds of ice cream (peach and maple--and this doesn't include our trips to Ritter's Frozen Custard) and a lemon sorbet, three batches of guacamole, two rounds of gazpacho, and lots of other things.

And, of course, we ate out. Our friend Wendy, a relocated Mainer, had all of us over for a lobster feast one night--lobster, corn on the cob, potatoes, homemade pickles, and blueberry cake.Unbelievable.

One night our friends Gayle and William joined us for dinner at The Bosphorous (a Turkish restaurant). This is Gayle on our back porch, where Rosie demands that we spend a lot of time when she comes.

Originally uploaded by Troy Smythe.

Gayle and Rosie
Originally uploaded by Troy Smythe.

I love this picture of Gayle and Rosie. It looks like Rosie is berating Gayle for not eating her peas or something. Actually we were all trying to name 10 body parts that are spelled with three letters. Our waiter said he would give us a free dessert if we got them all. He obviously had no idea who was at the table. It took us the entire meal and a few cel phone calls (slang was not allowed, which made it pretty hard), but we got all the answers. No one stands between me and dessert or between Rosie and free food (as long as it's good).

There were many other visits. We got a pedicure while talking with our friend Naeemah. We had a visit with our friend Angela. Our friends Dave (another GS commenter) and Ken came over. Dave is the only person I know who has as profound an understanding of clothes as Rosie does, so they were destined to meet.

Rosie and Jane
Originally uploaded by Troy Smythe.

Our friend Jane came over, too. Notice where we're sitting. We spent the evening eating guac, gazpacho and cheese, talking politics and about the similarities between Asian and Christian philosophies and their relationships to Platonism and Neoplatonism.

All in all, I think Rosie had a good time. We sure did. Rosie is lots of fun and very smart. Plus, she is a great houseguest. She cleans our coffee maker out everytime she comes. And while she is particular about her cleaning agents (Bon Ami or environmentally friendly products only) she uses them all over the house! Almost makes me wish more of my friends had a slight case of OCD. But we did get to do all of her favorite things, like go to the Farmer's Market and to Johnny's vegetable stand. Made a trip to Breadsmith and even squeezed in Batman Begins and time to watch Ali G. Hopefully she'll make it back to the Crossroads of America soon.


Originally uploaded by Troy Smythe.

Our Gardenia bush has many blooms on it right now. I placed one of them in a small bowl of water to float. It was so pretty in the morning light I had to take its picture.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Uncle Tom's Closet (Part 2)

(Uncle Tom's Closet is a three part series that describes the phenomenon of politically powerful gay people who actively oppose the rights and freedoms of gay people. See Part 1 here.)

Former Congressman Ed Schrock (R-VA) and Robert Traynham, senior aide to Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

Ed Schrock was an ultra-conservative congressman from Pat Robertson's district in Virginia. The Christian Coalition gave him a 92% rating when it came to voting against the rights of gay people. Now 64, Schrock was in the Navy for 24 years and advocated eliminating Clinton's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy so that recruits could once again be questioned about whether or not they had ever had same-sex experiences. According to his website, he is married and is an active member of Atlantic Shores Baptist Church. He has one son.

Schrock was outed in August 2004 during his reelection campaign by Mike Rogers at when it was alleged that Schrock posted an audio ad on a gay personals phone line to arrange sexual liaisons (fyi: the audio file of Schrock's ad is pretty graphic). As a result, Schrock dropped out of his congressional race weeks before the election leaving the Republican party little time to find a candidate to replace him. In December 2004 he went back to work on the Hill as a staffer for congressman Thomas Davis.

“Dr. Troy's” Prescription (I'm not really a doctor):

A clear path forward for Schrock is hard for me to see, mainly because he has a wife to consider. Note to singles (especially conservative Christian singles): Make sure your potential spouse isn't fooling himself or herself into thinking they are straight! When in doubt, ask. If your partner is going the ex-gay route, you should at least be informed and involved and well-read on the statistical outcomes of ex-gay ministry results.

Schrock is ex-military, so I do not see him as a likely candidate for one-on-one talk therapy. Maybe group therapy would be a good way to go.

Plan A: If Schrock and his wife are happy with their arrangement they could make their marriage work. Some couples in similar situations do, though I imagine a conversation about each person's opinion of extramarital sex is in order if they have not had that talk already.

Plan B: If the marriage is not going to work, now would be the time to make as equitable break as is possible. Fortunately, being 64 is “middle-aged” these days. Now that Schrock doesn't have to hide his attraction anymore, he may find it a relief to be open and decide to live the last part of his life as himself, potentially with a man who loves him just as he is. Schrock is a family man, and as his ad said, he is “buff and tan.” He won't have trouble finding a date. If he goes with Plan B, I would suggest he look into the problems facing same-gendered couples at retirement. For some reason I get a vibe that Schrock is a good guy lost in a fog of homophobia. I could see him becoming a quiet advocate for same-gendered couples in the future.

Robert Traynham, senior aide to Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

Robert Traynham is an “out” gay conservative working for senator Rick Santorum. Santorum is known for believing that the right to privacy does not exist in the U.S. Constitution. His legislative opinion is that if “homosexual acts” are “allowed”, polygamy and incest will be as well. Santorum also has said that passing the Federal Marriage Amendment is the most important kind of “homeland security.” He is adamantly against any kind of legal protection for same-gendered couples and their families. Though he is not interested in making it illegal to fire someone just because they are gay, kudos go to Santorum for finding and hiring Traynham, perhaps one of the smarter things he has ever done.

According to Traynham's trustee bio at Cheyney University:

Robert Traynham is currently Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Communications for the Senate Republican Conference, where he serves Conference Chairman, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, in his leadership office. In this capacity, Mr. Traynham is responsible for developing and implementing communication strategies, and for overseeing press-related activities on behalf of all Republicans in the U.S. Senate. He also served as President of the United States Senate Press Secretaries Association.

Before his current appointment, Mr. Traynham held dual posts for Senator Santorum, both as Press Secretary for the Senator's 2000 re-election campaign in Pennsylvania, and for his Senatorial office at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. Robert Traynham has worked for Senator Santorum since January 1997, having served him previously as Deputy Press Secretary and Press Assistant. Prior to working in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Traynham served as Political Director for Black America's Political Action Committee (BAMPAC), an organization whose mission is electing black conservatives to national office.

Below is a section of a conversation with Traynham from Mike Rogers article at RawStoryQ:

…When asked how a gay man could speak for one of the nation's most notorious homophobes, Traynham, left, protested that (he) has "been with the Senator for eight years." Traynham went on to say "Senator Santorum is a man of principle, he is a man who sticks up for what he believes in, I strongly do support Senator Santorum."

When pressed on whether he supported the Senator's stands on lesbian and gay issues, Mr. Traynham abruptly ended the phone call by saying "Senator Santorum is a family man. I have been with Senator Santorum for eight years and I am very proud to be with him."

An attempt to follow-up with a question was met with Mr. Traynham hanging up the phone…

I do not have a place for this one in my head. I understand that some politicos see other issues as more important than fighting for their rights and those of others like them. But how do you work for someone who is actively fighting against your rights? In fact, Traynham helped Santorum get elected on an overt anti-gay relationship platform. I do believe that there is benefit in having homophobic straight people work directly with regular old gay people, but not if the gay person is encouraging the homophobe to keep up the good work of bashing civil rights.

Traynham has indicated that he does not think his sexual orientation is other people's concern. Has he told his boss this? While it may be none of Santorum's business, the senator deplores any hint of gay relationships so much that he was outraged when the Supreme Court decided that they should not be considered illegal. Traynham, at what point does your boss's attempts to squash any access your family may have to the same rights and protections that his has send up a red flag for you?

Why does Traynham's situation make me so angry? At least he is not an elected official (yet). Maybe it is because I think he is young enough to know better, which may not be fair to him. Pennsylvania, outside of the larger cities, is conservative. And who besides Traynham knows what particular socio-cultural prejudices he faces in his network or relationships?

Perhaps Traynham's personal (and somewhat naïve) ambition blinds him to his ultimate fate once his usefulness to social conservatives is depleted. A word of warning from history: When someone sells their brothers and sisters down the river, he likely will find himself shackled to the last raft.

“Dr. Troy's” Prescription (I'm not really a doctor):

A. Stay “Republican Gay.” It seems that the only kind of gay relationships Republicans are comfortable with are non-committed and childless. If people like West, Schrock, and Traynham are the only gay people Republicans know, it is little wonder that the Allen Keyes of the world consider us selfish hedonists.

B. Traynham could find a nice man and settle down. They should try to plan for their retirement and the future of their children together. Then Traynham should try to imagine a couple who does not have enough money or time to hire the attorney necessary to get through the massive trust agreement process.

Traynham also should listen to what Santorum is saying about him and his values. If like the senator, he also equates his own sexuality with bigamy, polygamy, and incest, he will likely need a counselor to help him sort out the differences.

If Traynham is merely taking advantage of his current situation for the sake of an ambitious political career, he should channel Bette Davis's Margo from “All About Eve” and repeat to himself the following:
"Funny business a woman's career. The things you drop on your way up the ladder-so you can move faster-you forget you'll need them again when you go back to being a woman."

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Uncle Tom's Closet (Part 1)

(Uncle Tom's Closet is a three part series that describes the phenomenon of politically powerful gay people who actively oppose the rights and freedoms of gay people.)

Back in February John and I sat in the Indiana senate chamber balcony along with his mom, our friend Duane and his two kids listening to a senate committee decide whether or not the legislature should move forward with a constitutional amendment that would deny our family the legal protections of marriage (See Hope in the Indiana Statehouse).

At one point in the debate, a young black pastor expressed anger that same-sex couples would describe their struggle in terms of the civil rights battles black people have faced. In his opinion, homosexual people were engaging in “learned perversion,” thus eliminating the need to defend their rights. Based on my own experience, I don't believe in “gay school.” The civil rights comparison does, however, warrant a closer look.

The civil rights struggle for black people has been painful and complex. Historically, its challenges ranged from not having the rights and benefits of marriage to the person of their choice during the 20th century to the 19th century problem of being legally classified as a piece of property, like a voiceless chair or mule, to be used, moved, sold or destroyed as the owner saw fit. It is the former analogy that most obviously applies in the case of gay Americans today. To literally compare the struggle for marriage protections with that of legally becoming a person is ludicrous and infuriating to people with ancestors who once suffered under slave laws.

The saga of slavery in the U.S., however, has created a shocking historical record as well as a pantheon of literary characters that have stayed in common cultural use since that time. The titular hero of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin is a frequently invoked archetype. Tom is a faithful, kind-hearted servant to his masters, including the bitterly abusive Simon Legree. Though Tom has every reason to pursue his own freedom and work against Legree's purposes, he chooses to stay and work for him. A sense of moral purpose animates the slave to keep intact the prison that holds him.

“Uncle Tom”, “Tomming”, and “acting white” are now some of the vernaculars used to identify a black person who supports systems that suppress racial equality in general-conservative Judge Clarence Thomas and former senator Alan Keyes have received this designation in the past for advocating policies that work against much of the black community while bettering the position of white people. An Uncle Tom may be motivated by internalized self-loathing, self-preservation or advancement, or a subversive desire to work against the oppressive system from within. At times, a combination of all three factors may be at play.

But is Tomming limited to the black experience? As an out gay man it is perhaps too easy for me to forget that part of my own coming out process included Tomming in the straight community. At a young age I would join in malicious exploitation of gay stereotypes. I worked very hard to hide my true identity in an effort to assimilate into predominately straight crowds. During my time in an ex-gay ministry, which for all practical purposes was an Uncle Tom training camp, I owned up to my same-sex attractions while working to convince myself and others that gay people can and should become heterosexual. For some, myself included, Tomming can be a transition stage on the way to embracing larger truths.

As gay people struggle to gain the same rights to protect their families that straight people have, an influential and dangerous kind of Tomming is becoming more visible, that of highly influential political closet cases. Over the next three days I will describe a variety of gay politicos who ironically have worked very hard to limit the rights and freedoms of gay people.

Today's public figure is Mayor Jim West (R), Spokane, WA

From The Advocate (5/05)
… West confirmed to the newspaper that he offered gifts, favors, and a City Hall internship during chat sessions on to a man he believed was 18 but who was actually a forensic computer expert working for The Spokesman-Review. On Thursday, West said he will not resign. He confirmed that he'd pursued relationships with men in person and online…

… The Spokesman-Review said "JMSElton" was a screen name West used. Punctuation is as it appeared in the messages.

From a February 26 conversation using instant messaging:

JMSElton: "Remember, Im very closeted. No one knows I like guys. Except the few guys Ive been with and highly trusted."

JMSElton: "Its just that the openly gay guys are a little over the top for me. I dont really like the in-your-face attitude some guys have. And the massive political agenda either. I say live and let live. Most gay guys turn me off, too."

Their third online chat, again using instant messaging, occurs March 8. When JMSElton asks for a picture, Moto-Brock sends a random photo of a young, dark-haired, athletic-looking man.

JMSElton: "I could never be into the gay scene with its politics and all. Ive just seen too many guys decide once they come out that it becomes everyone elses problem to deal with. Im not into femmy guys."

JMSElton: "Its our secret here."

The two chat online again March 8 and then March 9. JMSElton says he's going to Washington, D.C., on business and mentions taking a couple of high school interns with him on a business trip there years earlier.

Moto-Brock: "Ohhhhh. You are killing me here. I want an internship! So I can go to DC."

JMSElton tells Moto-Brock he has a friend who might be able to get the teen an internship…

… West has strongly opposed gay rights during his political career. He supported a bill that would have barred gays and lesbians from working for schools, day care centers, and some state agencies. That bill failed. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed, banning same-sex marriage. And for years he helped to block a bill that would prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and insurance.

If West does not want gay people to be professional teachers and child-care workers, his issues obviously go past those he has with “femmy guys” and the “massive agenda.” In fact, he has been accused (not yet convicted) of abusing underage boys.

People are not typically in the closet because they are models of emotional and relational health. Identity suppression and inappropriate shame create dangerous emotional by-products. Perhaps West's political positions stem from an assumption that all gay men are, like him, interested in relationships with 18 year-old boys (West is 54). Is it because his perspective is limited to the Internet, his own youth-focused sexual relationships, and the young people he has manipulated in the past? Or are his attempts to limit opportunities for gay people in youth-related careers an attempt to deflect attention from his own same-gender and youth-oriented attractions?

“Dr. Troy's” Prescription: (I'm not really a doctor)

*West needs some time on the couch to speak honestly and openly about his same-gender attraction.

*He also needs a therapist's help to look a little more closely at his desire to pursue people 36 years younger than he. Even if such relationships are legal, there is likely an imbalance of relational power that could be damaging to the less empowered person (Ali G would call such relationships “barely legal”).

*Step away from the Internet (at least for awhile). If West continues to pursue a conservative agenda at the expense of the rights of gay people, he should still develop healthy relationships with other same-sex attracted people who could perhaps at least give him a more realistic idea of the concerns gay citizens have. Log Cabin Republicans could be helpful here. West's one-dimensional stereotype of the gay community might broaden a little, too.

Coming Tomorrow: Former Congressman Ed Schrock (R-VA) and Robert Traynham, senior aide to Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

Monday, July 18, 2005

Learning from Republicans

If there is one thing Republicans do really well it is campaign. Here at is a link to Frank Luntz's (GOP uber-strategist) election campaign playbook. There are many good ideas here that I think Democrats and Independents can use in communicating with the public. It is an interesting read, and explains a lot. Thanks Frank!

In terms of how this applies to Rovegate, Buzzflash suggests when we write about this that we use the Republican concept of "frames." For example, link "Rove" and "treason" together as often as possible, which provides a frame for people to use as they think about what is going on.

The editorial also suggests that we not make this about Wilson vs. Bush, but the CIA vs. Bush since the CIA's George Tenet is who called for the special investigation now underway.

Finally, I would remind myself and others that ultimately this is not about Rove or Bush or even Wilson and Plame.

This story is about:

Keeping America Safe (This is hard to do when Rove may be guilty of treason--see how that works?)

Government Accountability (Washington should be held responsible for leading us to war under the unfounded pretense that there were WMDs and that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake Uranium from Niger--see if you can find the Republican strategies I was using here in Luntz's playbook. )

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Rove's Achilles' Mouth

Karl Rove. The name may ring a bell if you pay attention to the news, especially these days. He is Bush's notoriously savvy top presidential aide and advisor. He also is now at the center of an investigation to find out who revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame back in 2003. Her outing is controversial because it increased security risks for her contacts in the field and, as a result, for all of us here in the U.S. who benefit from terrorists not having access to intelligence operations information.

The president has made a big deal of this leak. On June 10, 2004, Bush said he would fire anyone involved in leaking information about the identity of a CIA operative. Critics early on cast an eye in Karl Rove's direction as the leak's source. You have to go back to the time of the leak to see why.

Let's take a short walk down treason trail. (For a comprehensive stroll, Wikipedia has a more complete version of the Plame Game with all of the inconsistencies in Rove's claims. )

February 2002--Plame's husband, then ambassador Joseph Wilson and former staffer for Bush senior (he also voted for the younger Bush in 2000), was recommended for a trip to Niger to look for evidence that Iraq had attempted to acquire Uranium (for nukes) from there.

March 2002--Wilson reported that upon investigation he concluded that such an attempt was unlikely.

March 2003--Despite Wilson's report to the contrary, during his State of the Union speech Bush stated that Hussein sought Uranium from Africa. In fact, this was a key talking point in Bush's efforts to convince Americans that war in Iraq was necessary based on its possession of WMDs, a claim that we now know was false.

March 19, 2003-- Bush declares war on Iraq.

July 2003-- A disturbed Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times titled, “What I Didn't Find in Africa.” Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter asked Karl Rove what he thought about Wilson's article. The reporter later reported to his superior:

Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." . Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"-CIA Director George Tenet-or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues who authorized the trip." (Newsweek)

A few days after Rove spoke with Cooper, conservative columnist Robert Novak mentioned Plame as the CIA operative in a column. (Rove would later say that he learned that Plame was the operative only after Novak published the name, which is, of course, not true given what we know about the timing of his talk witih Cooper. To maintain his "boy genius-turd blossom" status Rove is going to have to look a little more closely at his calendar and as far as I'm concerned be a few years younger than he is.)

If one looks past the smokescreen of “authorization” (Plame notified CIA staff that her husband was available and qualified for such a mission, but it is doubtful she was in a position to authorize him), the “…Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency…” line sort of stands out. Rove's tactic here is typical and is, in fact, pretty brilliant--discredit Wilson then punish him and his family for whistle blowing, all by appearing to shelter the reporter.

Scott McClellan, the White House Press Secretary has said all along that when asked, Rove denied identifying Plame. That is until last week when it was brought to light that Rove outed Plame after all.

Now Rove is saying that he gave the reporter the information that Wilson's wife was with the CIA but not her name. This defense might have flown in Biblical times when “traditional marriage” frequently involved several wives, but we're talking about 21st century America and Wilson has only one.

Ironically, all of Rove's defense strategies sound very Clintonian. Remember when Clinton tried to say that he didn't have “sex with that woman” because intercourse was not part of the deal? Or that he didn't smoke pot because he “didn't inhale”? Nobody bought that either. The difference of course is that Clinton's errors didn't make your life and mine more vulnerable to terrorist threats!

The press hates being misled, which is why they were so hot to get Clinton for his caginess about Monica. Let's hope that they show at least as much tenacity now that security risks are involved. If this video of the networks grilling McClellan is any indicator, we may all be in for a treat. (WH bullseye/press secretary is currently plummeting down the list of desirable careers)

Despite his unbelievably selfish ambition, Rove is no dummy. He may avoid being sentenced for breaking the law because his communications, at least with the Time reporter, make it difficult to prove malicious intent, despite the convenient timing of the leak so soon after Wilson's damaging report about faulty WMD information.

Will Bush work to protect Rove's lie(s) or to protect the truth? Granted, Bush wouldn't recognize the truth if it were lying in a small white line on a mirror at the end of a straw, but will he throw our nation's safety concerns to the wind (again!) in order to protect an aide who is a known security risk? Or will he keep to his June 10, 2004 promise to fire any staffers who might have leaked Plame's identity? Based on what is known, if Bush doesn't fire Rove we'll at least have evidence that Karl and Emperor Palpatine are indeed one in the same.

Perhaps Bush should call Bush senior for advice on firing Rove. H. W. Bush had to fire Rove during his campaign back in 1992. Why? For leaking sensitive information to Robert Novak of all people. Somebody call the plumber already! Rove is too busy flapping his gums to save his ass or to help the president save ours.