"There's a delicious irony of seeing private luxury jets flying into DC, and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hands, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses. It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo."—Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), on the CEOs of the Detroit Big Three traveling to Capitol Hill to ask for $25 billion in loans in their private jets.
Mad Skillz
You go, girl: 5-year-old Milan Simon Tuttle shows off her mad b-ball skillz with some hottt two- and three-ball dribbles (via).
The Huckabee Hits Just Keep On Comin'
As if this incredibly offensive statement wasn't enough, Huckabee had to open his goddamned piehole again and send me into another fit of seething rage.
Conservative talker Bill Bennett interviewed Mike Huckabee on his radio show this morning. In the course of their interview, Huckabee falsely claimed that in approving Prop. 8, California did not "ban" or "prohibit" marriage equality, but rather simply affirmed the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman:Hey, Doucheface:
HUCKABEE: The very people who voted for Barack Obama in California…also voted to sustain traditional marriage. I refuse to use the term, "ban same-sex marriage." That's not what those efforts did. They affirmed what is. They did not prohibit something. They simply affirmed something that which has and forever has existed.
YES THEY FUCKING DID.
I honestly don't know what's worse sometimes: the anti-gay bigotry, or the warm and fuzzy ways they try to explain away the fact that they're fucking bigots. "Refuse to use the term" all you want; it's still fucking true, you asshole.
Daily Kitteh
cuddled up in the crook of my arm:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Then it's time for some grooming,
fueled as ever by the purr engine.
Tom Daschle to Head HHS
Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle has been tapped by Obama to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, and, according to Roll Call, has accepted the position. Think Progress reports that he will also
take on the position of "health care czar" in the Obama White House. CNN's Ed Henry is also reporting he negotiated the "health care czar" position in order to be "the point person on all White House health-related issues."I'm okay with this selection—and that's exactly as noncommittal a reaction as it sounds.
On the plus side, Daschle has (literally) written the book on the healthcare crisis. He knows the ins and outs of Congress and how to get shit done; as Drum says, he "is plainly dedicated to healthcare reform, he understands the legislative realities as well as anyone." Steve notes: "The Daschle announcement reinforces the notion that an Obama administration is going to take the push for healthcare reform very seriously" and "the Daschle news makes me even more encouraged about the prospect of a healthcare package actually passing. Emanuel is insisting that an incremental approach won't do; Baucus and Kennedy are laying the groundwork on the Hill; and Daschle has been preparing for this fight for quite awhile."
On the other hand, Daschle is definitely not as lefty as I'd like to see with regard to socializing healthcare and not running it through corporate America; instead, he favors a Federal Health Board, which would "create a management infrastructure to integrate our public and private health-care systems." (He's also not as lefty as I'd like on everything else.) He's always been too corporatey for me to like or trust him a whole lot. His public persona is less than dynamic; I'm not sure how successful he'll be in mobilizing public support for a major institutional overhaul—though maybe that's more the charismatic president-elect's role, anyway.
Daschle's a safe choice. He can get the job done, and he's probably as far left as anyone Obama would have been willing to choose for this role.
To be perfectly blunt, because there are so many long-ignored issues surrounding healthcare access, research, and treatment specific to women, racial minorities, and/or LGBTQIs, this is the one cabinet position where I really wanted to see a woman of color, preferably queer, with a relevant background, so to get a straight white guy from South Dakota is a little disappointing. But any leader is only as good (or is as great) as the people with whom s/he surrounds her/himself, so hopefully Daschle will surround himself with a diverse team who are interested in building a new healthcare system that better serves a wider spectrum of people.
Not With My Money
I'm pressed for time and a little rushed, so please forgive this post if it's sloppy. I just took a look at Melissa's "Change" post, and since I was considering writing about this subject anyway and folks are discussing this in comments, I thought I'd better get my act together.
So. eHarmony is now going to provide a site for same-sex relationships.
The AP reports that as part of a settlement with New Jersey's Civil Rights Division, online dating service eHarmony "will begin providing same-sex matches. … Under terms of the settlement, the company can create a new or differently named Web site for same-sex singles. The company can also post a disclaimer saying its compatibility-based matching system was developed from research of married heterosexual couples."This news irritates me, for several reasons.
First, this is a direct result of a lawsuit brought on by a gay man that didn't like that he couldn't seek a same-sex partner on the site.
McKinley, 46, said he was shocked when he tried to sign up for the dating site but couldn't get past the first screen because there was no option for men seeking men.Okay, I just want to stress that this is entirely my opinion. Mr. McKinley, I strongly suspect that this lawsuit was a grab for media attention and money. There are plenty of dating sites out there for we LGBTQI folks (granted, there are far more for the "G's") that make eHarmony completely unnecessary. (Even one for gay Christians, an important point when discussing eHarmony; more on that later.) I do think that, living in a heteronormative society, being confronted by yet another "community" that is set up for "straights only" can be annoying and even distressing, but it's not as if there were no other options available to you. While I can understand wanting to fight against bigotry, I think it may have been better to spend your time and energy raising awareness of the fact that eHarmony is run by a bunch of bigots. Raising awareness of how LGBTQI folks are casually discriminated against every day might be helpful when fighting current battles for civil rights.
"It's very frustrating and it's very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can't," he said. "And the only reason I can't is because I'm a gay man. That's very hurtful."
This also makes me suspicious:
Under the settlement, eHarmony will pay the New Jersey (sic) $50,000 to cover administrative costs and will pay McKinley $5,000.Considering signing up? One would think that, after winning a legal battle to be allowed onto a website that was so "hurtful" to you, you'd want to be the very first subscriber. After all of this fighting, you'll walk away with your settlement and that's that? Wouldn't this be another ample opportunity to raise awareness of discrimination issues? But you find it all "fabulous." How precious.
McKinley called the settlement "fabulous" and said he was happy with the outcome. He said he's considering signing up for the new site once it launches.
Another aspect of this story that is irritating me is that "winning," in this case really means setting up a portal for LGBTQI folks to send their money to a group that hates them. In case you weren't aware, eHarmony is run by a evangelical with strong ties to the ultra-right wing Christian community. He was buddies with James Dobson, for Maude's sake (although he's "distanced" himself from Dobson, for a variety of reasons). Let's just say they were probably voting Yes on 8.
When I asked Warren about his refusal to serve same-sex couples, he listed several reasons for his policy. "First, we're into marriage," he said, pointing out that gay unions remain illegal in almost every state. He also doesn't feel there is adequate research on how men can be matched up with other men, or women with women.And just in case you were wondering:
Businessmen have approached him and asked for his help in building a company designed specifically for gay couples. Warren was proud to tell me that he advises them to research the kinds of compatibility that make gay relationships last. "It did my heart good that these guys I talked to, these gay guys, have since said, 'Neil Clark Warren was sympathetic.' That meant the world to me," he said. But it's also pretty clear that eHarmony is not about to reverse its own policy. Warren is simply too torn on the issue.
When I told him that I found it sad that my gay friends don't have the opportunity to take advantage of the eHarmony compatibility elixir of which he is so proud, he was quiet for some time. "I love the spirit with which you make that point," he said thoughtfully. "And we do do a lot of talking about how we love the idea of being inclusive." He paused again, sounding slightly shaken. "It's just not an easy point! We've got thousands of years of history of the human race in which this was never treated as a marriage and there are a lot of people who think it's just not going to have the same kind of stability over time.
The Pasadena, Calif.-based company said it plans to launch its new service, called Compatible Partners, on March 31.So, money out of the pockets of LGBTQI folks who may or may not be informed about the political/cultural/religious makeup of the people behind the site will be going directly into eHarmony's coffers. (And you can be sure that they'll be doing advertising in gay publications and on LOGO if they have to run this website anyway.) Something tells me they won't be working for our rights in the not too distant future. Not to mention the fact that "Compatible Partners" is the dullest fucking name for a dating website that I've ever heard. They couldn't even be arsed to put some effort into it, could they? You'll notice they're not calling it "eHarmonyGay" or something like that; Maude forbid there's a direct association between the two sites.
The site will be free for the first 10,000 users who register within a year of its launch. After that, pricing for the new site will be equal to that for eHarmony.
Oh, and another thing? You gotta "love" how, rather than simply setting up the ability to search for same-sex partners on their site, they're going through the trouble of creating an entirely new site. Still separate, but "equal." Don't get your stink in our nice, clean place.
eHarmony is a dating website for heterosexual Christians that are looking for someone to marry. The money the site brings in goes to further their goals and interests. I'm really not seeing a victory here. Remind me again why we simply had to be able to access this site?
Stoned
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told Joy Behar on The View that he thinks gays and lesbians haven't suffered enough to earn their civil rights.
HUCKABEE: It’s a different set of rights. People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that’s not really the issue. I know you talked about it and I think you got into it a little bit early on. But when we’re talking about a redefinition of an institution, that’s different than individual civil rights.So we have to get the shit kicked out of us before we've earned the same rights as everyone else? Tell that to every out kid in high school. Or a couple being harassed by drunken frat boys. Or Matthew Shepard. Or Harvey Milk.
BEHAR: Well, segregation was an institution, too, in a way. It was right there on the books.
HUCKABEE: But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge.
So let me ask Gov. Huckabee a simple question: how many people have to suffer humiliation and physical harm before we reach his threshold of earning our full and equal rights as citizens?
(Cross-posted.)
Wednesday Blogaround
What's the frequency, Shakers?
Recommended Reading:
Bitch, PhD: They're Not Going to Go Without a Fight
Andy: Huckabee: Gays Haven't Crossed 'Civil Rights' Violence Threshold
Tigtog: Backpedaling and Fingerpointing While Spinning Like a Top
Matttbastard: Birdwatching
SFMike: The Gay Marriage Controversy
Daimeon: Hate Crime: Syracuse, NY
Chris: The Best Interview You'll Read Today
Leave your links in comments...
Change
President-Elect Obama (I still can't quite believe I'm writing that) promised us change. I have no idea whether he will actually deliver on that promise; I hope he does, and I suspect that he will be, at minimum, a change from the last eight years of malevolent machinations and incompetent nincompoopery.
But I don't know whether his administration will accomplish much in the way of fundamentally changing the American political landscape. The American people are stubborn, and their government is a lumbering behemoth whose sheer size makes difficult altering its course in any significant way. Politically, we are designed for stability—for the resistance of change.
Culturally, however, we are wondrously elastic.
So, though it remains to be seen whether President-Elect Obama will effect political change, the very existence of a President-Elect Obama has already begun to effect cultural changes.
There's the glitch in the Matrix I talked about on election night, which has implications for almost all of us. There's the metaphorical ripping of the "keep-out" sign off the edifice, the pure inspirational joy at which Kate captured in "My President is Black!" There's the tangible hope for the possibility of change which has created new teaspoon-wielders all over the place.
And there are the commercials on my TV.
(Settle in, TiVo devotees.)
Although I live in a broadcast market that encompasses the entirety of Chicagoland (population 10 million), including Chicago itself (36.77% African-American) and Gary (84.03% African-American), I never saw commercials cast entirely with African-Americans unless I was watching "black programming," e.g. Showtime at the Apollo or Fresh Prince reruns. Even then, the rare commercials for local black-owned business were the only exceptions to what were typically cringe-inducing panders—McDonald's setting its current jingle to a hip-hop beat or Walgreens using a voiceover artist with a regional black dialect. One could very nearly hear in the background the white corporate execs telling their white advertising team to "put something together for the urban markets."
And, suffice it to say, there has been no dearth of adverts cast totally with whites, even as multicultural advertising has become the standard.
I first noticed the change during the primaries. There was an insurance commercial (All State, maybe) which was shot from a first-person perspective as the owner of a parked car which had been sideswiped surveyed the damage. Only when the owner got close enough that we could see his reflection in the side mirror was the owner revealed to be a black man. It wasn't a function of some too-clever-by-half "Smack My Bitch Up" reversal that the reveal was notable; it was just a function of my conditioning (and privilege)—I didn't expect to see a black man in that role. (Or anyone else but a young, able-bodied white guy, for that matter.)
Then I started seeing adverts for cleaning products that featured black women playing "the beleaguered mom/wife whose life is made easy with some miracle product." I hate those commercials with a red hot fiery passion, and wish they wouldn't be made at all—but, as long as they are, there's no reason we need to pretend that the only moms in all of America are white. It was jarring (pleasantly so) to see black women playing "mom/wife" in these ads in addition to just magical cleaning woman, err, spokesperson.
(Side Note: Can someone in Hollywood please give Diane Amos a starring role in something besides Pine-Sol commercials? But I digress…)
And these commercials weren't running only during "black programming" anymore.
Last night, I saw two commercials back-to-back cast entirely with African-Americans. The first was for some educational video game (VTech, maybe), with a young sister and brother playing the games and showing their various accomplishments to their mom. Right after that was a Hallmark Christmas commercial with Mom, Dad, and two little girls—a family composition that seemed uncannily familiar, ahem.
It would be an oversight not to note that a big part of this new advertising egalitarianism is, of course, the inherent cynicism to marketing, which exploits for all its worth anything popular—and the Obamas are damn popular these days. But it would be a similarly egregious omission to ignore the cultural significance of (traditional, conservative) Hallmark airing what is, in my recollection, the first ever major holiday advert in this market featuring a black family alone. Not a black family among many different families, but the family into whose window we're peeking to see their Christmas celebration.
The Hallmark family.
Think for a moment about the multiple meanings of those words.
There are certainly people reading this who are fixing to argue that a single commercial, or even a few, isn't a harbinger of practical change. That is correct—the commercials themselves are not. But they reflect quite certainly a change that has already occurred (President-Elect Obama having smashed a paradigm stretching back 219 years to April 30, 1789).
Then there is this: The mere existence of these ads as part of the cultural detritus up against which we bump every day changes the culture. Even playing to people half-paying attention while sleepily sprawled on couches, or people with their thumbs on a fast-forward button, or people passing by store windows behind which the ads silently play on marked-down televisions, they transmit a message just as surely as all the negative messaging that bombards each of us every single day.
Bigotry does not spring forth from a void; nor does enlightenment.
It matters that white people in this still largely-segregated country will register, consciously or not, the images of a black family as part of the mainstream. It matters that black people will see themselves and their families reflected back for a change.
This is the opposite of Othering. This is inclusion.
All the civil rights legislation and judicial decisions in the land can't conquer the separate-but-equal of cultural segregation. Where white families are consistently treated as the Norm, and families of color (and mixed-race families) consistently treated as the Other, there is no hope of real equality. Inclusion is indescribably important. As I've said before, all social progress really is in the end is making the extraordinary seem ordinary.
These ads are a teaspoon taken to a vast ocean. But, here, we celebrate teaspoons.
o.oP
some mid-week dog blog
Compassionate Conservawhat? I Couldn't Hear You Over My Growling Belly.
As conservatives across America continue to lick the wounds from their Nov. 4 drubbing and contemplate the why of it all, trying to figure out whether they should go more left or more right, I submit the following for their consideration (emphasis mine):
Some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007 [up 50% from 2006], while close to one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately even before this year's sharp economic downtown, the Agriculture Department reported Monday.People in the wealthiest country in the world going hungry, and the Republicans' solution to the hunger problem was taking the word hunger out of the description in the USDA's annual food access report. And these people have to wonder why they got voted out of office?
…Overall, the 36.2 million adults and children who struggled with hunger during the year was up slightly from 35.5 million in 2006. That was 12.2 percent of Americans who didn't have the money or assistance to get enough food to maintain active, healthy lives.
Almost a third of those, 11.9 million adults and children, went hungry at some point. That figure has grown by more than 40 percent since 2000. The government says these people suffered a substantial disruption in their food supply at some point and classifies them as having "very low food security." Until the government rewrote its definitions two years ago, this group was described as having "food insecurity with hunger."
[Fun with the Wayback Machine: I go off on one about the removal of the word "hunger" from the USDA report, on November 16, 2006, days after the Republicans had merely lost their Congressional majority. Hint hint. Some people never learn.]
Ted Stevens Loses
...his senate seat, which he'd held since before I was born and almost held again despite recent felony convictions, to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, bringing the Democrats within two seats of a filibuster-proof majority.
Mr. Stevens did not immediately concede the race. Presuming the results are certified, the senator could request a recount, but he would have to pay for it. (Link)
Caption This Photo
"No, Mr. President, I really am the president-elect of the United States of America."
"Laura! Someone let a crazy black fella in here! Heh heh. I'm just joshin' ya, Baracky."
US president-elect Barack Obama (L), seen here with President George W. Bush at the White House, plans to send out an army of evaluators into government agencies to study the sprawling US bureaucracy and determine how best to meet his goals when he takes office. (AFP/File/Jim Watson)
Quote of the Day
"At the beginning of the 21st century, this nation faces problems that are old and that are new: racial, sexual orientation, and gender inequality all remain. … The solutions are contained within a new, dynamic, progressive movement that has the ability to inspire and motivate the people of this nation in the way that progressives have in the past. That ability exists in this room, and in the law schools, and in the courtrooms, and in the law offices around this country. It is our task to unlock, to unleash the creative energy needed to give life to this renewed movement. It is not enough for us to gather at annual meetings, to participate in panels, and to return to our communities, and be content to observe, or to passively criticize, the now dominant governing philosophy.
Quite simply, it is time to act. It is time to organize. It is time to retake the levers of government and to use them for the common good. It is time, finally, to be true to our ideological heritage. And so my challenge to you tonight is to leave this convention renewed in your convictions, and committed to using your abundant talents for the good of the citizens of this country.
At the end of every week, I want you to ask yourselves, what have I done in the past seven days to advance the cause? How have I made more likely this liberal renaissance?
…Now we all lead busy lives, and we can all find reasons, excuses really, not to do that which we know is needed. The struggle is larger than any of these excuses, and is ultimately dependent on individual sacrifices large and small. I urge you to find your own way in this new effort. I implore you to create relationships with other members of the progressive community to bring to bear your combined talents.
This can be—this must be—our time. We must seize this opportunity. For the good of the nation we love, we must make this new century our own."
—Eric Holder, in a June 2004 speech (pdf; via) to American Constitution Society. Holder is a former deputy attorney general under Clinton, who has reportedly been tapped by President-Elect Obama to be the next Attorney General of the United States.
That's a man who believes in teaspoons, right there.
I'd just like to point out, because I can't quite yet believe it myself, that after an era of John "Let the Eagle Soar" Ashcroft and Alberto "Quaint" Gonzales, we may find ourselves with an Attorney General with both a brain and a social conscience.
ZOMG. Somebody pinch me. We're getting our country back.
Blub.
Malia and Sasha Go to Washington
Malia and Sasha Obama are getting a special personal tour of the White House this afternoon, accompanied by grandma Marian Robinson and their mother.Back in April, I quoted Rox: "I think it might be good for the country to see these little girls living in the White House." The only thing wrong with that statement, upon reflection, is that it undershot the possibilities: I think it will be good for the world to see these little girls living in the White House.
[Michelle Obama] "greatly appreciated this invitation to provide an opportunity for the girls to feel at home and be comfortable in this transition process," [according to her spokesperson] Katie McCormick Lelyveld. (Link)
I only hope what's good for the rest of us doesn't take a terrible toll on them.
Consider yourself warned, Limbaugh. You, too, McCain. And you, Shuster. Jerks.
A Capital Good Time
by Shaker Peggy Sue
It was Friday afternoon. I had just emailed the local DC organizer of Saturday's march, because while I was publicizing the shit outta the event, I was also fielding questions from community peeps about permits. As an old-school 90's radical activist dyke, I found that alternately funny and sad. Permits? Pfffft. Who needs a permit when we have five thousand angry chanting queers, at least that's what *I* figured. But it's not 1992 anymore and I'm not in San Francisco, so I shut my yap and got the answer.
It was later Friday afternoon. I had agreed to give a speech at the demonstration (thank you, ACT UP background), and found out that the organizer had indeed secured a permit. And of course it didn't include amplified sound. (See why I don't like permits?) Thank god for the queer underground. In less than 15 minutes, I found someone who found someone who led me to a sound rental facility that agreed to lease two large microphone-enabled bullhorns for the day Saturday. Chaaaaaaaa.
Saturday dawned. I hauled butt down to the rental place, went home and got ready, then down to the steps of the Capitol. There were maybe 300 people more than a half hour before the start of the demo, which was damn promising.
A few minutes after I arrived, I heard chanting and looked up. There was this big group (about 50, maybe?) of college kids that came marching down the street and chanting and whooping and hollering. A bunch of them had green t-shirts that said I AM on the front, and I can only assume some sort of kickass homo designation on the back.
They were fantastic, even when it got a little annoying because they would NOT stop yelling. For anything. I was like goddam, they're gonna yell all those happy queer chants for a whole fucking HOUR. And they pretty much did, bless their hearts. They were all bouncing and dancing and yelling and were so SO thrilled to be a part of the day. Their energy was palpable and catching. And I heart them for that.
Then there were about a thousand of us. Then three. Then five. Then more.
Eventually things got rolling, I hopped up on a concrete pillar and gave my rabble-rousing diatribe:
Video of the Speech:
(begins about 40 seconds in)
[Transcript here.]
And then we were off. We went on a nice, long, roundabout route to the White House, and about ten minutes after that, the heavens opened and it was monsoon time.
And you know what? Nobody left. Not the Latina dykes or the white gay boys and not the lesbian moms or African-American leathermen and not our straight allies, either. NOBODY. We danced and sang and laughed and got wet instead. And oh yeah, the new chant went: What do we want? DRY SOCKS. When do we want ‘em? NOW!
This is not the Washington DC that I've known for the last 5 years. There was no apathy, there was no pessimism, there weren't even really any politics…there was just joy and excitement and HOPE, which we no doubt felt along with a million others across the nation (and that includes my awesome straight mom in Walnut Creek, CA. Hi mom!).
The other thing that really got to me? All the heterosexuals. There were tons and TONS of straight people carrying signs saying Straight not Hate and the like. Holy crap. Now that's the kind of thing that makes me really believe. Hell, I don't even expect much of my fellow queers anymore, with all this absolutely horrid racist garbage some of them are floating around. So I have low expectations. But for so many people that aren't even gay to step up? It really opened my eyes and even opened up my tired little heart just a tad.
So we tromped down streets (and through one field of ultimate Frisbee players), and the line got longer and longer and longer. As we marched four or five abreast it seemed like our numbers stretched out for hundreds and hundreds of yards. It was absolutely awesome.
We finally arrived at a small park, where there were more speakers and me and my four waterlogged friends decided to get the hell outta there and find somewhere inside with food. And finally, we were all warm and fed and almost dry and all finished with the day, we saw this (no joke):
And that, my friends, was my Saturday.
And now we have a list of some of my favorite protest signs. You got any?
Don't blame YOUR crappy marriage on gay people
My son is entitled to his own big fat gay wedding
More weddings = more cake!
Lend me some sugar, I am your gaybor!
More gay marriage = less gay sex, does that help?
I'm with stupid (with an arrow pointing at the person carrying the I'm 52.5% of California sign)
--------------------
More Pictures:
Before march:
http://flickr.com/photos/mvjantzen/3036008515/
http://flickr.com/photos/zach_oconnor/3035256577/
http://flickr.com/photos/jessicapfisterer/3033305933/
During start of march:
http://flickr.com/photos/anngav/3036649582/
http://flickr.com/photos/joetresh/3038322582/
http://flickr.com/photos/carosaurus/3036307842/
http://flickr.com/photos/pixelmasseuse/3034789971/
March itself:
http://flickr.com/photos/joetresh/3035408974/
http://flickr.com/photos/pixelmasseuse/3034789543/
http://flickr.com/photos/joetresh/3034572329/
http://flickr.com/photos/taedc/3034640321/
http://flickr.com/photos/carosaurus/3036311848/
http://flickr.com/photos/carosaurus/3035474615/
http://flickr.com/photos/zach_oconnor/3035327063/
http://flickr.com/photos/pixelmasseuse/3035637322/
Important Announcement
I don't give the tiniest, microscopic shit about Joe Lieberman.
I don't care that the Democrats have decided to keep him as head of the Homeland Security Committee. I don't care if they change their minds and kick his dumb ass out. I don't care about the very pragmatic and forbearing reasons for keeping him. I don't care about the quite reasonably vengeful reasons for booting him. I don't care if he swears to caucus with the Democrats. I don't care if he threatens to caucus with the Republicans. I don't care that he was the Democratic vice presidential nominee eight years ago. I don't care that John McCain is his new BFF. I don't care if the phrase "President Obama" makes his fucking douchebag head explode into a bajillion little douchebag pieces. I don't care that he made out with George Bush. I don't care what he thinks about Bill Clinton's inability to keep it in his pants, or what he thinks about violent video games, or what his opinions are on what I should be doing with my ladybits, because I don't care about any of the sanctimonious bullshit that's his stock in trade. I don't care if I never even hear the name of this oxygen-sucking assdrip again for the rest of my everloving life.
And the reason I don't care is this: Because I suspect that the only thing Joe Lieberman really cares about is himself, that his promises of allegiance are worth their weight in shit, and that nothing makes his precious pecker go harder in his wankhand at night than the two parties fighting over him like the treasure of the goddamned Sierra Madre.
He's going to do whatever the fuck he wants, anyway. Leave him to it.
Or don't. Either way, I don't care.
