Indiana Congressman's campaign to change the name of Interstate 69

Hoot. It turns out that this is actually a hoax! I love it! I fell for it just like everyone else did! Here is a link that discribes the situation. I thought about just deleting this post and pretending it didn't happen. However, I decided to leave it in the blog. I have to keep this up to show I am able to admit when I am wrong or misled. Also, most of the points I make are valid ... and ... mostly apply beyond the scope of this gag.

Hostettler mounting campaign to change the name of Interstate 69

This is an example of the weirdness that comes about when we elect people with ultra-conservative Christian core morals. These Christ-cores as I'll begin calling them seem to ... have problems with the way people think ... they don't like people thinking of sex they want to control your thoughts.

I agree with the sanctity of the numbering and naming conventions of the Interstate system. I strongly support changing the name to make it adhere to the existing system. That is one of the most wonderful things about traveling in the US, you don't need a map as long as you have a vague understanding of how the highways work. (Odd numbers north to south, even numbers east to west, roads ending in 5 or 0 are trans-national, 3 digit roads beginning with even numbers are bypass routes, odd numbers are spurs into downtown, etc) DOT Website.

The concern about teenagers snickering at the I-69 pin is ... uh like totally lame. Seriously, if you had a nametag that said "Hi, my name is Dick" teenagers will snicker. Should we outlaw the name "Dick?" How would Mr. Cheney feel about that law? Many, many things have double entendres. That is actually what makes double entendre fun for those that engage in their verbal trickery, the fact they enjoy carving out a different, perhaps more primal meaning from something relatively banal.

The problem I see with this is simple. We begin by letting them renumber highways like hwy 666 in NM (already done) and I-69 due to their connotations. Then cities like Hell, Michigan, Climax, Illinois, Intercourse, Alabama, and Beaver Lick, Kentucky are going to have to go as well. Stores like "Beaver Liquors" in Beaver Creek, Colorado and "Dick's Liquors" in Las Vegas, New Mexico will also have to go.

Logically, empowered with this moral sentiment, names like "Dick" and "Peter" and "Johnson" may take some heat. Perhaps we make laws that you can't name people, places, or things with a name that could have connotations. Constance? Beatrice? Young Goodman Brown? And of course, names that the conservative white Christ-core group have always hated come under fire. Shaniqua, Tyrell, Natiqua, and Mohammed. Uh, oh! Think it cannot happen? Germany still has laws, to this day, regarding what you can name children.

Point is this: I agree with the sentiments. I don't enjoy seeing open and obvious profanity. I find shirts with profanity or vulgarities offensive. But as much as I feel like a moral crusader to end that type of outrage, I believe their right to offend outweighs my right to not be offended. We don't say "Freedom of speech, unless I find it degrading or trashy" ... in which case we would all be wearing shirts with bible phrases. Some people already do that. Some people wear shirts that say "Will fuck for beer." Its freedom ... freedom to be vulgar. As for me, I prefer being offended and free when compared with protected from offence, and oppressed. I'm afraid there just isn't a middle ground.