Thursday, February 08, 2007

Yet Another Bush Idiocy Campaign

Thought everyone might like to read this article I found...

Bush Proposes New State Names

AP - 1 hour, 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In what’s being hailed as a bold move, President Bush announced Thursday a piece of legislation that would change the names of many states in the country. While no specific date is set for the change, the president remains optimistic of the plan. “There’s so many to remember,” he lamented in the official statement. “It makes it easier for everyone in the country, especially all those kids I helped in No Child Left Behind. They don’t have to study as much, this way, which is how our school system should be. No studying. That’s not how kids learn.”

Many officials are surprised at the plan, and already there are steps being taken in Congress to block the new law. “It’s ridiculous,” asserted Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). “It’s taken us this long to learn the state names that already exist. What’s the point of making new ones that we have to learn all over?” Proponents of the bill claim that the new system works better because of the clever name combinations the president created himself. “The new state names are much more efficient than the old ones,” stated Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). “They’re taking the best elements from each state and merging them together to make what we’re calling MegaStates.” Hutchison, as well as inside officials in the White House, have also hinted that the proposal will, at some point, include a new name for the country. “Well, I don’t want to say anything definite yet but we might someday in the near future be known as ‘The United MegaStates of America,’” suggests a source close to the president.

This touches on recent efforts to redraw border lines between states, often connecting a Republican-dominated and Democratic-dominated state. Critics of the legislation claim the president is simply “trying to give his party more votes for Round 2008,” and have begun calling the plans “legislated gerrymandering.” While many Democrats acknowledge some of the combinations are “logical,” such as calling North and South Dakota The Dakotas, or North and South Carolina The Carolinas, the rest, they say, are “preposterous and an insult to this great country.” Other plans include combining New Hampshire and Vermont to form New Vermontshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island in Massicut Island, Wisconsin and Illinois for Illisconsin, and Montana and Idaho for Montanaho. Though those were the only connections explicitly stated in the proposal, many Washington insiders have suspected others may be coming in the future. Among the new names: Calivada, a combination of California and Nevada, and WashOreTon, for Washington and Oregon. Many also speculate that the remaining Midwestern states will be lumped together in a group known as The Middle. “I’ve heard the president say on more than one occasion that there’s so many damn states in the Midwest, who can remember them all? The Middle basically let’s you know where it is geographically, and obviously the states aren’t important enough to make a distinction for themselves. Why do we need to distinguish them further?” one White House official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, recounted. Bush emphasized, however, that Texas will not change. “Don’t mess with Texas,” he warned.

When asked about the rest of the states that were not included in the proposal, the president simply replied, “What other states?” Meanwhile, New York governor Eliot Spitzer has already declared that if the bill is approved, he will secede New York from the country.

Saturday, February 03, 2007


During the long debate running up to the referendum that ultimately banned gay marriage and civil unions in Wisconsin, the fascist PIGS who are so opposed to gay marriage claimed again and again that banning civil unions or gay marriage would not--repeat NOT--have an effect on partner benefits, claiming that this was just rhetoric to scare the voting public at large.

Well, it appears as if the right wing bastards who proposed this are as dishonest as they are bigoted. The appellate court in Michigan recently ruled that it would be unconstitutional under Michigan's gay marriage ban to pay partnership benefits to those individuals who work for the State of Michigan.

Public universities and state and local governments would violate the state constitution by providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel said a 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling from an Ingham County judge who said universities and governments could provide the benefits.

"The marriage amendment's plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose," the court wrote.  *
The upshot here is obvious. When the gay bashers and homophobes who were promoting a similar amendment here in Wisconsin told us that partner benefits wouldn't be affected, they were clearly LYING, and while lying is something those on the right side of the political spectrum do on a regular basis, I am still both happy and disgusted to use the all to familiar words:


Let's face it. The ultimate goal of the Christian right and of judges such as these is the eradication of homosexuals, a sort of cultural cleansing. If they can keep gays and lesbians repressed through legal means I'm sure they will do so. And if legal means don't work I suspect that at some time in the future they would pass laws declaring gays and lesbians to be non citizens, and finally subhumans, to be beaten and eradicated at whim. Think Nazi Germany.

As I've said before when fascist institutions, when bigots, want to test their muscle they almost invariably choose two groups to persecute: Jews and homosexuals, followed shortly by women and other convenient scapegoats. The actions of this "Peoples Court" are little more than legalized bigotry, homophobic at its worse: a small decision, by small judges, concerning a small-minded amendment to a small state's constitution. And if you don't think that I am using the word small in the most derogatory manner possible you'd better guess again.