Son of a gun, the NRA is coming to Milwaukee!

The NRA is holding their annual meeting in Milwaukee in May.

I am sooooo going.

I just hope they remember that the concealed carry law failed here and they must pack their sidearms in their luggage instead of on them.

I’d hate to see those guys end up in prison, viagra sovaldi just because they thought the U.S. constitution applied in Wisconsin.

4 comments March 7th, 2006

I wonder if I’ll find a horse head in my blog in the morning.

I don’t like to disagree with Charlie Sykes ‚Äì AKA the “blogfather.”

(It makes me twitch.)

But I think he was a little off with his assessment of today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial about resident assistants at UW leading bible studies on the campus.

On the whole, viagra generic seek I agree with the conlusions of both Charlie and the Journal Sentinel: RAs should be able to lead bible studies on their own time.

Where I part ways with Mr. Sykes is when he lists the rights enumerated in the First Amendment and appends rights that are NOT protected:

There’s a right to free speech. There is no right not to be offended.
There is freedom of the press. There is no right not to hear or read ideas you don’t like.
There is a right to worship. There is no right not to be around people who worship.
There is a right of assembly. There is no right to feel coerced by the assembly of others.

I think Charlie gave short thrift to the the very beginning of the First Amendment where it says, buy viagra “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

It’s the one part of the amendment where a “no” right is mentioned.

I think that can be reasonably read as protecting a person’s right not to worship (and by extension a right not to be forced to be around people who are worshipping).

If the university (a government entity) had ordered its RAs to teach Christian bible groups, I think it would have been a violation of the establishment clause.

Because that was not the case, I believe there was no problem.

But I think Charlie was a little too forceful in his statement.

I’m off now to sleep with the fishes.

9 comments March 6th, 2006

I’ll be voting against Wisconsin’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment.

Surprised?

You probably figured my dislike for Brokeback Mountain (as illustrated here and here) means I dislike gay people.

I don’t.

I’ve actually been hit on by a few men in my time and I was always flattered.

(Though that one guy totally blew my chances with the girl I was talking to.)

And I understand that many people who are in favor of the amendment aren’t anti-gay, buy viagra find they’re pro-marriage.

But, pills to tell you the truth, I just don’t see how a gay couple getting married diminishes the value of a straight couple’s commitment.

In fact, I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely.

Let the state issue civil union licenses that can be used for procurring insurance, inheritance rights, etc…to both gay and straight couples and leave the marriage pronouncements where they belong: with the priests and ministers.

In the end, I’m with Republican state representative Gregg Underheim ‚Äì constitutions are about securing rights, not restricting them.

So, just like him, I’ll be voting against the amendment when I get the chance.

12 comments March 4th, 2006

If you can’t smarten up the kids, dumb down the test.

Apparently some States are making their scholastic “proficiency” tests incredibly easy so that their students seem to be doing better for No Child Left Behind.

When the same kids take federal proficiency tests, generic viagra salve they fail miserably.

If this isn’t an argument for federal education dollars to be tied to student performance on a national test, I don’t know what is.

Don’t the adults in these states understand that the only people they’re cheating…are their own kids?

1 comment March 3rd, 2006

Progressive? Or progressively more oppresive?

In his weekly editorial in the Shepherd Express, viagra buy buy cialis Joel McNally said:

“As a progressive politician, sildenafil Barrett is not the sort anyone would expect to run roughshod over civil liberties…”

Actually, progressive politicians are EXACTLY whom I expect to “run roughshod over civil liberties.”

Progressives LOVE the First Amendment…

…unless someone uses their freedom of speech to say something that offends a privileged minority.

Progressives LOVE the Bill of Rights…

…until someone actually wants to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and BEAR arms.

Progressives believe in a human being’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…

…as long as that human being manages to make it out of its mother’s womb alive.

I think it’s time for “progressives” to stop pretending that they are the great protectors of civil liberties.

That may have been true once upon a time, but now any “progressive” who makes that particular claim is just fooling himself or making a fool of himself.

Add comment March 3rd, 2006

Why we need to change Wisconsin’s driver’s license law.

I wish I could say I was surprised that illegal immigrants are flocking to Wisconsin to get driver’s licenses.

It’s what happens when your governor drags his feet signing a law designed to stop illegal immigrants from getting driver’s licenses.

I wonder how Governor Jim Doyle will feel if the next terrorist attack in the United States is carried out by someone who got his fake license right here in Wisconsin?

Add comment March 2nd, 2006

To Eugene, race is an issue even when it’s not an issue.

Eugene Kane implies that if black folks had caused all the trouble at the Milwaukee Art Museum Martinifest the white folks in Milwaukee would have used it as another opportunity to play Blame the Black Man.

Personally, cialis usa diagnosis I think the the real difference is if they had been black, viagra usa Eugene would have bent over backwards to find a way to justify their behavior.

Us white folks freely admit the jokers drinking martinis at the musuem were morons.

3 comments March 1st, 2006

Smoking bans are NOT an example of a “nanny state”

Supposedly a “nanny state” is one that protects its citizens from themselves.

Helmet and seatbelt laws are excellent examples of this.

But I keep seeing bloggers I normally agree with refering to smoking bans as an example of “nanny state” behavior.

By definition, best viagra ambulance they are NOT!

Smoking bans protect others from the behavior of smokers.*

They do nothing to protect the smokers themselves. (A smoker is always free to go outside and smoke or smoke at home.)

A law that outlawed smoking period would be an example of a nanny state.

Call smoking bans unnecessary. Call them an unwarranted intrusion on the rights of property owners. Call them fascist. But quit calling them an example of the “nanny state.”

If you don’t, I’m going to send you to bed without your supper.

*And, to me, protecting us from each other is the only legitimate purpose of any government.

13 comments February 27th, 2006

Feingold does just fine online, but not so good with Gallop.

I’m not surprised that liberal bloggers love, generic viagra advice Russ Feingold.

But I am surprised that Gallop ran right past him when they polled Democrats about candidates for 2008.

Sure, cialis Feingold is loved by the looney left, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a serious candidate.

Plus, I’ve always suspected he’s the Antichrist, so he has a better chance of winning than most commentators probably realize.

Add comment February 27th, 2006

Hillary for President?

I was looking at my web statistics today and I was shocked to see that I was getting a bunch of references from Blogs for Hillary.

When I went to the site I found that one of my posts…

If Chile can have a female leader, cialis sales hospital why does the idea of a woman president get such a chilly reception here?

…was listed right at the top of their page.

Of course, ampoule if somone there had actually read my post they might have noticed that I was against having Hillary for president.

If Chile can elect a female leader, why can’t we?
I think it’s because the liberal press keeps pushing women like Hillary Rodham Clinton on us instead of women like Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
I don’t think we’re against having a woman for President. I think we’re against having the wrong woman as President.

I wonder if they’ll be hitting me up for a donation next?

12 comments February 24th, 2006