Speech
I oppose the new law that bans protests at funerals.
Learned Foot supports it. No, not comedically. And he has an excellent post on the subject:
And here we have our competing interests: the state has its police power (i.e. keeping public order), and the people have the right to speak out - even unpleasantly. So the courts struck a balance. In public fora, the government is allowed to impose reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions. These restrictions must be content neutral (that is, the law must apply to both Phelps (Democrat) and his ilk, as well as the counter-protest he (Democrat) would inevitably draw), specific to a legitimate and important government purpose, and provide alternative venues.
As far as I can tell this law does all three. Even though the law was passed in reaction to the Phelps (Democrat) Gang's stunts, if the law applies to all picketers it's constitutional. And it provides an alternate venue 1,000 feet away.
The important government interest? How about preventing a melee? Public order; just like prohibiting calls to riot - and a thousand other laws that nobody even gives a second thought about which can likewise be construed to "limit our freedoms" - are legitimate under the constitution. In an emotionally charged atmosphere like the one found at a funeral of a person who died way too young, violence is bound to happen sooner or later. You just know that one of these days Fred Phelps (Democrat) is going scream in the wrong person's face and wind up in the hospital. That won't happen here.
Which, come to think of it, is the one legitimate reason to oppose this law.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Mitch at
June 2, 2006 06:29 AM
| TrackBack
The Patiot Guard will be going to welcome, MN (just west of Fairmont) to stand up and face the Phelps (Democrat) thugs.
Posted by: Kermit at June 2, 2006 07:40 AMThey are not going to the funeral of LCpl. Robert G. Posivio, they are just going to be standing as a screen between the mourning family and the the Phelps (Democrat) thugs, holding flags and singing songs to drown out the hateful chants of the Phelps(Democrat) thugs.
The Patriot Guard is the one group, ever, that have made me want to buy a Harley and get a tattoo.
If I can join 'em at a counterdemo without either, I will, should (unfortunately) the opportunity present itself...
Posted by: mitch at June 2, 2006 07:48 AMI ride a Yamaha V-Star and have no tattoos. There are assembly points all over the Cities tomorrow morning.
.
Posted by: nathan bissonette at June 2, 2006 08:07 AMHey Frogboy, please explain whatever reason you have to link Phelps and the Democratic Party. Cause it seems like you're just being stupid. And not just your normal, baseline stupid either. This is swiftee stupid, jb doubtless stupid.
Posted by: angryclown at June 2, 2006 08:19 AMThanks for proving conclusively that you don't even bother reading the posts Snarkyclown.
Posted by: Kermit at June 2, 2006 08:25 AMI finally know what the term "asshat" was coined for.
Mitch, motorcycles and tattoos are strictly optional. They're looking for good hearts and attitudes.
Posted by: Kermit at June 2, 2006 08:27 AMI tend to skim when I see drivel, Kerm. I see that you did not originate the stupidity, but merely parroted what you picked up from Learned Fool. That explains that. You are not that stupid. Or maybe you're just not that creative in your stupidity.
Posted by: angryclown at June 2, 2006 08:42 AMClown,
Phelps gets some flak from GOPers because - I was sure you'd have been aware of this - he is a lifelong Democrat.
In the same sense that David Duke is a Republican, of course; nearly everyone in their respective parties reviles, rejects and repudiates them. Which is why I don't bring it up; even Democrats don't deserve being tarred with the Phelps brush.
Posted by: mitch at June 2, 2006 09:11 AMNo, I never claim to be creative in stupidity (that being somewhat oxymoronic). I don't do makeup either.
Posted by: Kermit at June 2, 2006 09:16 AM"I tend to skim when I see drivel..."
And on to the next comment...
Posted by: LearedFoot at June 2, 2006 09:25 AMThey shouldn't have passed yet another law, as distasteful as these demonstrators are. It seems like some law already on the books would have been sufficient to marginalize these protestors. Order can be maintained without creating more and more overlapping rules for us to obey.
Posted by: PaulC at June 2, 2006 09:34 AMTolerance by law enforcement of informal actions taken on behalf of the grieving family might be part of the solution, too. However, as nice as it is to have people like this Patriot Guard countering the yahoos, one might be forgiven for wondering about the motives of some of them. Not everyone is going to want a bunch of uninvited bikers hanging around the funeral of their loved one, making even more of a spectacle out of things, regardless of why they're there.
Seems like some lads might even deem it a good excuse to show up somewhere and look like a tough guy, kind of hoping that someone will push just far enough that a chance to use some self-defense technique will present itself.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm just sayin'.
There's going to be trouble with this protest group sooner or later. Common-sense application of existing laws, and not the creation of new rules to follow, should be the desired outcome of the legal melee that will surely follow.
Mitch said: "Which is why I don't bring it up; even Democrats don't deserve being tarred with the Phelps brush."
Except when you're quoting Leraned Foot, at length and with approval.
Posted by: angryclown at June 2, 2006 10:24 AMSo take it up with Foot!
Posted by: mitch at June 2, 2006 10:41 AMThey shouldn't have passed yet another law, as distasteful as these demonstrators are. It seems like some law already on the books would have been sufficient to marginalize these protestors.
In general, I assume two things about this. 1) The Phelps (Asshat) gang has intentionally designed their behavior to conform to whatever laws were already on the books, and 2) If there were another law under which they could be prosecuted, it would've been done already.
If you can find some law that belies #2, more power to you. In the meantime, I fully support the new one. And I'm kind of curious why you oppose it, Mitch; did I miss an earlier post?
Posted by: Beeeej at June 2, 2006 10:51 AMPaul C:
Posted by: buzz36 at June 2, 2006 11:24 AMYou should probably hit the patriot guard home page. They don't attend a funeral unless they are an invited guest of the family. They don't crash these things, trying to make it about them. They also screen the participants making clear they are there only as a shield between the family and the Phelps, they are not to engage the Phelps. They don't want "tough guys" looking for a reason to fight.
Mitch said: "Which is why I don't bring it up; even Democrats don't deserve being tarred with the Phelps brush."
I think you're being mighty generous to someone who calls every one he disagrees with a Wingnut.
Posted by: Kermit at June 2, 2006 11:43 AMNo sir, wouldn't want to tar anyone.
NEW YORK -- State Comptroller Alan Hevesi publicly apologized Thursday for a "beyond dumb" remark about a fellow Democrat putting "a bullet between the president's eyes."
Hevesi called a mea culpa press conference hours after putting his foot in his mouth at the Queens College commencement.
"I apologize to the president of the United States" and to the fellow state politician, Sen. Charles Schumer, Hevesi said. "I am not a person of violence.
"I am apologizing as abjectly as I can. There is no excuse for it. It was beyond dumb."
Have we discovered Angryclown's secret identity?
Posted by: Kermit at June 2, 2006 11:48 AMI don't necessarily oppose the intent of the new law; I just don't think a new law was needed. Law enforcement already has wide discretion to charge trouble-makers with things, and bringing too much specificity to new rules just creates new ways around the rules. Maybe they stop with the funerals altogether and go somewhere else or use other tactics to harass relatives of service members. I'm sure their creativity in being disruptive will know few bounds.
Posted by: PaulC at June 2, 2006 11:49 AMMaybe we need to take a look at our existing laws regarding disturbing the peace, for example. Something like that, as opposed to what seems to be hasty legislation drawn up to meet a need that is not necessarily outside the purview of our current codes. I don't think Phelps' people are going to conform their behavior to meet precise legal definitions - hence my opposition to this kind of legislation.
As to looking up the web site of the Patriot Guard, I confess it didn't even occur to me that they would have one (a group with an image like this doesn't exactly conjure up images in my mind of someone pecking away on a keyboard), and also I gathered from a previous post that this group was sort of open to whomever felt like coming along for the ride. My apologies if this is incorrect; and, no - I still haven't looked at their web site.
"Have we discovered Angryclown's secret identity?"
I have an FBI surveillance photograph of Phelps wearing assclown like a jock-strap...should I post it?
Posted by: swiftee at June 2, 2006 12:21 PMAC,
It's called "gentle needling". West coasters may refer to it as benign "smack". You know: like every comment that you leave on this blog.
Get bent.
Posted by: LearnedFoot at June 2, 2006 12:21 PMYeah Foot, you're a regular Jonathan Not-So-Swift with that sledgehammer wit of yours.
Posted by: angryclown at June 2, 2006 12:37 PMThis is off topic, but wow, who would have thought that the Pulse would be beating the big guns, unless I missed something...:
"According to an e-mail received from Truthout.org Executive Director Marc Ash, three independent sources have confirmed that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment late last week.
However, the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald would not confirm, deny or comment on its investigation on Truthout’s report. “We know that both Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin and Rove’s spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo’s deni_als, (sorry for the under score, i had to add it so the server woudl accept it - fulcrum)” Ash wrote in the e-mail—“this is what we believe—Rove may be turning state’s evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald’s investigation may have broadened—and clearly to Cheney...”
http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2497
From Truthout.org
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml
Fulcrum
Posted by: Fulcrum at June 2, 2006 12:48 PMLook Jane look. A little dog. The little dog is wearing a clown suit. Silly clown dog. The little dog is barking. Angry clown dog. Bark, bark, bark goes the angry clown dog. What a stupid little dog. It thinks it has something important to say. Look Jane, the angry clown dog is barking. Lets listen. Bark angry clown dog, bark! We're listening! Ha, ha, ha, no we are not. Who cares what a silly, stupid, angry clown dog is barking about. Bye bye little dog.
Posted by: Euthanasia-B at June 2, 2006 12:53 PM"I don't necessarily oppose the intent of the new law; I just don't think a new law was needed. Law enforcement already has wide discretion to charge trouble-makers with things, and bringing too much specificity to new rules just creates new ways around the rules. Maybe they stop with the funerals altogether and go somewhere else or use other tactics to harass relatives of service members. I'm sure their creativity in being disruptive will know few bounds.
Maybe we need to take a look at our existing laws regarding disturbing the peace, for example. Something like that, as opposed to what seems to be hasty legislation drawn up to meet a need that is not necessarily outside the purview of our current codes. I don't think Phelps' people are going to conform their behavior to meet precise legal definitions - hence my opposition to this kind of legislation."
Understood, Paul. But with law enforcement's wide discretion comes a problem of vagueness in the law that's constitutional in nature. The very first thing any member of the Phelps (Asshat) gang who's arrested will do is challenge the law under which he was arrested as being vague, or challenge the specific charges as not really meeting the intent of the law. If the judge agrees, the defendant goes free, and we're right back to needing a new law. If the judge disagrees, chances are good he'll be decried as an "activist judge" who's "legislating from the bench" because if "disturbing the peace" was meant to include non-violent, organized protest outside a funeral, the legislature would've included that in the law.
Kind of a catch-22, is all I'm saying. With the new law, it's simply easier to prosecute (unless it's overturned as a violation of free speech, which I doubt will happen). I know conservatives tend to believe that more legislation is inherently worse than less legislation, but there are times when maybe it's okay to just let them find an easier way.
Posted by: Beeeej at June 2, 2006 01:08 PMWell, what's done is done, for now, at any rate.
Posted by: PaulC at June 2, 2006 01:22 PMThe vagueness in the law that cops use to interpret things is a double-edged sword, and this would have been fought about in court sooner or later.
In a way, it's too bad that soldiers' families don't have some people that will go and protest the Phelps' people's funerals, etc. It might put things in perspective for them. But most of us wouldn't do such things, under any circumstances. You've got to be a special kind of crazy to do something like that, and the good and decent people on our side just don't operate that way.
Sounds like an opportunity for some enterprising soul or souls, but I'd never seriously suggest something like that.
COMMENTER1: So, wow, look at this new car.
COMMENTER2: Yeah, I saw that car earlier. It's pretty cool.
COMMENTER3: Did you check out the engine in that car? Pretty sweet:
COMMENTER4: Awesome sound system, too.
ANGRYCLOWN: Wingnut-mobile.
COMMENTER5: I really like the leather interior.
COMMENTER6: Hey, it's got sattelite radio!
FULCRUM: Cheney, Rove, Cheney, Rove, Rove. Cheney? Rove. Truthout! Rove. Cheney!
Posted by: Ryan at June 2, 2006 01:28 PMHey Ryan, suck on the tailpipe till you get really, really sleepy.
Posted by: angryclown at June 2, 2006 01:32 PMRyan, sorry to upset you so much, but I noted it was off topic.
My I ask, what was the purpose of your post? Because really, I think it added so much to this discussion.
Posted by: Fulcrum at June 2, 2006 01:52 PMI fear I have been slain by the rapier wit and cutting and slicing metaphoric imagery dealt out so brilliantly by Angryclown. As I draw my last breath and feel my heart still in my chest, I have no choice but to stare in wondrous awe at the Angryclown comment that proved my untimely undoing. Never before and never again will I be able to match wits with Internet commenters, for truly, Angryclown's comment dealt me such a grave beat down from which I can never recover. Farewell, my friends (and Fulcrum). Do not mourn me, I beg. Rather, radiate in the brilliance of Angryclown's repeated and persistent one-liner literary razors, of which one sliced me through and severed my tender aorta. Mayhaps I'll see you all one day again, mayhaps at Keegan's for a frosty brew, but here, on this blog, on this Internet, I'm dead to you, run through as I was by Angryclown's dominating rhetorical bitch-slap.
Posted by: Ryan at June 2, 2006 02:00 PMMust. . . *gasp*. . .respond to Fulcrum. . . *gasp.*
If you know. . . *wheeze*. . . that something is completely. . . *woozy*. . . off topic, so much so that. . .*lights fading*. . . you have to qualify your comment as being. . .*seeing my dead dog, Max*. . . off topic, maybe this isn't the best venue for. . .*Grandpa?*. . .spouting off about something that you're mentally incapable of. . .*crapping pants*. . .NOT thinking about every waking moment of your life.
*gurgle*
Posted by: Ryan at June 2, 2006 02:07 PM"Hey Ryan, suck on the tailpipe till you get really, really sleepy."
You sound like you have personal experience with sucking tailpipes, AC.
Posted by: Paul at June 2, 2006 02:18 PMRyan, i liked that last post, made me laugh...but this is completely off base: "spouting off about something that you're mentally incapable of. . .*crapping pants*. . .NOT thinking about every waking moment of your life"
I am sorry that i find it important that yet another top government official (both democrats & republican) is being indicted.
Actually today I can't get my mind off the fact that Nick Coleman & Mitch agree on somthing!
Posted by: Fulcrum at June 2, 2006 02:22 PMFulcrum,
Do you think that Marc Ash might be getting too far in front of the news cycle?
Posted by: Paul at June 2, 2006 02:22 PMPaul: Perhaps he has, that is a conclusion that is quite possible...but, the post did say 3 independent sources. That coupled with teh fact that he was he testified 5 times doesn't bode well. I am guessing, if this is true, it will be released on a coming friday.
Fulrcum
Posted by: Fulcrum at June 2, 2006 02:25 PM"I am sorry that i find it important that yet another top government official (both democrats & republican) is being indicted."
And that's fine. Go ahead and find it important to your heart's content. But running on over to Mitch's blog to breathlessly proclaim it in a thread that's completely unrelated to your most-important-thing-evAr comes across as A) a little creepy and unstable and B) sort of rude (though "rude" is the order of the day in the InterWeb world, I'll admit). It's kind of like sauntering into a crowd of people at a party who are all talking about a football game, and blurting out drunkenly "Yeah? Well, I was just porking your wife on all the coats in the bedroom! Here's a link to the YouTube video of it! Peace out!"
Posted by: Not Ryan, He's Dead at June 2, 2006 02:53 PMSorry Ryan, didn't realize you were the Gatekeeper..and if my post was creepy...what do you call making an horrible analogy and pretending to die?
Mitch I am sorry I made that post and I hope you weren't offended.
Posted by: Fulcrum at June 2, 2006 03:07 PM"what do you call making an horrible analogy and pretending to die?"
An expression of creative genius.
Posted by: Not Ryan, He's Still Dead at June 2, 2006 03:11 PM"what do you call making an horrible analogy and pretending to die?"
I thought it was freakin hilarious.
*applause*
Lighten up.
Posted by: Bill C at June 2, 2006 04:03 PMbill c tells me to lighten up when it is ryan, (dead or not so dead) who has his panties in a bundle...
Posted by: Fulcrum at June 2, 2006 04:38 PMI can't make the Patriot Guard ride tomorrow. Any of you going?
.
Posted by: nathan bissonette at June 2, 2006 04:41 PMThe sad task of preparing Ryan's body has alas befallen on me and some of Ryan's other friends. Although my heart is heavy with grief, I feel I must defend Ryan against the heartless attacks leveled by one Fulcrum. As I cleaned the copious amounts of fecal matter from Ryan's underwear a moment ago, I noted that Ryan apparently wore boxers, not panties, and they were most definitely unbundled, though I must admit they were unspeakably filthy.
Posted by: Friend of Ryan at June 2, 2006 04:51 PMYeah AngryClown, it's not Mitch's fault if he quotes someone and voices his approval, he's not responsible for his blog's content after all.
"even Democrats don't deserve.." this would imply Democrats deserve ridicule, revulsion, maltreatment, just not treatment that could be thrown back at Mitch with h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e all over it given the likes of Duke, Thurmond, and Robertson.
Even Republicans don't deserve to have pointed out that defending errant policies is the surest way to destroy the honor of soldiers.
Even Republicans don't deserve to be labelled with "social engineering" tags when they tell the less advantaged to "get out and work harder", like THEY were born in the ghetto, went to lousey schools, were denied financial opportunities regarding college, etc..
Even Republicans don't deserve to have pointed out that they endorse an administration which seeks to monitor e-mails between US citizens without warrant, and have moutpieces like Berg saying the President's power grab is legal, of course, Berg's no lawyer, and his comment is of increadibly dubious legal standing - specifically, outside the administration there is about no competent legal scholar who supports the claim. In the next breath Berg complains about usurping liberties...he's ready to create a dictator but gets his undies twisted about a bunch of gay-hating nutballs but not about the stupid, typical republican knee-jerk, reactionary law. Then he claims he'd join Patriot unGlued.. err Guard, as they seek physical confrontations with people they don't like, but just can't quite find the time to show up.
Not even Republicans deserve to be labeled with guys like Berg.
Posted by: bobjones at June 2, 2006 05:36 PMBob, I'll see your Duke, Thurmond, and Robertson, and raise you $90,000 in the freezer Jefferson, Rostenkowski, Kennedy (Ted), Gore (Sr.), Huey Long, Dailey (every stinkin corrupt one of them) Clinton (both), Jim Wright, Jesse Jackson, Two-cheeseburgers Moore...My God, there's just too many to name. LBJ, Truman, that bastard slave owner Jefferson.
Posted by: Kermit at June 2, 2006 06:30 PMGasp! Your moral high-ground has developed a decidedly swampish aspect. Get out the hip-waders Bobby. It's gettin mighty ugly in the fever swamp.
I and my fellow cyber bikers will be standing guard at Ryan's sendoff to make sure no clowns, fulcrums or other lameass deviants show up to promote their lameass agenda.
Posted by: Ryan Guard at June 2, 2006 06:38 PMGo not quietly into that long blogless sleep, Ryan, and know that wither thou goest, no clown may follow. Sob!
Wow. This one kinda took off,huh?
Beeeej,
"And I'm kind of curious why you oppose it, Mitch; did I miss an earlier post?"
Yep. I oppose the law d/t the whole slippery slope, First Amendment thing. Same reason I oppose laws banning the loathsome practice of flag-burning.
Kermit:
"I think you're being mighty generous to someone who calls every one he disagrees with a Wingnut."
The secret to dealing with the Clown is keeping everything in perspective. Dinging him for calling real Americans "wingnuts" is like yapping about Steven Wright being a monotone, or Gilbert Gottfried for being nasal.
Foot,
"It's called "gentle needling". West coasters may refer to it as benign "smack". You know: like every comment that you leave on this blog."
Actually, it'd be fun to get Foot, Ryan and Clown at a MOB party some day. It'd be a hoot.
No, I mean that sincerely.
Beeeej,
"With the new law, it's simply easier to prosecute (unless it's overturned as a violation of free speech, which I doubt will happen). I know conservatives tend to believe that more legislation is inherently worse than less legislation, but there are times when maybe it's okay to just let them find an easier way."
To be clear: this is not a form of free speech I'm especially eager to defend. I think the law is probably OK by itself. I worry about the precedent set by ANY law that nibbles at the fringes of free speech.
PaulC,
"In a way, it's too bad that soldiers' families don't have some people that will go and protest the Phelps' people's funerals, etc. It might put things in perspective for them. But most of us wouldn't do such things, under any circumstances."
That's the problem when you're dealing with activists...no, zealots. We have better, or at least other, things to do. They don't.
Ryan,
"FULCRUM: Cheney, Rove, Cheney, Rove, Rove. Cheney? Rove. Truthout! Rove. Cheney!"
Hah!
Clown:
"Hey Ryan, suck on the tailpipe till you get really, really sleepy."
Were you having a rough day yesterday, AC? I'd expected better.
Fulcrum,
"I noted it was off topic."
Posting an off-topic comment with a disclaimer is still posting an off-topic comment. I don't get especially upset about it (unless it happens over and over and over - PB and Eva Young jump to mind), but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
Boobjones,
"Yeah AngryClown, it's not Mitch's fault if he quotes someone and voices his approval, he's not responsible for his blog's content after all."
Oh, "bob". Sorry about that. I figured the fact that I've NEVER discussed Phelps' putative political affiliation might be a hint.
"even Democrats don't deserve.." this would imply Democrats deserve ridicule, revulsion, maltreatment, just not treatment that could be thrown back at Mitch with h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e all over it given the likes of Duke, Thurmond, and Robertson."
So let's recap: I specifically abjure making an unfair - no, STUPID connection between Dems (many of whom I consider friends) and Phelps. You, "bob", then proceed to do exactly that with the likes of Duke, Thurmond and Robertson (two out of three of whom I've extensively attacked in this blog and elsewhere).
"Even Republicans don't deserve to have pointed out that defending errant policies is the surest way to destroy the honor of soldiers."
And even a Democrat...no, wait. Given the overheated, context-challenged, and ill-informed nature of your "comment", you're probably another of those things that, like Phelps and Michael Moore and "Democratic Underground", that'd it'd be unfair to smear Dems with.
"Even Republicans don't deserve to have pointed out that they endorse an administration which seeks to monitor e-mails between US citizens without warrant,"
Echelon was a project of *which* administration?
Cough it up, Bob. Clinton did more to gut civil liberties than any previous or succeeding US president.
"and have moutpieces like Berg saying the President's power grab is legal, of course, Berg's no lawyer, and his comment is of increadibly dubious legal standing - specifically, outside the administration there is about no competent legal scholar who supports the claim."
OK, bob - for starters, the number of misspellings and the blanket ignorance of thought other than your own side's blinkered orthodoxy make me wonder if I know who you really are - first of all, I don't NEED to be a lawyer to read the Constitution.
Second, Hugh Hewitt - himself a constitutional law professor - has assembled a list of reputable consitutional scholars who agree with me.
"In the next breath Berg complains about usurping liberties...he's ready to create a dictator but gets his undies twisted about a bunch of gay-hating nutballs but not about the stupid, typical republican knee-jerk, reactionary law."
No, little buddy (are you really PB? I bet you are), I'm less ready to create a dictator than you are. If I didn't think - with reason - that the wiretaps were constitutional, I'd oppose them. MORE THAN YOU would, given your complete inability to realize the historical nature of the erosion of civil liberty.
" Then he claims he'd join Patriot unGlued.. err Guard, as they seek physical confrontations with people they don't like, but just can't quite find the time to show up."
Claims I'd join the guard? No. Merely implied that I support them, and wish I COULD find the time, and may well try to in the near future.
As to "seek[ing] physical confrontation" - clearly they do not. But then you'd have to know what you were talking about to know that.
"Not even Republicans deserve to be labeled with guys like Berg."
Wow. The party is "labeled" with me? Who knew?
Posted by: mitch at June 3, 2006 09:23 AMIf "bobjones" is really pb he's learned the value of brevity. The post was under 15 paragraphs and was only marginally paranoid. Come to think of it, nah, couldn't be peevish boy.
As for Snarkyclown, I guess we can just think of him as that uncle who has to be invited to the family functions.
Posted by: Kermit at June 3, 2006 01:47 PMMitch,
Was that you with playing the bagpipes at the funeral-parially hidden from view by the Harley's and the police barriers?
Posted by: Michael A at June 4, 2006 09:14 AMRyan-just had to tell you that it's been a while since I laughed out loud reading something-your "dying posts" were hilarious.
Posted by: Colleen at June 5, 2006 08:35 AMRyan's post was very good.
I think Colleen thought it was even funnier than the wacky morning DJ on her favorite Mennonite radio station.
Posted by: angryclown at June 6, 2006 11:39 AM