Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

2233, 17 Feb 15

Nobody Shows for Secretary of State’s Open House

That’s just funny. I would note that not even any of the Democrats showed up.

MADISON, Wis. — It looks like Secretary of State Doug La Follette’s invitation to lawmakers to come see his office got lost in the email.

None showed up Tuesday after La Follette threw his doors open in what he said was a bid to show people the important work done by his staff.

Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed budget would cut two of the three full-time employees and one part-time employee in La Follette’s office.

Walker also suggested moving the office to the Capitol basement. He said the proposed changes would save the state $500,000 over the next two years.

La Follette invited lawmakers to the event by email last week.


2233, 17 February 2015


  1. Kevin Scheunemann

    I suggest moving the office to Old World Wisconsin, since the office is an anachronism of the 19th century.

    History buffs might visit his office then…as long as there is something else interesting bundled with the trip.

  2. Dave

    You could set it up right next to the 19th century classroom filled creationism texts.

  3. Kevin Scheunemann


    That was back in the days when Christianity could be spoken in the public sphere…(before liberals altered the 1st amendment to destroy free speech, or, succinctly, speech liberals hate). Now, its only the false Darwin religion that can be thought in public school.

    The Darwinism religion started in the 19th Century. Maybe you should also suggest an homage to the genesis of the trendy, liberal, cult-like religion at Old World Wisconsin.

    You wouldn’t want a frozen in time, 19th century school room to be void of the current liberal religions?

    Should I ask Al Gore for a global warming chant book? (His religious chanting about warming sure has not worked the last 18 months…its been cold!)

  4. scott

    It never ceases to amaze me that those who purport to be terrified of government and government overreach are never, ever concerned that their government might be expressing religious opinions as though it were a person. Nobody is preventing you from shouting about Jesus from every hilltop. It’s just that many of us don’t want the government doing so. That isn’t the same–even remotely–as preventing individuals from speaking about their religion “in the public square,” nor an affront to your freedom of speech.

    When people like yourself start acknowledging this obvious distinction, I’ll start listening to your complaints more closely. But as long as you persist in this seemingly deliberate conflation of issues, I’ll just consider your whining totally irrelevant.

  5. Kevin Scheunemann


    We’ve moved far beyond what you describe. We’ve moved to speech oppression, especially in public schools.

    Here it all is (since you asked):

    Read the whole thing. Its stunning. Religious speech is under trmendous attack…but mainly only Christian speech.

    I merely propose the same level of public speech scrutiny/oppression for the favored liberal religions in pubic schools…Darwinism, global warming, etc. That’s all. Those religions should be “out” too!

    Shouldn’t all religions be treated like Christianity in America?

    I’m surprised you get in such a twist when I call for equal treatment of all religions to the standard Christianity is treated.

    The reason you get in a twist: ….slapping the word “religion” on something is the new liberal way to tell someone to shut up about something. There is 189 pages of liberals telling Christians exactly that at the link, especially at the public schoolhouse door.

  6. scott

    Kevin, there’s a few things going on in your response that I’d like to address. First and foremost, though, is this: to the extent that your second link is a valid account of the situation (Fox news, eh? Well, for the sake of argument) I agree with you. Nobody should be fired for their private beliefs. And if that’s all that happened–beliefs, not behavior–then it’s wrong.

    However, I think you’re cherry picking like it’s your job. And so are your favorite sources of information on the subject. (

    What’s really going on, large scale, is that Christians are being told that they can’t go around anymore acting like the United States of America belongs to them and only them. And losing a favored status like that hurts a little. I get that. But it does not mean you’re being persecuted. Finding a news-of-the-weird account of someone somewhere being wronged by an overreach notwithstanding, all that’s going on is that you’re losing what was an unfair privilege in the first place. To quote Jon Stewart, “It’s supposed to taste like a shit taco.” But that doesn’t mean you’re being wronged.

    Also, Darwin’s theory of evolution isn’t a religion. Neither is climate change. Either one of them could be wrong, of course, but they just aren’t religion. Complaining that they should be ousted alongside creationism or public school prayer–and for the same reason–is…well, no. If you cannot understand this science/religion distinction and factor it into your arguments going forward then there isn’t much more to discuss, as you have abandoned all sense in favor of simple ranting.

  7. Dave

    Amen, brother!

  8. Kevin Scheunemann

    Scott said,

    “To quote Jon Stewart, “It’s supposed to taste like a shit taco.””

    So why is it a problem when I steer evolution and global warming into that same Taco dung?

    If global warming and evolution can be wrong (which they are), why does that deserve more protection (or less excrement Taco treatment) than Christianity in the public sphere?

    Wouldn’t that be illegal overt discrimination?

  9. scott

    No, it would not. Religion actually gets special treatment: government hands off. The government should not express religious views. This, as a strict matter of conscience, is something reserved for individuals.

    Science is not the same thing. It’s an academic subject that we have a clear interest in teaching to our citizens. Because it deals in verifiable facts and not strict matters of conscience where one opinion is as valid as another, it gets no special treatment and public schools can and should teach it.

    Seriously, Kevin. Do you honestly not know the difference between science and religion? I thought your “religion of Darwinism” was hyperbolic. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

  10. Major Booris

    No, scott, he honestly doesn’t. As Tuerqas and I discovered to our horror a few years back, Kevin seems to make no distinction between articles of faith, political ideology, and personal opinion. His thoughts on the nature of Jesus, the proper role of government, and his favorite flavor of ice cream all hold equal weight as unshakable, bedrock convictions.

    But that’s not all. Because he holds each and every one of his convictions with a religious fervor, he’s convinced that everyone else does, too. If you recycle your aluminum cans, you’re worshiping Gaea. Republican, but think Glenn Grothman is a bit of a weirdo? You’re a government-worshiping leftist dupe. And don’t get him started about Baskin-Robbins.


    “Religious speech is under trmendous attack…but mainly only Christian speech.”- Dilly Bar Kevin

    Thank God!

  12. Kevin Scheunemann


    So the recent news on everything we thought we knew about cholesterol, do we have faith in the old data, or the new data about cholesterol?

    You said Science is about “verifiable facts”.

    What are the “verfiable facts” on cholesterol now?

    Was your previous belief on cholesterol a question of faith since it is no longer “verifiable”? (but you previously believed it to be “verifiable”?)

    We used to have “verifiable facts” on global warming, but now we call it climate change because the facts show the earth is, unexplainably, slowing in its rate of warming, or possibly cooling.

    Just what does “verifiable fact” mean?

    Much of what is called science today is really a matter of faith. Faith all the data is known, faith the theory is correct, faith the data was interpreted and processed correctly, faith there is not human bias, (or perfection), in the reporting process.

    Verifiable facts are things like measure of gravity, the temperature outside, the number of electrons in lead…your issue is: you slap the science label on things that are not science, but a mere point of view that requires faith to believe.

    When you need faith to believe something, what is it other than religion?

    Why would you not extend the same public courtesy to those that have different faith from you?

    (In other words, why is your faith not worthy of the excrement taco treatment? We seem to all have been wrong on cholesterol for the last generation if new study is to be believed.)

    Major Booris said,

    “Kevin seems to make no distinction between articles of faith, political ideology, and personal opinion.”

    And that is a problem? Political speech is supposed to be absolute. The 1st amendment should not have speech sorted by content. That is exactly what we are doing if we utilize government to (especially through public schools) sort SPEECH content for a religious component. If I make no distinction between faith, political ideolofy, and personal opinion, that is a problem?

    I missed that at the liberal 1st amendment censorship seminars. (which I don’t attend, so I don’t have all those political correctness memos.).

    The reason you are in a twist Major is that I’m slapping the liberal “shut-up” label (religion) on other matters of faith. Faith matters that strike at the central sacraments of the liberal religion.

    Its great hearing from you again.

  13. Dave

    Major Booris….you hit it on the head!

  14. Kevin Scheunemann


    So it makes 3 of you that want to sort and sift public sphere speech for a religious component, thus tossing the speech.

    I guess that part about where content of speech is not reviewable by government, least it be a chilling effect, is out the window with you guys.


  15. scott

    Secular government such as we have here in the United States of America should not have, nor should it even give the appearance of having, an opinion with regard to religious matters. It should not, as Kevin would probably have it, gleefully echo the religious feelings of the majority. This is a fact he would immediately and completely grasp if the federal government were to establish, say, Presbyterianism as the official religion of the United States of America. As it stands now, it is not in his interest to grasp it and so he does not.

    Meanwhile, the public has a compelling interest in seeing that its citizens are educated in the sciences. Without this education people end up, well, like Kevin. Just picking opinions out of the air, whatever suits their feelings on the matter, without regard to any empirical evidence. One’s opinion is as good as anyone else’s. If I “feel” that immunizations cause autism, or that the sun goes around the earth, or that global climate change isn’t a thing, well it’s just as valid as your opposite opinion.

    The fact that science changes and grows over time, by the way, is not a weakness–it’s a strength. Science is self-correcting, always casting aside old ideas for new ones as new evidence comes to light. It’s not just a thing that sort of happens, it’s the core of what science is. It never, ever, purports to have absolute knowledge. Its knowledge is always provisional. But that knowledge, provisional though it may be, is supported by empirical, verifiable evidence–sometimes mountains of it. It’s never just someone’s “feeling” that things are a certain way.

    Secular government has every reason to educate in the sciences and every reason not to educate religious indoctrination. (Educating about religion in general, as a non-indoctrinating, cultural and historical influence is another matter and one that I strongly support.)

  16. Kevin Scheunemann

    Scott said,

    “Secular government such as we have here in the United States of America should not have, nor should it even give the appearance of having, an opinion with regard to religious matters.”

    Who gets to define and sift speech content for “religious matters”?

    Just that speech review by government agents, in and of itself, is a violation of 1st amendment.

    Do we all agree on exactly what constitutes “religious matters”?

    Later on, you indicate you are OK educating about religious matters but just not in a way that “indoctrinates”. So, in your world, not only do we have to sort speech by religious matters, but then by whether it indoctrinates on religion. Again, who’s 1st amendment rights to you violate en masse to determine that standard?

    (So then what is the problem if I review the evolution and global warming religions for indoctrination?)

    When you do non-indoctrinating education in religious matters doesn’t that leave you with the indoctrinating position of atheism as the default position, which, when I last checked, is a religious position?

  17. scott

    “When you do non-indoctrinating education in religious matters doesn’t that leave you with the indoctrinating position of atheism as the default position, which, when I last checked, is a religious position?”

    No, it doesn’t. And, no, it isn’t.

  18. Kevin scheunemann


    The ‘there is no god’ position is not religious?

    The majority of America would beg to differ.

  19. scott

    Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Is bald a color of hair? Is “I don’t believe in unicorns” just another fairy tale?

    Atheism is not a religion.

  20. Kevin Scheunemann

    “Atheism is not a religion.”

    Sure it is. You believe yourself to be your own god.

    Its funny you allow room for that belief in public sphere but are unwilling to extend/grant the choice/courtesy to others.

  21. scott

    False. I don’t believe in any gods at all. You really should make an effort to understand someone else’s position before you argue with them about it.

    There’s room for every belief in the “public sphere.” Profess your devoutness in every public place you’d like. This is America. Have at it.

    What bothers me is that you want your views enshrined in and validated by the government we all share. I don’t.

  22. Kevin Scheunemann

    I see. You have free speech (not subject to review, sifting, or censoring) because you openly deny your religion.

    Christians don’t have a religion either, they have a relationship with Jesus.

    See how easy it is when we take the liberal “shut up” label out of the equation?

  23. scott

    Sorry, where am I proposing that your speech be infringed and limited, Kevin?

  24. Kevin Scheunemann

    I thought you would never ask.

    Would you be alright if I put the following at the bottom of my elected office email? (or a teacher saying this in a classroom?)

    “Of what use is money in the hand of a fool, since he has no desire to get wisdom?”

    (Probably a good, resonating statement, about government on many levels.)

  25. scott

    Are you an elected official? Or a teacher?

  26. Kevin Scheunemann


    Yes on elected official….and I would consider myself an unpaid “teacher”.

    (Village Trustee in Kewaskum curently. Village President in May, pending April election…but running unopposed.)

  27. scott

    Not sure what “unpaid teacher” means except maybe “not a teacher.” But whatever.

    I’d rather you not publicly express your religious views while performing your official government duties. On your own time? Raise the rafters, man.

  28. Kevin Scheunemann


    So anytime I talk about “money” or “wisdom” in my elected official email; you prefer I not talk about it because its “religion”? (That is going to make simple municipal budget discussion rather difficult.)

    Many consider Proverbs 17:16 to be wisdom without religion, thus not, technically, verboten, or censored, in liberal lexicon.

    Just when does important daily speech subjects, constantly talked about in the bible, become the “shut up” religion label in the public sphere?

    Will you volunteer to review all my correspondence/speeches in advance to make sure I don’t run afoul of the censoring, anti-1st amendment, liberal political correctness machine? Its all very confusing (as well as chilling)to me as to what speech is, and is not, verboten in all this illegal speech review.

    I’m fascinated by this subject because I had no idea the anti-freedom liberal political correctness machine ran so deep.

    (Maybe the Secretary of State should have invited us to debate at his open house.)

  29. scott

    Your willful misunderstanding is tiresome, Kevin. Perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree. My position can be summarized as follows: I’d rather religious expression be limited to individuals, with government keeping it’s mouth shut on the issue. Secular government. Not endorsing or even appearing to endorse any religious view. This actually better ensures the religious liberty of the individual. Your own position, as best I can understand it, is that the government should echo your own religious views and if anyone doesn’t like it they can just suck it.

  30. Kevin Scheunemann


    “I’d rather religious expression be limited to individuals, with government keeping it’s mouth shut on the issue.”

    As in my elected office email example, you want me, as an elected official, to check my Christianity at the door. Just what does that mean? Almost any speech by any public official can be construed as being addressed by the Bible, or Christianity, in some aspect, thus rendering almost any puiblic official’s speech, subject, to the liberal “shut-up” religious label at the whim of any vigorous leftist speech censor.

    How about, instead, we check public speech censorship at the door?

    Checking my Christianity at the door, as a public official, would be also be tossing a lot of wisdom out the window. You are, essentially, saying I cannot be guided by the Holy Spirit in public decision making. Isn’t it a little harsh to ask me to strip myself of all Christianity because someone, somewhere, at some random interval, might think the speech I put forth, may be “religious”?

    If all public political speech is now reviewable (which courts say its not) for content restriction, as the standard, it’s no wonder that hardly anyone wants to run for office!

  31. Boyd McBoyd

    “Not sure what ‘unpaid teacher’ means except maybe ‘not a teacher.’ But whatever.”

    Ah, but you bill yourself as “technologist, musician, teacher” but teach no courses.

    I guess that makes you “not a teacher” then.


Pin It on Pinterest