Hey, you like cheese? How about biplanes? Sure ya do!

I have made an important discovery: if you go to Osh Kosh Wisconsin and then go to the EAA Museum of Aviation, and then go out to the Pioneer airfield next door (listen for the tram announcement every 20 minutes) you can then, most of the time, pay someone $75 to take you up for a flight in an open-cockpit biplane.

No, really.

Sadly, they weren't flying yesterday, but I'll be back. It's only a six-hour drive (if you don't stop to eat.)

Or perhaps Madam would prefer the Ford Tri-Motor? Or Sir would care to view Lake Winnebago through the iconic bubble canopy of a Bell 47 while humming the theme song to "M.A.S.H."?

Notice the "Glastar"--a low-wing, bubble-canopy side-by-side two-seater--is "FREE" for kids between the ages of eight and 17 years? And I haven't even gotten into a couple hundred photos I took in the museum.

Progress in Wisconsin?

Gene German, Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner,
explains why plans to push for a ban on open carry in
Wisconsin may blow up in anti-gun faces:

One month ago, Attorney General J B Van Hollen said in a memo to law enforcement publicly what has been the law in Wisconsin since forever. Open carry is lawful and is not by itself, disorderly conduct.

His memo has (predictably) prompted talk at the Capitol of a bill to ban open carry. This is good. The people of Wisconsin passed an amendment in 1998 to protect their rights to bear arms for self defense and other lawful purposes. They have been prohibited from carrying a gun concealed for 137 years but since open carry is allowed, the states law and constitution worked well together. If open carry becomes prohibited, it will be impossible for anyone to exercise their constitutionally protected right and the Wisconsin Supreme Court will get to decide which (or perhaps both) law to overturn. This outcome will give some anti-gun democrats serious heartburn because they know your good judgement can’t be trusted (you did elect them after all) but it is not likely to stop them from trying to deny you your rights anyway. You can fix this problem at the polls.

Back in the bad old days when most courts in the U.S. took the 2nd Amendment at face value, it was widely held that governments could regulate either the open carrying of weapons, or the concealed carrying of weapons, as long as one or the other was legal. It was not considered important which style of bearing arms was allowed as long as people could bear arms legally, and it often came down to invalidating whichever statute came along second (the first statute, by this reasoning, only regulated the manner of carry by prohibiting one or the other . . . .but the second statute, no matter which style of carry it addressed, represented a de facto ban on carrying weapons altogether and was thus forbidden. ) Whether this thinking will make a comeback in the coming years remains to be seen, since we don't actually have a ruling on how important the "and bear" part of the right to keep and bear arms is . . . . but I like German's optimism.