For people who are involved in the political process, voter apathy is the friend or it is the enemy. Those in power count on the apathy of the middle class voters who just don’t give a damn that they are being exploited and are very content with the status quo.

Those who wish to change the process to produce a greater fairness for the middle class worker, are constantly frustrated with the lack of interest or foresight that permeates a too significant portion of the working class.

If the TV programs are entertaining and the favorite sports team is on a winning streak, Joe Sixpack doesn’t seem to mind that he is getting ripped off at the gas pump and that the tax collector(s) are taking half of his income just for owning a home and keeping the economy strong with daily spending.

It is no big secret that big money is ruling America. It costs about twenty million dollars to check out the viability of a candidate to make a presidential run. The amount spent on presidential campaigns would support a couple of third world countries for a year.

The biggest beneficiaries of such spending are the media, advertising agencies, consultants and special interests. The special interests are involved heavily in funding the campaigns and only an idiot would believe that they are doing it to “improve government.”

Huge corporations do not donate money. They invest it. Even those who give to worthy causes will do it with foundations which give them tax breaks. And, they can get good public relations as a result of their generosity, which of course can usually be translated into more sales or the wink if they somehow stray from pure ethics.

There is no doubt about the validity of the old adage, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We have had far too many examples of government officials who cross the line. Some are caught and punished, some are given the little slap on the wrist, and some are re-elected. Why?

The simple answer is that many of the middle class voters are gullible, apathetic, conditioned, or stupid. Many of the working class will vote for a candidate because “the union told me to.”

Of course, the candidate will vote for laws that will benefit unions. Presently, a bill is being considered to not require a secret ballot for workers to decide if they wish to be represented by a union. Which way would a lawmaker beholden to the unions vote on this issue?

Unions are necessary to protect workers from unfair treatment, but the pendulum has swung a bit too far, and they believe the business is being run for their benefit. In the private sector, a person starts a business to make money, not to provide employment. The auto industry unions have gotten so many benefits for the members that the companies are no longer competitive and are in serious financial trouble.

For union leaders, this doesn’t seem to be much of a problem. If the workforce is cut, they still are leaders, making the big bucks because the survivors are the ones that will keep them in office. As usual, no sacrifices for those at the top!

The public service unions are in a similar position with similar results. Government should be providing services the people cannot provide for themselves, but the bureaucracies keep swelling and the taxes keep increasing, and the middle class voter keeps complaining, but paying.

If we look at the statistics, we find that out of every ten eligible voters, three don’t bother to register to vote. In a given election only about half (sometimes not that many) will actually cast a ballot. That means only about thirty-five percent of the voters decide who is in office. If a person wins with seventy percent of the vote it is considered a landslide or a mandate. The actuality is that the “landslide” or overwhelming victory was determined by 24.5 percent of the eligible voting public.

So, the system and the citizens continue to give us the government we deserve.

Budd Schroeder is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. He is Chairman of the Board of the Shooter’s Committee On Political Education (SCOPE) and a Director of the Judges & Police Conference.

 

The Uninvited Ombudsman Report
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
Wednesday, February 21

Contents:
(searchable by item number)

Special Single-Subject Report:
GLOBAL WHINING

The recent Paris IPCC report on taking the planet’s temperature — and the political and media frenzy surrounding it — force me to examine so-called “global warming” in a special edition of Page Nine. Long-time readers may recognize some of these arguments, because they remain valid. The overall picture they paint is important.

====

The true root problem in Global Whining is sex. People keep having sex, so they keep popping out babies, so a whole class of problems just gets worse. Any warming (or cooling) being placed under a microscope is not the core problem. This isn’t about climate control, it’s about climax control.

No government is going to address this. Well, the communist Chinese did in horrific fashion, but we’re not going to go there.

Every time you add another billion people, each at 98.6 degrees, things naturally get hotter. Fuel gets used up. More lights get turned on. The demand for fried chicken swells, and chicken poop drainage swells with it. Sex. Don’t forget it. Calls to control everything else miss the only key factor.

(North America’s food supply includes an estimated two billion chickens, more than 100 million cattle, etc., to handle growing demand. This is about head count.)

====

How easily lamestream reporters (and you) seem to have forgotten that they all vehemently predicted the most massive hurricane season ever for this year.

The season’s almost over. The storms haven’t arrived. Katrina is a fading memory. They have not brought up these small points. Why should they. It would damage all the Global Whining proposals.

With the gases furiously building up daily, heat trapped from escaping into space, fossil fuels burning non-stop, ice melting, sophisticated super-computer models all in agreement, why no storms? Where’s the analysis of the observed result? Why aren’t they talking about that?

Cynics expect an announcement soon that heat-trapping global-warming gases are causing all the cooling, damaging frosts and record-breaking snow storms we’re enduring.

====

The lamestream media relies on standardized euphemisms that lead you astray and disguise the real problem:

Clear-cutting, de-forestation, an acre-an-hour and old-growth woods; traffic, congestion, air pollution and urbanization, or what The Uninvited Ombudsman calls clogsmogandsprawl; red-roof syndrome and overpopulation (overpopulation actually comes close to addressing the only real issue); recycle, reduce and reuse (a not unreasonable approach considering the inexorable nature of the problem).

Science, as I’ve pointed out before and as you remember from your high schooling if you went to high school back when they actually taught science, involves scientific method, which is approximately: theory or postulate, experiment, observation, measurable result, analysis and conclusion, double-blind repeatability.

Politics on the other hand involves voting. When scientists voted to demote Pluto, that wasn’t science, it was politics, even though “scientists” did it. The same was true when the IPCC voted unanimously to adopt their report (which, by the way, hasn’t been written yet — everyone’s jumping on a preliminary abstract).

When polls (a type of voting) show that most people believe global warming is real and about to ruin the earth and kill you, and that we have to “do” something about it right away, that’s not science either. That’s purely a result of what passes for “news.” The Gary Sepp syllogism is at play: “Polls are tests to see if the propaganda is working.”

When Al Gore stages concerts to promote his strongly held beliefs, that’s also not science. When he compellingly films his one side of one theory, and jets around the world promoting it, that’s definitely not science — and the inconvenient truth is it’s a huge revenue stream (that he claims he’s giving away… minus airfare and room and board for the next decade).

When scientists in Paris decided they are 90% sure of their results, that means there is a one-in-ten chance their results are bogus. Madame Curie played a one-in-ten-million chance to discover radium.

The factors at play in climate are so vast and immane, and so far beyond our present comprehension, we can’t even predict the weather one week out. Yet we have the gall to predict the planet’s condition in a century, and lobby for action. Expensive, collectivist action.

====

Other voices weigh in

The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, spoke out about the Paris greenhouse meeting, translated here by Harvard Professor Lubos Motl. See the full interview here: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm or here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/02/vclav-klaus-about-ipcc-panel.html

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It’s not my idea. Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment…

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint?

A: Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you’re not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate… Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me… I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don’t know how to do it and don’t plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear.

Environmentalism and the green ideology are something very different from climate science. Various screams and findings of scientists are misused by this ideology.

Q: Don’t you believe that we’re ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven’t heard you. Perhaps Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can’t… Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book [due this year] will answer these questions.

It’s also the case that there exist social systems that are damaging the environment, by eliminating private ownership and similar things… These tendencies become crucial in the long term. They unquestionably imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, nature is protected incomparably more than on February 8th ten, fifty, or one hundred years ago.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.

Klaus enjoys an 82% approval rating from his citizens.

====

The easily observed left-wing-right-wing dichotomy they refer to ought to tell you something. It may be the most salient point of the interview.

When real science develops, say, a robot that can automatically weld car parts without human intervention in a darkened factory (robots don’t need light so why waste the power), there’s no left-wing-right-wing debate, because that’s real science. The green science of global whining is not science, it’s politics, hence the debate. Political debate.

Critics charge that typical lamestream reporters, graduates of so-called J (for journalism) schools, aren’t bright enough or well educated enough to understand this. Other critics say it’s just another ignorant do-gooder socialist left-wing conspiracy. Nah.

====

The London Sunday Times observes:

“When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works… a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

“Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported…

“Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages… While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean…

“One awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether government will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped…

“The chief rival hypothesis says that the sun drives climate changes… After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.”

====

Solar activity isn’t the only other theory on the table, although there is tremendous evidence to support it — all conveniently ignored by reporters who should be ashamed of their shoddy and unethical herd-like behavior (but won’t be).

Danish scientists have published hard repeatable evidence that cosmic events have a direct effect on cloud formation in the atmosphere, and this has a greater effect on our climate than solar swings and gas bags combined. The main problem with these discoveries is that there’s no way to justify tax increases to combat the sun or stars and outer space.

====

Conveniently overlooked in all this are NASA’s plans, detailed in Aerospace America, to launch FIVE Earth resources satellites soon (Cloudsat, Calipso, Aquarius, Glory and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, between 2008 to 2010), to gather vitally needed data to help determine how weather patterns work.

NASA explains the need: “The sky stretches above us like an endless canvas, but of its most familiar components, the clouds, we actually know very little… CloudSat will provide new information about the vertical structure of clouds, including the quantities of liquid water and ice they contain, and how clouds affect the distribution of the sun’s energy in the atmosphere… Calipso will help scientists develop never-before-seen views of Earth’s atmospheric structure and behavior…”

The idea that we know enough to make the statements greenies are making is flat-out preposterous. Look for yourself (and the images are striking): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/calipso/multimedia/cloud_calip_mm.html

Forking out extra tax dollars in the name of climate change is the real bottom line on global whining. Follow the money. An industry of takers is lining up to gorge at the pot of public money you are going to provide to save the earth, if lefty greenies win the day. It was summed up as best I’ve seen in a simple letter to the editor in my local paper:

====

“Global warming is nothing but a global gravy train.

“Regarding ‘Parched’ (an editorial in the standard ‘we’re doomed from gases’ mold): What a crock.

“It’s not greenhouse gases that are causing the problem but green money. When the global warmers tell us the stakes are high, they are quite right.

“Global warming has become an immense international gravy train worth billions of dollars. The subject is now one of the largest beneficiaries of government research money in the world.

“This is not a coordinated conspiracy but a fashion, in which self-interest and ideology combine and green activists, politicians and journalists help each other to get more funding, more sensational stories and more enemies to blame.

“It finances jobs, grants, conferences, international travel and journals. It not only keeps a huge army of people in comfortable employment but also fills them with self righteousness and moral superiority.

“It enables the green movement to say, ‘The end is nigh unless you give us more funding; repent, and do as we say.’

“Since the end of the last Ice Age, the Earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the 20th century. The cooling and warming of the Earth is a natural cycle.”

–Pete Miller, Phoenix

====

The battle is on at the highest places:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id= 32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

“The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program “The Climate Code,” is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their “Seal of Approval” for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

“‘If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns,’ Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website.

“‘It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise.’ [Note: Hurricanes in the Southern Hemisphere, called cyclones, do rotate clockwise; also, see significant scientific skepticism being hidden by the media: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id= E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD]

Pulling from the online report: Hollywood, enviros and the media are in lock step demonizing skeptics and legitimate science they don’t like. CBS 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley compared scientists who don’t agree to Holocaust deniers. One of Cullen’s episodes of “The Climate Code” TV show featured Grist Magazine’s Dave Roberts without mentioning his public call to institute what amounts to death penalty Nuremburg-style trials for scientists who express skepticism about global warming: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568. Now there’s an open-minded approach to scientific inquiry. The left is earning its bad name.

Cullen’s call for suppressing scientific dissent helps silence experts affiliated with universities who fear loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The IPCC process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC’s summary for policymakers. See U.S. Senator Inhofe’s paper on “systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process” regarding climate: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id= 21CC88EC-CCA6-4A61-8C2E-78FA8DE4850D

The gross suppression of free speech and left-wing efforts at thought control on the topic of climate control will be featured in The Uninvited Ombudsman’s 11th book on the limits of free speech, expected this year, tentatively entitled “Bomb Jokes For Airports.”

Surveys of independent weathermen have shown that many are skeptical of manmade global warming claims, but with their credentials now threatened and intimidation in high gear, no one expects much speech to be coming from them.

Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification have become accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question. See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id= 3EE352B0-5D2E-4CC0-BD6B-304E3F6E0E2D.

The alarmists probably realize that the American public is questioning their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth, and rejecting the shrill calls for “action” to combat computer-model simulations of a “climate emergency.” See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id= 07F23E38-D271-4300-AC40-90C84A49134A

====

A closing note about model computers

The dire predictions bombarding us daily are largely based on something called computer models. Have you ever seen anything about these models other than that phrase? Of course not.

Reporters haven’t examined them, wouldn’t understand the math, and why bother, when the term itself is sufficiently scary and believable. It is typical reporting methodology — they’re living up to their reputation.

Computer models are being made on the most primitive computers with the most primitive software that will ever exist from this day forward. In ten years we’ll look back and say, “They didn’t even have a single petabyte of memory in those days, how did they get anything done?” (Petabyte comes after terabyte, and most people are still stuck with a mere few hundred puny gigabytes.)

Remember when you had a blazing rocket-science whiz-bang cathode-ray tube computer with a whopping 20 meg hard drive? That was barely a decade ago. Today, a single nice picture is 20 megs. Boldly saying our machines today are capable of modeling the infinite data of the entire planet is as realistic as the terrifyingly real computer in the 1970s “Forbin Project” movie. It was being fed all the world’s knowledge so it could control international geopolitics. The idea made your skin crawl. White-lab-coat scientists were feeding it… with punch cards.

Scary then, silly now. Today’s scientists can’t even apply the most basic data from NASA’s new climate satellites — because NASA hasn’t launched them yet — much less collected a single decade of data. What unmitigated hubris to declare that these olden programs are up to the task. The best we’ve got at the moment? Yes. Sufficient to predict the world in a hundred years? Even the brain dead can answer that correctly.

All right. Contradictory evidence is relegated to the back pages, or ignored entirely, to follow the herd. Left wing theories are prominently promoted by the left wing media. No surprise there. Numerous politicians are afraid to speak out and go against the grain, possibly compromising the entire planet (and their careers). Political correctness strangles you just like the political class with the bogus logic of, “but what if they’re right — shouldn’t we do something just in case?”

So let me put on my libertarian hat and ask the only question that really really matters to individuals like you and me. If the sun, or the stars, or gases, or aliens, or phenomena we don’t even recognize or understand are warming, or even cooling the planet, do my taxes have to go up?

———-

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you’re reading this in English, thank a veteran.

“No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”
–Edmund Burke

See the official Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics here.
Compare it to the news you see every day.

Thanks for reading!
Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman

---

Visit the PAGE NINE weblog.	Sign up for automatic RSS feeds
Contact Alan Korwin	Visit the Gunlaws.com website

For a politician, if an idea sounds good and the gullible public will buy it, the consensus is that it IS good. After all, politicians stay in power by getting people to continue to vote for them. Consequently, even if a program does not work, or is impractical, they will promote it if the public believes the politician is “doing something about it.”

Such is the case for gun buy-backs. This is where the public is conned into believing that if the city offers to buy guns from people “to get the guns off the streets” is a productive way to spend money, they will agree. Agreement equates to votes the next time the politician runs. For them, this is a good thing.

We have yet to see where gun buy-back programs actually accomplished that goal. Several cities have done this, but there have been no accurate data to equate the practice with reducing violent crime on the street. The politicians see this as a way to compensate for their inability or incompetence regarding getting criminals off the streets.

If bans on guns worked, or for that matter, bans on anything that criminals like, we would not have an illegal drug problem and Prohibition would have been an outstanding success. We have yet to hear of gun buy-back programs where violent criminals stood in line to get paid to turn in their guns.

The exception would be the criminal who used the gun in a crime, especially a homicide, and found this is a great way to destroy evidence that could be used against him. The program bases its “success” on the fact that the guns are turned in with no questions asked and the guns are destroyed.

However, it has been noted in some buy-back programs, some of the police who found valuable guns being turned in, “lost” them in the process. There were also incidences where buyers were found going down the line, finding good guns and offering more money to the seller than the government did.

Usually, the guns turned in were guns that were never on the street and were highly unlikely to get to the street in the hands of criminals. But then, perception is everything and that works for the politicians.

The mantra, “We have too many guns on the streets,” should be changed to the obvious problem of, “We have too many criminals on the streets.” Criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws, and it doesn’t really make any difference if it was easy or difficult for them to get a gun. If they want one, they certainly will obtain one by a variety of means. One only has to look at the ease with which addicts get illegal drugs.

A far better solution is to offer a bounty for people who turn in criminals who carry guns. It is a federal crime for felons to possess any type of gun. If the police were authorized to offer a thousand dollars to anyone who gave the tip of a known felon who was carrying a gun and the bounty was paid in cash immediately after the arrest, there would be a sharp increase in arrests for illegal possession.

Then, the criminal should be prosecuted under the Project Exile laws and sent to a federal prison for five years without possibility of parole. Or, if the gun was traced to a crime, add a state sentence to be served after the federal time was completed. That should be enough deterrent (if it is possible for them to be deterred) for most violent criminals.

To solve a problem, one must get serious about doing it. They also have to find the most effective solution. The gun buy-back does not meet those criteria.

Mr. Schroeder is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. He is Chairman of the Board of the Shooter’s Committee On Political Education (SCOPE) and a Director of the Judges & Police Conference.

As Senator McCain said, the House Democrats are not honest. If you oppose the war then stop funding it.

In the meantime, please join The Victory Caucus.

Regarding Friday’s vote in the Senate, at the end of the day, only 17 Republicans broke ranks. The media had anticipated a lot more. The Democrats lost 2.

My guess is that a lot of Democrats voted for this resolution because it is symbolic or non-binding. Let’s see where we are when Congress actually has to vote on something that matters, such as money.

Also, don’t be fooled. This resolution was a piece of “red meat” for the anti-war left. The Democrats understand that we can’t leave Iraq. They won’t say it publicly because it makes Pres. Bush’s case.

Speaking of an early departure from Iraq, please consider this. What happens to Israel? or the price of a gallon of gasoline?

If we leave Iraq, the Middle East will get very violent. My concern is not that Iraqis will kill each other, as awful as that may be.

My concern is that Iran will move in and go after Israel. My second concern is that the oil markets will go crazy. Are you ready for a $100 barrel and $10 gasoline at the pumps?

This is why this resolution is non-binding. The Democrats do not have the courage to do what they believe.

Pres. Bush must call their bluff. For six years, the Democrats sat in the bleachers and second guessed everything. It’s time to make them accountable. It starts with Iraq.

Over in the US Senate, Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham will stop the Democrats today.

This is a moment to stand up.

I’m delighted to see that Sen. McCain, Mayor Giuliani and Gov. Romney are behind Pres. Bush.

Are we ready for a Bush bounce? See Bush Regains His Footing by David S. Broder.

You can read this and other articles by Silvio Canto on his blog MY VIEW by Silvio Canto, Jr..

What’s in a name? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” said Shakespeare. Obviously, this was written before the “politically correct” mavens took over writing and declared that Gertrude Stein was wrong also when she said, “A rose, is a rose, is a rose.”

English is a complex language and lawyers make a good living by arguing ambiguous statements in laws. Political writers can prey on perception as they do wonders to twist statements to fit their own political philosophy and can destroy careers by taking statements out of context to confuse readers.

We have become used to outrageous ideas of what the First Amendment really means. It is supposed to protect our right to free speech and the freedom of religion among other basic rights. The ACLU claims the right of free speech gives people like Nazis the right to march in the streets and for people to view and transmit pornography.

Our culture accepts the type of language that a generation ago would have mothers washing out their children’s mouths if the kid uttered one of the vulgar words. However, that has changed. Now, it would appear that the assault on Second Amendment rights has paved the way for the “establishment” to erode First Amendment rights.

We are bombarded in the media with the transgressions of Mel Gibson and Michael Richards who made perceived insulting remarks regarding religion and race. George Allen used the word “Maccaca” in a speech which was seen to be derogatory and many claim that it was a primary reason he lost a very close race for the Senate.

For Allen, he lost votes. In New York Alan Hevesi stole more than $200,000 from taxpayers by using state employees to chauffer his wife. He was convicted of the crime, but did not have to resign until AFTER he was re-elected. Voters in New York have strange standards for election.

People can lose jobs and reputations for what they say if it insults race, religion (some religions, anyway), ethnic background, gender, and sexual preferences. The major consideration is perception, particularly to the vocal and liberal media. Some of the “outrageous” statements can be somewhat humorous.

Several years ago, a person was quoted as saying a Washington, DC politician behaved in a “niggardly fashion.” The politician screamed to the press and all who would listen to him that this was a racist slur and the person who uttered it should be removed from his position.

It wasn’t until a day or so later that someone bothered to look up the word in a dictionary and found it meant “stingy or miserly.” Stupidity is well tolerated in that city as long as it can’t be considered to be politically incorrect.

A person can lose his job or be severely censured if he makes a statement that someone considers to be sexual harassment. It all depends on the sensitivity or attitude of the person listening to the comment.

When all else fails, people have been known to play what is known as “the race card.” Often times, this is very successful and two well known “reverends” make a good living and get considerable publicity by being experts at this exploitation. Even when they are proven wrong after a complete investigation, the liberal media is usually very kind and forgiving.

We can understand why it is not constitutional to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre or talk about bombs when getting on an airplane, but the “politically correct” interpretation of words goes to extremes, and seems to cut only one way.

We have a difficult time trying to remember when a white, Christian male ever got any satisfaction from claiming damages from an insult, and there are many insults made to this group. However, few get acted upon because this group either has a thick skin, or they are confident enough in their being to be able to ignore or shrug it off as unimportant.

The old saying “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me” is no longer true: particularly to the person calling the name. We all should be polite, but there should be some common sense when it comes to the spoken word. Some of us are tough, because we feel the insult comes from ignorant people, and let it go at that. As Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Whatever happened to this phrase? “Get over it!”

Mr. Schroeder is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. He is Chairman of the Board of the Shooter’s Committee On Political Education (SCOPE) and a Director of the Judges & Police Conference.