THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

How stupid does one have to be to take the USA Today seriously? Look at the list of offenses that have the Pentagon up in arms.

They include "proselytizing by Christians, use of Bible quotes in official e-mail and an ad promoting Jesus in the base newspaper, signed by 200 academy leaders."

Also, the Leftist watchdogs for Separation of Church and State allege that "non-Christian cadets were harassed by seniors and that Christians were allowed to display crosses in the dorms while cadets were barred from hanging non-religious items."

By the way, did the Pentagon ever figure out why they were unable to stop three hijacked airliners from hitting the WTC and their own building on September 11th, 2001? Or has this issue got a higher priority level?

Perhaps this is so important because, as the article states, it grew out of a survey of students and staff following a "2003 scandal in which nearly 150 female cadets alleged that they had been sexually assaulted by fellow cadets in the previous decade."

Are we supposed to consider these two events related? Are we to believe that increasing Christian evangelism correlates to increasing numbers of sexual assaults? That emailing Bible quotes and hanging crosses in dorm rooms produces the same result as integrating neighborhoods?

All those Military Experts and Security Experts we are paying may look like Tough Guy Heroes when they are making conservatives crawl. But when they face real criticism, they have a torrent of excuses.

For instance, security experts are always whining about how liberals like Senator Torricelli crippled their work. But not a one of them said a single word about Torricelli or any other liberal back when we needed those Tough Guy Heroes to say something.

If anybody in Intelligence had complained about liberals crippling their work when we needed them to, their superiors would have ruined them, and we all know it. None of the Tough Guy Heroes is Tough and Heroic out in public when it counts.

When those of us who dared complain when it counted did complain, the Intelligence Experts would testify about how patriotic the wonderful liberals like Senators Church and Torricelli were.

It turns out that the FBI did indeed use "pyrotechnic devices" at Waco.

The Attorney General, she don't know nuthin.'

That term is a mouthful -- "pyrotechnic devices." But everybody is very, very careful to use it. Nobody says "incendiary devices."

An incendiary device is a weapon. It is used for the specific purpose of starting fires. A pyrotechnic device is something which CAN cause a fire, though that is not its primary purpose. Now that it has finally been discovered that pyrotechnic devices were used at Waco, the press has bent over backwards to make this distinction clear.

No respectable conservative has failed to use the term "pyrotechnic devices" instead of "incendiary device." Nobody has any trouble making these distinctions when the liberals want them made.

But liberals and respectable conservatives freely use the term "assault weapons" in reference to semiautomatic rifles being banned by liberals. There has not been a semiautomatic assault weapon in decades. The guns being outlawed by liberals are not assault weapons, because they are not automatics. There is, in fact, no real difference between the guns liberals are outlawing and any other routine civilian weapon. But that is too complicated a point for respectable conservatives to make.

"Assault weapon" is not a complicated term. The difference between an automatic weapon and a semiautomatic weapon is not complicated. But the distinction is NEVER made.

But the far more complicated term, "pyrotechnic devices," is ALWAYS carefully used.

If liberals want a distinction made, it gets made. Respectable conservatives only care about what liberals want. If I were in on the public debates over Waco, I would have refused to make any distinction between incendiary device and pyrotechnic devices until the liberals learn words like "automatic" and "semiautomatic." But as long as respectable conservatives pretend to be the opposition, don't hold your breath.

What happened in the above incident was this

Fox sent through well-dressed American white people with those suitcases full of weapons. The guards, almost every one of whom was black, did not bother to check them.

Jesse Jackson said, "I hate to admit it, but when I hear footsteps behind me on a dark street, I am relieved if I turn around and see it's a white man."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the real world works. Well-dressed white people who look all right do not get checked nearly as much. That is not Evil. That is simply good sense.

The fact is that in the real world, you use your eyes and your experience. In other words, out here in reality, prejudice rules. It keeps us alive.