Why must everything be either right or wrong. Is there nothing in this world that can have elements of both?

I mad the mistake of watching the news channels for a couple of hours the other night. The two big stories were Wesley Clark’s comments on John McCain and Joe Horn shooting and killing two criminals in his own yard.

Let’s start with the latter. Joe Horn shouldn’t have shot those guys. He shouldn’t have left his home, just like the rather wise 911 dispatcher repeated to him. However, this man is no murderer. But to watch the debate unfold on the news shows there were only two options being debated. Either Horn was a racist and a cold-blooded murderer, or he was a patriotic, gun-toting American who is getting a raw deal.

Neither is true. Joe Horn is someone who panicked and did something foolish. It resulted in the death of two human beings. However unsavory these men may have been, and they were quite bad men, they didn’t deserve to die. I remember the day this happened. I remember thinking that nothing good could come of it. Especially since the dead men were people of color. They are latinos with very dark skin. In other words, they look black. So of course the demonstrators had to come out on both sides in force.

Why? Two guys made a bad choice, to rob someone’s home. Another guy made a worse mistake, he went and shot them. No winners here.

On a news show on Sunday, General Wesley Clark was asked a direct question about the war record of John McCain. Clark replied that he didn’t think being shot down and living in a prison camp qualified someone for Presidency.

Guess what? He’s right! It doesn’t! In no way did he demean the service record of McCain. In no way did he question his patriotism. He said something that was a bit insensitive and it sounded a bit mean. But it wasn’t wrong.

On come the rhetorical battles of the news shows. Either Clark must drop out his political activity and crawl into the same whole as Jeremiah Wright, Clark is a dastardly, evil man for impugning a man that paid such a heavy toll for his country and Obama must step up and once again apologize for someone else .... Or ... Clark, of course, is the "true patriot" for his dissent, blah, blah, blah.

How about this, Wright, I mean, Clark was factually correct. John McCain’s war record, although admirable on so many levels, in no way qualifies him to be President, just like Bob Dole. However, what he said was a bit insensitive and in actuality PART of what makes McCain the type of individual that would make a great leader is his war record.

It reminds me of when Obama said those "elitist" things in San Fran a few months back. They weren’t all that horrible, but they definitely showed the guy is a bit of a jerk. Many of the things he has said and done since then have proven the point.

Why can’t we just accept that no person involved in any election is going to be all right all of the time?

Here is why I would make the world’s coolest Presidential candidate. I will take some current topics that the big three have recently commented on and give you what I, in my nigh infinite wisdom would have said. You tell me if a candidate said this, would it make you more or less likely to vote for said candidate.

Senator Obama is having all manner of trouble because of the Rev. Wright. I am not going to deal with whether this is deserved or not. He has finally just renounced Wright all together. Here is what I would have said:

"Look the man is a friend and yes, he is a mentor. However, the things that are being touted in the media simply don’t reflect my point of view. I wanted to be loyal to a friend and hearing him being torn apart by the media has not been fun. I don’t want to see my friend beaten up like that. But at the same time, the things he has said, specifically about AIDs and (fill in the blank here senator) are outraging many people for a reason - they are not indicative of reality. That does not diminish his or anyone else’s right from having those opinions or expressing them. But if someone says something out of bounds and they do so in a public and yes, influential manner they need to be called out. I think the media and the pundits in this particular case have done a good job of doing what Thomas Jefferson asked of the press - to call leaders to account of their words.

John McCain wants to look like a very empathetic fellow and is bemoaning the American economy. He, once again, is trying to sound like a Democrat. Obama, Clinton, Chuck Schumer and others are using some very panicky words. They are doing everything they can to convince Americans how horrible we have it. This in spite of the fact that unemployment is very low and the vast majority (76%) of Americans according to a recent poll describe themselves as doing either "Great" or "OK" as opposed to "Lousy." Our economic growth is not what it could be, but it ain’t bad either folks. If I were McCain here I what I would have said:

"Let’s be honest, the economy has been, could be and once again will be better than it is right now. But to talk about it like we are entering the Great Depression is just plain madness. If I stand up here and rah-rah the economy, I look like I have no sympathy for those that are experiencing tough times. I don’t want to do that for the obvious reason that I am running for President. As President, part of my job is to look out for people in tough times. But how to do that? The principles of the Republican party state that the best way to help people is to release them from the oppression of a nosy government. We aren’t having problems because of taxes being too low. Just the opposite. The reason I endorse a temporary holiday on gas taxes is two-fold; to ease the burden on people buying gas and to demonstrate the hidden cost of taxes in everyday purchases. It’s not just gas that government adds cost.

Right now, our unemployment rate is still very low. The economy is growing but at a low rate. As problems go, this is one the American people, who by the way ARE the economy will work our way out of together. Raising taxes and having the federal government dole out your hard earned money as we see fit is not the answer.

Hillary Clinton keeps getting told she should drop out. We in the conservative side hope she stays in for all the right reasons. However, here is what I would say if I were her:

"If you look at the voting record of Senator Obama, it is the most reliably liberal in the Senate. I have no problem with a liberal voting record. I am a proud liberal. However, this simply does not represent the point of view of the overwhelming majority of the American people. My voting record is one that shows I am able to reach across the aisle and work with those whose views I disagree with on certain issues and compromise for the sake of the American people."

So how exactly did we get John McCain as the Republican nominee? Weren’t all those guys on the stage a few months ago all trying to "out-Reagan" one another? True, conservatives vote in the primaries, so that is the audience they were gunning for, but still, couldn’t we have expected someone a bit more conservative?

The answer is simple, we felt the need to defend President Bush. If you look at the presidency of this man, it is simply not filled with too many conservative benchmarks. In many ways we probably would have been better off with an Al Gore administration for four years. Trust me, he would not have lasted eight.

Think about it, could even a liberal like Gore messed up the use of the military any worse than Bush. Feel that reflex, to defend Bush? That is what I am talking about. Yes, we need to win in Iraq. But let’s not go back and redefine the goals. We went in as a preemptive strike against a threat to national security. We did NOT go in to liberate the people from an evil dictator.

Liberals like to go back and redefine the goals of fiascos such as the war on poverty, we should not get sucked in to doing the same thing.

We are there, we need to win, we know that. Even the Democratic presidential candidates know we can’t pull out now. But we have been there for six years now! Think about that! We have spent trillions with a "T"! Even if you are able to rationalize us going into Iraq, and that is actually not too difficult, you simply cannot say that the Bush administration has done anywhere near a competent job of prosecuting this war effort. The surge proves that.

American military might has always been predicated on a simple philosophy - go in with overwhelming force. But Donald Rumsfeld didn’t do that and Bush followed his lead. We tried to get in and get out with a minimum of manpower. This was one of so very many mistakes that need not be listed here.

But we have to defend Bush.

No Child Left Behind and the creation of an entirely new branch of the government - that of Homeland Security - have seen an increase in federal domestic spending that is simply unprecedented in the history of this country. Yea, the tax cuts were good and the number once again show they increased federal intake. But the spending has been out of control.

Bush did not veto a single bill in his first term. Think about that. Every single spending bill, heck, every single bill period that came across his desk was signed into law.

The Republicans did what fallible humans do in power, they sought to keep it. They sought to buy the votes of their constituents instead of doing what they were elected to do - get the federal government in check and secure this country.

But we feel the need to defend Bush.

Here’s where it leads to McCain. For some reason the media continue to portray the Bush administration as conservative. Probably because W is so religious. Who knows? No matter that the record indicates otherwise. Liberals hate him with a passion that is breathtaking to behold, so he must be conservative.

So, how do we react? Go with the "moderate." thus, John McCain - author of the power-grabbing first-amendment smashing McCain-Feingold finance reform bill. All but assuring maximum retention in Washington. Just wait until we have to defend this guy.

Recently on the Daily Show, John Stewart expressed an annoyance that often the media and politicians seem to think of those of us in the flyover states as "real" Americans.

I see his point. Don’t the people on the coasts count? Stewart actually expressed more than an annoyance, he was genuinely insulted.

So why is it that those in the big media centers count less when it comes to what "America" thinks? I can think of a few reasons.

First of all, these are the people who are the gate keepers. The media in this country is run predominantly from New York City. It is run secondarily from Washington and L.A. The voting trends and opinions of people in these three municipalities aren’t exactly what one would consider a "cross-section" of Americana. If you look at the people who actually make the decisions on what runs in the media, the profile becomes even smaller. Basically it’s a large number of white, affluent, liberal males or WALMs. The Walms decide what goes in the New York Times. That pretty much decides what goes on CNN, that pretty much decides what goes on the network news and thus what goes in the "local" papers through out the country. You get the picture.

I use the term "local" because pretty much every major newspaper in the country is owned by one of maybe four giant media corporations. Despite what you might think and what is portrayed in movies, tv dramas and sitcoms, the people running these corporations are not conservative Republicans. They are Walms. One only need look at the donation patters to political funds. The corporate boardrooms of this country are very blue blood and they are very liberal.

This brings me to my big, important, monumental, revolutionary point - I know, the suspense is killing you.

The biggest single difference between the "real" America of the fly over states and the America of the coastal liberals is pretty simple.

They want to control us, we just want to be left alone.

Activist judges - appointed by liberals, legislators trying to protect us from everything from our eating habits to our very thoughts - public education, tv shows showing us just how meaningless our lives our because we don’t live like they do - all are pretty straight forward ways of trying to tell us how to run our lives.

Why wouldn’t you want to live in New York? What type of toothless, moronic bumpkin are you? Church is great, but every week? I believe in god, but do I have to take it so seriously? Why would anyone even need to own a gun, let alone want to? Why can’t you just let the schools go ahead and teach your children what we think they should know about sex, including homosexuality?

Someone who has been a liberal their entire life cannot come to grips with the answers to any of these questions. They simply don’t get the basic conservatism of most folks. This country is basically a pretty conservative one. People tend to vote Democratic out of family tradition and fear. Fear they won’t have enough to retire, or pay the doctor bills or enough to pay for gas. Republicans have themselves to blame for losing this battle. Reagan never petaled fear. He was the one who started the use of the word hope in politics. "It’s morning in America."

Is Tiger Woods a closet conservative?

Have you ever notice the only people that criticize Tiger Woods for not "doing more" tend to mean that they want him to contribute more to a either a cause or at least a methodology that they think is best?

For instance, in the Tiger Woods Sportcentury piece on ESPN years ago, writer Sally Jenkins expressed the thought that Tiger could or really should do more for what she called "civil rights." "Civil Rights" being liberal-speak for things like more legislation, welfare, affirmative action and Jesse Jackson-type race exploitation. In a recent article is Sports Illustrated, Lee Elder, the first black man to qualify for the Masters expressed much the same sentiment. Other black leaders have said as such too. They criticize Woods for not being out in front of the cameras, ready to condemn whomever they want condemned and agree with them on each issue usually tied to race. One can almost hear the thoughts in Jesse Jackson’s brain, "why hasn’t this guy come and kissed my ring yet?"

Liberals assume because Tiger is not white that he is liberal. They insist he identify himself by his race. It bothers them to no end that he transcends all their preconceived notions on the matter. Remember, he was raised by a vet and an immigrant. His mother taught him when he has an opponent down, he needs to "step on their neck."

Tiger is competitive. More competitive than just about anyone on this planet. That usually does not come without a certain worldview.

Perhaps Mr. Woods thinks as he acts - as a conservative. True, he has ties to the First Tee program and that does get government money. I am not sure, but his Tiger Woods Foundation might get some pork too. But these are essentially private charities to better society. If the money is out there to help, hey! Tiger pays taxes too - more than most actually. Why not get it?

Tiger is putting his money, lots and lots of his money, where his mouth - and his heart - is. What he is doing is trying to better the lives of young people in his own way. He publicizes it and he puts on a big-name, big-moneyed golf tournament that benefits his charity each year. The result is something far more tangible than what you typical liberal government program produces.

Tiger gets actual flesh-and-blood children a useful commodity - education specifically targeted to help them and to prepare them to make society a better place. It reminds me of former NBA superstar David Robinson. He put up millions to build a school and run it. These facilities are in a way a total black eye to the government run monopolies. They are privately run and thus they can actually demand results from those running them. It’s called accountability and it is something that simply doesn’t exist within the typical liberal mind frame in any program.

Just a random thought on the Masters weekend.

Is homosexuality a sin?

There are some so-called Christian churches out there that are ordaining open homosexuals. A local branch of one of those churches did do just a few years ago. Then they got an article in the local paper about how they took it step further and the church became an "open and accepting" congregation. Letters to the editor ensued - good, well-written ones on both sides. One letter from a member of that congregation made the argument that it was okay based on the fact that the church does so much good work and that Jesus said, "judge not lest ye be judged.."

Here was my retort...

There is a new documentary coming out called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." It basically is an indictment on the scientific community for treating anyone who might dare whisper the words "intelligent design" like a homosexual or Jew in Nazi Germany.

Yea, the Nazi thing is a cheap shot, but it’s brief and an attention grabber - I am lazy.

A few thoughts on this subject ...

Whenever someone speaks with bated breath on "science" and "scientists" I just roll my eyes. These are people too. They need money and want attention. I remember back when Bill Mahr had his network show, Don Henley was a guest. To defend a point he was making about the environment he said something along the lines of all scientists are totally objective and have no point of view they are pushing.

Oy.

It is hard to be a scientist. If you aren’t developing the latest pharmaceutical money maker than you need grants and other moneys for research. How does one get that? Well, "the squeaky wheal gets the grease." If the world is going to die tomorrow and you can stop it if only you get a billion dollars for research today, you are far more likely to get a billion dollars. Not to say these folks are motivated primarily by money, but they have families to fee too.

Then there is the ego. Have you ever met a research scientist? These are not necessarily the most humble people in the world. They are smart, the have proven it and they know it. And have you ever actually read a peer-review journal? They can really tear the living daylights out of each other and each other’s research, conclusions, etc... There is a lot o f people out there whose goal in a given study is to disprove someone else’s. This doesn’t even include the occasional news-making frauds. This also doesn’t include the news-making "breakthroughs", very often in origin sciences, that are simply proven wrong and retracted within a couple months or years of them being in the paper. Of course the updated research never sees the light of day in the same news outlets that put out the first story.

We consistently see how shocked scientists are the more they discover. It is because they do, in fact, have an a priori they start with. When the evidence doesn’t confirm that point of view - they are shocked. The relatively open-minded ones accept the facts, but rarely does it make a dent in the a priori.

On the other hand, there are some scientists that have come to a religious conversion as a result of their scientific inquiry. The evidence for a Creator was simply too much for them to ignore. Then there are those folks like the very famous Richard Dawkins whose arrogance simply will never allow them to ever accept even the most remote possibility that there is God. At least these folks would never say it out loud.

That is not science. That is close-minded religion. You can call it atheism, but it is religion. You worship humanity and self. You have dictums.

Are creation scientists and IDers any less close minded? I am bias, but I think they are more open-minded. Obviously, I am one of them (creationist). So if you want to simply throw out my opinion, that is your liberty. I can see why there are people who simply do not want to acknowledge the existence of a divine Creator. I also see why people fear those with that point of view. In the history of man, religion has been used as a battle axe. (That is a whole ‘nother entry)

But true, open-minded creationists will not be dogmatic. They, like me, are perfectly willing to be wrong. But when a creationist points to an invalid point made by evolutionists and says it is evidence - NOT PROOF - that we are here by the miracle of an intelligent God, we get made fun of. "It must be magic," is how John Stewart of the Daily Show put it.

But when an evolutionist is wrong about something that would appear to then point towards the creationist point of view - well, we just don’t know enough yet. But the more we know, the more the Biblical point of view is actually confirmed.

I will give more details in a future post. I just bet you can’t wait!

Recently was the 40^th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King. The U.S. is a better place for having his presence. Of that I think there is little real debate between rational people.

However, I have thoughts on this that might outrage some at first blush. But getting the emotion out of the way and look at this with a rational, open mind.

To make a comparison, getting assassinated was the best thing that happened to John Kennedy as well. If you look at his presidency, it was ok. Nothing truly great if truly look at it. He screwed things up major in Cuba and had to give away a major defense area in eastern Europe. He got us into Vietnam and set up the policy that would lead Lyndon Johnson to ruin. The good stuff - everyone knows it already - Camelot.

Had he lived, he might have screwed up a lot more things. His infidelity would have no doubt come to light in his lifetime. The fact that he put his name on a book he didn’t write would have been a embarrassment to him as well. And who knows, even though he cut taxes and increased the military during his administration, he might have ended going soft and extremely liberal like a certain other Kennedy we all know. In short, had he lived, JFK had far mor potential to be roundly criticized and just plain dismissed.

Martin Luther King was a communist. This is something that sounds silly to many. They hear "communist" and just roll there eyes. But being a communist means choosing ruin. It means an adherence to policy that is awful.

Rest assured, MLK was deeply, deeply entrenched with the actual communist party. If you look at things he advocated, he was a deeply committed leftist, a Marxist really. The older he got the harder it would have been for him to hide this. The "I have dream" speech, one of the seminal moments in the history of this country, was great. When it came to civil rights, the call for all people to get totally equal treatment by the law and by our nation, MLK had it right. That IS his legacy. Again, the US is a better place for so many of his actions.

But had he lived, would there have been more? MLK did great things, but he was not all that good of a man.

Again, to make a comparison, Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest President’s the country every had. But he was a total snob and racist. (However, put all that Sally Hemmings stuff out of your mind, it is about 90 percent chance it is all wrong). He was not a good person. He did good things for the country.

It makes me think of Lincoln as well. Lincoln hated slavery, but he also didn’t think much of black people. Lincoln basically advocated segregation. He didn’t think white and blacks could or should live side by side. But he did believe in the humanity at a time when scientists (the racist ones, of which there were many) were still debating it. He did all he could to abolish it, and he saved this country - literally. Had he lived for a second term perhaps Reconstruction would have been less punitive and better run. But that is not a given. Closer scrutiny of his total disregard of the Constitution might have gone from being occasionally mention when historians speak of him to one of those points that is obligated to be brought up each time.

One of the trendy things nowadays is to bring up the whole "warts and all" perspective of many of the men that did great things in this country. Fine, a dose of perspective is dandy and it would behoove us to do so when we look at those in the public eye today. Nobody is perfect in other words, so lets put people in charge with that in mind. So are we allowed to do that with someone like Dr. King?

MLK was a philanderer and a plagerist. He was a communist. He was an advocate of draconian, federal law in every many areas. Once he got outside of civil rights, his eloquence would never have been able to make up for his ruinous policy preferences. As he might have grown older, one can only imagine how it would have tainted his great work to have his private life and foolish political views come to light.

If you think Jackson and Sharpton are buffoons, MLK might have become worse. One can just picture and old and bitter man on the news programs, going off the rails in all manner of ridiculous, leftist directions. The picture of Jeremiah Wright comes to mind. Perhaps not, but it was a possibility.

Instead, like the tragedy of the Kennedys, and so many performers such as Dean, McQueen, Hendrix and Cobain, we get to honor and cherish the perpetual good feelings and good memories of a life, although cut short, that influenced so many in such a positive and uplifting way.

On the other hand, maybe we only got the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps we were robbed of much more good. However, looking at what was said, written and acted upon by MLK it is doubtful.