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.

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.