Darko Festin

The Virtues of Conservatism - Part 7

2011-11-06T00:03:00.000-07:00

Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. This is the primary reason conservatives clash with environmental groups. To be clear ... conservatives don't want dirty air, dirty water, or a polluted ecosystem. I mean, we have to live on this planet too. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully. Let's make one more point here: Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and PETA are socialist organizations whose agenda is to do away with private ownership of property. These organizations would have us return to the days before the horse and buggy. Yes, their propaganda looks and sounds sweet, but at their very core is what Mark Levin and others calls Statism; a call to socialism and a Utopian society.
Ownership is stewardship. Give a man ... or woman ... the right to own something, and they will take care of it. Give ownership to the village and no one will take responsibility. Let me encourage the reader to study the cultural, social and economic situations on America's Indian reservations. They offer a series of case studies in governments effectiveness as caretaker. In case you want to skip the research and reading, I'll offer you a one sentence summary. Government intervention has miserably failed the Native American population in every conceivable form and fashion. Conservatives understand that the more widespread the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is that commonwealth.

The outline for this series comes from The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal

The Virtues of Conservatism - Part 6

2011-11-05T23:29:00.000-07:00

Conservatives understand that people are not perfect, never have been perfect and never will be perfect. In the liberal mind, perfection is possible if the right people and policies are in place. Problem is ... at no time in all of recorded history has this occurred. "But," the liberal will contend "we must always strive for perfection." Okay. I'll go there, but first you'll have to give me a definition of perfection, and the definition I hear from the left is not sustainable or even one that I like: Government control over commerce, redistribution of wealth, and regulations on fundamental freedoms like speech, property ownership, and thought. No thank you. I'll live with my imperfect world and keep my God given freedoms if you don't mind. Conservatives understand that human perfection is a pipe dream, and that human attempts to create a perfect order are naturally flawed by the simple fact that humans are imperfect. "The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell." Russell Kirk. No, the best we can do is strive for excellence, and the best environment for that to occur is in an environment ripe with freedoms; freedoms Americans have enjoyed since the signing of the constitution.

The Virtues of Conservatism - Part 5

2011-10-29T16:56:00.000-07:00

Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety, and embrace inequality as a healthy and necessary factor in societal development. Let us be clear. Conservatives are not insensitive to inequality! Rather, they embrace philosophies and strategies that offer a reasonable management of the reality. One of those strategies is called competition. Competition necessarily and predictably causes inequality ... not for the purpose of subjugation, humiliation or domination, but for the purpose of advancing excellence. To quote Russell Kirk. "For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation."

The Utopian dream of social justice is just that; a dream. Of course we recognize that social justice is just code for the redistribution of wealth. Social Justice sounds like a great idea, but it's unsustainable, because it violates the law of productivity:

People will be productive when properly rewarded
People will prosper in an environment that fosters creative expression, productivity and autonomy
People want to keep the proceeds of their labor and the freedom to distribute it according to their self interests
People will resist productivity when not adequately rewarded
People will resist productivity when rewarded for another persons labor

Humans are born unequal and die unequal. It is this reality of inequality that, in part, feeds the human need to seek significance. Those misguided individuals and organizations who seek to take earned resources from the productive members of our society and distribute those resources to the non productive members of that society are wrong on two levels: On the first level, redistribution is unsustainable. On the second level, there must be a system in place for redistribution, and that system, however noble the effort, will not and cannot be equitable in its organization, methodology or outcomes.

Conservatives embrace variety, accept the reality that inequality will always exist, and submit that"... attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation." Russell Kirk

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

On Message

2011-07-18T23:17:00.000-07:00

The Republicans aren't doing a very good job right now ... at least not on the PR level. A recent CBS poll has offered us an opportunity to see just how uninformed and easily misled the American public can be. According to the poll, no one is doing a good job in handling the current debt debate ... Obama, the Dems and especially the Republicans. So what is it that the Republicans are doing, or not doing that have Americans so disenfranchised? Could it be that they aren't offering specifics as to what needs to be done? No, I don't think that's it. The Republicans are the only players in this triad that have offered anything that resembles a plan to move us out of the debt crisis. Could it be that they aren't doing something. Ah .. I think we're closer to truth with this one. What they are not doing is compromising. And why should they? Americans have extremely short memories. Did we forget what the 2010 election was about? It was about the out of control spending of the current administration. My question is this: "Why should Republicans compromise?" I mean, we wouldn't even be having a discussion had they not won an election last November. I'm left with the thought that the Republicans just aren't doing a very good job of relating their message. Obama has won that battle and it is an important one.

The Blame Game

2011-07-18T22:35:00.000-07:00

Today, I heard a party strategist for the current politburo defend the President's position on the debt crisis. Funny that in the 5 minutes of discussion, the only specific idea he attributed to the President was "tax those who make above $250K." The rest of his comments amounted to a list of who to blame. He blamed the Bush tax cuts. Steee-rike one. He blamed the Republicans in the House. Stee-rike two. Then he had the audacity to indict the Tea Party as being responsible if congress and the President can't resolve the impasse. I hear a Steee-rike three!"

I think most of us are tired of the blame game, and looking for some answers to the crisis, and believe me, we are facing a real financial crisis. Don't take my word for it. Do some homework. Here are some keywords to assist you: Obama Debt Crisis, S&P downgrades US debt outlook, Moody's Investors Service.

If we don't do something about the current level of spending in D.C. WE WILL suffer immediate as well as long-term consequences. We can very well expect hyper-inflation, higher interest rates, higher taxes, much higher gas prices, fewer public services, the bankruptcy of Social Security, Mediare, and Medicade ... not to mention unemployment to rival the Great Depression. So back to the President's plan to get our economy back on the road to recovery. Find me an economist that believes that our crisis can be solved by taxing those who make more than $250K, and repealing the Bush Tax cuts, and I'll show you an economist that is on the payroll of the DNC.

THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM – Part 4 of 10

2011-07-18T20:09:00.000-07:00

After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:

My efforts have been largely futile.
Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.

In light of these revelations, I’ve decided that my efforts might be better invested in discussing the virtues of conservative thought, as opposed to pointing out the blatant fallacies of liberal thinking. Now, this does not mean that I will refrain from comparison and contrast, it simply means that I will attempt to couch my words in non demeaning ways in my observations. Perhaps my words will capture the attention of a young liberal thinker in his or her journey to a more courageous way of thinking. My discussion will be delivered in 10 parts.This being part 2 of the discussion.

The fourth virtue of conservatism is that of prudence. Conservatives believe that any decision ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity or expedience. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences.

Conservatives opposed Obama-care, in no small part, due to the imprudence of the idea. It increases the national debt. It redistributes power from the private sector to the government sector, effectively creating an entirely new entitlement program. At a time when government spending and irresponsibility was at an all-time high, the Dems resorted to back-room deals and shady legislative tricks to push the measure to the president's desk. No one can convince me that prudence was practiced in passing a law which virtually no congressman had read or understood. Obama-care was and still is an imprudent measure, failing the prudence test.

The Debt Ceiling Debate

2011-07-18T18:52:00.000-07:00

If the last election wasn't about the size and scope of the government, what was it about? The House Republicans are simply doing what they were elected to do ... "Hold The Line." So far, in the current debate, the President has told us his plan is to tax the rich. Do the numbers ... that plan doesn't even begin to address the crisis.

The real rate of inflation is 13%
The real unemployment number is closer to 16% than 9%
The dollar has lost 20% of its value in the last two years
47% of American households pay NO federal income tax
10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.
The National debt increased 60% under Nancy Pelosi

Let's be clear ... the current debate is about holding the President responsible ... something he has avoided for 2 1/2 years.

THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM – Part 3 of 10

2011-07-18T17:13:00.000-07:00

After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:

My efforts have been largely futile.
Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.

Virtue three in this series deals with the principle of prescription. In short, conservatives are students of history and typically embrace caution when moving down paths that history has shown to be dangerous or at best fraught with obstacles. Prescription also entails gleaning from history tried and proven customs and mores. "The individual is foolish, but the species is wise," Edmond Burke declared. Conservatives believe the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality or what might be politically correct or expedient.
Some salient examples come to mind when we look for ways to applying the principle of prescription. History has shown us that over taxation and over-spending ruin economies. History has shown us that to discourage an activity, the best way to do that is to tax it. History has shown us that spending more money than is actually in the bank, results in creditors inflicting much pain and suffering until debts are paid.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news lately, but some members of congress and the president are in a heated debate over taxation and spending. The conservatives are holding to the principle of prescription, while the president is hell bent on continuing the out-of-control spending. In fact, had the conservatives not won the House of Representatives in November, they would not even be having the debate. It became apparent to the American public that the policies of the Obama administration were taking us in a direction we did not want to travel. How the Senate escaped the fury of the American voters is beyond me. Be that as it may ... the House republicans were called upon to hold the line in Washington. They are doing exactly what they were elected to do.

Can we be honest? Why is it that the President and the House of Reps are arguing over the debt ceiling and federal spending? Because Republicans took majority of the House of Representatives in January. Had they not ... we would still be increasing the national debt by 1.5 trillion per year .... the debt ceiling would already be elevated to 105% of GDP, and we would be one step closer to an entitlement state. I find it interesting that the liberals who call for raising taxes on the rich, as a matter of fairness, neglect to call for those who pay no taxes start doing so. The principle of prescription; learning from history, shows us that other people's money eventually runs out.

From where I stand, unless we hold to the virtue of prescription, we will be forced to face some perilous and uncomfortable years.

THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM – Part 2 of 10

2011-04-13T21:38:00.000-07:00

After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:

My efforts have been largely futile.
Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.

The second virtue is that the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. Among these customs, conventions and continuity is the long established institution of marriage. Conservatives understand and believe that the re-defining of marriage is a dangerous step toward the break down of the society at large. The arguments that conservatives make are not strictly philosophical. They are indeed practical as well. Let's analyze the concept of redefining marriage. We must first ask obvious, but surprisingly overlooked questions. Why do we have marriage in the first place? Where did it start? Who benefits from the custom, convention and continuity of marriage? If we honestly and accurately answer these questions, we must intellectually arrive at the conclusion that the health of a culture can be largely measured in the resolve of that societies adherence to a strict definition of marriage. Marriage was not, is not, and should not ever be about individuals, but the advancement of a civil and ordered society.

It seems marriage was established in the earliest known forms of civilization, to establish a structure for the rearing of children, to ensure they grow up to be responsible and productive, and to assist in the daily struggle of survival. It was families that formed clans, villages and ultimately cultures. If we take the redefinition of marriage to its logical end ... i.e. androgyny, we lose the very fabric of our culture. Maybe that's what some people want. Conservatives think that's not a good idea.

Last I checked, it takes a male and female to make babies. Most, but not all, babies grow up to be adults who ultimately pay taxes, influence society and contribute to its betterment. So it follows that the society at large benefits from the institution of marriage. You'll have a hard time showing me a culture that has thrived outside of the institution of marriage. To redefine marriage is to dismiss the practical evidence of its importance.

By definition, conservatives wish to maintain those systems, institutions and values that have proven effective. Marriage is at the foundational level of those institutions which conservatives wish to "conserve." Conservatives can point to history and demonstrate not only the relevance but the necessity for maintaining marriage as a sacred institution. To redefine marriage is to dismiss the wisdom of the ages and pursue a degree of narcissism known only to the most decadent of societies. You see marriage isn't about the needs of the individual ... those can be fulfilled outside of marriage. Marriage is about the needs of society and should be nurtured if that society wishes to survive. Conservatives should stand strong on this issue, for it is foundational to defining our values.

Conservative adhere to custom because it provides a framework for passing along values. Conservative adhere to convention because it provides a structure for making sense of the world, and how best to live within it. Conservative adhere to continuity because it provides the best chance for the survival of the society. Marriage is the institution that wonderfully exemplifies these three concepts. In the conservative's mind, if you change marriage, you change everything. So, for you liberals who are still reading ... understand we're not going to roll over on this issue. Redefining marriage cannot help our society, so why do it?

THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM – Part 1 of 10

2011-01-02T18:39:00.000-08:00

After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:

My efforts have been largely futile.
Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.

Virtue One

The cornerstone of conservative thought is the belief in moral order … that there are indeed absolutes. In fact, moral order depends upon adherence to and conformity to certain absolutes. These absolutes are readily apparent, but too often ignored by the non-conservative thinker. I’ll list a few of the most obvious here:

1. There are consequences to behavior, and bad behavior will result in bad consequences. We have evidence of this absolute in our day-to-day existence; drug abuse, theft, murder, etc. Adherence to a moral order attempts to define and defy bad behavior and thereby avoid the bad consequences altogether. Conservatives will be quick to point out that individuals are responsible for their choices and behavior. Spending more money than you earn will eventually result in bad consequences. Ordering hot coffee and then spilling it on your pants is not the fault of the company that sold you the hot coffee. It is a decidedly liberal idea that one can sue the company that sold you what you wanted, but which you improperly handled. The 111^th Congress, decidedly liberal, increased the national debt 10 fold in the four years that they held the purse strings. There will be consequences for the out-of-control spending of this liberal group of politicians. Dare I mention abortion; a decidedly liberal doctrine? Killing un-born babies for the last 30 years has certainly had, and will continue to have, an impact on society, whether or not the liberals want to admit it. Behavior has consequences. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.

2. Humans will act in ways to insure that their self interests are realized. A moral order is necessary to both restrain their potential indulgences and promote their productivity. Left to their own devices, men would have another man’s property, another man’s money and another man’s wife. It is a moral order that bridals men from engaging in behavior resulting in these outcomes. At the same time a moral order allows men/women to pursue their passions, remain productive and ensure the survival of society. The very rules that inhibit the passions of men are the same rules that promote his productivity and serve to sustain a viable society. Conservatives believe that self determination is superior to communism, where communism forces men to abandon their self interests and work, either in part or in whole, in the interests of others. We will behave in ways that will promote our self interests, This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.

3. An inherent sense of justice exists in all rational individuals. A moral order is, in part, a result of men agreeing that individual justice must prevail to ensure a productive society. A sustained and predetermined pattern of injustice corrupts the moral order and can cause men to act irrationally. Conservatives hold that justice is realized when men are rewarded for their honest and forthright use of their time, effort and resources. If a man justly prospers, he should not be penalized for his prosperity. Moral order is violated when men engage in class warfare, embrace racism as a means of advancing personal agendas, or unjustly demonize individuals, organizations or companies. The moral order is violated when governments impose burdensome taxes upon the productive members of its society. The conservative’s interpretation of justice begins with the individual. Social justice is nothing more than a misnomer when the resources of hard working individuals are being confiscated and unwisely distributed. Liberals labeled the TEA party as racists, radicals and bigots, when in truth the members of the movement were simply vocalizing their perception that individual justice was being violated by the Obama administration and the 111^th Congress. A sense of justice exists in all men. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.

Humans are born consumers and consume until the day they die. This absolute presents the individual three options: 1. Earn the means for consumption. 2. Be gifted the means for consumption. 3. Steal the means for consumption. Conservatives hold that a moral order requires individuals to start earning the means of their consumption at an early date in their personal development. They also understand that children and the handicapped must be gifted their means of their consumption. A moral order also requires punishment for those that would steal their means of consumption. A closer look at this absolute will assist the reader in understanding conservative thinking. In conservative thought, gifting is an individual choice, not one that is imposed upon him. Government has no business determining who is and who is not gifted their means of consumption. If rightly upheld, the moral order will consequently identify those that need gifting and provision for the needy will be rightly administered. Humans are born consumers and consume until the day they die. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.
Humans are born with the desire to explore their individualism. Rob individuals of this sense of uniqueness and you rob them of their souls. Conservatives embrace practices, strategies and behaviors that promote this axiom. For example, conservatives encourage competition at a variety of levels; academically, physically, even socially. Conservatives understand that competition is a mechanism which encourages individuals to excel. Yes, there will be winners and losers, because that's the way the world works. It is liberal thought that systematically eliminated competition from the school playgrounds and Saturday community activities. Conservatives understand that there are inherent risks associated with the practice of individualism; the risk of failure, the risk of rejection, and the risk of being violated or misunderstood. We are born unique individuals, with the capacity to develop different skills, talents and abilities. This is an indisputable truth. It is absolute.

An enduring moral order depends upon societies recognizing and embracing the concept of absolutes. Without absolutes we are left with relativism, which by definition, says that all behavior can be justified. Conservatives simply adhere to the natural laws that define absolutes, and attempt to live in harmony with them. The liberal thinker does not necessarily reject the existence of absolutes, but will reject their application. For the liberal, equality of outcome is paramount to the success of their agenda. The recognition and adherence to a moral order, defined by absolutes, runs counter to their agenda. In a society ordered by absolutes, some individuals will necessarily be more successful than others. In a society ordered by absolutes, some will necessarily go hungry, remain homeless, be forced to take responsibility for their behavior, and be denied their selfish desires.

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

Evolution - According to Darko Festin

2010-12-24T05:12:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time there was nothing. No air, no water, no atmosphere, not even a universe. Then for no apparent reason .. out of this nothingness there occurred a big bang. The big bang made all kinds of things happen, Suddenly, out of nothingness, the universe came into existence; complete with rocks, and dust, and suns, and nebulae and worm holes and all kinds of cosmic stuff that would eventually form into galaxies, solar systems and planets.

Now out of this conglomeration, one solar system formed that was different from all the others. This solar system contained a planet that was truly remarkable throughout the entire universe. This planet was positioned at exactly the right distance from its sun. It was tilted in exactly the right axis to enable seasonal changes. It rotated on its axis at exactly the right speed to allow for it to not over heat or over cool. It rotated around the sun in such an exact manner to assist in seasonal changes. This planet had clouds made of hydrogen, and oxygen. Not only that, these clouds were trapped in an atmosphere containing even more complex components like Nitrogen (N₂) 78.084%, Argon (Ar) 0.934%, Carbon dioxide (CO₂) 0.0383 %, Neon (Ne) 0.001818 %, Helium (He) 0.000524 %, Methane (CH₄) 0.0001745 %, Krypton (Kr) 0.000114%, and Hydrogen (H₂) 0.000055. Simply amazing… All of these complex gasses out of nothing more than a big bang.

Now as remarkable as all this is, we’re just getting started. You see what happened next is that these clouds started depositing their gasses, in the form of liquid, upon the rocks of the planet. This happened over billions and billions of years … until at one moment in time there was a lightning strike. Oh, lightning .. well, we will come back to that one at another time. Anyway, this lightning excited the some of the elements on the rocks, causing them to form a cell. Now I might mention that cells are very complex things, requiring a specific ordering of amino acids which form proteins which then determine the function and type of the cell; all controlled by instructions contained in the cell’s DNA. Oh, DNA … well that's another one we will have to come back to, since it’s extremely complicated to understand and explain. Nonetheless it's incredible isn’t it? But wait … there’s more. Cells survive only if they have a means of sustaining themselves. So that very first cell, let’s call him #1, was quite resourceful and eventually found something to eat. Don’t ask me what #1 found, because as far as we know he was all by himself. Now, not only did #1 survive, but he managed to replicate himself by dividing. Of course the food supply, whatever it was, had to be shared with #2.

Well, this process of cell division continued to occur over billions and billions and billions and billions of years until one day a descendant of #1 decided that he was tired of being a one-celled organism. So he started changing his form, and in fact changed into many different cells which had vastly different functions. For up until this point, the purpose of #1's descendants was strictly to survive. These various cells now joined forces to form an entirely new organism. We'll call him #1.1. Amazing that a one-celled organism could change its DNA in such a way that it could turn into an entirely different organism. Damn, there’s that pesky DNA again.

Now, after millions of years of being a new organism, #1.1 eventually faced an ominous decision: To become plant or animal. Now I wasn't there, but my guess is that #1.1 first became a plant, for his descendants would need something to eat after he changed into an animal. Now as I have it figured #1.1 remained a useless conglomeration of cells while his descendants turned themselves into plants ... all kinds of plants ... millions upon millions of species of plants that included grasses, grains, bushes, trees, and cacti.

#1.1 got tired of just being a useless conglomeration so he found its way to the ocean, and jumped in. Now the ocean proved to be very hostile, and #1.1 found himself quite unable to cope. He needed a way to swim, so he decided to form a new set of cells that would form fins. With this accomplished the organism could swim against the current and increase its chance of survival. But as the organism swam around, it kept bumping against rocks and other obstacles. It became apparent that it needed something more than fins. Eyes, maybe? Yes. That’s exactly what it needed. So the organism started producing cells that would form eyes. Of course this was a very complex process and took a lot of energy, necessitating the need to consume more food, so the organism also started producing cells that would form a mouth and throat and stomach and digestive system that would accommodate larger quantities of food. I guess it consumed other organisms that were attempting to do much the same thing. And on a side note, I think it was at this point where competition, and survival of the fittest was introduced.

Jumping ahead now … #1.1 became obsolete at some point and was replaced by a variety of different fish forms through manipulating their DNA into differing types of devices to allow them to compete with the other fish-like organisms. Amazing how resourceful these organisms were ... possessing the ability to change their own DNA into something entirely different. Anyway, some of them adapted by growing larger teeth, others adapted by increasing their ability to swim faster, still others adapted the ability to camouflage themselves to hide or lay in wait for their prey. Anyway, thousands upon thousands of different adaptations occurred until one day one of them decided that he didn’t want to compete any longer, so he crawled upon dry land and sprouted himself a set of legs and called himself a reptile. Of course he had to find another creature similar to himself, but different, in that replication among reptiles required two sexes. He was fortunate because he met a creature that was doing the exact same thing he was doing, at exactly the same time with exactly the same intent. Except this creature was a she. Well as soon as he/they accomplished that, some of those fishes he had been competing with decided that they’d do the exact same thing. It wasn’t long after that survival of the fittest and competition was being played out on dry ground, just as it was in the ocean. After several millions of years of adapting and surviving and competing, and sexual reproduction, one of these land-based creatures decided he'd had enough. So, he crawled back into the water and exchanged his legs for fins. So, now he was back to where he started .. sort of.

Meanwhile, back on land, the reptiles were busy adapting into insects, birds and mammals and searching for compatible mates. Incredibly, there were other adaptations taking place at exactly the same time. For instance, while the reptiles were adapting all their cells into monkeys, there were ferns and things adapting all their cells into trees. As it turns out, one of these monkeys really needed that process to occur because it needed a specific type of fruit to survive. Ironically, one of the trees, being adapted from ferns, needed the monkey to eat its fruit, for the only way the tree could replicate was for the monkey to eat the fruit, thereby germinating the seeds inside its digestive system. Now get this: That process was occurring among hundreds of thousands of other organisms at the same time. We call these processes symbiotic: the dependency of two organisms upon each other to survive. Wow ... simultaneous adaptation multiplied by hundreds of thousands. Now, that's simply amazing.

I know this is getting really complicated so let me jump ahead a few million years. The monkeys, already a highly adapted life form, decided that they wanted to take the adaptation process to the ultimate level, so they discarded their tails, and grew larger brains. Not only that but they traded their arms for shorter ones and legs for longer ones, and started walking upright on the longer legs. The earliest creatures of this adaptation were called neanderthals, who adapted into homo sapiens.

Taking into account the fundamental concept of survival of the fittest, it’s amazing that these creatures endured, since they were not nearly as strong as the larger predators, could not run faster than other animals, and their off-spring needed constant care for several years. Nonetheless, they managed to not only survive, but thrive. It took only a few million years before they developed the ability to communicate with words and symbols, and eventually invent the Internet.

Alas .. the process of cells adapting into different organisms ended, and they had to invent ways to fly without growing wings. They had to find ways to swim without fins and move fast without growing more efficient legs. Finally, they had to find a way to explain the reason of their existence and source of their significance by contriving a religion that dismisses the acknowledgment of a creator.

Darko Festin

P.S.
Darko: Sir, could I convince you that the Morse code, S.O.S.,came about by itself?

Evolutionist: No. S.O.S is the code for help. It is predicated on a common understanding of a specific language and requires a sender and a receiver to be useful.

Darko: Can I convince you that nobody wrote this computer's operating system?

Evolutionist: No. The OS for computers is very complex. Somebody had to write it.

Darko: Then, could I convince you that the most complex code known to man, the DNA code, somehow exists without being written by someone?

Evolutionist: I think you made your point at S.O.S.

A Look Back

2010-12-23T22:59:00.000-08:00

I look back on this past year, and I'm not very encouraged. I'm not seeing real progress. The parliamentary government, headed by Barak Hussein Obama, has done little to improve our status in the world. They have done little to improve the unemployment rate. They have done much to reduce American's trust in government and have concurrently inflicted great damage to the general psyche of the nation. Notwithstanding the damage these idiots have inflicted, they have managed to maintain much of the Bush doctrine as it pertains to terrorism. Nonetheless, I've never been more fearful of our nation's economic and security related prospects. I’m not alone. How many people do you know that are singing the praises of the 111th Congress?

Darko Festin

A Reason To Survive

2010-10-24T17:17:00.000-07:00

I defer to one of the greatest thinkers of our time, Dennis Prager.

http://visiontoamerica.org/story/a-society-does-not-survive-if-it-does-not-have-a-reason-to-survive.html

If you find his clarity intimidating, you may want to rethink your paradigm. He is correct in saying America is at a crossroads at what we want our country to look like; the America that has been a force for good in the world, or an America that looks like Western Europe.

I'm sorry, but I'm done with the intellectualizing the choices between democrats and republicans. I have seen what out of control democrats are capable of doing. Please, someone ... give me an example of when the republicans, when in charge of both houses and the presidency, screwed things up as badly as this current administration and congress. And please be specific:
Deficit
Debt
Foreign Policy
Domestic Policy
Economy
Energy
Tax burden

Darko Festin

The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals

2010-10-03T03:11:00.000-07:00

I saw a political advertisement a few months ago that confused me. The politician running the ad claimed to be a candidate that embraced and supported progressive values. The question came to my mind, what exactly are progressive values? I’m not sure I’ve ever heard them articulated in specific terms. I’ve only heard them expressed in ambiguous terms, often couched in negatively oriented sentences and typically book-ended with name calling. i.e. “Well, the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are stupid, mind-numb robots.” Here’s another one: “Well, he’s a racist.” We have all encountered pieces of liberal thought during campaign speeches; “We stand for middle America.” “We want to save our planet for future generations.” “We’re committed to bringing health care to every American, because it’s their right.” Give me a break. I’m a conservative and I stand for middle America. I want to save our planet, and I’m all for helping Americans get affordable health care. I am certain they know what goals they want to accomplish, but that’s a lot different than having a firm set of values that guide them in the accomplishment of them. So, as I break it down in my mind, there are two possibilities: liberals simply don’t know what they believe, or they are fearful of rejection if what they believe is clearly articulated. I think this assertion helps explain the absence of liberal clarity on the subject and the reason conservatives encounter such demonetization and name calling. Yes, liberals will tell you what their goals are; protect the environment, eliminate world hunger, reduce global warming, economic justice … but they're slow to tell you how they want to reach their goals. Now, I do think liberals believe something, but as intelligent as some of them are, they haven’t considered the consequences or practicality of their beliefs, which brings me to the short list of difference between conservatives and liberals:

1. Conservatives embrace the doctrine of absolutes, and liberals embrace the doctrine of relativism. Now when you think about this, it’s easy to understand why liberals have a hard time telling you what they believe. Relativism, by definition, is ambiguous since it embraces variables in situations, conditions and individuals to explain or justify thought or behavior. It denies, for one thing, the concept of right and wrong, and for another, good and evil. How many times have you heard someone say something like, “Christian fundamentalism is as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalism.” That statement betrays a world view of moral relativism, which cannot distinguish good behavior from bad behavior. Here’s another one that I’m hearing a lot these days: “We need to make economic justice a priority in America.” Translation: “We’re going to take money out of your pocket and give it to someone else, because we know better than you how it should be distributed.” Let me tell you that Relativism is a dangerous ideology, for it embraces the concept that the end justifies the means. We currently have a president and sitting congress that demonstrates this attribute on a regular basis; lie, demonize, steal … as long as we arrive at the end with a good result.

2. Conservatives tend to vote and make decisions based on reason, and liberals tend to vote and make decisions based on emotion. The current debate over the illegal immigration issue is largely divided between the facts and the emotional components of the situation. The initial support of Obama Care was largely based on the emotional/class warfare language used to defend the measure; fat-cat insurance agencies, big pharmaceutical, millions of uninsured, republicans want you to die … language designed to appeal to the emotions of the constituency. The facts surrounding Obama Care all pointed to higher health-care costs, the disappearance of quality of health care, shortages of doctors, higher taxes, and the creation of some 120 new government agencies to manage the program. A reasoned response to Obama care would have been to say no, which conservatives did, and then were demonized as … racists, obstructionists, the party of no.

3. Conservatives embrace the concept of individual liberty, and the philosophy of self determination bound to personal responsibility. These three concepts are really parts of the larger concept we call freedom. Liberals have historically adopted collectivist attitudes and behaviors in the application of liberty and responsibility; typically diametrically opposed to the concept of freedom. Conservatives understand that there is risk involved in the exercise of individual liberty, but are willing to take those risks, because to do otherwise gives someone else the authority to make choices that may not be in their best interests. Liberals supported universal health care, largely because it promised to minimize risk, spread out costs, and equalize the quality of health care. Oops. Never in all of our history have so many people been willing to sacrifice their individual liberty, abdicate their personal responsibility and deny their self determination as they were in their support of Obama Care. Obama Care is just one example. Social security, medicare, food stamps, mortgage assistance programs, and unionization are all examples of the collectivism that is tearing the very fabric of our nation. Now, I’m not saying that all of the above is bad, but please tell me where any of it has been well managed. My point is that you can’t engage in collectivist behavior and expect to keep the freedom the founders intended for you to realize.

4. When debating issues, conservative language is generally characterized by a reasoned line of thought, based on logic, historical precedent, and/or well established facts. Liberal language, when debating issues, is characterized by labeling the opposition, and deflecting weaknesses in their arguments by demonizing the person making the argument. It’s often said that conservatives win in the arena of ideas, because liberal ideas don’t hold up to intellectual scrutiny. To date, I have not heard one liberal offer me a reasoned argument for their animosity toward Sarah Palin. Why is she so hated by the left? Here’s what I hear. “She’s stupid. She’s a whacko fundamentalist Christian that doesn’t believe in evolution. She says she can see Russia from her front porch.” Excuse me, but I’m having a hard time finding any measure of intellectual honesty in those comments. (FYI – Here are some facts to consider: George Washington, along with a lot of other distinguished people in our history were Christian fundamentalists. Evolution is a theory … it cannot be proven, so if you accept it as truth you do so as an act of faith. For the record, if you believe your great, great, great, great, great … grandfather was nothing more than a one celled amoeba, I won’t call you stupid if you can’t prove it. Sarah Palin did not say she could see Russia from her front porch. That was Tina Fey impersonating Sarah Palin.) With that said … why do we hear the terms racist, bigot, and homophobes being used almost exclusively from the mouths of liberals? I’ll tell you why. It’s because they are ambiguous assertions, which normally cannot be proven or disproven, emanating from minds that attach an arbitrary meanings to their manifestations. i.e. "If you disagree with me and you are of a different race than me, you're a racist." These emotionally charged terms serve as a means of discrediting the person expressing a point of view in the absence of possessing a credible opposing point of view. Americans are not unaware of this tactic, and I would encourage current and future public figures to avoid the practice of name calling. If you can’t win in the arena of ideas, you should let someone else take your place.

5. Conservatives tend to support limited government. Liberals tend to support bigger government. Sadly, I think the reason liberals support an ever expanding government is that they see government as the answer to all problems. From a historical standpoint you will have a hard time arguing with this assertion. Liberals tend to embrace Utopian philosophy, a philosophy that advances the notion that under the right conditions and with the right people are in charge, man can free himself of strife, crime, and the need to work. One problem with Utopian philosophy is that it necessarily demands the sacrifice of individual liberty, personal responsibility and self determination. Another problem with Utopian philosophy is that it ignores the realities of human nature … men will always be greedy, lustful, deceitful and dishonest, no matter who is in charge or what conditions exist. Utopian philosophy needs big government to implement its principles, and ignores all the lessons of human history.

6. Conservatives tend to be capitalists in their behavior. Liberals tend to be socialists in their behavior. The hard facts of our current social and political environment support the above proposition. Look at the actions of the sitting administration and congress … decidedly liberal and decidedly socialistic in the measures they advance and support. Now, the only problem with socialism is that it doesn’t work. With one exception, the kibbutz system in Israel, socialism, as a sustainable economic model, has failed. Not exactly a good track record. People want to look at the current situation in America and call it a failure of capitalism. I would submit that it’s not the capitalistic aspects of our economy that have failed us, but the socialistic aspects; many of which were implemented under the Johnson administration.

Capitalism is the only economic system that embraces and supports the realities of the human condition:

People will be productive when properly rewarded
People will prosper in an environment that fosters creative expression, productivity and autonomy
People want to keep the proceeds of their labor and the freedom to distribute it according to their self interests
People will resist productivity when not adequately rewarded
People will resist productivity when rewarded for someone else’s labor
Consumption is a matter of survival, and in order to survive one of the following conditions must exist

One must be gifted his/her means of consumption

One must earn the means of his/her consumption

One must steal or take the means of his/her consumption

Of the three, only the second one has long term merit, and it happens to conform to the capitalistic model.

It only takes a small measure of intellect to realize that socialism ignores all but one of these realities, that some must be gifted their means of consumption. The problem is that in order to give something there must be a giver … someone who has the means to give. As a matter of practice you need more givers than takers. The very nature of socialism eventually erodes this relationship of more givers than takers.

I grew up in a middle-class family; a family that promoted hard work, personal responsibility, and respect for others. The schools I attended taught the principles found in the constitution, and encouraged good citizenship. I was exposed to the risks of capitalism and the failings of socialism, and determined early in life that conservative values, some of which I’ve expressed here, would form my world view. I don’t see a broad gap between socialism, communism, Marxism or Statist ideology. They all share the one critical commonality of taking the profits of some and redistributing those profits to others. I’m unapologetic in my conservative bent and I’ve made it a personal mission to convert as many as I can to a point of view similar to mine. I have many friends who are liberal … yes, friends. I don’t call them names, or belittle them for their opposing views. For one thing, it’s counterproductive and for another, my conservative values forbid it.

I have very real fears about the future of America. I feel that for many Americans, their hopes are anchored in the promises of big government and more social programs. Consequently bigger government necessarily requires a greater degree of taxation, lowering the standard of living for everyone. Capitalism, which served to make America one of the few forces for good in the world, is being devoured by the cancer of progressive thought; environmentalism, universal health care, global governance, and the redistribution of wealth. I think our only hope is to revisit the faith and values of our founding fathers who entrusted us with such a grand experiment; The United States of America.

More Axioms of Human Interaction

2010-09-30T22:54:00.000-07:00

Axiom #7. People are generally stupid, but most individuals you meet are pretty smart.

Axiom #8. Smart individuals can do stupid things ... just follow me around for a few days, I'll prove it to you.

Axiom #9. It may take some time to discover how smart someone might be, but stupid shows up within a matter of seconds.

Axiom #10. People don't know they're stupid.

Axiom #11. It might seem brutal to tell people they are stupid, but it's downright cruel to let them continue thinking they're smart.

Axiom #12. Some stupid people are more stupid than others.

Axiom #13. If you think it's politically incorrect to point out stupidity, you're stupid.

Axiom #14. To tell someone to their face, or in a blog response, that they are stupid, is stupid. Just saying.

The First Six Axioms of Human Interaction

2010-09-23T23:48:00.000-07:00

Axiom #1. People will ignore you until there is a reason for them to do otherwise.

Axiom #2. Brandishing a gun in public, to offer one example, will give people a reason to stop ignoring you.

Axiom #3. People don’t intentionally mean to ignore you, it’s just that most are generally self-absorbed.

Axiom #4. Pointing a gun at a self-absorbed person will make them stop ignoring you, but may very well make them even more self-absorbed.

Axiom #5. There are few things more boring than a self-absorbed person.

Axiom #6. Self-absorbed people don’t know that they are boring, even when telling a story about the time someone pointed a gun at them.

Networking Event Etiquette

2010-09-23T21:55:00.000-07:00

When attending a networking event, you should be aware of some behaviors that people will appreciate and some that will label you as someone to avoid. The list below is by no means exhaustive, but embracing the spirit of these guidelines may enhance your networking experience.

#1. This really is rule number one. Introduce yourself to the host as soon as possible.. at least within the first few minutes of arriving. Even if you know the host or hostess personally, and have attended dozens of similar events, make an effort to get to your host or hostess within the first few minutes to say thank you. Yes, say "thank you for inviting me to this event." This is an easy thing to do, but an all-too-often neglected duty.

# 2. If you are really there to network, make it a personal mission to introduce yourself to the person standing or sitting alone. Not everyone at a networking event is an extrovert or graced with the gift of socialization. You may not be graced as such either, but making the effort to say hello is the single most important thing you can do, and it is always appreciated.

#3. THE BIG RULE - Do not dominate large amounts of one person's time. The purpose of a networking event is to allow as many people as possible to meet as many people as possible. I can't tell you how many events I've attended where someone ... and normally more than one someone, simply camps out with one other person. Guys are particularly guilty of this ... particularly with attractive women. Now, I'm a guy so I know the temptation is to hang on to that fascinating woman that you just met, but at a networking event, you have to let go. Guess what?... She probably doesn't find you so fascinating. So guys, by all means, get her business card, secure her cell number and a best time to call, but then get out of the way.
Rule of thumb: After 5 minutes of conversation, you should be finding a way to graciously say, "It is so nice to meet you. I hope we get another chance to chat."
Ladies, you don't get off the hook here. Much the same goes for you, and I'm sorry to say, even more so. Yes, it's nice to find a safe man with whom to attach yourself for the evening, but if he's there to network, he needs the opportunity to leave you. As fascinating, as interesting, and as captivating that you may be, there are other people in the room he may want to meet. Here's a thought; Maybe there are others in the room who want to meet him. Now, here's the "more so" that I mentioned a couple of lines ago. It is very safe and comfortable to hang on to that girlfriend you met or arrived with, but if you are really at the event to network, you need to insist on the opportunity to engage others.

#4. It doesn't matter what gender you are - if you find yourself in a situation where you are going to sit at an already occupied table, it is your obligation to introduce yourself to those already seated. That is unless there is someone making the introductions for you. Ladies - If there are men already sitting at the table where you wish to be seated, you are obliged to introduce yourself to them... not the other way around. Men - If there are women sitting at the table, you are obliged to introduce yourself to them. It is most rude to ignore those already seated at a table that you want to occupy.

#5. ANOTHER BIG RULE - Leave your cell phone in your pocket or purse. Texting communicates to those around you that you are not really there to network. If you find it important to talk or text someone via the cell phone, leave the room.

#6. Avoid handing out cards for the sake of handing out cards. Here's a dirty little secret: No one wants your card, until they ask for it.

#7. Avoid conversations that involve politics and/or religion. Most networking events are professional in nature and engaging in either of these topics may be the end of the event for you. I speak from experience. Don't go there!

#8. Don't sit very long. Sitting in one place all night can be comfortable, but it definitely communicates a message you may not want. That message is:: "I'm not really here to network, so don't even bother trying to talk to me." The host or hostess is the only person who should be found in the same place for most of the event.

#9. Introduce people that you've met to other people. This is the way it's really suppose to work at a networking event.

#10. Say good night to your host or hostess, and thank them again for inviting you. It's the one thing you can do to help ensure you're invited to the next event.

These guidelines are not set in stone, or to my knowledge even published somewhere else, but I do hope my suggestions will help make your future networking events more enjoyable.

Darko Festin

Progressive Ideology is nothing short of the Ideology of Tyrany

2010-09-18T22:33:00.000-07:00

“The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism).

As the word ‘liberal’ is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist. … The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it. … For the Statist, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. … The Statist’s Utopia can take many forms, and has throughout human history, including monarchism, feudalism, militarism, fascism, communism, national socialism, and economic socialism. They are all of the same species — tyranny. … The Statist is not interested in what the Framers said or intended. He is interested only in what he says and he intends.”

–Mark Levin

If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers. Calvin Coolidge

The Day After

2010-09-12T19:04:00.000-07:00

On the day after the anniversary of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, I just want to make a couple of observations concerning on the current state of affairs as they relate to that fateful day. My first observation has to do with the politically correct and self proclaimed morally elite crowd that seems to have missed the significance of that event. The significance was the declaration of war upon America, as if we needed yet another terrorist attack to get that fact. (look at the history of Islamic terrorism over the last 30 years) This p.c. crowd would have us offer conciliation, appeasement and "a measure of understanding" toward those factions and nations that supported the worst attack on American citizens in half a century. The only problem with following their direction is that it weakens America. To be sure, there are times for conciliation, especially in the face of defeat. .Appeasement is an appropriate response when trying to right a wrong, and offering a measure of understanding only works when conditions of reconciliation are present. America has nothing to be ashamed of. We have no reason to appease, conciliate, or "understand" a damn thing. So, I'm not inclined to go along with the self proclaimed morally elite crowd that seem to show up long and often in the main stream media.
My second observation has to do with the insane argument that seems to have dominated the minds of our aforementioned p.c. crowd. Give me a break ... what self respecting American can actually support building anything "Islamic" one block from Ground Zero. I don't care that it's legal. I don't care that it's within the rights of the developers. Hey, wake up folks. Gambling, prostitution, pornography, and drug use is legal in some states, but that doesn't mean any of the list is good.
So you might say my real peeve is with the p.c. crowd, who insist on forcing their religion upon the rest of us. Yes, it is a religion; the religion of political correctness. Their god is the judicial system, of whom they depend upon for their ideology to succeed. They worship at the alter of big government and pray for an expansion of the the entitlement society. They practice their religion in hopes of gaining more power over the masses and more wealth to satisfy their indulgences. It's a selfish religion, and a dangerous one, ... conceived and constructed solely to create divisions in society.

The Economy

2010-09-09T00:03:00.000-07:00

I'll tell you what's wrong with our economy. Americans don't make anything anymore. Practically everything we buy is made somewhere else. We have found that it's cheaper to buy manufactured goods made somewhere other than in the U.S. Even your "American made" automobile isn't really made in America. Check it out for yourself.

We used to make everything ... and we were the best at making everything. And then something happened ... our American jobs started moving over-seas. I think we should be very clear and approach this subject with some intellectual honesty.
The jobs that got "shipped over-seas" got "shipped over-seas" for two reasons: inflated American wages and overbearing government taxation/regulation. We have two entities to blame: corrupt unions and big government politicians.

Do you really think American businesses just woke up on morning and decided to move? Yeah, right! You have to ask the question ... what forces caused the greatest manufacturing base in the world to migrate to other countries? Don't look at me ... I didn't have anything to do with it. I suspect you didn't either, did you? So, if you didn't and I didn't , and your neighbor didn't have anything to do wit it... who did? American businesses just didn't arbitrarily pick up and move on a whim. They carefully considered the pros and cons of moving their operations over-seas.

One major consideration business make before moving its operations out of the U.S. is productivity, which is measured solely on the relationship between the cost of labor as it pertains to profit. Simply put, the cost of labor directly affects profitability. I'm afraid the corrupt union leadership doesn't understand this concept. Another consideration business must consider are the taxes and regulations imposed upon its operation. When taxes and regulations deter the profit motive, business is forced to either close up shop or or move to a more friendly environment. I'm afraid that big government proponents don't understand this concept.

In evaluating why jobs are being shipped over-seas we only have to look at the environment at which they are asked to operate.

Darko Festin

I'm Still Looking for the Hope - Got Plenty of Change

2010-09-06T15:57:00.000-07:00

Buyers remorse, anyone? If not ... the cognitive part of your brain has ceased to function, and all your mental faculties have been transferred to the affective portion of your gray matter. Simple observation and the realization of facts should have you joining most Americans in looking forward to the day that our President Obama becomes our ex-president. There is one other possibility; you've been in a coma for the past two years and are just now waking up. If that's you, I will tell you that things are going to hell in a hand-basket, and you've awakened just in time to see one of the saddest debacles of a presidency that we have witnessed in our lifetime.

I don't mean to gloat ... for this is no time to be gloating, but I will say I was ringing the bell long before this joke of a president got elected. All you had to do was take him at his word, and then understand a bit of his background and voting record.
http://www.myspace.com/professorruss/blog

Well, we've seen quite a bit of change haven't we; a rise in unemployment, a deficit 10 times that of when he took office, a health-care system that Americans didn't want, a justice department on the wrong side of the law, the appointment of God-only-knows how many czars to do God-only- knows what ... yes, the change is evident. The scary thing is, he has two more years to inflict more damage. God, help us! No, God, PLEASE help us!

What about that hope that Obama was talking about during his run for the White House? The hope he was talking about isn't the same hope I have. I hope he goes away as soon as possible. I hope Americans wake up and smell the damn coffee, because it's boiling over and causing a real mess. I hope that in November we put some adults back in Washington. I hope that Americans discover the wisdom of the Constitution and make a run back to its principles. I hope our next president offers leadership instead of excuses. I hope our next president treats our friends like friends and our enemies like enemies. I hope our next president spends less time on vacation and more time in the White House. I hope our next president stays out of local affairs and concerns himself/herself with what the Constitution prescribes for the office of president. I hope our next president understands that some folks in this world are evil, and you can't compromise with, negotiate with, nor console them. I hope this next generation embraces the reality that government is not going to solve their problems for them. I hope this next generation of voters can enjoy the same prosperity that their parents enjoyed, but thanks to this administration, the cold hard facts indicate that's not going to be the case. No, I'm afraid my hopes are different than President Obama's.

Some Things Will Not Change

2010-09-05T18:38:00.000-07:00

Some things we should learn to accept, whether we like them or not:

The sky is blue.
Water runs downhill.
Sand blows in desert wind.
Rich men can always buy companionship.
Poor men can always find a way to buy beer.
Men, rich or poor, will refuse to ask for directions.
Beautiful women will always dictate the terms or their courtship.
Desperate women will put up with tyrannical men.
Desperate men will put up with contentious women.
Women will change their minds, but not often their behavior.
Men will change their behavior, but not often their minds.
The sun comes up in the East.
The ocean is filled with salt water.
A certain Chicago baseball team will never win the World Series.

Raise Taxes on The Rich

2010-08-30T14:29:00.000-07:00

Will someone please show me empirical evidence that demonstrates how raising taxes on wealthy people helps anyone else.

Goodfellas: An Analogy For America

2010-08-30T13:33:00.000-07:00

Have you seen the movie, Goodfellas? If you have, you may recall it was a film about the mafia in the 1960's and 70's. You may also recall a scene early in the movie, where Henry Hill and his wife-to-be are on their first real date. As they arrive at the club, we see a long line of people waiting to get in, but Henry has no intention of standing in line. He is going to use the delivery/employee entrance, the entrance he always uses. He doesn't own the club, he doesn't work at the club, and in fact his only connection to the club is that those that do own it and those that do work there have become subservient to his organization. As the scene unfolds, Henry and Karen move through various back rooms and kitchens that support the club; past the swarms of cooks, waiters, bus boys, bouncers, and night club personnel. At every turn Henry exchanges pleasantries with the minions. The director made it clear that the rest of the world existed for the sole pleasure of Henry, his friends, and whomever he was escorting that evening. I couldn't help but draw the analogy to current-day America. I saw Americans ... represented by the cooks, waiters, bus boys, etc. working hard, trying to make a dollar to support their families .... and I saw the political elite, represented by Henry and his date, taking privileges they did not earn, as if that was the way it was always suppose to be.
We see the analogy played out in the behavior of the current administration; Extravagance, extensive travel, duplicitous vacations, and an obvious disconnect with the current economic situation in America.
I don't know exactly when it happened, but at some point in my lifetime we started moving in the direction of electing a king. We are on the precipice of working not for ourselves, but to support our government. We are near to the point of electing ourselves a king ... and that king is big government. Some people say we're already there, but if we are not there yet we soon will be .... given the behavior and stated intentions of the current numb-skulls that we have elected to represent us.
It's really time to claim the America that we earned during WW2 and the four decades that followed, an America where the the middle class worked for their best interests not the interests of the political elite.

Ben Jealous

2010-08-30T11:17:00.000-07:00

Let me go on the record: I don't respect Ben Jealous. Now, normally I don't talk negative about anyone, but there are exceptions. And the exception is this; anytime someone wants to publicly call another group of people names, insinuate without facts, and just talk to incite, they automatically open themselves up to personal criticism. Mr. Jealous is not advancing the goal of a color-blind society with incendiary remarks about the tea party or most recently, main-stream Americans. You can view and hear his recent comments here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53O7wuW8GZc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The man is either a demagogue or a liar .. neither of which I think deserve our respect or attention. He accuses others of racism, but I think he does not understand the word. He pretends to be some type of leader, but leadership in America has always intoned a large measure of truth an optimism. He acts like a scared little man ... who doesn't really understand why he's scared.

Inaugural Post

2010-08-29T18:16:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Darko Festin official blog spot. You're going to love Darko Festin.