It’s Living Proof- We Need More Young Conservatives!

I just recently found out that I won an essay contest from the Conservative Agenda Project (CAP), which I discovered from The California Review editor Alec Weisman  from a Collegiate Network editor’s conference. Originally, the contest was to have 25-35 winners to make up a book on how young conservatives talk to their peers about conservatism. Unfortunately, there were only six winners (although, I must add I’m fortunate to have won), including myself, and the book won’t be published as a result.

It is rather disappointing that more young conservatives were not curious or adamant about educating their peers about the wonders and virtues of conservatism. I feel that it is vital for people to understand how the Conservative Movement works and the wonderful things that it brings to its followers. I am confident that a conservative and Republican resurgence is imminent, but through this example, I would like to not vie for the worst and say that my peers have not done enough to affect the course of affairs.

Liberalism predates the scene, but we conservatives can do all within our power to kill it and prevent its deadly course from further wreaking mayhem on our nation. Start a campaign, be vocal, create an event, invite a speaker, attend a conference, write essays or articles, and be wise!

A New Milestone in Presidential Qualifications: Necessity of a “First Pooch”

Tradition has long held that qualifications for President of the United States be explicitly spelled out through Article II of the Constitution. They entail that the President: serve a four-year term (maximum of two) with a vice president serving the same allotted term(s), must be at least 35-years-old, must be a naturalized citizen for at least 14 years, be the Commander–in–Chief of the armed forces, deliver a State of the Union address, etc. Yet, as the last year transpired, a new qualification surfaced and seemed unavoidable to acknowledge: necessity of a “First Dog.” Maybe this is part of that wonderful change we so heartily believed in, like that of the fundamental change that is to come? This current president is not frankly a proponent of the Constitution, our “Law of the Land,” deeming it as a document that, “…didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…is a charter of negative liberties.” So, putting forth this necessity of a “First Doggie” would be acceptable in this man’s eyes as he sees it appropriate to change, and eventually rid of, the Constitution for good.

Now, this provision to Article II would require that the chosen dog have an elitist pedigree, only of the highest breeding lineage would be acceptable. As major newspapers and media outlets crafted the ideal story of Bo’s “adoption” into the Obama family, there obviously was room for some controversy. An April 12th, 2009 Washington Post article written about the doggie’s illustrious debut documented it as, “a handsome little guy. Well suited for formal occasions at the White House, he’s got tuxedo-black fur, with a white chest, white paws and a rakish white goatee.” Of course, having a dog with the appropriate fur color and pattern provides for a successful gala, and at this rate, will provide for successful press conferences. Claiming that he was the candidate for the common man, candidate Obama should have opted for a shelter dog or one with a “secondhand” origin. The HSUS purports that a dog like the Obama’s was one of “many surrendered by their owners…,” albeit the fact that it was a gift by the late Ted Kennedy, a man of the highest liberal caliber infamous for having the grandest things in life. So no common dog for the Obama…quite demonstrative of the true elitists at play.

If you can think about anything positive or thoughtful that this current President has accomplished, although his track record of ruining the nation far exceeds such, choosing the “First Pooch” had to be his most telling “accomplishment.” Like any American, I love these cuddly, furry creatures and am not a “heartless conservative heathen without appreciation for animals.” Why do progressives always paint us as heartless? At least we conservatives have humility when it comes to choosing a dog, and do not have to be elitist or “breedist” when it comes to selecting a canine. Americans can agree that dogs are important in our lives, yet the action of choosing the “First Pooch” absorbed too much limelight and frankly, too much press. Aside from this, picking a suitable dog had to be important since it took six very tiring months for the Obama’s to select the perfect hypoallergenic doggie for daughter Malia suffers from allergies (my goodness!). Clearly, “America fell in love” with Bo Obama, the new furry addition to the White House, and felt inclined to dedicate their time to knowing everything about this dog to forget about the woes surrounding problems like the 787-billion-dollar stimulus and the increased sphere of government involvement in our lives. Yet, evading the nation’s problems with this beautiful fairy tale of the “perfect,” if not best, “First Dog” cannot compensate for the destruction of the United States.

The Progressives paint any American as keen to know about every parameter of Bo Obama’s happenings, favorite Kibble, clothing preferences, and the like. What is rather odd is that leftist newspapers and columnists have the audacity to write from the perspective of the First Pooch, as New York Times Op-Ed contributor Ben Greenman did about the “First One-Hundred (Dog) Days.” Talk about the left’s slobbering love affair with anything relating to the Obama’s, above all a dog and its perspective on life in the White House for crying out loud! But the New York Times and other proponents of the Left need to spruce up their readership as their more successful counterparts like the Wall Street Journal dominate, so writing a piece like this is an attempt to sell papers and climb the ranks of journalistic prominence (although there is a questionable certainty about the lack thereof in respect to the N.Y. Times).

Nevertheless, as Obama continues to reign over the United States, matters like Bo Obama’s take on diplomatic affairs and domestic policies will be presented by major news media outlets as “readily-important issues” at this rate. Animal life is more regarded than human life in this day and age, so why not the possibility of a dog overseeing affairs that are best left to (human) professionals? Remember that man’s best friend might have a soft spot in the heart of any American, but it cannot clearly suffice as the most important issue in our lives.

The Trials and Tribulations of Technology

In this day and age, humanity is truly dependent upon technology for performing basic operations, keeping up-to-date, and, of course, entertainment purposes. It has marked our advancement as a civilization and our superiority as a nation in terms of frequency of its use. Whether it is a computer, iPod or iPhone, text messaging, video games, AIM, or the like, any form of technology lurks and predates the scene when one least expects it. Although these innovations have proven to be favorable in terms of research, improvement, well-being, and scientific advancement, there is an underlying problem threatening the way we function as human beings.
As a concerned member of Generation Y— one marked by the Internet, deep and incessant regard for celebrity well-being, and great materialism —I feel like human interactions and communication are increasingly artificial and fake. People in our age group are so glued to their devices that they ignore basic functions and human interface altogether. Face it, your iPod dictates your life, and your phone, with its delicious extensive texting abilities communicates on your behalf. What happened to good ol’ fashioned talking and living? If we continue down this path, our existence will soon be limited to some other newfangled contraption (even one that might cause health problems).
The Internet poses the most challenging feat to standard communication. Bill Gates, Microsoft founder and business extraordinaire, notes, “The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow.” This medium of exchange is clearly unavoidable, and interaction through it is bound to occur, making such a process of chatting at greater distances or with a good friend viable. And yet, despite its potential to connect people over long distances, it is the Internet which fuels the critical issue at hand: zombie-like, socially-inept people who would rather chat online than go out in public with their real-life friends and interact face-to-face with live human beings! Even they manage to escape the pull of the laptop and go out, many people are still glued to their iPhone, computer, or Bluetooth devices instead of paying attention to those they are with. Technology fuels an addiction that when improperly used, will take a tumultuous toll on the abuser.
Another visible implication of this phenomenon is how emotions or written fragments are interpreted through viable technological means. Without facial expressions and tone inflection, the meaning of a communication using AIM, Facebook chat, Yahoo Messenger, or text messages is not always easily interpreted. For example, the recipient could misinterpret a simple text like “hey what’s up” as mean, uninterested, or impersonal.
We should not be so reliant upon Facebook or MySpace as the sole means of maintaining a friendship. Conversation, with all its depth, is now being limited to 160 character messages. There is no personal touch or feeling in writing a message. We lose that intimate connection with friends the longer we spend time on the Internet. Social interactions are alleged to increase with the use of social websites, but a study shows that Internet communication will cause people to “to spend more time alone, talking online with strangers, or forming superficial “drive by” relationships, at the expense of deeper face-to-face discussion and companionship with friends and family (e.g., Putnam, 2000, pg. 179).” The notion of developing a great social presence, with a wide net of contacts, will deter us from maintaining the social relationships that matter most.
Although it is a pivotal instrument for fueling the economy, sustenance, and drive for creativity, technology found commonplace in the world has repercussions mostly concealed from public view. As humans, we are the arbiters of deciding whether or not it is a friend or foe. Embrace life the way it is meant to be fostered—find no substitutes for such a bestowed entity.