Tag Archives: Politics

MegaMan vs Obama

Posted on by
1

When you get a free educational copy of Flash, the first thing you will try to do is create a game. I can’t prove this scientifically or statistically, but I make the claim nonetheless. If you ignore all the complaints people give about Flash (and there are many, and they are debatable), you will find that it is a pretty entertaining way to develop graphical programs and animations.

In MegaMan vs Obama, the only ‘complete’ game I’ve done in Flash, you attempt to defeat a presidential monster as MegaMan with nothing more than your energy weapon. The final boss of Doom 2 should come to mind when you see the incarnation of Obama used for the game.

Note to the easily offended: I’m not endorsing violence or any such thing in this game any more than that Obama has laser eyes and spits out fireballs from his mouth. This is just a silly, simple, and short Flash game about shooting energy balls at fire-breathing, laser-eyed bureaucrat-heads.

Click here for your entertainment:

MegaMan

I’m a Conservative, But What Does That Mean?

Posted on by
Reply

“I was raised in a Christian home”

So begins the testimony of myriad Christians in myriad communities around the world. The same statement could be said about political views.

“I was raised in a Conservative home”

While there are certainly disagreements among people (typically those who are not Christians) about what being a “Christian” actually means, that term is much less likely to cause confusion than “Conservative”. And there is a pretty good reason for this.

Being a “Conservative” or a “Liberal” can mean any number of things in any number of contexts. To be Conservative with nature might be seen as a Liberal view in some cases. To be Liberal with your hospitality might be seen as something that southern Conservative states are known for. The terms have meanings,  but they are pretty general definitions.

As simply as can be stated, a Conservative leans towards preserving the way things are, and a Liberal leans towards changing things. A Conservative’s position, therefore, is more obvious than a Liberal’s (who may have different interpretations of ‘change’). At the same time, Conservatives often never break away from the stereotype that they only wish to preserve the status quo because they are afraid of change.

I’ve heard people define both terms specifically for themselves, but I haven’t done so myself. I’ve stated why I’m a political/social/religious/philosophical Conservative in the past,  but inexplicably I’ve forgotten the crux of the entire message: What does that mean?

Here is my definition.

A Conservative believes the world is as it is because those that preceded them had some sense of right and wrong. Conservatives do not believe the world is perfect, but that it is far better than popular opinion would have it.

A Conservative believes change is neither good nor evil, but certainly not always inevitable. When change comes, the Conservative desires sufficient reason to embrace it. If a case cannot be made that satisfies the Conservative, it will be rejected and opposed. If a case can be made, the Conservative will insist that the change occur gradually, and that it not proceed farther than was intended originally.

A Conservative seeks to preserve what is good and not to reinvent it. A Conservative seeks to trust what has been given them not unquestionably, but respectfully.

A Conservative believes humans have fundamentally always been the same sort of creature. That power corrupts anyone. That work strengthens character. That we must subject our passions to our wills, lest we lose our civilization.

I think that just about does it.

Politics Over Time

Posted on by
Reply

This past weekend, I took a trip down to Nashville, Tennessee with a good friend of mine. One of the highlights was getting to listen to Rick Steves (a big travel guy on PBS) about travelling and his thoughts on things.

I was unfortunately disappointed with portions of his discussion when it came to political topics. While I agreed with him on some things, on others I eventually felt as though he contradicted himself when I reflected on it (my friend had similar conclusions).

In the spirit of trying to find the truth in things as a Christian, I want to delve into the topics I disagreed with him on to figure out exactly what the right perspective on these issues is. The topics boil down to a handful that I can remember (though there may be more), and include: gun ownership vs crime rates, government entitlements vs happiness, national debt vs poverty, legislating morality, legalization of prostitution and hard drugs, and lowering speed limits.

For this first post, I want to focus on gun ownership and its effect on crime rates. Steves made a point that in the United States, we have “The highest violent crimes rate in the developed world” and that in Germany and other European countries where there are very strict gun control laws (owning guns is illegal in some places), there is much less violent crime. This article illustrates some of the points he made: http://www.guninformation.org/.

Now, I want to examine some of the key points of this FAQ-style article. The final point reads like this:

MYTH:Gun ownership is a protection against political tyranny.
TRUTH: Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein’s regime (source).It certainly didn’t protect the Iraqi people against political tyranny. Gun ownership was legalized in Germany in 1928, five years before Hitler rose to power. Despite the claims of pro-gun activists, gun ownership did nothing to stop a tyrant like Hitler from seizing power. In 1938, Germany’s gun laws were relaxed except in the case of Jews.

Well, not exactly. The Wikipedia article on the topic of Germany’s gun control laws is a bit more thorough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act.

In particular, it is clear that in 1928, although gun control laws were relaxed, they were also enforced more strongly in 1938, after Hitler had seized power. His targeting of Jewish ownership of guns should indicate the perspective he had: those opposed to his regime would be more dangerous with firearms.

And that makes sense. If a culture wants to rise up against an oppressive regime, it must have weapons. But weapons don’t cause the nation to have this desire. It must be present already. The founders of the United States made that perfectly clear: http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm.

As far as the earlier points on the article go and the points Steves had to make went, I think it is curious that the statistics aren’t quite as clear as they would need to be to make their cases: http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm. Looking at other nations (outside of Germany), it is clear that gun ownership and crime rates are not always parallel and sometimes inverted. Another quote from the article appears like this (it made me chuckle reading it, so I wanted to examine it):

MYTH:“Guns don’t kill, people kill people” is a good argument against gun control.
TRUTH: This pro-gun argument makes about as much sense as claiming that “glasses don’t see, eyes see”  is a good argument against wearing glasses.

This doesn’t line up for me logically. People are responsible for killing (whether 1500 years ago before guns were invented but murder was still around, or today), and eyes are responsible for seeing (whether poor or well, despite or because of glasses). In both cases, it would seem logical to say that the human is the responsible agent (the one who kills or the one who sees), and the glasses or the guns are merely a tool. People can see without glasses and they can murder without weapons. Both simply give them more options to do both. However, neither need be used maliciously.

Overall, I think this is a very tricky issue. But the common sense and statistical information points to the majority of cases of violence being culturally induced, and gun control being linked with less freedoms as citizens.