Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Game Candidates Do Poorly in Iowa Caucuses
Ron Bison writes to mention Game Politics is reporting that anti-game presidential candidates didn't fare so well in the Iowa caucuses. "On the Republican side, Mitt Romney, who lumps violent video games into what he terms an ocean of filth, was badly beaten by Mike Huckabee. Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton saw both Barack Obama and John Edwards win more of the popular vote. Clinton has previously proposed video game legislation in the U.S. Senate. She recently told Common Sense Media that she would support such legislation if elected president."
are you serious? one caucus and its a warning to anti-game candidates?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
When your site is devoted to "Where Politics and Video Games Collide" it behooves you to draw as many conclusions as you can. When politicians with stronger anti-gaming views win other caucuses, that will doubtless be an indication that we must all join whatever coalition is being pimped out for the protection of our rights.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Correlation does not equal causation.
The results were the cause of many reasons, but video games laws were most definitely not one of them.
I doubt that videogames themselves were even close to the biggest issue, but apparently there is a large segment of the population who play them. I'm a gamer, and I know I certainly care about whether or not a candidate wants to censor the games I play. Of course, this wouldn't be my only reason for supporting one candidate over another, but it is an issue worth considering nonetheless.
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
He may be a former Baptist minister, but his record strongly suggests that he can hold his beliefs without forcing them on everyone else. His time as a minister, as well as his up-front style of religion, made me dismiss him initially, but I've started to like him a good bit more. The only real problem I can take issue with now is that he's not as up-to-date on current events as I'd like, and as an avid target shooter I think his stunt with the shotgun was reckless.
Considering that he's having trouble getting Baptist support due to not being arch-conservative enough is a positive sign. He repeatedly spoke out against the politicization of that group while it was happening (as opposed to complaining after the fact), and he took an active role in flushing out as much racism and bigotry in that group as you could hope for (making him far more attractive to minority groups than someone who just panders to them).
I believe biblical inerrancy is incompatible with evidence, but I've known many intelligent people (including one of the best programmers I know) who stick to the idea - so I don't equate it with intelligence. As for it being "delusional", maybe it is... but so are most human models of morality, as the only truly logical behavior is utterly self-serving (including the need to produce a working civilization to protect you and your genetic heritage). The fact that I accept moral ideals myself only proves that I'm just as deluded as most of us.
Overall I'd describe him as a conservative progressive, meaning he's a progressive, but not as fast and loose about it as someone more liberal would be.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
Take a look at the different candidates on how much influence they want the government to have in your personal life. There is a huge spectrum, both within the Democrats and the Republicans. Video games is only the tip of the iceberg, but is representative of whether people think the federal government needs to act like a protective parent or not. Most of the "establishment" candidates are overwhelmingly tending toward YES on the need for the nanny state, but Clinton is probably the worst. There are alternatives out there. Think about personal liberties, but don't restrict yourself narrowly to the issue of video games.
Just because you might not let your 10-year-old play "Gears of War", does that imply that the government should regulate those games for everyone's "protection"? Or can we separate what we personally think is "right" from what the role of the government (coercive by nature) should be?
--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation.
Huckabee is not a Progressive, he's a Traditionalist. Look at any political compass with the candidates placed on it. Even Ron Paul is considered more Progressive than Huckabee and even he isn't on the Progressive side of the Social Issue axis. Clinton is just barely considered Progressive as her dive towards the middle brought her closer to the center of the compass.
Huckabee also isn't very conservative, which refers to the small government end of the Fiscal spectrum. He's right near the middle as far as spending goes, but he would be spending the money to advance a Traditional agenda rather than a Progressive one. Progressives want to improve Health Care and Social Services, whereas the Republicans have been spending money on Abstinence only Sex Ed. in schools, etc. I believe the term they coined for it is "compassionate conservativism", which means they spend as much money as the Dems, just on different programs.