Public assistance programs are an easy target for politicians when the discussion turns towards spending cuts. The straw-man, "The welfare-queen" has been effectively created by the right and allowed continued existence by the media. Yes, there are those who exploit* programs, but those few are no reason to be rid of those programs. Cutting Public Assistance programs is foolish, but it is especially so during an economic downturn.
Perhaps the most basic element in any economy is spending. If there is spending going on, the economy is doing well; if spending isn't going on, the economy is doing poorly. Public Assistance programs are perhaps one of the best ways a government can encourage spending. It's actually quite simple. Public Assistance gives money to poor people and when poor people get money they have to spend it. Basically, money spent on programs like Unemployment and Welfare are almost 100% stimulus.
The fear of creating a "Government Dole**" and that society would then become dependent on that has long been part of conservative belief. However, that fear has never been validated. "Full" Employment in the United States is somewhere around 95% employment and that has been the number reached during times of economic success for many years. During times of economic distress, between successful periods, the "Dole" has been increased, but once the economy has recovered, people have gone back to work with no government dependency being created.
The right likes to talk about cutting these useful programs. However, if someone brings up tax increases on the wealthy, they damn near lose their minds. What the true effect of keeping the tax rates low for the wealthy is certainly not what they claim it to be; supply-side economics have failed. Unlike the poor who have to spend their money, the wealthy are able to save. If they see more money because of government policy, it isn't going back into the economy immediately.
It also seems to be this myth that taxes are just thrown into a hole in the ground. The government spends every dollar it gets in tax revenue and then some. We all know that asking those who can afford it to help reduce that "and then some" would help stabilize our and the entire world's economy. We need to continue to spend stimulus dollars, especially in the form of Public Assistance, while increasing revenues. Hurting public assistance does not have any place in an economy that is as shaky as ours currently is.
Thanks for reading and please comment.
-Michael
*See "The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia" on Netflix instant streaming.
**See Herbert Hoover
Showing posts with label Special Comment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Special Comment. Show all posts
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Special Comment- Debt Ceiling
I think it is pretty clear the deal that was reached to get the Debt Ceiling increased was a crappy one. I mean, it's nice that the U.S. won't default and the economy won't fall to ruins. However, this country was allowed to be held hostage by a few of the most ideological members of Congress and those few were allowed to push us to the brink of catastrophe. Those who self-identify* themselves as the "Tea Party" failed to understand or just didn't give a damn about the implications of not raising the Debt Ceiling. Those people who least understood how to and frankly were unwilling govern were allowed to control the debate and the blame lies almost entirely with one man: John Boehner.
The position of Speaker of the House is as powerful of a position as there is in this country. The man or woman who holds that job has the power to kill any bill he or she wishes. The Speaker controls what gets voted on and when that vote happens. In the current era of divided government, that position also carries a more significant leadership role as the head of his party in the Capitol. Boehner absolutely failed in that role. He let a very small number of his party control vital negotiations. He was outmaneuvered by the President to the point of walking out of negotiations when he was getting a much more than fair deal. Had he been willing to cut loose the most extreme members of his caucus this deal would've been done long ago.
The buzz word during the past week has been "compromise." The deal we ended up with was no compromise. It isn't a balanced approach. This a right-wing plan. The Democrats gave the Republicans virtually everything they could've dreamed of and got nothing in return.
It's sad to think that these members were elected. The Debt Ceiling is not something to have a fight over. It is something that is suicidal not to raise. Allowing the Debt Ceiling to be raised was not a big concession on the Republicans' part. This isn't the right time to cut Government spending either. It might be hard to believe, but cutting 2 trillion from government spending is taking 2 trillion out of the economy. Some of the spending may be frivolous or downright dumb, but a dollar is a dollar no matter where it came from or what it was spent on. Government will need to deal with the deficit if the future, but in the current economic conditions it isn't really appropriate and when those measures are to be taken it should be an approach of increasing revenue as well as cutting spending.
The damage may already be done however. Economy is entirely a construct and this has shown how shaky things actually are. It definitely has Wall Street rattled and we'll have to see how this has affected consumer confidence. It also has shown that there are some in government who are willing to play politics with this pivotal issue. The United States' credit rating may have already been doomed to be downgraded, but there is definitely a black mark on it now from this fight for Credit Agencies and Lenders. Also given the nature of this fight there is no guarantee that it will not happen again in a few years.
The actions of this Congress will make the 2012 elections a very important one** and perhaps the most interesting in recent times. I believe that the way things have gone that a 3rd and possibly a 4th party may actually be viable in Congressional races and even the Presidential race; though that likelihood is lower given the nature of election laws.
Those who were willing to sacrifice this nation's economy for their own loony political goals must be kicked out of Washington. Things like the Debt Ceiling are not something you can play politics with. On occasion, one must swallow his or her pride and do what is best for the country and govern. Unfortunately it has been made clear in the past few weeks that there are many in Congress who fail to understand that and it's time for them to pay the price for their selfishness.
Thanks for reading and please comment
-Michael
*I think it's sad that we've allowed them to take that title. The Boston Tea Party was actually about Liberty. These fuckers are just a bunch white and rich/ignorant people who think the "evil government" keeping them from being whiter and richer.
**Cliche
The position of Speaker of the House is as powerful of a position as there is in this country. The man or woman who holds that job has the power to kill any bill he or she wishes. The Speaker controls what gets voted on and when that vote happens. In the current era of divided government, that position also carries a more significant leadership role as the head of his party in the Capitol. Boehner absolutely failed in that role. He let a very small number of his party control vital negotiations. He was outmaneuvered by the President to the point of walking out of negotiations when he was getting a much more than fair deal. Had he been willing to cut loose the most extreme members of his caucus this deal would've been done long ago.
The buzz word during the past week has been "compromise." The deal we ended up with was no compromise. It isn't a balanced approach. This a right-wing plan. The Democrats gave the Republicans virtually everything they could've dreamed of and got nothing in return.
It's sad to think that these members were elected. The Debt Ceiling is not something to have a fight over. It is something that is suicidal not to raise. Allowing the Debt Ceiling to be raised was not a big concession on the Republicans' part. This isn't the right time to cut Government spending either. It might be hard to believe, but cutting 2 trillion from government spending is taking 2 trillion out of the economy. Some of the spending may be frivolous or downright dumb, but a dollar is a dollar no matter where it came from or what it was spent on. Government will need to deal with the deficit if the future, but in the current economic conditions it isn't really appropriate and when those measures are to be taken it should be an approach of increasing revenue as well as cutting spending.
The damage may already be done however. Economy is entirely a construct and this has shown how shaky things actually are. It definitely has Wall Street rattled and we'll have to see how this has affected consumer confidence. It also has shown that there are some in government who are willing to play politics with this pivotal issue. The United States' credit rating may have already been doomed to be downgraded, but there is definitely a black mark on it now from this fight for Credit Agencies and Lenders. Also given the nature of this fight there is no guarantee that it will not happen again in a few years.
The actions of this Congress will make the 2012 elections a very important one** and perhaps the most interesting in recent times. I believe that the way things have gone that a 3rd and possibly a 4th party may actually be viable in Congressional races and even the Presidential race; though that likelihood is lower given the nature of election laws.
Those who were willing to sacrifice this nation's economy for their own loony political goals must be kicked out of Washington. Things like the Debt Ceiling are not something you can play politics with. On occasion, one must swallow his or her pride and do what is best for the country and govern. Unfortunately it has been made clear in the past few weeks that there are many in Congress who fail to understand that and it's time for them to pay the price for their selfishness.
Thanks for reading and please comment
-Michael
*I think it's sad that we've allowed them to take that title. The Boston Tea Party was actually about Liberty. These fuckers are just a bunch white and rich/ignorant people who think the "evil government" keeping them from being whiter and richer.
**Cliche
Monday, February 21, 2011
Special Comment- Right-Wing Loons
A lot of my peers in Liberal thought are pretty upset about the lurch to the right we've seen now that new governments have been sworn in at the State and Federal level following the 2010 elections. The House has voted to repeal Health care reform and to defund Planned Parenthood. In Wisconsin, the new Republican Governor is trying to bust the Public-workers unions and Governor Kasich here in Ohio is about to try the same thing. Also many states, including Ohio, have made extreme moves to majorly restrict abortion rights.
In the U.S. House, the new Republican majority is completely disconnected with political realities. It is a waste of time to repeal Health Care reform or try to get that ridiculous budget through with the Senate still in Democratic control and the veto pen of President Obama waiting. They are spending their time passing things that will never get out of the Senate and do absolutely nothing to improve the major issues going on in the United States right now. It is extreme partisanship when the unemployment rate is the highest it has been in decades. It is doing symbolic things while the economy struggles to recover.
The vote to cut funding to Planned Parenthood is perhaps the dumbest thing the anti-choice movement could do to reduce the number of Abortion. The only way to actually reduce the number of abortions is through preventive care, education and birth control. That's what family planning does. Soon, the Republican house will force through more bills to restrict abortion rights. Those bills will quickly die in the Senate.
Abortion as an issue is settled law. It is a legal, constitutionally protected procedure. The right-wing is trying to force it back to court where their new laws will be easily overturned and their cases will in all likelihood be rejected by the Supreme Court. The Republican movement to restrict Abortion is wasting time that could be spent on issues that must be addressed. The Republicans were not put back into power about social issues. It was about the economy and fiscal policy.
The United States is heading for a government shut down. The Republican House is unwittingly following the failed playbook of 1994. The teabaggers in the House may just kill any budget that would be agreeable to the Senate and President.
Governor Walker in Wisconsin is making a poorly disguised attempt to bust the Unions of public employees. Made all the more obvious by his not including in his new measure the Unions that supported him in his election-bid. Even though the Trooper's Union has come out and announced their regret of their endorsement. Walker is trying to attack something that is very important to Democratic political success. In Ohio and Indiana the governor's are going to try the same thing and are about to meet with backlash like we're seeing in Wisconsin. These Governor's won't win in this fight and will suffer for it in the future..
The fact that these right-wing loons are in power is disconcerting to me, but I really think they are doing their best to make sure their stint in power will only be two years. The extreme-right is quite noisy right now. They even have their own TV network. The majority of people don't want an extreme conservative country. The Republican's are running the country as if they are trying to win in their primaries, but will get slaughtered in the General.
The results of the 2010 election were as extreme as they get. The Republican's are making sure that in 2012 we'll see a large correction.
Thanks for reading and please comment.
-Michael.
In the U.S. House, the new Republican majority is completely disconnected with political realities. It is a waste of time to repeal Health Care reform or try to get that ridiculous budget through with the Senate still in Democratic control and the veto pen of President Obama waiting. They are spending their time passing things that will never get out of the Senate and do absolutely nothing to improve the major issues going on in the United States right now. It is extreme partisanship when the unemployment rate is the highest it has been in decades. It is doing symbolic things while the economy struggles to recover.
The vote to cut funding to Planned Parenthood is perhaps the dumbest thing the anti-choice movement could do to reduce the number of Abortion. The only way to actually reduce the number of abortions is through preventive care, education and birth control. That's what family planning does. Soon, the Republican house will force through more bills to restrict abortion rights. Those bills will quickly die in the Senate.
Abortion as an issue is settled law. It is a legal, constitutionally protected procedure. The right-wing is trying to force it back to court where their new laws will be easily overturned and their cases will in all likelihood be rejected by the Supreme Court. The Republican movement to restrict Abortion is wasting time that could be spent on issues that must be addressed. The Republicans were not put back into power about social issues. It was about the economy and fiscal policy.
The United States is heading for a government shut down. The Republican House is unwittingly following the failed playbook of 1994. The teabaggers in the House may just kill any budget that would be agreeable to the Senate and President.
Governor Walker in Wisconsin is making a poorly disguised attempt to bust the Unions of public employees. Made all the more obvious by his not including in his new measure the Unions that supported him in his election-bid. Even though the Trooper's Union has come out and announced their regret of their endorsement. Walker is trying to attack something that is very important to Democratic political success. In Ohio and Indiana the governor's are going to try the same thing and are about to meet with backlash like we're seeing in Wisconsin. These Governor's won't win in this fight and will suffer for it in the future..
The fact that these right-wing loons are in power is disconcerting to me, but I really think they are doing their best to make sure their stint in power will only be two years. The extreme-right is quite noisy right now. They even have their own TV network. The majority of people don't want an extreme conservative country. The Republican's are running the country as if they are trying to win in their primaries, but will get slaughtered in the General.
The results of the 2010 election were as extreme as they get. The Republican's are making sure that in 2012 we'll see a large correction.
Thanks for reading and please comment.
-Michael.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Special Comment- The Value of Justice vs. Self Interest
Since the sham of the election that Iran held in 2009 and the protests that followed, I have worn a piece of green ribbon around my left wrist. Green was the color that had come to represent the candidacy of Mir-Hossein Mousavi and the prospect of a more progressive and open Iran. I wanted to somehow show solidarity with the protesters. Even though the protests have largely faded, I continue to wear it as a sign of solidarity with people who seek justice.
The people of the Middle East are not different than you and I. It is an obvious statement, I know, however I feel it is easy to fall into the trap of looking at foreign peoples as a large clump that are just different. It just isn't the case. There are boyfriends and girlfriends. They have cell phones and use Facebook. They are not behind us socially or technologically. The most visible parts of the Islamic World in our media may be dominated by extremist views and violence, but in reality that is not the case.
In Egypt, large protests yesterday have caused instability to the current repressive regime in Cairo. These protests seem to have been fueled by the recent overthrow of the Tunisian Government, which was another repressive government that failed to provide economic opportunity for its people. Also there have been massive protests in Yemen.
The Egyptian protests will continue for days to come. It does seem that it will come to some sort of climatic end. With the Military now being in the streets of the major cities of Egypt it seems that one way or the other something will happen. Either Mubarak will be ousted and forced into exile* or there will be a violent crushing of the protests on Mubarak's orders.
The correct faction for the United States to align themselves with is the protesters who are seeking a more free and economically progressive Egypt. This is not a question of security, but a question of justice. Choosing to not support a popular uprising goes directly against the founding principles of our nation. The fear of who the Egyptians might choose to lead them democratically shouldn't be a concern. We shouldn't support Dictators when their people seek liberty.
It is a mentality that is left over from the Cold War. A Dictator is ok as long as he is 'our guy.' The principles of our country aren't important as long as a countries ruler is friendly or at least an enemy of an enemy. The idea that protecting our self interest in case of some sort of global war is not only unnecessary, but entirely unjust. The fear is that if the people of Egypt or the Middle East at large are given popular sovereignty they will cause change that will be hostile to the U.S.
It seems to me that the fear of actual Democracy in the Middle East is not only hypocritical, but also unfounded. If the people of the Middle East choose to elect governments that will be hostile to the West, so be it. I don't think that will be the case in most cases. I think there is some sort of rationalization for the west to allow Dictatorships to continue in the Middle East. Also, I think there is a sort of 'Chalabi effect' that those nationals and Ex-patriots of Middle Eastern countries are feeding information to Western Governments and Media about the results of Democracy to reach their own ends.
Ultimately, there should be justice in Egypt. That should be the main interest of the United States. It should not be the small bit of self interest that Egypt controls. If all this results in a new Egypt that is not so friendly to the United States that doesn't matter. It should be up to the people of Egypt to decide who their rulers should be.
Thanks for reading and please comment.
-Michael
*I fear the U.S. will provide him exile.
The people of the Middle East are not different than you and I. It is an obvious statement, I know, however I feel it is easy to fall into the trap of looking at foreign peoples as a large clump that are just different. It just isn't the case. There are boyfriends and girlfriends. They have cell phones and use Facebook. They are not behind us socially or technologically. The most visible parts of the Islamic World in our media may be dominated by extremist views and violence, but in reality that is not the case.
In Egypt, large protests yesterday have caused instability to the current repressive regime in Cairo. These protests seem to have been fueled by the recent overthrow of the Tunisian Government, which was another repressive government that failed to provide economic opportunity for its people. Also there have been massive protests in Yemen.
The Egyptian protests will continue for days to come. It does seem that it will come to some sort of climatic end. With the Military now being in the streets of the major cities of Egypt it seems that one way or the other something will happen. Either Mubarak will be ousted and forced into exile* or there will be a violent crushing of the protests on Mubarak's orders.
The correct faction for the United States to align themselves with is the protesters who are seeking a more free and economically progressive Egypt. This is not a question of security, but a question of justice. Choosing to not support a popular uprising goes directly against the founding principles of our nation. The fear of who the Egyptians might choose to lead them democratically shouldn't be a concern. We shouldn't support Dictators when their people seek liberty.
It is a mentality that is left over from the Cold War. A Dictator is ok as long as he is 'our guy.' The principles of our country aren't important as long as a countries ruler is friendly or at least an enemy of an enemy. The idea that protecting our self interest in case of some sort of global war is not only unnecessary, but entirely unjust. The fear is that if the people of Egypt or the Middle East at large are given popular sovereignty they will cause change that will be hostile to the U.S.
It seems to me that the fear of actual Democracy in the Middle East is not only hypocritical, but also unfounded. If the people of the Middle East choose to elect governments that will be hostile to the West, so be it. I don't think that will be the case in most cases. I think there is some sort of rationalization for the west to allow Dictatorships to continue in the Middle East. Also, I think there is a sort of 'Chalabi effect' that those nationals and Ex-patriots of Middle Eastern countries are feeding information to Western Governments and Media about the results of Democracy to reach their own ends.
Ultimately, there should be justice in Egypt. That should be the main interest of the United States. It should not be the small bit of self interest that Egypt controls. If all this results in a new Egypt that is not so friendly to the United States that doesn't matter. It should be up to the people of Egypt to decide who their rulers should be.
Thanks for reading and please comment.
-Michael
*I fear the U.S. will provide him exile.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Special Comment- The Other Side Is Not The Enemy
It has been out of hand for quite some time now. The political discussions in this country are no longer intelligent, articulate and reasoned, but rather more of an incitement of violence against the other side because they are horrible people out to destroy the country. I think a lot of people have feared that the rhetoric of the past few years would lead to violent acts against the government. Yesterday's attack in Tuscan is the most stark act of political terrorism in recent times, but it certainly isn't alone. An assassination of an abortion doctor, an attempted bombing at a Mosque, and a man crashing a plane into an IRS office are just a few attacks since the 2008 presidential campaign.
It is really a shame that political leaders and those who have a cable news platform play on our fears and turn the smallest piece of legislation into socialism or fascism. Change is very gradual with our system of Government. No matter how big one parties victory is in an election, they will not be able to make sweeping changes. One Congress can never change the economic system or turn the United States into a police State. It was made that way in a stroke of brilliance by the Founders just in case idiots got in charge and had influence. Right now, it seems as though idiots and fear mongers are in charge.
No matter what Glenn Beck or Keith Olberman says, the opposing political view point is not out to destroy the country and even if they were set on doing that, they couldn't. Pushing the view that the other side politically is the enemy rather than other countrymen who have different views on what is best for the country is in reality an incitement of violence. Those with platforms to influence people shouldn't preach fear and hatred unless they want some of their followers to act desperately and resort violence.
It's not fair to entirely blame those who have created the dangerous rhetoric, however there is plenty of blood to go onto their hands from Yesterday's shooting and the prior acts of terrorism. Neither side is innocent. It is time for our leaders to stop this. We don't need to call each other Hitler on the Senate floor. The slightest bit of government regulation is not Socialism. It is time to stop the use of big and dangerous words which don't really mean anything, but scare the masses. The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and murder of six innocent people caught in the middles of this nonsense should be a wake up call to the political and media leadership in this country. It is time to turn the rhetoric ship around and return to a somewhat civilized and informed discourse.
It is really a shame that political leaders and those who have a cable news platform play on our fears and turn the smallest piece of legislation into socialism or fascism. Change is very gradual with our system of Government. No matter how big one parties victory is in an election, they will not be able to make sweeping changes. One Congress can never change the economic system or turn the United States into a police State. It was made that way in a stroke of brilliance by the Founders just in case idiots got in charge and had influence. Right now, it seems as though idiots and fear mongers are in charge.
No matter what Glenn Beck or Keith Olberman says, the opposing political view point is not out to destroy the country and even if they were set on doing that, they couldn't. Pushing the view that the other side politically is the enemy rather than other countrymen who have different views on what is best for the country is in reality an incitement of violence. Those with platforms to influence people shouldn't preach fear and hatred unless they want some of their followers to act desperately and resort violence.
It's not fair to entirely blame those who have created the dangerous rhetoric, however there is plenty of blood to go onto their hands from Yesterday's shooting and the prior acts of terrorism. Neither side is innocent. It is time for our leaders to stop this. We don't need to call each other Hitler on the Senate floor. The slightest bit of government regulation is not Socialism. It is time to stop the use of big and dangerous words which don't really mean anything, but scare the masses. The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and murder of six innocent people caught in the middles of this nonsense should be a wake up call to the political and media leadership in this country. It is time to turn the rhetoric ship around and return to a somewhat civilized and informed discourse.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Special Comment- The NFL and Concussions
It has been the topic of much discussion lately. The NFL's policy on hits to the head and neck of 'defenseless' players. The policy hasn't been changed at all though. The punishment for illegal hits in-game is absolutely identical to what it had been before. The change has been made off the field with the 'devastating' hits causing suspensions and heavier fines than before.
I don't disagree with the change in enforcement of the rules. The serious problems that concussions cause and will cause have become clear in the past decade. The NFL has been proactive in addressing the issue and this is the next step. Now, whether or not this is to protect the league image or to protect the players is a different question. I tend to think it is more of the prior.
While this may be a step to reduce the types of dangerous hits that are causing concussions, it certainly isn't going to prevent them entirely. The fact is that most DBs and WRs are roughly the same height. Most will be between about 5'10" and 6'2"*. So, head-to-head collisions will continue to occur. Also given the way that bodies can shift position so quickly, Defensive Backs who may have their hits lined up legally may end up making an illegal hit due to a Receiver bracing for impact.
Then there is the possibility of unintended consequences. If defenders are aiming lower does that mean more ankle and knee injuries for Receivers? Or could it mean more knees to the heads of defender causing concussions that way?
I don't think the NFL can legislate this problem away. I honestly believe concussions will continue to be a major issue with football given the current equipment. I don't really know what the best solution will be, but I do believe the helmet and padding needs to change.
There are lots of ideas out there. Some dumb like Joe Paterno suggesting getting rid of the face mask If you want things to get worse that's a good idea. I mean lets encourage players to lower their head and use their helmet. With no face mask that would just be reflex of players, because no body wants to break their nose on top of their concussion. There is also the idea of getting rid of padding and helmets all together like rugby. No protection for a players head means a player can't use his head as a weapon and will just naturally try to protect their own head. Therefore, the number of concussion would likely be lower. Would that actually work in American football? I don't know.
I don't really know how the padding and helmet could be changed to help alleviate this problem, but I know he current pads and helmets do virtually nothing protect players and may even exacerbate the problem. Maybe giant helmets like Dark Helmet. I just can't really say, but I know if the NFL made an effort to they could find a safer system of padding.
Thanks for reading and please comment.
-Michael
*I know there are some wide receivers who are 6'6", but when they brace for a hit they shrink pretty damn fast.
I don't disagree with the change in enforcement of the rules. The serious problems that concussions cause and will cause have become clear in the past decade. The NFL has been proactive in addressing the issue and this is the next step. Now, whether or not this is to protect the league image or to protect the players is a different question. I tend to think it is more of the prior.
While this may be a step to reduce the types of dangerous hits that are causing concussions, it certainly isn't going to prevent them entirely. The fact is that most DBs and WRs are roughly the same height. Most will be between about 5'10" and 6'2"*. So, head-to-head collisions will continue to occur. Also given the way that bodies can shift position so quickly, Defensive Backs who may have their hits lined up legally may end up making an illegal hit due to a Receiver bracing for impact.
Then there is the possibility of unintended consequences. If defenders are aiming lower does that mean more ankle and knee injuries for Receivers? Or could it mean more knees to the heads of defender causing concussions that way?
I don't think the NFL can legislate this problem away. I honestly believe concussions will continue to be a major issue with football given the current equipment. I don't really know what the best solution will be, but I do believe the helmet and padding needs to change.
There are lots of ideas out there. Some dumb like Joe Paterno suggesting getting rid of the face mask If you want things to get worse that's a good idea. I mean lets encourage players to lower their head and use their helmet. With no face mask that would just be reflex of players, because no body wants to break their nose on top of their concussion. There is also the idea of getting rid of padding and helmets all together like rugby. No protection for a players head means a player can't use his head as a weapon and will just naturally try to protect their own head. Therefore, the number of concussion would likely be lower. Would that actually work in American football? I don't know.
I don't really know how the padding and helmet could be changed to help alleviate this problem, but I know he current pads and helmets do virtually nothing protect players and may even exacerbate the problem. Maybe giant helmets like Dark Helmet. I just can't really say, but I know if the NFL made an effort to they could find a safer system of padding.
Thanks for reading and please comment.
-Michael
*I know there are some wide receivers who are 6'6", but when they brace for a hit they shrink pretty damn fast.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Special Comment- Call of Duty: Black Ops Wishlist
Single Player
Campaign- My primary concern is the length of the campaign. Modern Warfare 2 had an excellent campaign, but it was very short. It only took me about six hours of playing time to complete it the first time around. That was probably the most disappointing thing about MW2 for me. Treyarch made a good campaign in both length and quality with World at War, but it did lack the excitement of the Modern Warfares since the playable characters were just infantry men. This time the playable characters will be specialists, which will likely be a huge improvement for Treyarch.
Veteran Difficulty- Veteran difficulty was nearly impossible on World at War. It's not that I don't expect Veteran Difficulty to be really fucking hard, it's just that World at War was ridiculous even for the difficulty level. Perhaps the worst problem with the Veteran Difficulty in WaW was the grenades. It just seemed like as soon as you stopped moving to take cover there were three grenades at your feet. So, it would end up either get killed by a grenade or move and get shot and killed. Suffice to say, I have yet to beat the campaign in WaW on veteran difficulty level. Every once in a while, I put it back in and advance a few missions before I get frustrated and quit again. So, basically my wish here is to make Veteran Difficulty actually doable.
Side Games- Nazi Zombies in World at War was one of the most fun side games I've ever played. It was a blast and bringing it back as "Communist Zombies" would be my preference. I would also love to see more Spec Ops, but if it is one or the other than I would I have to go with Zombies. Spec Ops would be a nice addition especially since Modern Warfare 3 is in limbo and it provided quick, fun, and challenging missions as a side to the primary story. I guess I just want a side game that is fun and co-operative.
Multiplayer
Don't try to fix MW2- Just trying to fix all the problems that came along with MW2 isn't necessarily going to produce a good multiplayer game. Treyarch needs to focus on making a good online game while taking lessons from the issues of MW2 and WaW. Plain and simple, a shit game that isn't MW2 is still a shit game. Don't worry about fixing every little issue that there has been in MW2. Make a good and fun multiplayer game and worry about the people who use exploits later, because absolutely no matter what Treyarch does there will be people who will find and use glitches and exploits.
Perks- There are 3 perks that are must-go: Commando, Danger Close, and One Man Army. Commando and Danger Close are generally unbalanced and greatly exploited. One Man Army is a useless perk unless someone using an exploit with it. Otherwise be creative and try to avoid making anything unbalanced or easily exploited.
Killstreaks- I am actually a fan of customizable killstreaks. It adds a new element of strategy into multiplayer that adds to my enjoyment. Also being able to set low or high kill streaks allows one to adjust them to his or her game-play style and/or talent level. I don't feel the issue of camping for killstreaks is made worse by making the killstreaks customizable. When the killstreaks were fixed people still camped for their seven kill streak. I'm also not really a fan of the idea of adding cumulative killstreaks. My suggestion would be making playing the objective as rewarded as kills. I could be as simple as counting securing the objective to one's killstreak or making unique rewards for actually playing the objective.
In Modern Warfare 2, I felt the killstreaks themselves were quite good. Lots of people like to bitch about how unbalanced they are, but I strongly disagree with that. Most Air Support is pretty easy to take down. Also, the perk Cold Blooded entirely counter acts most air support. On top of that a player can just hide inside until the air support is gone if he or she is opposed to using the prior two options. So, I'd like to see Treyarch keep air support about the same as it has been in MW2. Just get rid of Nuke to get rid of the nuke boosters.
Weapons- All I really want to see with the weapons is balance. This is something Modern Warfare 2 did very well, but World at War absolutely failed at. Each gun should have its positive aspects as well as its drawbacks. One should not be at an advantage for using a particular gun. A player should be able to pick a weapon to suit his or her play style and not have to worry about the other players having a tremendous advantage because of their gun.
Rapid response and Community Involvement- Something that the developers of Modern Warfare 2 haven't been great at is patching major problems quickly. I understand that a patch should be tested and it should be made sure it doesn't cause worse problems than what it is fixing. It is just that it has taken months for major glitches and exploits to get fixed. At the moment One Man Army noob tubes are making MW2 nearly unplayable and Infinity Ward has promised a patch 'is in the pipeline' for months, but it still hasn't arrived. Treyarch should listen to community complaints and find quick solutions to major issues with their game. It is not possible to design a game that will be free of glitches and exploits, but it should be Treyarch's goal to fix those issues quickly as possible.
Camping- This is a difficult issue to really address without revamping the entire Call of Duty series. Camping is an issue in any first person shooter and seems to be a particular issue in Call of Duty. This is the primary issue for me in MW2 right now and the reason why I rarely play it anymore. Everytime I play now it seems the lobby is filled with campers and noobtubers and that gets really old fast. Before I get to into bashing MW2 on this issue, here are some of my suggestions for Black Ops to address the issue of camping:
No More claymores- Seriously, they are just annoying and provide to much incentive for a play to just hide behind them. At least make it so one player can only have one out at a time.
Value objectives- Make objectives count towards a player's killstreak or make the XP one gets for capturing an objective substantially greater than a kill.
XP based on Team success- Significantly nerf the XP a player receives if their team loses the game.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really spent a lot of time bashing Modern Warfare in this one, but really I don't think it's a bad game. I no longer enjoy playing it, but that is almost entirely due to the community playing the game, not the game itself.
Thanks for reading.
-Michael
Campaign- My primary concern is the length of the campaign. Modern Warfare 2 had an excellent campaign, but it was very short. It only took me about six hours of playing time to complete it the first time around. That was probably the most disappointing thing about MW2 for me. Treyarch made a good campaign in both length and quality with World at War, but it did lack the excitement of the Modern Warfares since the playable characters were just infantry men. This time the playable characters will be specialists, which will likely be a huge improvement for Treyarch.
Veteran Difficulty- Veteran difficulty was nearly impossible on World at War. It's not that I don't expect Veteran Difficulty to be really fucking hard, it's just that World at War was ridiculous even for the difficulty level. Perhaps the worst problem with the Veteran Difficulty in WaW was the grenades. It just seemed like as soon as you stopped moving to take cover there were three grenades at your feet. So, it would end up either get killed by a grenade or move and get shot and killed. Suffice to say, I have yet to beat the campaign in WaW on veteran difficulty level. Every once in a while, I put it back in and advance a few missions before I get frustrated and quit again. So, basically my wish here is to make Veteran Difficulty actually doable.
Side Games- Nazi Zombies in World at War was one of the most fun side games I've ever played. It was a blast and bringing it back as "Communist Zombies" would be my preference. I would also love to see more Spec Ops, but if it is one or the other than I would I have to go with Zombies. Spec Ops would be a nice addition especially since Modern Warfare 3 is in limbo and it provided quick, fun, and challenging missions as a side to the primary story. I guess I just want a side game that is fun and co-operative.
Multiplayer
Don't try to fix MW2- Just trying to fix all the problems that came along with MW2 isn't necessarily going to produce a good multiplayer game. Treyarch needs to focus on making a good online game while taking lessons from the issues of MW2 and WaW. Plain and simple, a shit game that isn't MW2 is still a shit game. Don't worry about fixing every little issue that there has been in MW2. Make a good and fun multiplayer game and worry about the people who use exploits later, because absolutely no matter what Treyarch does there will be people who will find and use glitches and exploits.
Perks- There are 3 perks that are must-go: Commando, Danger Close, and One Man Army. Commando and Danger Close are generally unbalanced and greatly exploited. One Man Army is a useless perk unless someone using an exploit with it. Otherwise be creative and try to avoid making anything unbalanced or easily exploited.
Killstreaks- I am actually a fan of customizable killstreaks. It adds a new element of strategy into multiplayer that adds to my enjoyment. Also being able to set low or high kill streaks allows one to adjust them to his or her game-play style and/or talent level. I don't feel the issue of camping for killstreaks is made worse by making the killstreaks customizable. When the killstreaks were fixed people still camped for their seven kill streak. I'm also not really a fan of the idea of adding cumulative killstreaks. My suggestion would be making playing the objective as rewarded as kills. I could be as simple as counting securing the objective to one's killstreak or making unique rewards for actually playing the objective.
In Modern Warfare 2, I felt the killstreaks themselves were quite good. Lots of people like to bitch about how unbalanced they are, but I strongly disagree with that. Most Air Support is pretty easy to take down. Also, the perk Cold Blooded entirely counter acts most air support. On top of that a player can just hide inside until the air support is gone if he or she is opposed to using the prior two options. So, I'd like to see Treyarch keep air support about the same as it has been in MW2. Just get rid of Nuke to get rid of the nuke boosters.
Weapons- All I really want to see with the weapons is balance. This is something Modern Warfare 2 did very well, but World at War absolutely failed at. Each gun should have its positive aspects as well as its drawbacks. One should not be at an advantage for using a particular gun. A player should be able to pick a weapon to suit his or her play style and not have to worry about the other players having a tremendous advantage because of their gun.
Rapid response and Community Involvement- Something that the developers of Modern Warfare 2 haven't been great at is patching major problems quickly. I understand that a patch should be tested and it should be made sure it doesn't cause worse problems than what it is fixing. It is just that it has taken months for major glitches and exploits to get fixed. At the moment One Man Army noob tubes are making MW2 nearly unplayable and Infinity Ward has promised a patch 'is in the pipeline' for months, but it still hasn't arrived. Treyarch should listen to community complaints and find quick solutions to major issues with their game. It is not possible to design a game that will be free of glitches and exploits, but it should be Treyarch's goal to fix those issues quickly as possible.
Camping- This is a difficult issue to really address without revamping the entire Call of Duty series. Camping is an issue in any first person shooter and seems to be a particular issue in Call of Duty. This is the primary issue for me in MW2 right now and the reason why I rarely play it anymore. Everytime I play now it seems the lobby is filled with campers and noobtubers and that gets really old fast. Before I get to into bashing MW2 on this issue, here are some of my suggestions for Black Ops to address the issue of camping:
No More claymores- Seriously, they are just annoying and provide to much incentive for a play to just hide behind them. At least make it so one player can only have one out at a time.
Value objectives- Make objectives count towards a player's killstreak or make the XP one gets for capturing an objective substantially greater than a kill.
XP based on Team success- Significantly nerf the XP a player receives if their team loses the game.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really spent a lot of time bashing Modern Warfare in this one, but really I don't think it's a bad game. I no longer enjoy playing it, but that is almost entirely due to the community playing the game, not the game itself.
Thanks for reading.
-Michael
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Special Comment: The Future of U.S. Soccer
Following the United States Men’s Soccer Team's performance at this years World Cup, I cannot help put wonder what's next for U.S. Soccer. This team's successes were tremendous, but it continued the failings that have haunted American soccer for quite sometime. This team, undoubtly the best
It is a bit of a loaded question, but I believe that this team failed to live up to its potential. I'm not claiming that this could have or should have won the World Cup. I am saying that their performance in the
The Game against
That was it. The
The primary culprit for the
The midfielders are certainly not without fault of their own. While the midfield is filled with the best the
The first issue that comes up after any World Cup is what to do with the Manager. I have tremendous respect for Bob Bradley and believe he has done an excellent job with this team. That being said I do not believe his contract should be renewed when it expires at the end of this year. Bradley has advanced the cause of
Bob Bradley is gone. Now what? I believe the U.S. Soccer Federation needs to look for managers that don't come from the American soccer school of thought, but rather
Another problem facing U.S soccer becoming elite is the system itself. The apparatus for player discovery and development is very poor in the
Having fourteen year old soccer players turn professional may seem strange to common American sensibilities, but it is the way of international soccer. High School, club, and College soccer puts
If the system in the
It is important to keep MLS viable, but it is also important to expand professional soccer in the
This second division could be a USL that is put into a position to be a more viable league. It could be a new league that would have new franchises in larger markets than the USL. An affiliation of whatever becomes the 2nd division and MLS is very important and could be done in a few ways. It could be done like what is in Baseball or Hockey where each MLS franchise has their own farm team in the 2nd division. While that would be a way to do it, I believe the preferable way to have an affiliation between these two leagues would be a promotion/relegation alignment. In this alignment the top two teams from the 2nd division move up to MLS at the end of each season and the bottom two teams from MLS would be relegated to the 2nd division. I believe it would add credibility to the new league and provide greater competition.
MLS must also recognize that it will be little more that a stepping stone for the best American players. It will never be able to compete with the major European leagues and obstructing the moves of Americans to those league hurts American soccer and in turn the MLS itself.
If the
Thanks for reading and if you have made it this far why not leave a comment.
-Michael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)