The Screaming Viking

Heard a song off the the new AC/DC album today…

It kicks ass, same AC/DC you grew up with.

Black Ice is the album, out October 20th

I didn’t watch the whole speech last night, the Sarge was lookin pretty cold and ready for bed, but from what I did watch he seems like a good speaker… such high praise indeed.

Is there really any more that can be said about a presidential delegate?  You can look at his record for voting, but that will most likely tell you what party he’s affiliated with and seldom more.  You can try to find sound clips of things they say and make them sound more haneous than they really were…but whom of us would fair well under such intense scrutiny?  The words coming out of his mouth most certainlly are not his own, there is a staff of 50 speech writers (no I don’t actually know how many there are).  I’m sure he has to approve it and give some input, but overall they are someone elses’s words.

He’s a good speaker…

Maybe that’s all the president should really be, a good speaker.  I don’t expect him to stand in front of NATO and deliver his own words, I expect him to deliver my words…our words, the words of the american people.  I don’t want him making stuff up on the fly…I don’t want him influenced by his party or lobbiest, I want someone with his finger on the pulse of the nation.

Maybe the role of the president should be revised a bit.  Maybe the president should be the single voice we present to the outside world, but not have a lot to do behind the scenes.  He should have veto power, give rousing speeches…but not introduce legislation.  He could back a specific bill…but not advertise it as his own.  He should be an accountant for america…checking our ledger sheet and making sure we don’t over spend and under produce.  He should not be expected to be the leader of our military, how can a man with no tactical training be expected to know when we should strike and when we should pull back?  It’s a much different time now than it was when this country was built.  The president had military experience, and historically…we like our military leaders.  Some of the best though…had little to no military experience.  That right there should tell you something.

I must admit…I am tempted to vote.  His delivery is striking, his platform interesting and his words inviting.  I find my beliefs suddenly questioned.  There is a candidate that I would support…but on the whole, I think the system is broken and do not support it.  Do I support a broken system and vote for the guy I would support?  Or do I stick to my “no participation protest of a broken system” and take the chance that my man will not get elected?  I by no means think my single vote matters, or that this state even matters…but I do think Barak matters.

I think having a “black” president will in and of itself inspire some form of change in this country.  Add to that what he could potentially do in office…and over all I think it’s a good thing.  I truely believe that this is the first time in the past couple elections that there is a marked difference in the candidates.  I think the Democrates feel “now” “hip” and “cool” while the republicans reak of being “stale” “old” and “dated”.

It will be a battle of morals for sure, should I vote…shouldn’t I vote?  The system is busted…but maybe voting for change would fix it?  Have I comprimised my morals and beliefs by supporting a broken system even if that support leads to change?  In the end, there isn’t going to be all that much “change”.  We might get more jobs, balance the budget and usher in an era of prosperity never before seen by this nation…but the underlying system that allowed it to get fucked up in the first place will remain.  Until the foundation is properly laid..the structure is always prone to collapse.

The government is big on busting up monopolies…why doesn’t it bust up our party system?  Surely that is the biggest monopoly the US has ever seen.

Choosing not to vote is still a vote.

I’m a bit torn on this, I think in some cases it’s a good idea…but it has to be carefully balanced so that it doesn’t slow down an already slow game. Here are the boundries I found here:

Begins with series that open Thursday. Applies to home run calls: fair or foul, whether the ball left the playing field, whether there was fan interference. Decision whether to use replay is made by umpire crew chief. After reviewing video collected at Major League Baseball Advance Media in New York, the crew chief decides whether call should be reversed.

IMO, and I probaby in the opinons of most people, it should never be used for balls and strikes.  Beyond that, I think it should follow the NFL model as close as possible.  Both teams get 1 challenge, if it is successful they get a 2nd.  In the 9th inning (and later) all replay calls come from the “booth”.  If they leave it in the hands of the officials they are going to end up with a situation like the NFL had years ago where every call was looked at.

I think my dog is sick..he’s “coughing” quite a bit.  I get to take him to the vet today…WHOOO HOOO! thought I was done with that bullshit.

There was an issue with the webhost for a little bit this early afternoon.  I’ve no idea what it was, but they have apparently resolved it rather quickly.

———–

Some poor kid isn’t being allowed to play ball…seemingly because he’s too good.  Here is some commentary on the topic.

The best quote from the commentary is:

Seriously, are we actively trying to create the squeezably soft Cottonelle Generation? Because no kid whose old man wouldn’t let him face a 40-mile-an-hour fastball is going to grow up to knock out the gun batteries atop Pointe du Hoc.

Pointe du Hoc was a key fortification over Normandy.

I can’t imagin being part of a team that would decide not to play another team because one player was “too good”.  Inspite of what the coach said…my kid had damn well better grab a bat and stand in the box against the little rocket.  Had I been the coach of the rocket’s team, I wouldn’t have conceeded to him playing 2nd base for a game, he’d have stood right on that mound and would for every game up till they fired me.

The most retarded part about this whole thing is that people are not going to have the good sense to just shut up and play the game.  Lawyers are going to get involved…and it’s going to turn in to a god damn circus.  What should have happened (like a guy at work said) is the kid should have been bumped up a level and everyone could play against solid competition.  He doesn’t get any better by playing with a bunch of kids that he dominates, and the other kids don’t get any better by being dominated constantly.

Kid’s sports always get screwed up when parents get involved.