" We Got A Good Paul Simon Song Out Of It...And Now It's Time To Let It Go..."

Pop quiz.

Name one of the most confusing things ever invented.

Scroll down when you give up.


















Iced tea.






I mean, wtf?

Years ago, the witty and watermelon whacking wack job Gallagher, observed, in one of his stand up routines, that iced tea, despite its obvious ability to refresh and/or hydrate, was a beverage not without its contradictions.

First, you make it hot.

Then, you make it cold.

Then, you put sugar in it to make it sweet.

Then, you put lemon in it to make it sour.

Admittedly, it's arguable that you don't necessarily want to accept, as gospel, any perspective that comes from a guy who makes his living smashing large pieces of fruit with a sledge hammer, but I think anyone putting aside their instinctive impulse to feel sorry for melons (could this be the origin of the word "melancholy"?)can see the logic behind the illogic of the whole ice tea presentation.

I was reminded of that particular pekoe paradox when I perused the play by play of last night's pugilistic presentation.

Alliteration, as always, an annoying affectation.


DENVER – Not even his best training camp in years could help Quinton “Rampage” Jackson lift the UFC light heavyweight title from Jon “Bones” Jones.

Jones neutralized Jackson’s offense, softened him with kicks and then finished him at 1:14 of the fourth round with a rear-naked choke in the main event of UFC 135 at the Pepsi Center. Jones opened a cut over Jackson’s right eye in the third round with an elbow, then quickly finished him with the choke in the fourth.

Jackson, a former champion, had spent more than two months training in Denver, working harder than he had in a long time, by his own admission. But he still had no answer for Jones’ length and varied attack.

Jones’ striking was even a factor.

“He insulted my striking and said I had no punching power,” Jones said. “I got together with Mike Winkeljohn to work on my striking to try to prove a point.”

Jackson, who staged a psychological battle against Jones leading up to the fight, came away impressed.

“I thought it was hype, but he’s the real thing,” said Jackson, who said he was better than he’s ever been.”

The Hall of Fame career of former UFC welterweight champion Matt Hughes may have come to an end when he was stopped at the end of the first round by Josh Koscheck.

Hughes said after the fight, “I’m not retiring, but I’m going to tell the UFC to put me up on the shelf and we’ll see what happens after that.”

Koscheck cracked Hughes with a right late in the round that wobbled the former champion, who is on the final fight on his contract. Koscheck chased Hughes around the ring, landing hard rights, as Hughes retreated trying to clear his head.

Hughes finally went down and Koscheck pounded him out. Referee Mario Yamasaki stopped it at 4:59, just as the horn sounded to end the first round.

“I’m growing as a fighter and as a person,” said Koscheck, in his first bout back after losing a title challenge against Georges St. Pierre last December.

The hard-hitting Mark Hunt isn’t known for his conditioning, but he was in far better shape than Ben Rothwell and it and his power led to a unanimous decision. Judges had it 30-27, 29-28 and 29-27 for Hunt. Yahoo! Sports had Hunt, 29-27.

Hunt picked Rothwell apart with punches and, by the midpoint of the third round, Rothwell could barely pick himself off the canvas.

Hunt showed a more versatile grappling game and was able to connect with enough shots to open a large cut near Rothwell’s right eye.

Hunt outlanded Rothwell 90-20, according to CompuStrike. Hunt connected on 58 of 85 shots on the ground.

Travis Browne handled Rob Broughton and won a unanimous three-round decision in a fight that was more of a letdown than a reputation builder. Browne was coming off an impressive victory over Stefan Struve, but though he won all three rounds, he didn’t exactly stamp himself as a top contender.

I’m actually disappointed I didn’t finish him off. He’s a really tough guy. For some reason I just couldn’t take him out,” Browne said.



In the spirit of full disclosure, I freely admit that I'm not, and have never been, a sports kind of guy.

I played football and Little League as a kid, can enjoy a good four quarters or nine innings with the best of em', don't own any Michael Buble' CD's and can offer references from past wives that I am committedly and definably heterosexual (hey, they weren't marrying me for my money, know what I mean, know what I mean?).

But on a Sunday afternoon, you're more likely to find me watching TCM's tribute to John Garfield as opposed to whatever the Saints or Tigers or Bears (oh, my) are up to.

And, dating all the way back to childhood, when my father would settle into the recliner, to the Gillette Company's delight, for yet another televised "Friday Night At The Fights", I have never connected with the community who enjoys the connecting of fist to face.

Even as a kid, the dusty, old joke kept popping up in reaction to the punching.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do that"

"So, don't do that."

All these years later, I'm crystal clear in my confusion.

I mean, wtf?

A "sport" whose sole purpose is to physically damage another person to the point where that person is unable to get up off the floor?

Either at the moment or, even worse, never ever again?

Granted, there was a time in the history of man that gathering around to watch two guys go ten rounds in fist city appealed to the masses and had some measure of entertainment value.

Of course, there was a time in the history of man when accepted medical procedure was to bleed people for pretty much whatever ailed them, too.

We pretty much evolved past that.

We're still bleeding people for entertainment, though.

And lest I be tagged with some undeserved label of bleeding heart-ism, let me offer you this.

If we're going to continue to condone, let alone celebrate, the brain damaging competition, then let's put it to a practical use.

The whole presidential candidate debate process is a total snore.

And I totally think Bachmann could take either Perry or Romney in three rounds.

"...Illusion...Delusion...Confusion...Six of One..."

Check this out.

If you look intently at the picture to the left and then move your head back and forth in a sort of "quick Forrest Gump" right then left kind of motion, you'll likely see something cool.

In case it doesn't work for you (and some people, mostly moderates, refuse to try to see things from either the right OR the left), here's what I saw when I did it.

The circle in the center will move independently from the rest of the picture.

Wow.

Amaze your friends.

Dazzle your family.

Annoy any moderates within the sound of your voice.

While you're at it, check this one out, too.

Stare intently at this one while not moving your head at all.

Nothing happens, right?

Exactly.

"...Show Me The Money....And Then Don't Be Surprised If I Don't Want To Share It..."

Today's strange bedfellows.

Sherrod Brown.

Jerry McGuire.

Read on.

Washington (CNN) -- Should members of Congress cut their salaries
or raise the age at which they can draw a congressional pension when
many Americans are making personal sacrifices during the country's
prolonged economic crisis?

Sen. Sherrod Brown thinks so.

In April, the Ohio Democrat introduced the Shared Retirement Sacrifice
Act of 2011, which would require lawmakers to wait until the age of 66
to collect their pensions. Currently, lawmakers can retire as early as 50
with a full pension depending on how long they served.

"The reason I introduced my bill ... on this shared sacrifice in terms
of retirement age is I hear lots of members of Congress, especially,
particularly conservative members of Congress, say we should raise
the retirement age for Social Security," Brown said on CNN's "American
Morning."

Brown points to the fact that a member of Congress who gets elected
at 35 and retires at 55 can draw a pretty good pension then while other
Americans can't draw Social Security benefits until they reach 66.

"So, my thought there was that members of Congress should not be
able to get their pension, no matter how many years of service they
had; they should get no pension until any earlier than a Social Security
beneficiary should get theirs," he said.

In 2009, there were 455 retired members of Congress drawing a federal
pension based fully or in part on their congressional service in 2009,
according to a Congressional Research Service report released in
January.

Of that number, 275 were in office before 1984 and did not pay into
Social Security nor can they collect benefits. They received an average
yearly pension of $69,012 in 2009.

Amendments to the Social Security Act in 1983 required members of
Congress to pay into Social Security after January 1, 1984. The other
180 retired members are covered by both the old and new pension plans
and collected an annual pension of $40,140 in 2009.

Under both systems, members of Congress are eligible for a pension at
age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service, according to
the Congressional Research Service report. Members are eligible for a
pension at 50 if they have 20 years under their belt, or at any age after
completing 25 years of service, the report added.

Brown said it's important that lawmakers "sort of align as much as
possible their lives with the people who we represent, so we understand
things better and, you know, we still make more money than most
people, of course."

"But, at least, we ought to share some of the sacrifice better than we
do," he added.

On Thursday, a group of five taxpayer advocacy organizations sent
a letter to the 12 members of the deficit-reduction super committee
charged with a long-term debt reduction plan, calling for a 10% pay cut
for members of Congress, which it said would save $100 million over 10
years.

"This action is especially important at a time when many Americans
have seen their wages flatten out or decline, and a large number are
unemployed," the groups wrote in a letter.

The five groups were Taxpayers Protection Alliance, National Taxpayers
Union, Center for Fiscal Accountability, Our Generation and Americans
for Tax Reform.

Brown acknowledges the challenges in getting such a bill passed.

"I don't think that members of Congress will vote to pass that. I don't
think that probably will happen here any more than my idea to raise the
retirement age for members of Congress will pass," he said.

During the showdown over a possible government shutdown earlier
this year, the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent that would
withhold pay from Congress and the president if the shutdown occurred.

Members of Congress and the president fall under mandatory spending,
meaning they would get their paychecks during a shutdown while federal
workers who weren't considered mandatory would not.

Democratic Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Barbara Boxer of
California introduced the bill in February, arguing that if a government
shutdown occurs, politicians should "feel the pain," too.
Read more about the Senate bill

On April 5, Boxer and Casey called on House Speaker John Boehner,
R-Ohio, to pass a standalone bill in the House of Representatives that
would do the same, but it failed to gain traction.

Other efforts at enacting pay cuts for Congress, which hasn't taken such
action since the depths of the Great Depression in 1933, have failed to
get out of committee.

Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Virginia, sponsored legislation in January that
would cut members' pay by 10%, beginning in 2013. Griffith's legislation
is awaiting action after being sent to the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, also introduced a bill the same
month that would end automatic salary adjustments for members of
Congress. The bill was referred to the House Rules Committee, where it
has yet to move.

So how much do members of Congress make?

According to Mark Tratos, deputy chief of staff in the Office of Secretary
of the Senate, senators make $174,000 a year. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell both make $193,400.
Over in the House, representatives make $174,000 a year, and the
speaker pulls in $223,500.

That may not be enough for one freshman tea party-backed Republican,
who said he's finding it hard to get by on his salary.

Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wisconsin, known for his stint on MTV's "The Real
World," told a constituent at a town hall meeting in Amery, Wisconsin,
in March that while he is making that high salary, he is "not living off the
hog."

The constituent, who described his own money woes, asked Duffy if he
were willing to take a pay cut. Duffy defended his salary, sharing his own
money problems.

"I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you. With six kids. I still
pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I generally use a
minivan. ... I've got one paycheck. So I struggle to meet my bills right
now," the lawmaker responded.

According to the Census Bureau, the median income for Wisconsin
residents in 2009 was $49,994 -- well below Duffy's salary.
Duffy spokesman Daniel Son said in a statement to the Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel that "our nation faces a real fiscal crisis and

Congressman Duffy is committed to working with his colleagues in
the House to face these challenges head on, not score cheap political
points."

Lawmakers, however, do have expenses many average Americans don't
such as maintaining a residence in their home district and affording a
place to stay while in Washington, a city with hefty housing prices. Many,
including Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, have found a way around that:
sleeping in their Capitol Hill offices.

Others such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, share a house with
other members of Congress.


An online poll related to this issue indicated that out of twenty thousand, give or take, respondents, 94% said they agreed that Congress should take a cut in pay and benefits.

I'm no statistician, but I believe that result gets filed under the category "no shit, Sherlock."

At the same time, no one with even a modest possession of their faculties could possibly believe that will ever happen.

Primarily because to do so would violate one of mankind's more amusing unwritten laws.

I got mine.

Now you go get yours.

The classic opening scenes in the movie "Jerry McGuire" had the sports agent wandering just a little too far off the reservation by writing a heartfelt and bluntly sincere "memo" on the subject of replacing greed and self interest with sacrifice and service to others.

And then committing professional suicide by copying and distributing it to all of his co-workers and managers.

Who all rallied behind him with words of praise and support and congratulations.

Right up to the inevitable moment he got his ass canned.

Old joke.

We're behind you.

So, that in the event we have to turn and run, we'll be in front of you.

It would be easy to dismiss Sherrod Brown's suggestion as grandstanding.

Somehow, and for the life of me I can't tell you why, my instinct is that he is sincere.

It really doesn't matter, though.

Because, as Jerry McGuire discovered, any idea that requires honestly and totally putting others before self usually has only one chance.

An ice cube's.

"...Not Exactly A Healthy Attitude, Wouldn't You Say?..."

Telling moment from last night's debate...

If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.

Paul disagreed with the audience on that front. "No," he responded, noting he practiced medicine before Medicaid when churches took care of medical costs--a comment that drew wide audience applause. "We never turned anybody away from the hospital."

Paul voiced support for legalizing alternative health care and argued that the reason medical costs have skyrocketed is that individuals have stopped taking personal responsibility for their health care.

Though Paul spoke to the larger issues of health care and government-backed health insurance--both pivotal in the 2012 election--the audience's reaction has overshadowed the substance of the exchange between the candidates. And the day after the event, Texas Gov. Rick Perry offered his own criticism of the audience response.

"I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami Herald of the audience reaction after appearing at a breakfast fundraiser in Tampa Tuesday morning.

"We're the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives."

The campaigns for Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann did not immediately respond to The Ticket's request for comment.

Conservative Andrew Sullivan writing for The Daily Beast's The Dish Tuesday noted that the United States obligates society to save someone in an emergency room. "America, moreover, has a law on the books that makes it a crime not to treat and try to save a human being who walks into an emergency room. So we have already made that collective decision and if the GOP wants to revisit it, they can," Sullivan wrote.

Sullivan also decried the audience reaction, writing: "Maybe a tragedy like the death of a feckless twentysomething is inevitable if we are to restrain healthcare costs. But it is still a tragedy. It is not something a decent person cheers."

A chain of inevitability occurred here.

The inevitable result of continued failure of the political process is cynicism.

The inevitable result of continued cynicism is callous disregard.

Last night's audience reaction was the result of continued callous disregard.

Let them eat cake.

Let them die.

And the beat goes on.

"...Because PETA Only Has Time To Look Out For Old Animals...."

"America needs to keep its promise to senior citizens, I talk to them all the time. I love senior citizens, I care about them. My mom is 80 years old and my dad is 87," Bachmann said in an interview Friday on CNN's "John King, USA,"

Apparently, some of the Representative's best friends are old people.

"I Don't Care If He Takes Snooki To Vegas For The Weekend...The Damn Budget Was Balanced..."

Do not adjust your calendars.

It is, in fact, still 2011.

Any confusion is understandable, given that every breathing body that has anything to do with national politics is behaving as if it were already 2012.

The old expression "all politics is retail" is particularly appropriate when you realize that, just like retail stores, the political process has to be out in front of the consumer in order for politicians to get the most bang for your bucks.

Christmas decorations in the Wal Mart in September.

2012 Presidential debates in September 2011.

Potato, patahto.

All of that said, here's what already missing from the upcoming process of choosing the family that will get all the mail for "Occupant" at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Charisma.

Which can often begat enthusiasm.

Which can often begat a sense of purpose, even inspiration about both the political process and what it can, when its better angels are turned loose, accomplish.

All ideological postures put aside for the moment, let's do a quick search of the leading candidates for President of the United States from both the Republican, Democratic and/or Tea Parties.

Set the search on "charisma"....or "inspirational", if you prefer.

Begin scan.

Scan complete.

No results found.

Sounds about right.

Personally, I already knew the results you would find.

I've been scanning them all since all of this began and, even including the incumbent, haven't found a glimmer in the gang of em'.

I was, though, reminded of the disappointing lack of the aforementioned sparkle when I watched the dedication ceremony at Shanksville yesterday.



Charisma, like romance, is an elusive quality. It is not something that can be described, bullet pointed or check listed.

With romance, your partner either gets it or they don't.

Charisma.

You got it.

Or you ain't.

Mr. Clinton from Arkansas has got it.

Always had.

Always will.

And as the knee jerk nay saying party poopers begin sputtering in anticipation of rebutting me with stories of cigars and memories of Monica, I respectfully
suggest you take a breath...

...and then shut up.

Bill Clinton is, far and away, no role model for good behavior.

He is an obviously flawed human being.

From a long line of obviously flawed human beings.

Abraham Lincoln, manic depressive.

Ulysses S. Grant, alcoholic.

Franklin Roosevelt, incorrigible skirt chaser.

John F. Kennedy, incorrigible skirt chaser.

The reason this year's crop of candidates seems lame is because it is.

However well intended they might sincerely be, the plain truth is that they are all, without exception, doing a world class job of, essentially, trying to seduce us by reading from the manual.

We don't want to be read to.

We want to be romanced.

They don't get it.

Bill always got it.

Because Bill's got it.

"Ohhhh....Lonesome Glennnnnn....."

This just in.

Not a big Glenn Beck fan.

I know.

It comes as a shock to me, too.

(Insert smart ass grin and wink here)

As someone who really does try, success or failure notwithstanding, to walk somewhere near the center line, I find Beck's particular brand of snake oil distasteful.

If only because of a nagging, and inevitable, belief that extremism, regardless of its placement extremely right or extremely left of the aforementioned center ultimately impedes whatever progress might be made in solving the problems both sides insist they alone can solve.

But Beck's demagoguery isn't what really turns me off about him.

It's his stunning and, frankly, wearying lack of originality.

Been there, heard that.

It's a style of propagating the propaganda as old as the sands of time.

Not to mention Larry King.

Pick issues that come factory loaded with emotional hot buttons, write and perform the kind of simplistic, primal rhetoric that, without fail, never fails to flip the reactionary switch found in the medullas of God fearing, basically good but, again unfailingly, unsophisticated men, women and children, instilling in them the kind of fear that, again unfailingly, is birthed by ignorance and then serve it up with a brilliantly concocted tasty frosting of charisma.

Add to that, of course, the genius of offering up for sale, on the inevitable merchandise page of the inevitable website, personally monogrammed editions of the hand baskets in which the country is, according to the sermon, most assuredly going to hell.

Bottom, not to mention center, line...

Say what you will about Beck...and Lord knows, we do...his clarion call is, unarguably, not so much new wave as golden oldies.

And, as recently as the late 1950's, was played, purely for entertainment, not on a call to arms trumpet but on a good old fashioned gee-tar.

The 2011 version has a crew cut, coat and tie covered look about it.

But, big ass billboard notwithstanding, Glenn Beck is, ultimately, just another face in the crowd.

"Personally, I Don't Know What The Answer Is...But I Sure As Hell Don't Agree With Yours..."

Did a little sociopolitical experiment tonight.

Flipped back and forth between O'Reilly and Olbermann.

Didn't pay attention to the content as much as the presentation.

And it confirmed what I've addressed before as the problem with O'Reilly and his fellow Foxers.

They don't listen.

Olbermann asked his questions. Then he listened to the entire response. Then he either agreed or disagreed with varying degrees of passion.

O'Reilly asked his questions. Very seldom did ten words come out of the mouth of the guest answering before O'Reilly was talking over him.

Beck, Ingraham, et al.

All equally guilty.

But here's the real cheek chapper.

The rudeness is bad enough.

The content of the interruption is the key.

Always a rebuttal. Seldom an agreement.

And never, without exception, an alternative solution.

After about half an hour of bouncing back and forth, I had an epiphany.

It should become an FCC requirement that any "commentator" who profits from the airing of their program on the public airwaves must provide their own suggestions for solving whatever problem they are debating with their guests and no longer be allowed to simply dismiss, out of hand, the opinions of said guests.

Put simply...any fool can burn down a barn.

I honestly think that if O'Reilly or Beck or Coulter, et al, came back with their own specific suggestion of solution instead of simply nay-saying, even their lack of manners, in the form of constant interruption, could be forgiven.

As it stands, though, they are simply rude.

And not a part of the solution.

That's the problem.

Neither the MSNBC crowd nor the FOX News crowd have a monopoly on passionate adherence to their respective dogmas.

The thing is, though, that Fox seems to have more than its share of the aforementioned barn burners.

Old saying comes to mind.

One mouth.

Two ears.

The right...and the left.

"...Pits...and Pundits....Either Way, Some Chafing Is Inevitable..."

Pop quiz.

What do armpits and Kathy Griffin have in common?

Stand by.

The D list's favorite poster child is on a tear, of late, choosing to forego actually writing any material and simply taking advantage of the mother lode of zingers and bingers being freshened up on a minute by minute basis by the current cast of candidates for high office.

Most notably, in Chatty Kathy's case, those zany Bachmanns.

Here's the latest...

Now that making fun of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann is so yesterday, comedienne Kathy Griffin is going after the Republican presidential hopeful’s husband of 33 years, Marcus Bachmann.

During a recent appearance on Craig Ferguson’s “Late Late Show,” the red-haired television personality took jabs at Marcus Bachmann, who runs a center that uses prayer to turn gays straight again.

“The Bravo special was supposed to be called ‘Pray the Gay Back.’ You get the Marcus Bachmann joke? Marcus Bachmann is one of my new favorite targets, he’s Michele Bachmann’s husband,” Griffin said. (RELATED: Kathy Griffin’s ‘D-List’ Bravo show to go off the air)

Griffin went on to hint that perhaps Marcus Bachmann opposes same-sex couples because he himself is attracted to men.

“Okay, he’s very anti-gay and LGBT rights, and it’s odd, because if you look at him on YouTube, it’s almost as if he himself … or, it’s as if …” Griffin said, trailing off.

Before the former “My Life on the D-List” host could finish her sentence, Ferguson advised the memoir writer to be careful. Starting over, Griffin said Bachmann seems similar to the guys who attend her stand-up acts. A known gay rights activist, Griffin has previously referred to her gay friends as “the gays.”

“I would say that Marcus Bachmann reminds me of a lot of the type of men who come see my live shows,” Griffin said. “And he wants people to pray the gay away, and so I was going to call the [my TV] special ‘Pray the Gay Back.’”

Instead, Bravo will title the special, “Kathy Griffin: Pants Off.”


The thing about humor, especially in the form of political satire, is that the only rule can be that there are no rules.

"Restrictions" on humor are like restrictions on sex.

No matter how well intended to save us from ourselves, ultimately an exercise in futility.

Because we wacky mortals will do what we do.

And who.

And while a reasonable debate is often inevitable as to the taste, or lack of, exhibited by any particular comedic point of view, the hard truth is that freedom, in order to function correctly, must be allowed to run wild and free.

So while jokes about Mitt Romney's Mormonism, Rick Perry's Elmer Gantryism, Michele and Marcus Bachmann's pray the gay away-ism, even Sarah Palin's dysfunctional/special needs family-ism might be rude, crude, tacky, even dictionary definably offensive, freedom of expression requires agreeing to allow the freedom to express.

No matter what flavor that freedom comes in, be it sweet, salty...even sour.

Little bit free. Little bit pregnant.

Six of one.

That said, here's what occurs to me every time I listen to the D list diva.

Kathy Griffin is funny.

In much the same way Ronnie Robicheaux was funny.

In the second grade.

When we were six.

And he made fart noises with his armpits.

"There's A Reason We Still Remember the Name Joe DiMaggio..."

Historically, the presidents we tend to remember and/or revere tend to be the presidents who frame their style thematically.

FDR's New Deal.

JFK's New Frontier.

LBJ's Great Society.

In recent generations, though, the art of frame naming seems to have gone the way of the iron horse and/or eight track tape player.

Pop quiz.

Anybody remember any "theme" attributed to Ronald Reagan?

Bill Clinton?

George Bush?

George Bush?

Yeah. Me neither.

Barack Obama, meanwhile, seems to have subscribed to a concept without actually giving it a catchy campaign button moniker.

Said concept might reasonably be labeled...

All things in moderation.

Noble...

Lofty...

And ultimately futile.

Because leadership, in its purest and most exquisite form, requires a willingness, and ability, to transcend moderation.

The greatest home run hitters in the history of baseball are, most often, the same players who struck out the most.

Big swing, big risk.

Moderation might get you a decent RBI average, but won't send that horsehide over the center field wall very often.

Barack Obama appears, with each new compromise and/or capitulation, to be doggedly determined to find a way to be all things to all people.

Noble...

Lofty...

And ultimately, futile.

We don't want our leaders to exercise moderation in all things.

We want our leaders to leave presidential shaped holes in the walls they run through without fear or hesitation.

Any mere mortal can pop a base hit.

It takes a risk taker to hit home runs.

And a presidency that is remembered and revered is about taking risks.

"Moderation in all things" is a quote attributed to a hundred different sources.

Barack Obama would be better served reading a little Mark Twain.

"Moderation in all things...including moderation..."

The folks in the center field seats will only wait so long before becoming a nation turning it's lonely eyes to a different hitter.