OSU team captain gave Obama bunny ears during White House photo

Submitted by Leaders And Best on

Ohio State team captain Michael Bennett gave President Obama bunny ears during their team photo at the White House.

http://www.sbnation.com/2015/4/20/8459027/ohio-state-player-gives-barack-obama-bunny-ears-at-the-white-house

And his now deleted tweet:

Did the bunny ears show up on TV or was it too late?

— Mike (@mike63bennett) April 20, 2015


Tater

April 23rd, 2015 at 8:52 PM ^

A few years ago, I had an opportunity to take a group pic via my professional association with a governor whose politics I detest.  But I shook his hand and felt like it was a privilege because I respect the office.  

It's funny in a sophomoric kind of way, but it's also classless.  Bennett really should have shown more respect.

NFG

April 23rd, 2015 at 1:03 PM ^

Bennett should know better, politics aside right? His parents were Army officers, he went to West Point for a year I believe. You have to know your settings and audiance. There is a time and a place for this stuff, but he is the POTUS. 

Muttley

April 23rd, 2015 at 6:59 PM ^

Do you seriously think Northern whites of 1861 were thinking "let's go risk getting myself killed to free somebody else" ?  No, but Lincoln suckered Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard into firing on Fort Sumter, and Northerners went to war more out of a mindset of "those MFers fired upon us, let's go whup 'em quickly".  Little did either side appreciate the scale of the upcoming carnage;  600,000 deaths in a country with a population of 30,000,000.  (The same percentage would be 6,000,000 today.)   Some quip that  P.G.T. Beauregard was the dumbass that freed the slaves.

Lincoln played his political cards brilliantly, largely effecting the end of slavery through patience, not announcing the Emancipation Proclamation until Northerners were committed to the fight.  (He also waited for a Union victory in battle so as not to seem to be blowing hot air.  The Union victory at Antiedam on September 22, 1862 was good enough.)

Many often criticize Lincoln for the following quote from a letter Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it.

What a masterfully crafted statement. With it, Lincoln places the public spotlight on saving the Union while conceding nothing regarding slavery. Let's examine a table of the combinations:

 

  Slavery Ended: Yes No
Union Saved:      
Yes   Happened Would've required

an armistice.

Lincoln was resolute

in pursuit of full victory.
No   Absurd* Had South Won

*Maybe the South celebrates a Civil War victory by freeing the slaves?

Only the Yes/Yes and No/No possibilities were in play during Lincoln's management of the war.

Others lament the increase in the concentration of power in the central government.  In the abstract of concentration alone, I am sympathetic: all things being equal, IMO it's better to have power and administration spread throughout the states so that some semblance of competition remains among the states, locals can respond more nimbly to the inevitable breakdowns of government, and an "independent" Federal government exists that can step in when the locals performing the function are corrupt.  

But one always has to ask about the tradeoffs.  At what (opportunity) cost?

The end of slavery unleashed a massive addition of liberty of the most important personal kind (although living conditions didn't improve much).  The Southern states were systematically wrong, and had to be corrected.

 

morepete

April 23rd, 2015 at 3:40 PM ^

Yeah. Any time an academic releases a book outside of their discipline that reach conclusions proving existing scholars are in on a conspiracy, it usually means they're quacks.

See also: Arthur Butz, the electrical engineering professor at Northwestern who published a book "proving" that the Holocaust never happened. When I think of excellent historical analysis, a Ph.D. in electrical engineering is usally a pretty important qualification.

mastodon

April 24th, 2015 at 9:02 AM ^

That's a very shallow assessment.  Bush had more days but almost all of his were just change of scenery (and maybe some mountain biking) to his Texas ranch and sometimes to Maine.  Less costly by comparison to the Obamas' globetrotting.  Much of that cost is the logistical staff and security support, which is cheaper at the ranch than elsewhere.

But what's far more off-putting than the expense, is the comparative attitude.  Of course the POTUS is entitled to vacation time.  Bush did not think it appropriate to take lavish vacations, while the Obamas seem to take every opportunity, with a shameless sense of entitlement - appearances/appropriateness be damned.  The silence from the media on this is (surprisingly?) deafening.  Number of days isn't the issue.  How about you do some fact checking beyond that and don't let it get in the way of your kool-aid drinking.