ALRIGHT JON - SETTLE THIS!!!!

WHO'S YOUR MOUNT RUSHMORE OF WORST PRESIDENTS

What the hell is Mouth Rushmore?

well played. Fixed.

Spot on.

Although it's probably fair to say that I'm judging him on the context of his entire body of work, including the post-Presidency phase.

And for the double dolla ... the whole Lincoln vs FDR for 3rd & 4th place. Yikes.
That's the sort of question that might keep me awake at nights trying to decide.

My instinct is to lean toward Lincoln 3rd since, without him, FDR's damage might not have even been possible.

If I were to put an aggressively active and "successful" Lincoln and FDR among the worst, I would find it hard to put, by comparison, a passive and ineffective Obama and Carter above them.

I tend to think any president can, and should, be on a worst list. Just for the fact that we know pretty much everything they did and thought everyday of their presidency, there's bound to be some awful stuff they did and believed.

Looking at my rank order I really wondered whether I was being unduly influenced by recency. I tentatively settled on "probably, but with at least some reasoning behind it".

The longer a nation endures, the larger it's net worth (for lack of a better phrase on a tired & sleepy Friday afternoon). There's more at risk to be damaged in other words.

Yeah, this unexpected sidebar has me totally wondering if I should revise my rankings (even my logic behind Lincoln "ahead" of FDR would seem to support a revision).

Harumph. Assholes, the lot of you ;)

I'm too tired & in too bad of a mood today to contemplate this as much as it deserves.

I googled "mouth rushmore". Found many people making a spelling error, and absolutely zero president-themed porn. Bummer.

Wow. Epic fail by the internet.

I'm kind of stunned, to be honest. So much for rule 36.

I guess its about to become Gulf War 3 sometime soon.

It would be nice if we get a lot of credit and goodwill in squashing ISIS and the Iraqi Sunni's (it is predominantly the Sunni's I think) but that never seems to work out in the Muslim world.

If Obama can pull this off, form a coalitions where we support the Iraqi's and Kurd's to fight the ground war and successfully degrades ISIS, I think it'll be a good precedence.

BBC News - Islamic State crisis: Australia to send 600 troops to UAE

Everything is awesome
Everything is cool when you're part of a team
Everything is awesome, when we're living our dream

Blue skies, bouncy springs
We just named you awesome things
A nobel prize, a piece of string
You know what's awesome, EVERYTHING

Who's in for the mine detecting dolphins? There's no coalition without mine detecting dolphins.

I'm okay with this. This is pretty clear cut to me that the US is only one of a few countries that can make a real difference. I hope its really a plan and execution vs just money. Definitely a humanitarian crisis but national security seems to overplay it (unless it goes airborne I guess).

Obama to dispatch millions of dollars to fight Ebola | MSNBC

I think the "national security" part is overdoing it. The thing that draws me up short most here though is putting 3,000 military personnel at increased risk for minimal U.S. interests.

The thing that cracks me up is how there has been a discussion about fast tracking the experimental medication for Ebola and bypassing some of the FDC hurdles to get it approved. Sounds just like Phalanx in WW-Z.

Let's see...uninsured rate drops to the lowest level since they started doing this version of the survey back in 1997:

Uninsured Rate Drops To Lowest Level Since The '90s

Interesting blog posting by Phil Birnbaum on income equality and its rate of change: Sabermetric Research

As good a thread for this as any I guess:

re: Biden's "shylocks" gaffe

I don't know that I ever consciously thought of that word -- in modern usage (which seems kinda rare to begin with) -- as being particularly/specifically about a race. More about a behavior, at least that's how I react to it.

Am I way off here?

Without clicking on the link, I have no idea what a shylock is nor do I ever recall hearing the word.

Just in case anybody wants the refrence

I think Jews typically don't appreciate references to that character.

Shylock is portrayed in a very anti-Semitic manner as was the typical attitude in Elizabethan England. It's hard to even produce Merchant because of how offensive the character is. It's now generally done as either a statement on the dangers of antisemitism or as a history piece of long abandoned attitudes.

In short, it's very offensive, basically the same as calling a black man Buckwheat.

edit: I'm also willing to believe Biden didn't mean to offend and didn't understand the context of the word. He should have, but lots of people don't.

I'm not sure that excuse went over too well for Julianne Hough and blackface...

I think where I am is "knowing the origins ... but no longer making the ethnic association with it"

I might be in the minority about that, that's pretty much why I posed the question.

That was quite some insight to have the day after the fact, when everybody was still scrambling to nail down the most basic facts about the attack.

That's where I am too. I don't think Biden is anti-semitic. But when you're VPOTUS you really need to take better care of the language you use.

That goes for everybody actually.

I think there's a degree of obviousness that you're missing. Shylock is a fairly uncommon word and therefore it's reasonably plausible that he didn't know or think about the connotations about using the word. Hell, I had a number of southern colleagues say they didn't realize that "Jew you down" was a negative connotation (more likely they just didn't think hard about their own ignorance or bigotry).

However, it's very difficult to think that in this day and age that someone dressing in blackface wouldn't know it's offensive. That's like calling someone a "chink" or "kike" and then claiming that they didn't know those terms were offensive. It's possible...but quite unlikely. That's one that she could/should have known.

By the way, this doesn't entirely excuse Biden, but intent does matter here.

A little surprised at how willing they are as France's border is more vulnerable. I wonder what type of quid pro quo was arranged.

France Strikes Islamic State Group In Iraq

Eh? France's border is more vulnerable to what?

I'm not so sure. I mean...how many times do you recall seeing blackface in the past 10 years? 20? 30? It's been out of practice for long enough that if not specifically educated on it, you might not know it's a thing.*

As for Shylock...well, Joe knew enough to know that it was a cultural reference as someone who is cheap, which is more than probably 95% of the population. But no, I don't necessarily expect him to know the exact derivation of the term - but everyone these days seems to expect that of other insensitive references.


* There are things that fall out of the cultural lexicon. A couple of weeks ago, someone on FB ranted against the educational system because his kid didn't know who Robin Hood was. Which was silly, because RH is not historical, and he's not really literary either. It's a legend that lived on verbally and then through movies. If you weren't aware of those movies, you wouldn't have known about the character. I think the same can be argued for blackface. If it's not taught as part of a history class - and there are many, many things that are not and I don't doubt that this would be one - you picked it up from where, a weekend airing of The Jazz Singer? Oh, Ted Danson and the Whoopi thing? How many 20-somethings know they went out? Heck, how many even know who Ted Danson is?

I admit I knew the cultural reference of shylock, but not the ethic reference within it.

Color me surprised.

Vice President Joseph Biden 'Shylock' Gaffe: Shakespeare to Slur


If it "fell out of casual use in conversation and print" in the 70s, yes - I can see how our generation and beyond may not understand the connotation (now, Biden is considerably older than we are...).

The character of Shylock is interesting in the Merchant of Venice, because while he is this loathsome Jewish moneylender who demands a pound of flesh from his debtor (which is where that idiom comes from), he also has the quite touching "If you prick us, do we not bleed" soliloquy.

However, in the end, the crafty Jew is outsmarted and part of his penalty is to convert to Christianity.... You can see how that may be offensive...

The Nazi's apparently used Shylock in their propaganda.

Isn't that often the case was older people make race- or sexual orientation based gaffes? That those people are ignorant and out of touch? it doesn't often shield them for criticism.

I agree that intent should matter when we're judging people, but it does seem to matter a lot less depending on who the speaker is and what they're being ignorant about. If this was some old dope saying something racially ignorant, the voices of criticism would be a lot louder and more widespread.

To extremists slipping in?

How is that different than the other EU members that are part of the coalition? Why is France special in that regard?

They attacked first so I think it probable that ISIS would respond to that first.

You know, Biden just needs to take a break:

Joe Biden Praises Bob Packwood At Women's Event - Business Insider

Lots of talking heads criticizing Obama's plan. I think Afghanistan and Bosnia have shown that special forces, unrelenting air strikes and indigenous forces on the ground (e.g. Kurds) can turn the tide so I'm good with it.

But never thought the "no boots on the ground" excluded special forces on the ground but the article seems to indicate other wise. If that's the case, I can see where air strikes could be less effective.

All in all, I don't think its uncommon for military generals to disagree (esp retired ones) with a president (regardless of administration).

Rift widens between Obama, U.S. military over strategy to fight Islamic State - The Washington Post

I wonder what % really believes this. If its truly the majority, we might as well pack it up and just watch from the Kurdish sidelines.

Log In - The New York Times

Well, it would follow the CIA's typical modus operandi, unless one feels they've changed their tactics in the 21st century.

I've heard far crazier notions, it's what I've suspected -- at least to some extent -- from the first big media push about ISIS, just tbh.

:rolleyes:

Sigh.

Did you even read flere's post that illustrates some possible logic for such a notion.

Or did you just jump straight to trolling me ?

Of course I read it. I didn't read the NYT article so I'm not sure what sort of "evidence" they put forth, but to say "it's what I've suspected" is pretty conspiracy-theory nutty I think.

The article doesn't give us anything new. Hard not to understand the perspective in Iraq. When an outsider takes sides, even if it's not a side you prefer, the balance of power shifts.

While the US didn't directly create ISIS, the Bush invasion created a power vacuum, and the Obama withdrawal created an opportunity. It's likely that because we've taken sides in past conflicts - usually against the more secular dictator-type - that we've armed and aided pieces of what ISIS is today.

I don't think it's conspiracy nut time to say that ISIS wouldn't exist if not for US interference. It would be to say that this was our goal from the beginning.

Stupidity led to this situation. Our practice of anointing leaders based on 30-second sound bytes and a win-at-all-costs two-party system rather than intelligence, understanding and experience.

That's all fair enough. I completely agree with that - it's common sense.

I don't agree with some "wag the dog" style conspiracy type thing, which I presumed is what the article (and Jon) were getting at.