Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

3rd Party versus 4th party Presidential contests

Saturday, July 24th, 2021

If the 3rd and 4th place candidates were your only choices, who would you pick?

As a whole, they show that third party voting tends to act as a dodge — because when face to face with a decision on actualities, I will have to side easily with the damnable major party candidate.

The early Prohibition candidates may bear some looking into, as the politics are not aligned as they are in current day “conservative” versus “liberal” — the women pushing Prohibition entwining their stance with suffrage, for instance. And so an election like 1880 bears looking into — if at first I am thinking “why, the populist, of course” — I have to step back and appreciate that Weaver’s rhetoric was taking on terroristically segregationist and anti-Semitic overtones.

1912 may provide the hardest decision of two palatable candidates. The 1928 and 1932 elections between “near beer” socialism and Communism — pre- Popular Front at that! — is amusing enough (Go Norman Thomas!). — I guess a better choice in least having a Socialist as against 1948 and 1952’s “Red Soviet funded ” third candidate versus Segregationist. (I will go ahead and throw the vote to Wallace — and see how Europe configures itself.)

What do you do with 1964? I gather one is shifting about trying to find meaningful differences. The next two come back to that Segregationist versus Communist jazz. (Socialist Labor fighting it out with Socialist Workers for fourth place, each getting its turn — so call them a draw.)

But… Alright… 1976 onward goes… Libertarians now the closest to a constant with the different factions asserting control at different times (and edged out of the running in the 1996 – 2000 interval) — with big name independents their sparring partners at the top end (McCarthy, Anderson, Perot) mixed with a couple cult candidates in 1984 and 1988 — and in the closing slope Nader and/or Greens as their sparring matches.

McCarthy, Anderson, Bergland, Paul, Perot, flip a coin, Nader, Nader, Nader, Johnson, Johnson, Hawkins.

Got a problem with that?

1872: Charles O’Conor (Straight-Out Democratic) vs. James Black (Prohibition)
1876: Peter Cooper (Greenback) vs. Green Smith (Prohibition)
1880: James Weaver (Greenback) vs. Neal Dow (Prohibition)
1884: John St. John (Prohibition) vs. Benjamin Butler (Greenback)
1888: Clinton Fisk (Prohibition) vs. Alson Streeter (Union Labor)
1892: James Weaver (Populist) vs. John Bidwell (Prohibition)
1896: John Palmer (National Democratic) vs. Joshua Levering (Prohibition)
1900: John Woolley (Prohibition) vs. Eugene Debs (Socialist)
1904: Eugene Debs (Socialist) vs. Silas Swallow (Prohibition)
1908: Eugene Debs (Socialist) vs. Eugene Chafin (Prohibition)
1912: William Howard Taft (Republican) vs. Eugene Debs (Socialist)
1916: Allan Benson (Socialist) vs. James Hanly (Prohibition)
1920: Eugene Debs (Socialist) vs. Parley Christiansen (Farmer-Labor)
1924: Robert La Follette (Progressive) vs. Herman Faris (Prohibition)
1928: Norman Thomas (Socialist) vs. William Foster (Communist)
1932: Norman Thomas (Socialist) vs. William Foster (Communist)
1936: William Lemke (Union) vs. Norman Thomas (Socialist)
1940: Norman Thomas (Socialist) vs. Roger Babson (Prohibition)
1944: Norman Thomas (Socialist) vs. Claude Watson (Prohibition)
1948: Strom Thurmond (States’ Rights) vs. Henry Wallace (Progressive)
1952: Vincent Hallinan (Progressive) vs. Stuart Hamblen (Prohibition)
1956: T. Coleman Andrews (States’ Rights) vs. Eric Hass (Socialist Labor)
1960: Harry F. Byrd (States’ Rights) vs. Eric Hass (Socialist Labor)
1964: Eric Hass (Socialist Labor) vs. Clifton DeBerry (Socialist Workers)
1968: George Wallace (American Independent) vs. Henning Blomen (Socialist Labor)
1972: John Schmitz (American Independent) vs. Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers)
1976: Eugene McCarthy (Independent) vs. Roger MacBride (Libertarian)
1980: John B. Anderson (Independent) vs. Ed Clark (Libertarian)
1984: David Bergland (Libertarian) vs. Lyndon LaRouche (Independent)
1988: Ron Paul (Libertarian) vs. Lenora Fulani (New Alliance)
1992: Ross Perot (Independent) vs. Andre Marrou (Libertarian)
1996: Ross Perot (Reform) vs. Ralph Nader (Green)
2000: Ralph Nader (Green) vs. Pat Buchanan (Reform)
2004: Ralph Nader (Independent) vs. Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)
2008: Ralph Nader (Independent) vs. Bob Barr (Libertarian)
2012: Gary Johnson (Libertarian) vs. Jill Stein (Green)
2016: Gary Johnson (Libertarian) vs. Jill Stein (Green)
2020: Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian) vs. Howie Hawkins (Green)

The Dumb

Wednesday, July 21st, 2021

What fresh piece of stupidity is this?

What fresh hell is this?

We get the basic gist that Biden is not a seller to click on — Trump has the benefit of getting in both “sides” of banner ads .

I missed the 30 minute time limit to chime in on athletes kneeling at the National Anthem — and, hm… are the NFL players now going to kneel during “Lift Every Voice and Sing”? No, strike that — it is an elliptical opinion and I can no longer voice an opinion on the matter. And not being a registered Democrat, I can not be one of those 50,000 which — once crossed and signature on this petition — will get Obama on the Supreme Court and —

Wouldn’t that appointment look really weird for President Biden? (No, wait. Biden is apparently not required, if I read that banner right — though he could be one of the 50,000 Democrats to sign and get it done.)

2 culture wars side by side

Saturday, July 17th, 2021

Kevin Drum’s analysis has its agreeable understandable points — so, where was President Clinton stand rhetorically on immigration, and what issue stances did it take to make a true “ally” on sexual minority politics back then versus now? — all of which has to be taken in on grasping electoral shifts and our tightly split electorate —

But it is where the immediate first response goes “Hey! Forgot about the tea party”. As though that is a font of all culture warring. The responders here fail to do anything but brush past Drum’s points on electoral politics — not stepping in to acknowledge that, surely there are electoral ramifications when the terms of ” allyship” get so quickly re-defined that the cultural ramifications of increased transitioning populace aren’t immediately settled…

But, then, the basic premise of “doneness” is along the lines of getting so “on the right side of history” as to obliterate the moral fudgings in “not being on the right side of history” from the cultural perspective of twenty years in the future by, dam edit, we are there NOW! — and so shuttering the Overton Window right… There.

And Nnevermind the real immediate response for Drums premise may be to note the proliferation of bad actors who seek to “overthrow the government” following the example laid out by the man to whom they throw themselves as the front guard.

As it is where John Bolton says Trump not disciplined enough to do a coup — and John Bolton should know from coups.

I admit here that my first quick reading had the 1-6ers saying they were out to “overthrow the government” as to “stopping the steal” — which I took to mean an admission of their anti-spam idea fix goals, as opposed to their not being there “stealing” — which I assume is a perception of themselves as offset by their perception of post Floyd riots.

The culture war fought here rings differently, even as it gets shoved in with that full litany of state legislatures marking lines on where transgender athletes compete, drawing up history curricula without getting stuck in an “America sucks derby”, and where New York City votes in a mayor running on dealing with crime against that “defund the police”. (But hey! Buffalo voted in a Socialist!)

(Sigh). I had a bunch of deluded 1-6 sympathizer or equivalence seeker comments from the comments section of the American Conservative page, but peculiarities chewed it away and forced me to rewrite the rest. Maybe I can find em yet.

Britney Headlines flash past, not adding up

Thursday, July 15th, 2021

A wackadoodle infowars video on Britney Spears, which — wackadoodle it be, does explicate perhaps a kernel of truth or understandable analysis in overarching conspiracy theory jaggings. At root this comes out of that sense that something was at work in bringing a sexualized teenager to a sexualized fame, and out from a young age from the biggest corporation there is — Disney. Some hazy pin point on “Patriarchy” or some entity in “MK Ultra” — the they steer our kids wrong, sacrifice a Britney Spears to an altar.

I can never quite parse “support” / “approval” / “agreement” with the premises for “qanon”, beyond the always large number who come in not knowing of what it is, just as I could never quite parse support / approval / whatever on “9/11 Truth” which always came down to needing clarification on what “Bush Knew” was supposed to mean, and/or “are the government hiding things?”. When Epstein was convicted, some figure of note — don’t recall who — said we would all be depressed in learning about peoples culpable. In the end all we have from the conspiratorial dot connectors ate any photos of their disliked peoples when in the company of Epstein, because more official sources had no great follow through on this premise. So you forgive a couple points for people responding to such polls who have been seeing scattered news stories on Pedophilia in high places and centers of power with limited justice. You would like to think the next part of the equation in the past qanon pollsters — “Trump leading charge” — would get this forgivable percentage rubbed away, but who knows?

A funny thing about Britney Spears… where I see her conservatorship battle in headlines but haven’t bothered to read on. From a limited understanding of the story — and not knowing what abuses may have come in the past decade — I can’t help think that, sure — she deserves ownership of her life and the millions belong to her. But I sense a rewriting or dropping of history from some headlines.

Taking a vantage point from when things went wrong for Ms. Spears, easy pop psychology taking this period in as not necessarily an inevitable (“looks like Aguilera won”) but a possible outcome of her bubbled in choreographed fame — her tabloid train-wreck period coming out of a destructive attraction to the flame — “Hey! Look at me!”

The conservatorship to her father came after that breakdown of pantyless flashing, shaved heads, and various stoned public scampering which I barely recall. And after this court decision, Britney got better — seemingly a result of tabloids dropping coverage of her chaos, which gave her the space to get better, and for her corporate backers to designate her for the next moneymaking post Lolita-act part of her career. Perhaps the tabloid (by extension “society is to blame”) coverage did not require her dad gaining control — but it did come at the same time period.

The matter that is irking me here — as “We all owe Britney Spears an apology” passes by (or maybe it’s mk-ultra?) is seeing a headline where Paris Hilton weighs in on behalf of “hashtag Free Britney”. Hilton, who I grudgingly offer has always been a savvy operator and in control of her own image and act (buffered as it all has been by a life of privilege)– meaning she lands as culpable as anyone in that ” society” that “owes her an apology” — more culpable in fact, facilitating Spears’s crash when Spears had no mental control over her image and act. The term is “enabler” — the sober one flashing her pantylessness and walking away from it carefree where it would leave Spears tarnished. I find myself blinking and rubbing my eyes in wonder — nay, none of this celebrity tabloid fodder has meaning to our lives, but if we are going to go ahead and follow it — do we have to have such short memories on it?

ok borderline gen xer

Saturday, July 10th, 2021

I continue to be amused that “social media influencer” is a job title, with people of fame to people who are not me so described in Entertainment news headlines. Today’s such headline features some comments self – mocking her lack of higher education as qualifier for an actual job in the Entertainment field with respondents on social media agitated because of their own comparative over qualification — six years of broadcast college and I got nothing but student debt. Yeah, I offer no remedies except suggesting one talks in the lyrics of Weird Al Yankovic’s original song “Skipper Dan”. It would be one thing if this were a crapshoot, but no– it is all rigged against you are staring at a closed system. This “social media influencer” of four months of higher education got to her social media fame by way of the Kardashians. The good news may be that the rote fixed headline “Celebrity/Politician/Influencer Says/Tweets Something, Twitter Explodes/Destroys Him/Her” will collect a handful of tweets and one may be yours, which is a kind of momentary fame.

I have to skip a beat on the next such headline. Tik tokers are on strike. It is a story that affects me not at all, and which there is never a point in my life when it might have, or hypothetically if I were in the next generation could have mattered to me — as I am now deprived of Tik tok video content. When last l saw a tik tok news story, it was on how bikini clad tik tok stars were getting around policy regulations against scantily clad as defined as sexual content, dress only acceptable if in a context where they may be wearing such, by bringing in hot tubs. This one maybe has a better social justice angle. Black tik tokers not getting credit as dance moves find their way into mainline televised content — it is enough that Jimmy Fallon has to comment. Hm. Last time I saw such a “cultural appropriation scandal” it was Miley Cyrus twerking — cue a bunch of YouTube video clips of (urban black girls doing such followed by smattering of YouTube clips of white suburban white girls included in the mix (as too suburban black girls and urban white girls) and, ultimately, the Underaged Dance club in the city holding a “Better than Miley” twerking contest. Or, an obnoxious piece of Black culture was co-opted into an obnoxious piece of white culture. I guess in the case here — sure, the random assortment of tik tokers need to get their due, even if I doubt there is any real origin point in real life, or clear delineation of who precisely deserves credit. But I don’t know if the world suffers by a few fewer clips of dancers.

The third story of famous “who?” headline with a “why?” headline — Andrew Cuomo’s daughter has come out as “demisexual”. Reading further, I get an exploration of her journey of sexual identity understanding — into “bi”, but then seeing that was not right somehow so discovering “demi”. And with that we have a full definition of “demisexual” and a headline on “How to be an ally” for demisexuals. Demisexuals are apparently one who needs emotional attachment for sexual fulfillment. Boring hetero normative guy I am, I scratch my head and ask “and that is an identity worthy of a letter or a color in a flag — why?” Maybe you need shorthand for Craigslist personals? Or, she still strikes me as the bisexual she conclulded she was, with the terms of bisexuality being thusly — no one night stands for her! Who cares, and I guess I make a poor ally. But best to ignore her and explore the policy decisions of her father instead.

I tested my sanity in theorizing out past editorial decisions of Archie Comics

Friday, July 9th, 2021

I had a half baked hare brained theory, one that I have managed to talk (or think) myself into. It started as a flippant thought as I read semi- chronologically a good number of old Archie Comic Llbooks. Then, when stuck having to extrapolate its basis I got caught me in a pile of dredging through explanations of company history for the basis of its suppositions and on to further clarifications and further clarifications of the clarifications, maddening in that I never assessed the matter as of any import, and until I stumbled upon one last piece of evidence, I was only half buying in the first place.

Okay, try this one:

Jughead was coming across as kinda gay round about the early 70s, and the editors were concerned enough to intervene and… straighten him out. Hence an aborted makeover in the 1970s which evolved into a sparodic tiptoed use of a contrived plot device for half a decade, that was later followed by another makeover attempt in the 1980s. The second half one gets covered in any official company history, where the first appears — to my mind much more obnoxious –basically unspoken of and crushed under.

Googling about, at least the final part of my thesis has been stated by a black queer fan with more assertiveness and certaintude as matter – of -fact ‘fact’ than I hald held — — which may mean that the most contentious premise I have is in placing any stereotypical “Queenie” Ness as popping in only in about 1970. But I kind of shrug away efforts and a desire to drag a 1950s asexuality informed by 9 year old readers’ attitudes on gender divisions (the male reader or the female reader’s younger brother thinking “ew – cooties”) — or perhaps something like Huck Finn’s attitudes toward Tom Sawyer’s infatuation with Becky Thatcher — into modern day identity political. So I gather this Twitterer may have more emotional investment than I in getting at a queer Jughead, in a world with a paucity of identifiable queer characters and where you find them where you can. Keep in mind that Jughead’s 1959 attitude toward homosexuality is seen here, with a puzzling to my eye insult at a swishy French hairdresser (seriously, I want to know precisely what Jughead is gettimg at), and then here’s a 1970 or thereabouts view on transvestism. I found that tweet linked from a bunch of commentary complaining on a ” queer erasure” due to Jughead’s romantic relationship with Betty in the Riverdale tv show — a romance which does indeed have some follow through from the comic books — or enough that there is an entire page devoted to fishing out pages and panels on their friendship — but it would be absurd that if the show had not followed this course anyone could complain about a “Bughead erasure”, all on a tv show that has refashioned, lsay, Cheryl Blossom as a lesbian — a sharp deviation from her portrayal in the 1982 – 1985 comics where she was… Um… Comics Code approved sublimated slut?

I suppose the long arc of Jughead’s asexual arc is fodder for hipster cracks. Chasing Amy sees Kevin Smith getting his jollies at the expense of America’s most mocked comic book — and if I guess if he needs any panels for the line I can point them out. But I gather this doesn’t come from any actual reading of them. In 1999, when Jerry Falwell outed Tinky Winky as beimg adopted by the gays as a symbol or totem (I always wondered if this had been, in fact, true), some semi notable alt cartoonist (Lloyd Dangle perhaps?) ran in his weekly a gag which ends in a parody of supposedly gay cartoon characters — Peppermint Patty for instance, probably Bert and Ernie — and thrown in was Jughead. Overall, the phrase that gets at Jughead’s personality is “Archie’s Spock” — and I never look at Spock and think “gay”. Somewhat alien, perhaps. But the gag sits there, apt to turn into fighting words, as Evan Dorkin sees in causing riots at hockey crowds.

But then, why the does my own “gaydar” go off when staring at about the 1970s? Sure, cultural shifts in how traits read and where “We’re Everwhere” signs pop up post Stonewall — that long haired pear-shaped bearded man joke would make no sense in 1960 –, but mostly it is an accident of commercial changes. The cartoonist Seth placed the “good years” for Archie Comics as 1959 – 1965. It seems that a few things happen thereafter. One — the core group cartoonists turn south — Harry Lucey contracts Lou Gehrig’s Disease and loses a couple steps an route to retirement, Samm Schwartz tries his hand at a different company, and Dan Decarlo’s work suffers through over-extension and apparent commercial demands for easy marketing use. The new hirees largely suck — Al Hartley is using his job as a soapbox to sell kids his fundamentalist Christian faith and socially conservative politics, which at least gives something to comment about as opposed to the page filling one dimensional pablum of what Dick Malmgren and Gus Lemoire offered.

The biggest problem at the end of the 60s, and departure from Seth’s defined “Golden era”, is that they take on the feeling of the Saturday Morning cartoon. Notably, advertisements for correspondent’s schools — suggestive of a secondary market of illiterate adults that the comics creators are writing for — fade away. And we have an annual occurence of the tv networks buying space to promote their Saturday Morning line-ups. In this shifting, the characters get reassembled somewhat, violent reactions sidelined, colors brightened and cartoon effects broadened to fit the somewhat changed audience.

And, as an accidental byproduct of this, Jughead starts acting kind of queenish. Certainly not a deliberate choice and certainly not a subtext anyone is reaching for, but if you are running a website like “Archie Out of Context” in the 21st century, this is the period you go to to fulfill “Jughead, gay panel” quota.

The thing about the Archies of the first half of the 60s is the characters are all kinds of jack asses to one another. They exist in an amoral universe where good and bad deeds are neither necessarily rewarded or punished. In this environment, Jughead trends to the damned surly. Post Saturday morning, reconfiguring moving plot devices for an audience hopped up on Sugar Smacks, and Jughead’s meanness is stripped away. For pc reasons we also shift definitions of misogyny where, moving into the 1970s this gets displayed by, for instance, him physically recoiling in peering into a locker room full of half naked girls. And what does that signify now? Not necessarily that “ew cooties” Frank Doyle is thinking. And I do have a selection bias here — no issues of Jughead where he would be chief protaganist — so it could be that a strangely lispy Jughead was only walking into scene when situationally a foil for Betty and Veronica — but then, those were better sellers on the market anyway, and by through that more important for popular conception.

In 1978, we are tossed a “magic pin” which Jughead wears and is irrestible to the ladies. And I see here an origin point, and an index note offering that this plot device was originally less tentatively deployed than I had initially thought and seen in its usage in sparodic appearances in nonsensical stories through the late 70s and early 80s.

This issue introduces one of the most unusual continuing storylines in Archie comics history: an unseen, mysterious force finally makes Jughead attracted to girls, and gives him a new, supernatural pin on his hat. The storyline was strung through stories in “Jughead,” “Archie” and “Betty and Veronica” around this time. After reader reaction was not positive, the story was dropped without explanation. However, Jughead’s attraction to girls, as well as his magic pin, were briefly brought back in 1982 during another attempt to make Jughead more of a ladies’ man. The stories in this issue also try out a new design for Jughead, more conventionally handsome and with a square jawline. It was dropped along with the storyline.

A couple details here are striking. The name of the story, “Genesis… the Beginning” implies that they really want to start over with Jughead for some reason… somehow. But most notable is that “square jawline”, a blunt symbol for masculinity — and a change not seen in take two (or take one point five?) and take three (two?) in a Jughead Rehabilitation Project. When I first saw this rendition of Jughead, I assumed that the cartoonist, Dan Decarlo, Jr — was getting his feet wet and just wasn’t copying his father’s character designs right yet. But then a couple stories into this i!sdue of Archie and we have Archie’s parents remarking on his spiffy new appearance — a very obnoxious deviation from his “don’t give an eff” established personality. Perhaps in this Attempt number one at fending off the Gay Panic Archie Comics is over-compensaLlll ting, because this one comes across as dropping Jughead off at a Gay Reparation clinic and him coming back manly, and false.

Around this era, we get two stories that stem out of a “Son, we need to talk” narrative. If there was one story, I would assume that in cranking out material, the writer — Frank Doyle — just wanted to change the pace for his own sanity and throw something in more sentimental than the standard. But two leaves me to suspect an editorial injunction. And I can’t say I buy any ofthe commentary on “Jughead dances with his mom” — again, a paucity of actually gay characters will lend people to seeing subtext in characters whose statuses (outsider) share some experiences (Jughead’s dad wants to know.) Overall, this wouldn’t be that “the dad concerned that the son is gay” as much as that the son is shy — except that we return to the same premise and see that Jughead’s dad needs to have that talk again — within the same time period — and now I’m reading in the editor (Gorelick, I guess) shouting across the room a “And he’s not gay!”

… as we commence with effort number two (or, maybe, one point five), and the “magic hat pin” — an imterstitial use which is seemingly designed to ponder the mark time and wade in on the question before they decided to plunge forth on effort number three (or two?) That interstitial attempt — returning to an occasional “magic hat pin” story — is curious in that the object is more important than the character — so, the hat falls into the hands of his uncle and for comedic effect (I… guess?) middle aged women are suddenly attracted to him. Or, to help out Betty and Veronica when the sexually aggressive new character Cheryl Blossom attracts Archie, by putting that pin in his hat.

When we return to trying for a heterosexual hormonal Jughead in 1987, the publishers get more conscientious in selling a Jughead more consistent with his established character, just… now… more interested in girls. (The publishers hope he can be taken as a late-bloomer, and if not for staring at that 1978 rendition of the theme, I would partially or wholly accept this line). And I suppose I lay at a point of contention to those queer readers as not really being bothered by this one, an indifference aided strongly by the ultimately temporary nature of this story arc — where in giving an 80 year overlview I can just view it that Archie does this one for awhile (and since this is Archie, your lazy plotline is to throw a love triangle — predictably that is exactly the story they threw shortly after introducing Kevin Keller and encountering some criticism that onle gay token does not la progressive make), then they try that skater punk thing to decidedly mixed results (good lord they reach for hipness and stumble into incoherence), then –as I look over that cover gallery — one can probably just skip all that Al Hartley and Stan Goldberg and over compensatiom for the “into the 90s with Skater Jughead and a jive-slang spewing white editor” attempt to the company’s reinforced back to basics mission statement bludgeoning for “wholesome, family oriented, safe harbor in tumultous culture” eral defined by his new sister — before Craig Boldman and Rex W Lindsey offer somelthing more interesting and a worthwhile female foil Jughead can work against — a good use of a dopey old ptemise from 60s issues that probably won’t translate well in women’s or gender study analyses.

Curiously, the website I stumbled upon for a batch of commentary despising Jughead’s not queer portrayal in the Riverdale tv show as deviating from core characterization in the comics appears to hold the skater punk era of Jughead dear. This, we see from this cover where that group sees Jughead as too weird for them, as drastic deviation of personality traits as anything else.

Of course, when Archie did throw in an actual opengay charlacter, in your standard issue Three’s Company punchline, Veronica thought Jughead was gay. At the risk of accounting for the full implications of easyL out gags, it is curious to see this flowing easily for Veronica for one page after having known and interacted with Jughead for maybe ten years. But then again, maybe they just recently met as in her original appearance in 1942 she just moved in to Riverdale. But then again, she moved to town twice in that period. And has moved to town subsequently at earlier grade school ages through the next batch of decades. So, you know, Veronica has no problem picturing Jughead as having been gay for ten years when it fits this story need, and her mind is wiped out completely of the 1978 square jaw machismo or his 1988 duo of girlfriends…

premature Biden assessment

Sunday, July 4th, 2021

A generational flub, I guess.  This zoomer writer for crackef not aware that, yes, there has since 1941 been a “Pearl Harbor Inside Job” conspiracy theorizing.  I suppose we may split a difference as the bulk of this I pink lol n holds that no, FDR did not do it but he let it happen — as the saying went “Bush Knew” this is a “FDR Knew.” Desperate to bolt our reluctant isolationist country into war, and intercepting the Japanese intelligence, he made something of any value at Pearl Harbor and let the attack do its job.  This Cracked writer does not know about that one?  How is that possible?  It makes more sense than, what I guess, the term “inside job” has come to mean — the whole “government directed it”.

I presume this historian does not hold to that view, though he already has a high view on Biden (and has not read his own poll for W.)

It’s interesting that many of our worst presidents (#44 Buchanan, #29 George W. Bush and #36 Herbert Hoover) were all followed by top 10 presidents (Lincoln, FDR and Obama). As I was filling out C-SPAN’s survey, it occurred to me that this speaks of American resilience. It shows that we have a powerful ability to self-correct. Over our nation’s long and stormy history, we have made some grievous mistakes with some of our leaders. And we have replaced them every time with someone better.
It is early in President Joe Biden’s term, but he appears to fit that pattern. In this regard, our system still works.

29 is right about near center, but I guess he is figuring ” worst” from the pre Trump assessment or his own.  And there is also that thought that maybe if that historian thought “Pearl Harbor was an inside job” had validity in terms of “FDR knew”, that might not necessarily hobble a positive view on him.  Cunningly and crafty, right?