#does not support Reagan | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mostlysignssomeportents · 9 months

Text

NLRB rules that any union busting triggers automatic union recognition

Tonight (September 6) at 7pm, I'll be hosting Naomi Klein at the LA Public Library for the launch of Doppelganger.

On September 12 at 7pm, I'll be at Toronto's Another Story Bookshop with my new book The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation.

American support for unions is at its highest level in generations, from 70% (general population) to 88% (Millenials) – and yet, American unionization rates are pathetic.

That's about to change.

The National Labor Relations Board just handed down a landmark ruling – the Cemex case – that "brought worker rights back from the dead."

https://prospect.org/labor/2023-08-28-bidens-nlrb-brings-workers-rights-back/

At issue in Cemex was what the NLRB should do about employers that violate labor law during union drives. For decades, even the most flagrantly illegal union-busting was met with a wrist-slap. For example, if a boss threatened or fired an employee for participating in a union drive, the NLRB would typically issue a small fine and order the employer to re-hire the worker and provide back-pay.

Everyone knows that "a fine is a price." The NLRB's toothless response to cheating presented an easily solved equation for corrupt, union-hating bosses: if the fine amounts to less than the total, lifetime costs of paying a fair wage and offering fair labor conditions, you should cheat – hell, it's practically a fiduciary duty:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/468061

Enter the Cemex ruling: once a majority of workers have signed a union card, any Unfair Labor Practice by their employer triggers immediate, automatic recognition of the union. In other words, the NLRB has fitted a tilt sensor in the American labor pinball machine, and if the boss tries to cheat, they automatically lose.

Cemex is a complete 180, a radical transformation of the American labor regulator from a figleaf that legitimized union busting to an actual enforcer, upholding the law that Congress passed, rather than the law that America's oligarchs wish Congress had passed. It represents a turning point in the system of lawless impunity for American plutocracy.

In the words of Frank Wilhoit, it is is a repudiation of the conservative dogma: "There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect":

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

It's also a stunning example of what regulatory competence looks like. The Biden administration is a decidedly mixed bag. On the one hand there are empty suits masquerading as technocrats, champions of the party's centrist wing (slogan: "Everything is fine and change is impossible"):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

But the progressive, Sanders/Warren wing of the party installed some fantastically competent, hard-charging, principled fighters, who are chapter-and-verse on their regulatory authority and have the courage to use that authority:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

They embody the old joke about the photocopier technician who charges "$1 to kick the photocopier and $79 to know where to kick it." The best Biden appointees have their boots firmly laced, and they're kicking that mother:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

One such expert kicker is NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. Abruzzo has taken a series of muscular, bold moves to protect American workers, turning the tide in the class war that the 1% has waged on workers since the Reagan administration. For example, Abruzzo is working to turn worker misclassification – the fiction that an employee is a small business contracting with their boss, a staple of the "gig economy" – into an Unfair Labor Practice:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/10/see-you-in-the-funny-papers/bidens-legacy

She's also waging war on robo-scab companies: app-based employment "platforms" like Instawork that are used to recruit workers to cross picket lines, under threat of being blocked from the app and blackballed by hundreds of local employers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/30/computer-says-scab/#instawork

With Cemex, Abruzzo is restoring a century-old labor principle that has been gathering dust for generations: the idea that workers have the right to organize workplace gemocracies without fear of retaliation, harassment, or reprisals.

But as Harold Meyerson writes for The American Prospect, the Cemex ruling has its limits. Even if the NLRB forces and employer to recognize a union, they can't force the employer to bargain in good faith for a union contract. The National Labor Relations Act prohibits the Board from imposing a contract.

That's created a loophole that corrupt bosses have driven entire fleets of trucks through. Workers who attain union recognition face years-long struggles to win a contract, as their bosses walk away from negotiations or offer farcical "bargaining positions" in the expectation that they'll be rejected, prolonging the delay.

Democrats have been trying to fix this loophole since the LBJ years, but they've been repeatedly blocked in the senate. But Abruzzo is a consummate photocopier kicker, and she's taking aim. In Thrive Pet Healthcare, Abruzzo has argued that failing to bargain in good faith for a contract is itself an Unfair Labor Practice. That means the NLRB has the authority to act to correct it – they can't order a contract, but they can order the employer to give workers "wages, benefits, hours, and such that are comparable to those provided by comparable unionized companies in their field."

Mitch McConnell is a piece of shit, but he's no slouch at kicking photocopiers himself. For a whole year, McConnell has blocked senate confirmation hearings to fill a vacant seat on the NLRB. In the short term, this meant that the three Dems on the board were able to hand down these bold rulings without worrying about their GOP colleagues.

But McConnell was playing a long game. Board member Gwynne Wilcox's term is about to expire. If her seat remains vacant, the three remaining board members won't be able to form a quorum, and the NLRB won't be able to do anything.

As Meyerson writes, centrist Dems have refused to push McConnell on this, hoping for comity and not wanting to violate decorum. But Chuck Schumer has finally bestirred himself to fight this issue, and Alaska GOP senator Lisa Murkowski has already broken with her party to move Wilcox's confirmation to a floor vote.

The work of enforcers like DoJ Antitrust Division boss Jonathan Kanter, FTC chair Lina Khan, and SEC chair Gary Gensler is at the heart of Bidenomics: the muscular, fearless deployment of existing regulatory authority to make life better for everyday Americans.

But of course, "existing regulatory authority" isn't the last word. The judges filling stolen seats on the illegitimate Supreme Court had invented the "major questions doctrine" and have used it as a club to attack Biden's photocopier-kickers. There's real danger that Cemex – and other key actions – will get fast-tracked to SCOTUS so the dotards in robes can shatter our dreams for a better America.

Meyerson is cautiously optimistic here. At 40% (!), the Court's approval rating is at a low not seen since the New Deal showdowns. The Supremes don't have an army, they don't have cops, they just have legitimacy. If Americans refuse to acknowledge their decisions, all they can do it sit and stew:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/26/mint-the-coin-etc-etc/#blitz-em

The Court knows this. That's why they fume so publicly about attacks on their legitimacy. Without legitimacy, they're nothing. With the Supremes' support at 40% and union support at 70%, any judicial attack on Cemex could trigger term-limits, court-packing, and other doomsday scenarios that will haunt the relatively young judges for decades, as the seats they stole dwindle into irrelevance. Meyerson predicts that this will weigh on them, and may stay their hands.

Meyerson might be wrong, of course. No one ever lost money betting on the self-destructive hubris of Federalist Society judges. But even if he's wrong, his point is important. If the Supremes frustrate the democratic will of the American people, we have to smash the Supremes. Term limits, court-packing, whatever it takes:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/20/judicial-equilibria/#pack-the-court

And the more we talk about this – the more we make this consequence explicit – the more it will weigh on them, and the better the chance that they'll surprise us. That's already happening! The Supremes just crushed the Sackler opioid crime-family's dream of keeping their billions in blood-money:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/11/justice-delayed/#justice-redeemed

But if it doesn't stop them? If they crush this dream, too? Pack the court. Impose term limits. Make it the issue. Don't apologize, don't shrug it off, don't succumb to learned helplessness. Make it our demand. Make it a litmus test: "If elected, will you vote to pack the court and clear the way for democratic legitimacy?"

Meanwhile, Cemex is already bearing fruit. After an NYC Trader Joe's violated the law to keep Trader Joe's United from organizing a store, the workers there have petitioned to have their union automatically recognized under the Cemex rule:

https://truthout.org/articles/trader-joes-union-files-to-force-company-to-recognize-union-under-new-nlrb-rule/

With the NLRB clearing the regulatory obstacles to union recognition, America's largest unions are awakening from their own long slumbers. For decades, unions have spent a desultory 3% of their budgets on organizing workers into new locals. But a leadership upset in the AFL-CIO has unions ready to catch a wave with the young workers and their 88% approval rating, with a massive planned organizing drive:

https://prospect.org/labor/labors-john-l-lewis-moment/

Meyerson calls on other large unions to follow suit, and the unions seem ready to do so, with new leaders and new militancy at the Teamsters and UAW, and with SEIU members at unionized Starbucks waiting for their first contracts.

Turning union-supporting workers into unionized workers is key to fighting Supreme Court sabotage. Organized labor will give fighters like Abruzzo the political cover she needs to Get Shit Done. A better America is possible. It's within our grasp. Though there is a long way to go, we are winning crucial victories all the time.

The centrist message that everything is fine and change is impossible is designed to demoralize you, to win the fight in your mind so they don't have to win it in the streets and in the jobsite. We don't have to give them that victory. It's ours for the taking.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/06/goons-ginks-and-company-finks

#nlrb #cemex #unions #labor #class war #photocopier kickers #ulp #unfair labor practices #jennifer abruzzo #thrive pet care #national labor review board #scotus #afl-cio #trader joes #harold meyerson #labor day #pluralistic

3K notes · View notes

oniwa-a · 1 month

Text

everyone loves angsty gay will byers but can we take a moment to acknowledge mike’s internalised homophobia and how it’s so important to understanding his character, byler, and elmike?

- he lived in the midwest in the 70s and 80s (need i say more)

- he has parents who supported the republican candidate, ronald reagan, in the ‘84 presidential election (whose administration denied the AIDS epidemic)

- he comes from a typical american nuclear family

- he has endured homophobic bullying

of course he doesn’t know how to act around will OR el… his subconscious is starting to realise that as important as el is to him, he’s never going to feel about her the way he does about will 😭 he’s confused and dealing with guilt and self hatred, but unlike will, he’s not sure WHY, and that’s a different kind of hurt

and i think reddit st fans hate mike and think of byler as an unrealistic, fangirl type ship because they don’t understand this part of his character

#stranger things #byler #mike wheeler #lots of thoughts about him sorry #no one understands mike like bylers do

201 notes · View notes

sailoroid · 2 years

Text

me struggling how to feel about brett and reagan’s relationship because on one hand their friendship is so important and they support and care each other sm and brett only wants reagan to be happy (especially when ron happened) not to mention the lack of m/f friendships in media that stay platonic can negatively affect people’s perceptions of m/f relationships as ALWAYS needing to be romantic even most times no it does not- especially when said m/f ship is super toxic or feels forced/has no chemistry

but on the other HAND (haha pun) brett and reagan’s growing support for each other and chemistry is definitely going to become stronger as the series goes on and they’re so compatible because they’re so comfortable with each other makes it really hard for me (personally) to deny there’s no possibility of them ending up together because they’re so GOOD for each other and I need more representation of m/f couples actually LIKING each other that aren’t just the same “haha I hate my wife/gf” jokes we’ve had to suffer for DECADES

regardless please im begging at the writers LET THEM BE HAPPY

#frog speaks #inside job #reagan ridley #brett hand #breagan #the end of season two DESTROYED me I want reagan to be happy FOR ONCE #its 2 am go to sleep

2K notes · View notes

haveyoureadthiscomic-poll · 3 months

Text

"What I am getting from this blog is that no one reads comics unfortunately"

Yeah I wish more people would, trying to talk about comics to people right now is like a choice between:

This person is a Batman fan, they do not read comics, they only engage with fanon, if you ever have the audacity to try to talk about The Justice Society in a general comics space they will say No One Cares at you until you leave.

This person is a non-Batman fan and DOES like the JSA, however, they have "Reagan Supporter" in their bio. It is unclear what this means, perhaps they plan to raise Ronald Reagan via necromancy for the 2024 election, you casually mention that you want your favorite character to be a gay or bisexual man in a general post. They block you.

This person is gay and likes comics outside Batman, however, you mention liking a non-canon ship and they start a harassment campaign (the ship is between non-related adults but if I say what the ship is people can probably guess the person I am talking about)

This person is just a Nazi, do not post about comics on twitter.

99 notes · View notes

ghostingghosty · 7 months

Text

I hope that this critisisable and disgusting (I would use the word inhumane, but I would argue that this is unfortunately the most human of actions) situation that we are witnessing in Gaza, Palestine, will finally make people realise how corrupt the West is. We are not the good guys. Eurocentrism is a lie. All the knowlegde you have been fed through your government and media is spices hatred; it's propaganda. You are privileged, yes, but only because of colonialism and the wealth which comes with it. International law is a fucking joke and America does not support it; neither does 'Isreal'. The Isrealian head og state will never be trialed on his war crimes – why? Because neither did Reagan, Bush or Obama (ect.). My nation followed the US into Afghanistan, and we have the right to make the call of who is and isn't a terrorist? I spit in the hole digged, but never filled, of nationalistic principles.

In a few years (perhaps in a decade or two) a documentary will air which will describe the horrifying events and grant the west permission to proclaim a new narrative. I would argue that this is not needed to realise our wrongful, terror-supporting, narrative – what is needed, is a fucking mirror.

#social justice #free palestine #palestine #politics #gaza #free gaza #usa #mine #fuck america #america #western media #afganistan #isreal

199 notes · View notes

conflictofthemind · 3 months

Text

I don’t know how to break this to you guys, but Byler as an official couple is not going to be happening in the first half of the season and it probably won’t even officially be a thing until the finale. Because of Mike’s issues. And it being the 80s.

Will has actually… been a fairly easy character to figure out. And for as much as he does still absolutely repress his sexuality, he is way further on the path to living authentically than Mike is. We all agree on this, right? Will is used to being labelled as a freak regardless of what he does or doesn’t do. He never really tried to feign interest in girls. Most of the town already suspects he might be gay, and while it would get worse for him if the rumours were known to be truthful, he knows he has the support of Jonathan. And I think he knows deep down that he has the support of Mike (and Joyce). Otherwise, why tell him that he makes him feel better for being ‘different’ (gay)?

But Mike? ‘Just trying to be normal’ Michael Wheeler? We know he didn’t mean that as in school; he prides himself as a nerd. Michael Wheeler who seemed like he could have been on the precipice of finally breaking it off with El, and then tried to go back even harder after Will’s push? And for the general audience to make sense of what they will perceive as a sudden shift in Mike’s character when they reveal his feelings for Will, they’ll have to hammer it in that Mike is afraid to his core of being out for them to make sense of his previous actions.

Mike has a different personal life than Will. Reagan supporter conservative parents who don’t like to speak about emotions. He doesn’t have as strong of a relationship with Nancy. We know Hellfire and Eddie’s death will have big consequences on the narrative, and that the town will continue the witch hunt against all of the members of Hellfire. They list sodomy as one of its demonic influences. Will is also going back to high-school, and it’s possible he has a bruise on his face in that Episode 4 farm scene. He’s been bullied before, and I don’t see how they don’t bring that up again, and worse.

If Mike is out, or gets outed, he will fall from a much higher place into a much deeper pit than Will. I honestly foresee them both realizing eachothers’ feelings by the middle of the season, maybe acting on them in private, but Mike suddenly pushes him away in public when Will tries to initiate any contact or closeness - even nothing overtly romantic.

Will is ready to start being more open about their relationship to family and friends as he’s sick of hiding himself and has probably, at this point, come out to Joyce at the least and met Robin. Mike is not so ready. This creates a conflict leading up to the finale where Mike truly has to choose between living in the closet for the rest of his life, and losing Will, versus the bravery to be open (to friends/ family) at the risk of being rejected or further outed and kicked out / assaulted / etc.

#byler #mike wheeler #will byers #byler analysis #Mike wheeler analysis #stranger things #just had to get this off my chest

95 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 4 months

Note

While I generally agree with your writings, I find myself confused by the term "Online Leftist". As a 75-year-old who has had a Social Democratic bent (and because of that has seen more of his votes lose than he ever wished in these United States), I have voted in every county-through-federal level election in my life since age 21. I also use social media sparingly, but I feel I certainly could be considered to be a leftist who is online, but I don't share the viewpoint of those you call "Online Leftist". Please clarify the meaning of that phrase in your writings.

I have to add that I've voted third party only once. I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and instantly regretted that action when Ronald Reagan won. (At that time, Jimmy Carter wasn't perceived as the great humanitarian and climate visionary he truly was, and the economy and the hostage crisis ruled the election arguments.) It was a lesson that was hard-earned. Thus in 2016, even though I supported Bernie Sanders's ideas and philosophy, I voted for Hillary because 1) she had unimpeachable (no pun intended) qualifications, and 2) not to vote for her would ensure that a really nasty and incompetent clown would be leading our country.

Thank you for all of your Tumblr postings. I find myself reblogging them hoping to reach the idealistic voter who tends to want to vote "purist" rather than "pragmatist."

The term "Online Leftists," as myself and others use it, refers to the specific group of often-young, often-white, often-western terminally online social media users, usually on Twitter, who post frothing manifestos about how corrupt the world is (specifically, how corrupt and fascist the Democratic Party of America is) and how the only way to fix it is to have some mythical leftist Revolution that will destroy late-stage capitalism and the current world order and somehow have no bad effects whatever and then a magical "progressive" utopia will spring into existence and everything will be fixed. Even the ones who don't go that far are heavily influenced by the ideology that the establishment/country is corrupt beyond repair, voting (especially voting for Democrats) is morally evil and indefensible, that there is no difference between the political parties of America, and that America/the West is the cause of all evil in the world. It has become especially visible with the Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Hamas wars, when they enthusiastically or at least tacitly support Russia and Hamas simply because those states/groups are "anti-western."

It also has to do with the whopping western leftist levels of virulent antisemitism and eagerness to call Israel a "white western colonialist settler state," as discussed in previous posts. Even while they decry Israel's genocide of Gaza, they will twist themselves into knots to excuse Russia's genocide of Ukraine or any legitimacy to a Jewish state or need for Israel to defend its own civilians, because you see, those genocides are committed by people they like in support of something something, Advancing the Great Revolution Cause. This is partly influenced by the belief that modern far-right fascist Russia is somehow a standard-bearer for old-school USSR socialism (which itself was horrifying enough) and should be defended and cheerled as a principled enemy of the West. This is the same group of people who unironically spend all their time posting fulminations that Biden is a genocidal fascist and America is a dictatorship, because they know that literally nothing will happen to them and they will face no real-world consequences, because none of those things are actually true. But as long as they can claim it for the rhetorical martyrdom, that does not matter.

By political beliefs and presence on Tumblr, I too am definable as a leftist who is online, but the Online Leftists (used together and with capital letters) are a distinct group whose ideology is marked by righteous nihilism, rejection of voting, support for a mythical "Revolution" in place of ever trying to work within the flawed political system, support for violent genocidal states or groups as long as they are "anti-western" or "anti-Israeli" (witness how they flocked to quiveringly defend the Houthis) while simultaneously yelling at everyone else for supporting genocide, making no attempt to incorporate actual politics, history, or reality into their all-consuming ideology, and shaming everyone else who doesn't agree with them. As you say, they are focused on some "pure" level of political engagement, which is of course impossible and therefore means the only thing they do is spend their time on Twitter rampantly spreading misinformation as long as it fits their beliefs. Pragmatism, harm reduction, nuance, or making a flawed choice that puts any kind of "moral burden" on them does not exist to them and is a dirty word, because it might conflict with bringing about La Revolution. So yeah.

#stinkahny #ask #politics for ts

113 notes · View notes

lakesparkles · 10 months

Text

I wasn't going to post today, but the part 2 of this AU is already done so....

Pickles is unironically my favorite character here, I have big plans for her.

More informations under the cut:

Like last time, it's Instagram's original description so it might sound confusing in some parts.

Bojack and Rand being swapped was the easier choice because, to be fair, they're kinda similar. Buuuut also so different the plots will have to change a lot, especially their relationship with Diane and Reagan. Rand used to be, well, a famous actor in sci-fi sitcom: one that has a way better reboot and where Brett stars. He's very bitter about all of this obviously. Reagan grew up in the celebrity world but was never truly part of it. She prefers to just write for it and support Brett. Meanwhile, Bojack used to be Cognito's CEO with Herb (and Diane's dad ig), but he was kicked out and now is Diane's roommate. They have a mostly peaceful relationship, but are terrible influences for each other.

And about Pickles:

Alright, let's go! Pickles wasn't swap with anyone, she's her own character, I guess. She works at the PR and Media Manipulation department with PC and is a kind of a "fake influencer" that tries to manipulate her public as Cognito wishes. She doesn't think it's very nice, but they convince all she does is worth it. Besides this little thing, she's living her dream job with an amazing boyfriend and friends she loves… Right?

Her plot won't be so different from canon, what'll change is her relationship with other characters and the fact she's there since the start (when PB met Diane, he was already dating Pickles). And she really, really admires Diane!! She thinks Diane is smart, fun and even says how "she wishes to be like her someday"

So when PB eventually cheats on her… with Diane of all people… Everything hits Pickles a little more, but she tries to understand. Their relationship can still work. She can forgive. She can forget. But, in the moments she feels the worst, she can't help but look at the people that works with her and compare to the public that watches her all time. Why do the people that seems to truly cares about her are the ones she's paid (very badly) to manipulate? Pickles is confused.

#bojack horseman #inside job #breagan #brett hand #reagan ridley #rand ridley #diane nguyen #mr peanutbutter #pickles aplenty #princess carolyn #I like Pickles :)#hollywoo au #cognito au

316 notes · View notes

bigboysdrinkmilk · 11 days

Note

Don’t you dare pretend to give a shit about Palestinians, when you’re actively trying to guilt people into voting for a man who’s CURRENTLY aiding and abetting a genocide of my people.

I am interested in results.

There are two possible candidates—short of something extraordinary happening—this election.

One of them supports a ceasefire and has been negotiating for months with representatives of both Israel and Hamas to reach a ceasefire. He has drawn red lines for Israel’s behavior and taken the most retributive actions when they crossed those lines since Reagan’s administration. He has sought new ways to get aid into Gaza, not every one successful, but I appreciate the attempts in the face of blockades on roads by Israeli settlers. He is not perfect and I do not agree with even a majority of his stances on this issue. That is Biden.

The other thinks Israel should “finish the job,” and his son-in-law thinks Gaza is prime beachfront real estate. He wants to deport Muslims here at home and ban Muslims from traveling in the U.S. That is Trump.

One of them will win the election this November.

As is true with every election, my vote is one of harm prevention. As I said, I am interested in results. How can I wield the limited power that I have to help the most people?

Since 10/16 I have written my representatives (and, in fact, other people’s representatives as well) to tell them I do not support our stances with regards to Israel and Gaza. That we should do more to reign in Israel. That we should save as many Palestinians in any ways that we can manage.

And, in November, I will vote for Biden because the results of that vote will save the most Palestinian lives. It will save the most LGBTQ lives. It will save the most women’s lives. It will save the most black lives. It will save the most Muslim lives. It will save the most Jewish lives. It will save the most disabled lives. And so on.

I am very comfortable with my decision. But that does not mean I do not mourn or advocate outside of how I vote. Because I do not vote to feel good. I vote to steer this country in the best way I can.

I hope everyone reading this will join me this November in voting not to feel good for the sake of feeling good, but to save as many people, here and abroad, as we can. Because whoever wins will shape the world, for better or worse, and mold the future we live in.

The first step to a peaceful future in Gaza is a ceasefire in Gaza. One candidate supports that measure. And that candidate has my vote.

#politics #ask

27 notes · View notes

wanderingmind867 · 8 months

Text

Random question, but who do you think was worse: Reagan, Thatcher or Brian Mulroney? The three conservative leaders of the 80s. Personally, I think Reagan was the worst of the three. And I think Mulroney was the best. Let me explain:

I think Mulroney was best. Because while Mulroney seems to have had some very bad domestic policies, at least he didn't get us involved in any major wars (as far as I'm aware), and he also opposed apartheid. So his foreign policy was at least not as bad as it could have been, which gets him the top spot.

Reagan was worst because both his domestic and foreign policy sucked. Reaganomics was bad for america, and his response to things like the AIDS crisis was also disastrous. And it's not like he had too good of a foreign policy either. He supported millitary coups all throughout Central and Southern America, and also there were things like Iran-Contra which probably show his bad foreign policy. Also, he tried to veto MLK Jr Day from becoming a thing. Who does that!?

So because Mulroney is best and Reagan is worst, I guess Thatcher is the one in the middle slot. She's worse than Mulroney, but better than Reagan. She had a bad domestic policy too (I think), but at least she didn't get the UK involved in as many coups and wars as the US (I think this is true). Also, at least one can say she has an interesting background. She supposedly wanted to be a chemist before going into politics. Which is interesting to me.

But either way, I wonder if anybody else has any thoughts on all this? Who do you consider worst, and who do you consider best here?

#canada #usa #uk #1980s #politics #us politics #uk politics #canada politics #leftism #maybe I should tag that?#my thoughts #I was inspired to make this #After seeing a youtube video critical of ronald reagan #i haven't seen it yet #but I might later #autism #asd #audhd #rambles

85 notes · View notes

themultifanshipper · 1 month

Text

I would like to contribute my opinion on the lando/trump situation.

Warning, it's long and a bit nuanced (although slightly more a defence than an accusation but still keep an open mind)

And is edited as i find more things to say

First off, Lando is a victim of the formula one machine just like all the drivers. They are the puppets, the clowns, whatever analogy you want. The people behind the teams (team bosses, ceo's, sponsors etc... are what make the machine run, the drivers are just there to drive. He was approached by the ex president of the country he was in, on a high of winning his first race, and shook his hand while a million cameras were pointing in his direction. That can only happen one way: trump being invited by the team (bosses ceo's, whatever). Now, I despise trump and everything he stands for, but if I was in Lando's situation I would have had to do the same thing. (It so happens I was in a similar situation and had to shut my mouth and shake the hand of a politician I didn't like because I could have caused a diplomatic incident and lost my job and cost a lot of money in sponsorships). Also the alleged comments "It was an honour for him to be there/ you have to have respect for him" etc... are probably bullshit, but in the case that they are not and Lando is actually a trump supporter, if you cancel him for it, you would have to cancel half the drivers/team bosses/Ceo's etc in HISTORY.

The founding of formula one (like any institution ever) is by and for White/Rich/Heterosexual/Males. The FIA is corrupt. The teams are corrupt. It's an industry entirely run by money. It's capitalism in a bottle and some of y'all seem to forget that. The fact is the drivers could all be supporters of the right wing parties in their respective countries, would you cancel all of them?

For example, frank williams, the FOUNDER of Williams f1 team was openly a Thatcher supporter. There is a portrait of the bitch in his house (now his daughter's) as seen below, with a picture of.... george russell??

I also added a picture of Thatcher with Colin Chapman to emphasize that political figures often get involved in sports, doesn't mean the athletes align with their views. Trump, Reagan, Thatcher, Francisco Franco (a literal dictator).... they've all done it.

But let's have a quick look at Georgie boy then. A rich white man, he was quite friendly with Frank Williams, does that mean he's a tory? No. (Tbh he probably is but is smart enough to not talk about it)

Lewis Hamilton of all people was invited to lunch TWICE with the British Royal family (not to mention the knighthood), does that mean he's a racist cunt with no regard for other human lives? No. So why would he associate himself with them? Because he's smart enough to not alienate half the bloody population!

If these people had integrity and perfect morals, they would not be racing in F1. And for the few that are genuinely good people, they're smart enough to just be a cog in the machine to ensure their paycheck. We saw it with the horner situation, they won't get involved unless they actually support the bad guy. Similar situation to palestine, if they speak out either way, they will alienate countless sponsors and probably loose their seat.

Yes it's shit, yes it should be different, yes it should be inclusive but it's just not. It's veeery slowly changing though.

But back to Lando: now he isn't perfect obviously. (He's a white cis probably het man) He might even be right wing who knows, but I think taking alleged comments like "you have to respect the guy" out of context is dangerous. Objectively, yes there is an infinitesimal bit of respect you have to have for trump (hear me out) he managed to become PRESIDENT OF THE UNTIED STATES by manipulating the masses into thinking he was basically the reincarnation of God. Man is a genius, even though he's a cock. He's also a brilliant example of nepotism, capitalism and all round discrimination that represents the system we all live in. Additionally, florida is a pretty right wing state if i'm not mistaken (gun laws/anti abortion/anti lgbt etc...) and if lando had told trump to fuck off, there might have been riots and i'm only barely joking. Lando is a dick for the comments that were perhaps a bit unnecessary but y'all are seeing them as him endorsing trump lmao. As a (hopefully) future public figure, if the president of my country came to see me in front of a bunch of cameras i would also say it was an honour to meet him. At this level it's self preservation.

I will finish this rant by saying that I hope the world of f1 will change for the better in future years, already the gender diversification is going in the right direction, some programs are in place for kids who come from poorer backgrounds etc... but expecting that change to come from the puppets of capitalism is quite unreasonable. Lewis has set some standards that hopefully more and more drivers can stick to, but in the meantime cancelling a dude for breathing the same air as trump is stupid.

Ps: Y'all don't know the half of the awful private corporations and sponsors of the teams and drivers, so if you can't cope with the occasional dick on your screen, you might want to pick a different hobby. Preferably not involving public figures or PR in any capacity.

Edit 1: I've been seing ppl get mad at lando for saying he's his lucky charm and I think it's perhaps a language comprehension barrier thing. He did not say that. Trump said he was lando's lucky charm, then lando mentionned that trump had said it.

Edit 2: I've seen some clips of Zak Brown where he seems to be really friendly with trump. I wouldn't be surprised if it was his idea to introduce him to lando. CEO's are rarely great people, and although i'm glad he's been such a huge part of Lando's journey and success, i'm not a big fan of his. I just wish it would have been with someone a bit less complacent, like max or lewis, they wouldn't have said that stuff and the interaction would have been quite entertaining I reckon.

Edit 3: great post about the misunderstood comments at the press conference here

Don't hesitate to insult me in my asks, i will be answering them with equal enthusiasm :)

#f1 #formula 1 #lando norris #personal rant #miami gp 2024 #george russell #lewis hamilton #my rants

26 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 8 months

Text

In defense of bureaucratic competence

Sure, sometimes it really does make sense to do your own research. There's times when you really do need to take personal responsibility for the way things are going. But there's limits. We live in a highly technical world, in which hundreds of esoteric, potentially lethal factors impinge on your life every day.

You can't "do your own research" to figure out whether all that stuff is safe and sound. Sure, you might be able to figure out whether a contractor's assurances about a new steel joist for your ceiling are credible, but after you do that, are you also going to independently audit the software in your car's antilock brakes?

How about the nutritional claims on your food and the sanitary conditions in the industrial kitchen it came out of? If those turn out to be inadequate, are you going to be able to validate the medical advice you get in the ER when you show up at 3AM with cholera? While you're trying to figure out the #HIPAAWaiver they stuck in your hand on the way in?

40 years ago, Ronald Reagan declared war on "the administrative state," and "government bureaucrats" have been the favored bogeyman of the American right ever since. Even if Steve Bannon hasn't managed to get you to froth about the "Deep State," there's a good chance that you've griped about red tape from time to time.

Not without reason, mind you. The fact that the government can make good rules doesn't mean it will. When we redid our kitchen this year, the city inspector added a bunch of arbitrary electrical outlets to the contractor's plans in places where neither we, nor any future owner, will every need them.

But the answer to bad regulation isn't no regulation. During the same kitchen reno, our contractor discovered that at some earlier time, someone had installed our kitchen windows without the accompanying vapor-barriers. In the decades since, the entire structure of our kitchen walls had rotted out. Not only was the entire front of our house one good earthquake away from collapsing – there were two half rotted verticals supporting the whole thing – but replacing the rotted walls added more than $10k to the project.

In other words, the problem isn't too much regulation, it's the wrong regulation. I want our city inspectors to make sure that contractors install vapor barriers, but to not demand superfluous electrical outlets.

Which raises the question: where do regulations come from? How do we get them right?

Regulation is, first and foremost, a truth-seeking exercise. There will never be one obvious answer to any sufficiently technical question. "Should this window have a vapor barrier?" is actually a complex question, needing to account for different window designs, different kinds of barriers, etc.

To make a regulation, regulators ask experts to weigh in. At the federal level, expert agencies like the DoT or the FCC or HHS will hold a "Notice of Inquiry," which is a way to say, "Hey, should we do something about this? If so, what should we do?"

Anyone can weigh in on these: independent technical experts, academics, large companies, lobbyists, industry associations, members of the public, hobbyist groups, and swivel-eyed loons. This produces a record from which the regulator crafts a draft regulation, which is published in something called a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking."

The NPRM process looks a lot like the NOI process: the regulator publishes the rule, the public weighs in for a couple of rounds of comments, and the regulator then makes the rule (this is the federal process; state regulation and local ordinances vary, but they follow a similar template of collecting info, making a proposal, collecting feedback and finalizing the proposal).

These truth-seeking exercises need good input. Even very competent regulators won't know everything, and even the strongest theoretical foundation needs some evidence from the field. It's one thing to say, "Here's how your antilock braking software should work," but you also need to hear from mechanics who service cars, manufacturers, infosec specialists and drivers.

These people will disagree with each other, for good reasons and for bad ones. Some will be sincere but wrong. Some will want to make sure that their products or services are required – or that their competitors' products and services are prohibited.

It's the regulator's job to sort through these claims. But they don't have to go it alone: in an ideal world, the wrong people will be corrected by other parties in the docket, who will back up their claims with evidence.

So when the FCC proposes a Net Neutrality rule, the monopoly telcos and cable operators will pile in and insist that this is technically impossible, that there is no way to operate a functional ISP if the network management can't discriminate against traffic that is less profitable to the carrier. Now, this unity of perspective might reflect a bedrock truth ("Net Neutrality can't work") or a monopolists' convenient lie ("Net Neutrality is less profitable for us").

In a competitive market, there'd be lots of counterclaims with evidence from rivals: "Of course Net Neutrality is feasible, and here are our server logs to prove it!" But in a monopolized markets, those counterclaims come from micro-scale ISPs, or academics, or activists, or subscribers. These counterclaims are easy to dismiss ("what do you know about supporting 100 million users?"). That's doubly true when the regulator is motivated to give the monopolists what they want – either because they are hoping for a job in the industry after they quit government service, or because they came out of industry and plan to go back to it.

To make things worse, when an industry is heavily concentrated, it's easy for members of the ruling cartel – and their backers in government – to claim that the only people who truly understand the industry are its top insiders. Seen in that light, putting an industry veteran in charge of the industry's regulator isn't corrupt – it's sensible.

All of this leads to regulatory capture – when a regulator starts defending an industry from the public interest, instead of defending the public from the industry. The term "regulatory capture" has a checkered history. It comes out of a bizarre, far-right Chicago School ideology called "Public Choice Theory," whose goal is to eliminate regulation, not fix it.

In Public Choice Theory, the biggest companies in an industry have the strongest interest in capturing the regulator, and they will work harder – and have more resources – than anyone else, be they members of the public, workers, or smaller rivals. This inevitably leads to capture, where the state becomes an arm of the dominant companies, wielded by them to prevent competition:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/05/regulatory-capture/

This is regulatory nihilism. It supposes that the only reason you weren't killed by your dinner, or your antilock brakes, or your collapsing roof, is that you just got lucky – and not because we have actual, good, sound regulations that use evidence to protect us from the endless lethal risks we face. These nihilists suppose that making good regulation is either a myth – like ancient Egyptian sorcery – or a lost art – like the secret to embalming Pharaohs.

But it's clearly possible to make good regulations – especially if you don't allow companies to form monopolies or cartels. What's more, failing to make public regulations isn't the same as getting rid of regulation. In the absence of public regulation, we get private regulation, run by companies themselves.

Think of Amazon. For decades, the DoJ and FTC sat idly by while Amazon assembled and fortified its monopoly. Today, Amazon is the de facto e-commerce regulator. The company charges its independent sellers 45-51% in junk fees to sell on the platform, including $31b/year in "advertising" to determine who gets top billing in your searches. Vendors raise their Amazon prices in order to stay profitable in the face of these massive fees, and if they don't raise their prices at every other store and site, Amazon downranks them to oblivion, putting them out of business.

This is the crux of the FTC's case against Amazon: that they are picking winners and setting prices across the entire economy, including at every other retailer:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/25/greedflation/#commissar-bezos

The same is true for Google/Facebook, who decide which news and views you encounter; for Apple/Google, who decide which apps you can use, and so on. The choice is never "government regulation" or "no regulation" – it's always "government regulation" or "corporate regulation." You either live by rules made in public by democratically accountable bureaucrats, or rules made in private by shareholder-accountable executives.

You just can't solve this by "voting with your wallet." Think about the problem of robocalls. Nobody likes these spam calls, and worse, they're a vector for all kinds of fraud. Robocalls are mostly a problem with federation. The phone system is a network-of-networks, and your carrier is interconnected with carriers all over the world, sometimes through intermediaries that make it hard to know which network a call originates on.

Some of these carriers are spam-friendly. They make money by selling access to spammers and scammers. Others don't like spam, but they have lax or inadequate security measures to prevent robocalls. Others will simply be targets of opportunity: so large and well-resourced that they are irresistible to bad actors, who continuously probe their defenses and exploit overlooked flaws, which are quickly patched.

To stem the robocall tide, your phone company will have to block calls from bad actors, put sloppy or lazy carriers on notice to shape up or face blocks, and also tell the difference between good companies and bad ones.

There's no way you can figure this out on your own. How can you know whether your carrier is doing a good job at this? And even if your carrier wants to do this, only the largest, most powerful companies can manage it. Rogue carriers won't give a damn if some tiny micro-phone-company threatens them with a block if they don't shape up.

This is something that a large, powerful government agency is best suited to addressing. And thankfully, we have such an agency. Two years ago, the FCC demanded that phone companies submit plans for "robocall mitigation." Now, it's taking action:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/telcos-filed-blank-robocall-plans-with-fcc-and-got-away-with-it-for-2-years/

Specifically, the FCC has identified carriers – in the US and abroad – with deficient plans. Some of these plans are very deficient. National Cloud Communications of Texas sent the FCC a Windows Printer Test Page. Evernex (Pakistan) sent the FCC its "taxpayer profile inquiry" from a Pakistani state website. Viettel (Vietnam) sent in a slide presentation entitled "Making Smart Cities Vision a Reality." Canada's Humbolt VoIP sent an "indiscernible object." DomainerSuite submitted a blank sheet of paper scrawled with the word "NOTHING."

The FCC has now notified these carriers – and others with less egregious but still deficient submissions – that they have 14 days to fix this or they'll be cut off from the US telephone network.

This is a problem you don't fix with your wallet, but with your ballot. Effective, public-interest-motivated FCC regulators are a political choice. Trump appointed the cartoonishly evil Ajit Pai to run the FCC, and he oversaw a program of neglect and malice. Pai – a former Verizon lawyer – dismantled Net Neutrality after receiving millions of obviously fraudulent comments from stolen identities, lying about it, and then obstructing the NY Attorney General's investigation into the matter:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/31/and-drown-it/#starve-the-beast

The Biden administration has a much better FCC – though not as good as it could be, thanks to Biden hanging Gigi Sohn out to dry in the face of a homophobic smear campaign that ultimately led one of the best qualified nominees for FCC commissioner to walk away from the process:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/15/useful-idiotsuseful-idiots/#unrequited-love

Notwithstanding the tragic loss of Sohn's leadership in this vital agency, Biden's FCC – and its action on robocalls – illustrates the value of elections won with ballots, not wallets.

Self-regulation without state regulation inevitably devolves into farce. We're a quarter of a century into the commercial internet and the US still doesn't have a modern federal privacy law. The closest we've come is a disclosure rule, where companies can make up any policy they want, provided they describe it to you.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to cheat on this regulation. It's so simple, even a Meta lawyer can figure it out – which is why the Meta Quest VR headset has a privacy policy isn't merely awful, but long.

It will take you five hours to read the whole document and discover how badly you're being screwed. Go ahead, "do your own research":

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/annual-creep-o-meter/

The answer to bad regulation is good regulation, and the answer to incompetent regulators is competent ones. As Michael Lewis's Fifth Risk (published after Trump filled the administrative agencies with bootlickers, sociopaths and crooks) documented, these jobs demand competence:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/11/27/the-fifth-risk-michael-lewis-explains-how-the-deep-state-is-just-nerds-versus-grifters/

For example, Lewis describes how a Washington State nuclear waste facility created as part of the Manhattan Project endangers the Columbia River, the source of 8 million Americans' drinking water. The nuclear waste cleanup is projected to take 100 years and cost 100 billion dollars. With stakes that high, we need competent bureaucrats overseeing the job.

The hacky conservative jokes comparing every government agency to the DMV are not descriptive so much as prescriptive. By slashing funding, imposing miserable working conditions, and demonizing the people who show up for work anyway, neoliberals have chased away many good people, and hamstrung those who stayed.

One of the most inspiring parts of the Biden administration is the large number of extremely competent, extremely principled agency personnel he appointed, and the speed and competence they've brought to their roles, to the great benefit of the American public:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

But leaders can only do so much – they also need staff. 40 years of attacks on US state capacity has left the administrative state in tatters, stretched paper-thin. In an excellent article, Noah Smith describes how a starveling American bureaucracy costs the American public a fortune:

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-needs-a-bigger-better-bureaucracy

Even stripped of people and expertise, the US government still needs to get stuff done, so it outsources to nonprofits and consultancies. These are the source of much of the expense and delay in public projects. Take NYC's Second Avenue subway, a notoriously overbudget and late subway extension – "the most expensive mile of subway ever built." Consultants amounted to 20% of its costs, double what France or Italy would have spent. The MTA used to employ 1,600 project managers. Now it has 124 of them, overseeing $20b worth of projects. They hand that money to consultants, and even if they have the expertise to oversee the consultants' spending, they are stretched too thin to do a good job of it:

https://slate.com/business/2023/02/subway-costs-us-europe-public-transit-funds.html

When a public agency lacks competence, it ends up costing the public more. States with highly expert Departments of Transport order better projects, which need fewer changes, which adds up to massive costs savings and superior roads:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4522676

Other gaps in US regulation are plugged by nonprofits and citizen groups. Environmental rules like NEPA rely on the public to identify and object to environmental risks in public projects, from solar plants to new apartment complexes. NEPA and its state equivalents empower private actors to sue developers to block projects, even if they satisfy all environmental regulations, leading to years of expensive delay.

The answer to this isn't to dismantle environmental regulations – it's to create a robust expert bureaucracy that can enforce them instead of relying on NIMBYs. This is called "ministerial approval" – when skilled government workers oversee environmental compliance. Predictably, NIMBYs hate ministerial approval.

Which is not to say that there aren't problems with trusting public enforcers to ensure that big companies are following the law. Regulatory capture is real, and the more concentrated an industry is, the greater the risk of capture. We are living in a moment of shocking market concentration, thanks to 40 years of under-regulation:

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/learn/monopoly-by-the-numbers

Remember that five-hour privacy policy for a Meta VR headset? One answer to these eye-glazing garbage novellas presented as "privacy policies" is to simply ban certain privacy-invading activities. That way, you can skip the policy, knowing that clicking "I agree" won't expose you to undue risk.

This is the approach that Bennett Cyphers and I argue for in our EFF white-paper, "Privacy Without Monopoly":

https://www.eff.org/wp/interoperability-and-privacy

After all, even the companies that claim to be good for privacy aren't actually very good for privacy. Apple blocked Facebook from spying on iPhone owners, then sneakily turned on their own mass surveillance system, and lied about it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

But as the European experiment with the GDPR has shown, public administrators can't be trusted to have the final word on privacy, because of regulatory capture. Big Tech companies like Google, Apple and Facebook pretend to be headquartered in corporate crime havens like Ireland and Luxembourg, where the regulators decline to enforce the law:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/15/finnegans-snooze/#dirty-old-town

It's only because of the GPDR has a private right of action – the right of individuals to sue to enforce their rights – that we're finally seeing the beginning of the end of commercial surveillance in Europe:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/07/americans-deserve-more-current-american-data-privacy-protection-act

It's true that NIMBYs can abuse private rights of action, bringing bad faith cases to slow or halt good projects. But just as the answer to bad regulations is good ones, so too is the answer to bad private rights of action good ones. SLAPP laws have shown us how to balance vexatious litigation with the public interest:

https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/

We must get over our reflexive cynicism towards public administration. In my book The Internet Con, I lay out a set of public policy proposals for dismantling Big Tech and putting users back in charge of their digital lives:

https://www.versobooks.com/products/3035-the-internet-con

The most common objection I've heard since publishing the book is, "Sure, Big Tech has enshittified everything great about the internet, but how can we trust the government to fix it?"

We've been conditioned to think that lawmakers are too old, too calcified and too corrupt, to grasp the technical nuances required to regulate the internet. But just because Congress isn't made up of computer scientists, it doesn't mean that they can't pass good laws relating to computers. Congress isn't full of microbiologists, but we still manage to have safe drinking water (most of the time).

You can't just "do the research" or "vote with your wallet" to fix the internet. Bad laws – like the DMCA, which bans most kinds of reverse engineering – can land you in prison just for reconfiguring your own devices to serve you, rather than the shareholders of the companies that made them. You can't fix that yourself – you need a responsive, good, expert, capable government to fix it.

We can have that kind of government. It'll take some doing, because these questions are intrinsically hard to get right even without monopolies trying to capture their regulators. Even a president as flawed as Biden can be pushed into nominating good administrative personnel and taking decisive, progressive action:

https://doctorow.medium.com/joe-biden-is-headed-to-a-uaw-picket-line-in-detroit-f80bd0b372ab?sk=f3abdfd3f26d2f615ad9d2f1839bcc07

Biden may not be doing enough to suit your taste. I'm certainly furious with aspects of his presidency. The point isn't to lionize Biden – it's to point out that even very flawed leaders can be pushed into producing benefit for the American people. Think of how much more we can get if we don't give up on politics but instead demand even better leaders.

My next novel is The Lost Cause, coming out on November 14. It's about a generation of people who've grown up under good government – a historically unprecedented presidency that has passed the laws and made the policies we'll need to save our species and planet from the climate emergency:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865939/the-lost-cause

The action opens after the pendulum has swung back, with a new far-right presidency and an insurgency led by white nationalist militias and their offshore backers – seagoing anarcho-capitalist billionaires.

In the book, these forces figure out how to turn good regulations against the people they were meant to help. They file hundreds of simultaneous environmental challenges to refugee housing projects across the country, blocking the infill building that is providing homes for the people whose homes have been burned up in wildfires, washed away in floods, or rendered uninhabitable by drought.

I don't want to spoil the book here, but it shows how the protagonists pursue a multipronged defense, mixing direct action, civil disobedience, mass protest, court challenges and political pressure to fight back. What they don't do is give up on state capacity. When the state is corrupted by wreckers, they claw back control, rather than giving up on the idea of a competent and benevolent public system.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/23/getting-stuff-done/#praxis

379 notes · View notes

compacflt · 7 months

Note

Hi, big fan of your fics. I've just found your Tumblr and binged everything Icemav-related. When reading about Icemav's political beliefs, I've gotten curious. Does Bradley share the same political beliefs as Ice (and Mav)? Does being raised by them or them pulling his papers influence how he votes? Or there are other factors in the play (e.g. generations, social media)? How about Jake and the other Daggers? How does this young generation of the Navy perceive politics (elections, gender, etc.)? My apologies for bombarding you with questions. But as a non-American, American politics have always been something we must pay attention to. I've seen many interesting interpretations on Tumblr but it feels more or less wistful than realistic, but I might be wrong (again not an American) so I would love to see your perspective on this. Thank you.

a good politics roundup post before i leave this blog

icemav & their conservatism: here, here, here

ice’s NECESSARY conservatism as commander of the pacific fleet (i.e. officers who are most likely to get promoted to the highest ranks do NOT break the service line when it comes to domestic politics, so by necessity ice would’ve had to keep his mouth shut, he Cannot be both a four-star and a revolutionary, like he just can’t; and being a revolutionary is otherwise antithetical to his character anyway): here, here.

and the original “ice & mav politics post” which is being updated here: here

I’ve gone back and forth on everyones politics over the last year of me being involved with these characters, but let me just tell you where I’ve ended up headcanoning them politically, if ur interested

ice: reagan democrat. “educated moderate” who was more right-leaning pre-9/11. now just a regular ol liberal (did you SEE those gay little round glasses in tgm? no way this guy isn’t a straight-up lib) with absolutely no strong feelings about most domestic politics besides “fascism bad”. Has some foreign policy opinions that areeeee questionable at best, like all members of the military elite (hangman voice: DO NOT ASK ICEMAN ABOUT CHINA. WORST MISTAKE OF MY LIFE). foreign policy neoliberal favoring the dovish side of the spectrum. A force conservator (“let’s save our military assets [read: my boyfriend maverick 🥺] for when we really need them, not for any old conflict. the deterring specter of the American war machine should outweigh the risk of underperforming”). He’s in favor of marriage equality of course, but treats it like a privilege and not a right. would be sad/upset if it got repealed but wouldn’t necessarily fight for it. “well at least my marriage will always be legal in california so i just won’t leave, problem solved.” Normie median Biden voter.

mav: political wildcard tbh. original 1986 mav is DEFINITELY right-leaning (i think i’ve written elsewhere, “he fully believes bill clinton is an affront to god”). i get young republican vibes from him. Full on patriotic (but dispassionate) 1980s reaganite anti-commie neoconservative. but after the 2010s i am very confused tbh. Tom cruise’s political aura is an insanely confusing one. idk. No matter what, Mav has some Hot Takes that a.) can immediately be shot down by ice using Facts and Logic at any time and b.) are not strictly partisan. He’s registered democrat just to support marriage equality (his marriage is his top priority but he doesn’t care about Other gays’ marriages, only his own), doesn’t care about any of the party’s other lines. Votes however ice tells him to. I get real “kind clueless libertarian” vibes from 2022 maverick tbh. Especially with the “isolating himself in a hangar in the middle of the mojave desert.” that has a political connotation to it for sure. bro just does whatever he wants out there

also, ice & mav live in San Diego, which… while in blue/democrat leaning California…is famously a bastion of right-wingers & has a hitler particle level off the charts… (sorry its not my favorite place in the world). That’s why they’re both continually so disgusted by San Francisco (a metonym for effete liberal homosexuality). Theyre from San Diego, hatred of SF & liberal SF politics is kinda par for the course down there.

Bradley: as u will see in the extras i definitely hc Bradley as an activist, but because he’s… in the navy and also like in his 30s… It’s not college campus activism, it’s just “things all of us in the left wing can agree upon” activism. so, like, BLM or pride, etc. He’s an “in this house we believe” yard sign liberal. He is 38 years old. hes a solid millennial so not politically hip with the kids (me)

Bradley & ice/mav disagree on the VISIBILITY of politics. Ice & mav, who did live through the vietnam era draft/near-dissolution of American society in the 60s and 70s, are not in favor of possibly losing their job/honor they have fought and killed for, for the sake of a political statement. And they believe their relationship IS a political statement, whereas Bradley would rather encourage them to treat their relationship like, I don’t know, a relationship that has a right to exist independent of politics!

Jake and the other daggers: idk. i don’t really give a shit about the daggers sorry. They r blank slates 2 me. jake especially is canonically frat-boy sexist in a way that gives me the heebs, much like original 1986 maverick and ice. But the navy tends to be the most left-wing (or thought of as left wing in common thought) service of the military, if that helps. But it is also the most traditional service of the military, and by traditional I mean BRITISH!!!! 🇬🇧💂there’s so much pomp and circumstance and hoity-toitiness that comes from the navy’s origins in the Royal Navy. A lot of sticking to outdated tradition in the very fabric of the navy itself, while the navy’s enlisted demographics shift younger and more left-wing/“revolutionary…” some interesting conflicts there. Like that one sailor who got blasted by multiple congressmen on social media for (with permission!) reading a poem about their queer identity on the USS Gerald ford’s intercom a few months back, if I remember correctly. Hoo boy the Takes that day were wild. Younger Americans tend to be more liberal but YMMV with officers, who are by nature trying to uphold outdated traditions of the navy for the sake of keeping the navy a unified service

i am of course writing carole as a christian republican who has gay friends and a gay kid not by choice but by the Grace of God

#i realize some terminology in this post is so hyperamericanspecific that you may need to Google it #like the in this house we believe yard sign #it’s… like… i can’t even describe it. it’s a kind of well meaning liberal who can sometimes be a little cringe.#and Reagan democrats (which ice is) are a whole political subgroup in and of themselves #maybe not Reagan democrat but like conservadem? but no that’s different too #blue dog democrat? but not sure he’s that conservative #THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS BECOME SUCH A BIG TENT POST TRUMP THERE ARE 50.000 TYPES OF DEMOCRAT YOU CAN BE #san francisco as a metonym for effete liberal homosexuality of course (it’s where im from 😎😎)#it’s a ten hour drive from SF to San diego like they might as well be different countries. san diego secede from the US when 🙏🏽#pete maverick mitchell #tom iceman kazansky #top gun #icemav #top gun maverick #jake hangman seresin #bradley rooster bradshaw #normie median biden voter ice #the navy is liberalizing but veeeeery slowly #most of the conservative pressure ive seen towards the navy is external! policymakers & budget drafters etc #the navy is very liberal BUT that makes it a laughingstock among conservatives!#so a desire from higher-ups to push the Navy more conservative to be taken seriously…is kinda understandable #when being taken seriously means more ships more capability more money etc #instead of GOP culture-war-pilled pennypinchers going ‘hey why are we givin the gay service so much money’#take this post with a grain of salt. i have never been old enough to vote in a federal election.

70 notes · View notes