Disney pulled a kind of "an end run" on the self-aggrandizing, self-appointed king of Florida by essentially using the law (as it was written to create the reedy creek improvement district) to their advantage, before he could appoint his acolytes to the board.
Remember that while he vowed to "change the law," he really didn't. Instead he changed the composition of the board, so they could decide what Disney could and could not do with the land.
Quick aside: he made a big show of what he did, and lazy reporters had headlines like "governor takes control over Disney" which is bad hyperbole and wholly inaccurate.
Up until that point, Disney (mostly) didn't abuse their powers to govern and was a good citizen. But the governor decided he wanted to be punitive with Disney and punish them for having the audacity to stand up to him and challenge his stupid anti-woke-edness.
So, the outgoing board voted to grant Disney (the company) the ability to (essentially) self-govern and decide land usage. Which was within the bounds of what they were legally allowed to do, because the law creating the improvement district was cleverly written by…let's see here…a law firm populated by CIA operatives who helped ensure that Disney had everything they needed to operate in a state that might have been described as the "Wild West" … Florida was akong the poor states at that point and had a lot of laws that were written by people who helped Florida grow - in return for something.
The outgoing board even used language like 'these new rules are in effect' until "21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England" which was kind of in your face to governor (mo)Ron.
Cue the whining and the griping. And the vow for revenge!
The governor decided that he's the supreme leader and they can't defy him. Even if, legally, they did just that. He is spending taxpayer dollars (don't miss the irony that many of these dollars come from Disney) to investigate this, and sue, and otherwise carry on. He made a big show of directing the attorney general to look for criminal acts here! You have to find something!
And then went on a public tirade and made threats to stop Disney!
He absurdly called it war, and has proposed adding toll roads into Disney and taxing Disney hotels more. And being punitive in any way he can.
Of course all of the things he is proposing "could" hurt Disney in the long run … but he's talking about hurting locals indirectly (thanks for helping citizens in your state, pal!) and tourists directly. And the tourists are the ones who provide the most tax dollars to the state. You want to destroy the biggest industry? Of course you do.
Disney naturally responded to these threats, and Iger vowed to protect Disneys interests and was unequivocal in his disdain for the governor and any of his allies. In short, none of them will be receiving any campaign contributions….and that is hitting them where it hurts the most.
But here is the bigger picture on some of this. The GOP is all about small government. Staying out of the way with few regulations. And leaving companies to do their business.
The whole "citizens United" case was about just that.
Except that it's not really about that, apparently. It's about companies giving them money and keeping their mouth shut and doing exactly what the leadership in the GOP says to do. The GOP is more like the mafia that way.
So floridas governor decides to attack a publicly traded company for his benefit, and attempts to use legislation against them; and when they get to it first he throws a hissy and threatens to Sue.
Here's to hoping that some of his supporters, maybe people with half a brain?, see through this as him being a tyrant and imposing his will against a company that is (a) the largest employer in the state and (b) brings in the most revenue to the state.
In simpler terms, he's using his powers to HURT Florida.
Saturday, April 8, 2023
Wednesday, April 5, 2023
Aye, aye admiral.
Let's consider for a moment the people at the top of the proverbial food chain, the "captains of industry" the Uber wealthy, the people who manipulate public policy and invest heavily into government.
I like to think of them collectively as "the admiral" because they are in charge and move objects around to achieve their goals and objectives. And they tell everyone else what needs to be done.
I'm going to generalize a bit, or maybe admiralize perhaps.
In my experience, I have found that the admirals are deeply unhappy. They find no joy in life. Maybe it was poor parenting, or an experience. But they achieved some "success" (as defined by their wealth and power)…. And in my estimation, money didn't buy happiness and so they want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.
So when you look at something, like let's say a drag show, you and I realize that it's about entertainment and fun. People are smiling and laughing and sometimes they make fun of the admiral in subtle (and not so subtle) ways.
That can't stand. The performers are having fun at his expense. It's *their* job to make fun of everyone else - the unwashed masses if you will.
And on and on with different groups of people. The LGBTQ group is finding joy in life. Women are having success and living a life outside the home; and we have heard the admiral referring to women as objects.
Different "minority groups" (quotes because they're called minority to marginalize them; they outnumber the admirality) are having success and are getting attention.
And all of them get derided and held back.
This isn't really about the social issues themselves. This is about being kept miserable, like the admiral.
Which is why, too, companies (populated by admirals) insist on return to work. People are living their best lives. They don't have to sit on the subway and be micromanaged for 10 hours. They are outwardly happy.
They need to be miserable.
Abortion. Guns. Other things that keep us uneducated, scared, and fearful.
They're all right up there with ensuring people live in misery.
Because the admiral gains power from suffering and knowing the one thing that truly sets him apart is the only thing that matters: money.
What I find interesting is that up until the pandemic (read when gen z started coming of age), we accepted it. We raged against it, but accepted it. And now gen z has a different way of thinking about the world. They seemingly don't care what they are told they have to do, and are unwilling to be constrained by societal norms that their parents and previous generations were bound by.
What happens from here is anyone's guess. But it would appear that things are changing in some ways.
I like to think of them collectively as "the admiral" because they are in charge and move objects around to achieve their goals and objectives. And they tell everyone else what needs to be done.
I'm going to generalize a bit, or maybe admiralize perhaps.
In my experience, I have found that the admirals are deeply unhappy. They find no joy in life. Maybe it was poor parenting, or an experience. But they achieved some "success" (as defined by their wealth and power)…. And in my estimation, money didn't buy happiness and so they want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.
So when you look at something, like let's say a drag show, you and I realize that it's about entertainment and fun. People are smiling and laughing and sometimes they make fun of the admiral in subtle (and not so subtle) ways.
That can't stand. The performers are having fun at his expense. It's *their* job to make fun of everyone else - the unwashed masses if you will.
And on and on with different groups of people. The LGBTQ group is finding joy in life. Women are having success and living a life outside the home; and we have heard the admiral referring to women as objects.
Different "minority groups" (quotes because they're called minority to marginalize them; they outnumber the admirality) are having success and are getting attention.
And all of them get derided and held back.
This isn't really about the social issues themselves. This is about being kept miserable, like the admiral.
Which is why, too, companies (populated by admirals) insist on return to work. People are living their best lives. They don't have to sit on the subway and be micromanaged for 10 hours. They are outwardly happy.
They need to be miserable.
Abortion. Guns. Other things that keep us uneducated, scared, and fearful.
They're all right up there with ensuring people live in misery.
Because the admiral gains power from suffering and knowing the one thing that truly sets him apart is the only thing that matters: money.
What I find interesting is that up until the pandemic (read when gen z started coming of age), we accepted it. We raged against it, but accepted it. And now gen z has a different way of thinking about the world. They seemingly don't care what they are told they have to do, and are unwilling to be constrained by societal norms that their parents and previous generations were bound by.
What happens from here is anyone's guess. But it would appear that things are changing in some ways.
Wednesday, March 22, 2023
Drag shows in Florida
Governor dimwitty is afraid of drag shows. Maybe he's afraid he'll find them appealing? I mean who knows…
(Personally I think they're a hoot and think everyone should give them a fair shake. Heck just watch robin Williams in the 90s era movie birdcage to get a sense of it)
In any case he wants to "ban them" and punish businesses that host them.
But as I've opined before, it's hard to draw a line. What if someone hosts a Monty Python tribute show? The Python guys were famous for always playing women (backstory: women comediennes were hard to come by and often got snatched up by other troupes). What if the cast is true to the spirit of the Python troupe and uses men as women…effectively dressed in drag? Would that violate the law?
And if you're thinking it's about the content of the show, what if risqué and raunchy content that is in standup comedy? Or straight acts (even Broadway performances) that feature "straight people" being explicit.
Where do you draw the line? What if you call it a "drag show" and it's something else, entirely different. Like a car drag race?
Stupid people…
https://www.axios.com/local/tampa-bay/2023/02/21/drag-show-bans-florida
(Personally I think they're a hoot and think everyone should give them a fair shake. Heck just watch robin Williams in the 90s era movie birdcage to get a sense of it)
In any case he wants to "ban them" and punish businesses that host them.
But as I've opined before, it's hard to draw a line. What if someone hosts a Monty Python tribute show? The Python guys were famous for always playing women (backstory: women comediennes were hard to come by and often got snatched up by other troupes). What if the cast is true to the spirit of the Python troupe and uses men as women…effectively dressed in drag? Would that violate the law?
And if you're thinking it's about the content of the show, what if risqué and raunchy content that is in standup comedy? Or straight acts (even Broadway performances) that feature "straight people" being explicit.
Where do you draw the line? What if you call it a "drag show" and it's something else, entirely different. Like a car drag race?
Stupid people…
https://www.axios.com/local/tampa-bay/2023/02/21/drag-show-bans-florida
Saturday, March 4, 2023
Oh the irony
Governor dipshit wants to make people who "blog" about him register with the state. And otherwise be guilty of a felony.
I'm unclear on what this means. How does he define blog? What about a web page, an editorial, a series of tweets, a post to another social site ?
What is fair game, for an elected official, which the constitution allows for speech against, and who the Supreme Court has ruled can be called names and made fun of without repercussions?
Is it just his name? His full name? The office? The state? Is it about policies? Where he ate lunch and what he had? Where is this line he wants to draw?
And to the irony of it all. He is all in on allowing any and every one to carry a gun without a permit. But he wants you to have a permit to exercise free speech.
The second amendment has restrictions in the constitution. The first does not. And yet he's once again playing dictator.
And people just accept it.
I'm unclear on what this means. How does he define blog? What about a web page, an editorial, a series of tweets, a post to another social site ?
What is fair game, for an elected official, which the constitution allows for speech against, and who the Supreme Court has ruled can be called names and made fun of without repercussions?
Is it just his name? His full name? The office? The state? Is it about policies? Where he ate lunch and what he had? Where is this line he wants to draw?
Is this just for Floridians? How do you define that? What if you’re out of state? Just for people? Or the host too? What if the “blog” is hosted in Timbuktu? Can one post to it then?
Ah free speech. It’s sometimes hard to define what it means. But I can assure you that his definition is outside the bounds and is unconstitutional.
And to the irony of it all. He is all in on allowing any and every one to carry a gun without a permit. But he wants you to have a permit to exercise free speech.
The second amendment has restrictions in the constitution. The first does not. And yet he's once again playing dictator.
And people just accept it.
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
The world is whacked.
This story about dominion voting lawsuit is enlightening.
A quick reminder that "the big lie" posited that vote totals were changed intentionally on machines provided by dominion voting systems.
The lie persisted as the basis for overturning the election. Good old Rudy and the crazy lady were the primary actors. But Fox News did most of the supposed reporting.
It was very flawed, and totally played into a gop-led conspiracy about the deep state or whatever.
Dominion sued, since they were singled out. Fox News was the big name in the suit.
The lawsuit moved forward. Discovery happened.
And what did we learn?
Everyone. Every. One. At faux news knew it to be one big lie ... and that the "experts" were crazy. We know it from discovery of internal communications and from depositions.
And yet they ran with it because they knew they would lose viewers - and money - if they deviated from the company line.
Uhhhhh. Fair and balanced they were not.
Unbelievable.
And meanwhile the GOP is grilling the candidate to head the FCC because he made a statement about Fox News being state sponsored propaganda. Which is now demonstrably true. But don't bother these knuckleheads with facts.
A quick reminder that "the big lie" posited that vote totals were changed intentionally on machines provided by dominion voting systems.
The lie persisted as the basis for overturning the election. Good old Rudy and the crazy lady were the primary actors. But Fox News did most of the supposed reporting.
It was very flawed, and totally played into a gop-led conspiracy about the deep state or whatever.
Dominion sued, since they were singled out. Fox News was the big name in the suit.
The lawsuit moved forward. Discovery happened.
And what did we learn?
Everyone. Every. One. At faux news knew it to be one big lie ... and that the "experts" were crazy. We know it from discovery of internal communications and from depositions.
And yet they ran with it because they knew they would lose viewers - and money - if they deviated from the company line.
Uhhhhh. Fair and balanced they were not.
Unbelievable.
And meanwhile the GOP is grilling the candidate to head the FCC because he made a statement about Fox News being state sponsored propaganda. Which is now demonstrably true. But don't bother these knuckleheads with facts.
Monday, February 20, 2023
White Sox prospect Anderson Comas comes out as gay, says he wants to be an 'inspiration for those like me'
Respect for you, Anderson.
Saturday, February 11, 2023
What’s that poll telling me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)