I agree there are many shades of grey. Where we disagree is that this statement is total acquiescence. I think Disney’s approach actually is in that grey area. They do have a park in Shanghai where they deal with a hostile and authoritarian government so they have some experience playing in the grey area while still succeeding financially.
My concern isn't about Disney's financial success. They're still going to make bags of money, and the powers that be in Florida have no interest in changing that. My worries centre on ideological interference with the park's offerings and policies. Sure, Disney already faces this challenge in China, but I don't think many of us expected to be talking about the politics of Orlando and Shanghai in the same breath.
Maybe not, but it certainly doesn’t help in a general. It depends on how opposition uses it. Some of his own side is using it to show how weak he is because he caved. The other side would paint it as a power hungry dictator move and why would you middle of the spectrum voters want more of that?
I wonder to which candidate Disney will make donations.
FWIW: When I read the statement last night, it didn’t even occur to me that it was indicative of rolling over. Just a standard PR announcement.
None of the published analyses I've read since the news broke interpret the statement as other than a full concession on Disney's part, which has only made it more difficult for me to see past my own interpretation. But I sincerely hope I'm missing something that you and others have picked up on.
I’m just wondering if the company will be financially impacted, negatively, from losing RCID. It’s not like I have a grudge against Disney now.
Participating in what is supposed to be participatory governance is not an error.
Is that a principle in law, too?
Participate as individual citizens, but not on behalf a company, or else get responded to as a company, which happened.
There’s plenty to fight. And yeah, I’m a big fan of RCID. But even if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be supporting a precedent to completely strip away the setup of hundreds of local governments without the involvement of those impacted.
No, groups of citizens are allowed to participate.
sure thats what lawyers call it when a question is asked in court which the asker did not know the answer beforehand
Got it. Have you told SCOTUS this? They seem to be under the mistaken impression that companies can say what they want and donate to who they want without government retribution. I’m sure they will be glad to learn they were wrong.
Whose interpretation of the constitution is that? It goes against legal precedent. Unless you're saying that you personally think that's how it should be instead of how it is.
Yeah, it’s so perverse how they created a whole open regulatory framework where one didn’t exist and could have just been hidden as part of corporate structures. It’s so perverse how they created model regulations that could be adopted by others. It’s so perverse how they didn’t make others pay for their infrastructure. But yeah, maybe a more capricious zoning commission with a complete lack of local input is what would make it a true model of democracy.
