From: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Subject: Re: Why I love Disney, Part 47
Organization: Columbia U., New York City
Reply-To: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Keywords: hotels, voicemail
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 16:05:55 GMT
X-Posted-From: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <18903dINNadk@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>
>Well, Patty - hope this doesn't come as a shocker as I'd hate to burst
>your Disney balloon, but I think in all fairness I had to add a list
>of "Why I think Disney represents everything that's wrong with America,
>part 47".  Okay - I am being a little facetious here, but I don't think
>you know the real story about Disney - at least both sides.
>
	And, of course, there are two sides to every story.

>Fact #207: In 1990, Disney was forced by the Environmental Protection
>Agency to pay $500,000 in fines for illegal toxic chemical dumping
>-- it turns out all those paint thinners used to make Disneyland look
>so pretty for its 35th anniversary somehow wound up in some pit in 
>Colorado.
>
	This one, well, I don't know the other side. 8)

>Fact #426: In 1991, Walt Disney World was taken to court over alleged
>abuse of animals by the Wildlife Defense Fund and lost.  The charges?
>Walt Disney World, not having any respect for the native vultures to
>the area, decided that the vultures were "too smelly", "too noisy",
>and too much of a problem at their wild birds exhibit, so they sent
>employees with cages and clubs to the nests of these vultures.  You
>know Disney - image is everything, even at the mere cost of a few
>vultures lives.  The result?  13 vultures were killed, many more
>were wounded, had their wings broken, and were shot at by Disney
>employees.  The sentencing in the Florida state courts required Disney
>to make reparations by performing several public services to aid wildlife
>preservation in the area.  Furthermore they were fined thousands of
>dollars, to which today they still have not paid one cent towards.
>
	The vultures weren't simply annoying. They were
attacking/scaring other birds, they were pecking out the eyeballs
of the tortoises, and, if approached, would have no problem with
charging people. Disney's approach to the situation was probably
not the most animal friendly, admittedly. But the problem was for
more than "too smelly".

>Fact #602: In 1990, a preschool in the Midwest had painted Mickey
>Mouse's face on a playroom wall.  Disney, not taking kidly to unauthorized
>use of their trademarks, threatened to sue the nursey school over it -
>to which Warner Brother's was kind enough to step in and painted their
>characters (Bugs Bunny, etc - you know, the FUNNY ones, unlike Mickey) over
>them, free of charge, so that the lawsuit could be avoided.
>
	If you don't enforce your copyrights (as I understand
it), they can become unenforceable.

>Fact #723: In 1990, a long-time crew member of the Queen Mary was fired
>by Disney from his tourist position at the Long Beach attraction for
>the most heinous of reasons - image.  Disney's policy of "no facial hair"
>resulted in the firing of the old man with a trademark handlebar moustache.
>Image is everything.  Do I smell a faint air of facism here?  Conform
>or be expelled?
>
	This is a well known rule of Disney's -- it isn't new.
And it certainly isn't fascist. It is pure profit motive. The
image Disney sells would conflict with facial hair. It is one
step up from requiring people to wear expensive suits to work
every day, that's all.

>I wish the public wasn't so naive - that we weren't all looking for something
>to hold onto in this world that we can say is there just to make us happy
>(be it religion or Disney or a significant other or whatever) - but that's
>part of being human.  We often WISH for those things, even if they aren't
>true.  Believe in your Santa Clauses, your Easter Bunnies - if it makes
>you smile, great.  Maybe it's a lot easier to look the other way when
>something bad happens than to face up to the fact that institutions
>like Disney are merely an illusion, and an illusion perpetrated to
>take your cash.  Love from within yourself is the only thing you can
>trust, don't misplace it on a corporation.
>
	I'm more concerned with the really low wages Disney pays
the visible employees at the parks (Mickeys, concession stands,
musicians, monorail people, etc.) than anything you mentioned
here, except for the toxic waste.

	The simple matter, in the end, is I like Disney's
product. And as of yet they haven't done anything to make me not
want to buy from them.
	-- Ethan


purgamentum init, exit purgamentum
Newsgroups: rec.arts.disney