Disgusting Disney

Below is a letter written to Disney World, in Orlanda FL.

Recently my wife and I, along with our son and his family (2 grandchildren) visited Wilderness Lodge, which was great. Reasonable access to the various parks is a definite plus. We have visited Disney World 6 or 7 times at least since we first brought our son in 1978. While on this visit we visited Epcot and the Magic Kingdom my comment concerns Animal Kingdom.

I hope you are already aware of the situation I will refer to but if you are it is obvious you have taken no steps to correct it and I am disappointed.

For lunch we ate at Flame Tree. While the food was tolerable to good the environment was a disaster. Birds defecating on the tables, chairs and people as well as in their food, children leaving their food to get napkins and birds landing on the tables and grabbing French fries, defecating upon lift off, appear to me to be unacceptable.

I am surprised the Florida Health Department tolerates such environments but I imagine Disney World has a lot of pull in the Orlando area. I believe if you will check with your veterinary staff they will verify that momma birds teach their baby birds how to find food. As years pass along more birds will be feeding at Flame Tree and nesting in the surrounding trees eventually making the area uninhabitable by humans.

I hope you will take the necessary steps to improve the area and that when you have you will let me know. I will not frequent Flame Tree again. Until I receive such notification. The entire experience was nauseating, disgusting, and revolting. Not a good memory of a visit to Disney World, Orlando, FL.

Gatlinburg Natives Protecting Gatlinburg's History? Not!!!

What follows is a letter to the editor of The Mountain Press where I was responding to an article of a group of Gatlinburg citizens were bragging how the natives are protecting Gatlinburg's history.

Reference The Mountain Press February 26, article “All eyes on ‘Burg’ for ’07 jubilee."

The reporter quotes an individual “Gatlinburg is unique to (national park) gateway cities in that the original families are still here and for the most part still in control of the business community.” Another individual is quoted, “The fact that you all built Gatlinburg, not some outsiders, is part of the story … this survey shows that Gatlinburg was built by its founders … .”

Hmmmm, who purchased the Mountain View Inn, from the builder, and replaced that ugly reminder of the past with Fun Mountain and now lets Fun Mountain remain as an eyesore to the community? Could it be one of those descendants of one of those original families? Who continues to let them? Who sold Lucinda Ogle’s cabin to “outside developers?” I believe it was descendants of one of those original families. Who owns the properties that are T-shirt shops? Outsiders? No, those original families that control the business community are at it again. Don't forget the Greystone that is now the Aquarium. Who owns the property surrounding Gatlinburg Inn that is surely destroying the Inn with its noise pollution and all night carousing? Who owns the property crowding the Arrowmont School of Arts making it an island of history in the midst of what? Who owns the property and permits developers to remove the trees that draw the leaf-lookers then builds thousands and thousands and thousands of cabins? If those original families are still in control what business are they controlling it is certainly not an interest in Gatlinburg history.

I'm not sure where these Committee members came from but they see things that are not and think, cabin! I see cabins and wonder just what are they thinking.

In family owned companies it is generally the third generation who either bankrupts the company or takes it public. Gatlinburg is right on schedule.

Do those committee members really want to draw the National Geographic's attention to how Gatlinburg is maintaining its history?

Politicians

I have a philosophy that politicians at all levels are dishonest, unethical and immoral. They will first take care of themselves, second, those who give them money and last and by all means last those who voted for them.

In an effort to achieve what he believes to be a better good a politician may vote for abortions (which he is against) so someone else will vote with him for gun control (which they may be against). They call that politics. I call it immoral, unethical, and dishonest behavior. They are selling a vote and buying a vote. Instead of all the artificial voting our representatives should vote their conscious on all matters and let the chips fall where they may. That way we know the real majority. As it is with all the vote selling and buying the people are not being represented.

Locally a politician may sell his vote for popularity among his peers or he may see maintaining his job as to permit him to support his family the greater good when he sells his vote. These people are not bad people they are just caught in the world of politics. People new to politics get a real slap in the face when they realize that if they are to survive they have to sell and buy votes. Their standards and morals go right out the window. A politician can sell their vote and buy another's vote but for me to pay you money to vote the way I want you to vote is illegal. I see no difference.

Shooting at Virginia Tech

With the shooting at Virginia Tech the arguments for gun control and against gun control. Against and for violent computer games, against and for violence on television, and against and for trash rap will be the 24x7 topic of the cable television networks.

We will hear arguments for and against. As for me, some arguments do not make sense.

As an example, most if not all media rely on advertising as their major source of income. Internet websites depend almost completely on advertisements as their source of income. The Entertainment industry relies heavily on advertising to influence the public to buy their products. That advertising affects the way we think is accepted as fact and is expected by those paying for that advertising. That people change their opinions, actions, behavior, and the way they think as a result of repeated exposure to or as we think of it advertising, is a core belief of all who pay for advertising. If it were not for advertising most would not be able to exist.

On the other hand, these same people tell us that violence on television, violent computer games, portrayal of violence in music, have no affect on us. Are they crazy or are they just lying? The same people who pay for and rely on advertising and the resulting repeated exposure to their commercials to affect our thinking are now telling us what they are paying for and relying on does nothing to affect the public’s behavior?

I suggest the only options are they are lying or they are stupid. What do you think?

Of course repeated exposure to anything does not affect everyone in the same way. If it did, everyone would buy everything they see advertised. But, the people paying for those advertisements are depending on the fact that enough people will be influenced to buy their product they will remain in business. They are counting on their ability to influence the way the public thinks. If repeated exposure to something has no affect there would be no learning and then where would our teachers be?

The public must understand the relationship between what we are exposed to and our resulting behavior. Hopefully we will wake up soon enough to make a difference. Otherwise as shootings at high schools spread shootings at colleges will repeat. How many have to die before the public becomes aware of the obvious and works for and demands change?

Are the religious beliefs of people in public office relevant?

Recently General Pace had the adacity to tell us what he believed is moral and what is immoral. Are the beliefs of people like General Pace relevant? "No." I want honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior. I want our leaders to work hard and to care. Their religious beliefs are of no consequence. If we have a Muslim Supreme Court appointment I do not want them applying their religious beliefs concerning women I want them to apply the constitution. If a homosexual is appointed I do not want them to apply their belief on marriage I want them to obey the law. A General who does not like homosexual activity has no right to allow those beliefs to affect his daily duty as General. What he believes to be moral or immoral is of no consequence. He should keep quiet...