CNN Airhead: Ooh, this has been a bad year for Disney while reporting this

[NNN0LHI]

It was Susan Candiotti. She mentioned Disney's bad year after stating this was the second kid to die on one of their roller coasters this year. Unbelievable.

Don

http://www.local6.com/news/9447680/detail.html

Boy Dies After Riding Disney Roller Coaster

POSTED: 2:15 pm EDT June 29, 2006
UPDATED: 2:49 pm EDT June 29, 2006

A 12-year-old boy died Thursday after riding the Rock 'n' Roller Coaster at Disney MGM Studios, according to the Orange County Sheriff's Office.

The child complained about being ill after the ride and went to an area hospital where he died, according to a Orange County Sheriff's Office representative.

Disney officials have closed the ride pending an investigation.

An initial review of the attraction shows the ride was operating normally, according to a Disney news release.

[Supersedeas]

1. a bad year for Disney, just a bad day for the boy (Nice perspective Candi)

[ProSense]

2. Death is an aside for these idiots, same as the illegal war! n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. What happened to him, I wonder? n/t

[jobycom]

6. Dunno. Not that wild a ride. Maybe some heart or brain aneurism?

We'll see. The ride is one of those sudden acceleration coasters that go 0-60 in about three seconds, then spin and twist and stuff. I rode one similar to it about six times this weekend in Fiesta Texas in San Antonio. You can get a little dizzy, so if he had a heart or blood flow problem, it could make it worse.

[borlis]

38. I disagree.

We just got back from there last week and that ride is one that totally bangs your head around as you go upside down. I usually like roller coasters but I don't think I will go on that one again. We also visited Universal's Islands of Adventure and rode the Hulk roller coaster which I thought was a much smoother ride even though you went upside down more times. JMHO.

[MadHound]

4. Roller coasters have gotten to be more dangerous every year

Upping the G forces, snapping bodies like whips, increasing the speed, everything in order to be the biggest, baddest ride out there for the season. And then they amp it all up some more next year.

I stopped going on coasters over a decade ago after one threw my back out of whack for about three weeks. What kind of fun is it to go limping around around the amusement park all day:shrug:

[NNN0LHI]

5. I already have stainless steel plates and screws around my spine

I don't go near them.

Don

[MadHound]

11. Ooo, no, I can see why

Sorry that you're carrying all the hardware. If you don't mind me asking, did you get it all at once or is this an accumulation?

Buddy I grew up with carries around aprox ten pounds of the stuff. Even when we were kids his "thing" was breaking bones, while mine was getting cut up. A good example, about twenty five years ago we were breaking in his new MB. He took a curve to fast, we sailed off the road and into a tree. I asked him how bad he was hurt, his reply was "Not bad, a couple of cracked ribs and a broken arm, you?" "Oh not bad, about twenty stiches on the right arm, another twenty on the left, and fifteen on the upper thigh" It's amazing we've lived into middle age. Like I said, he carries aprox ten pounds of stainless from his various ordeals, and I literally have scars from the top of my head down to my toes. My latest is my "botched suicide" scar on my wrist, a few cms to the left and it wouldn't have been "botched" at all.

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. My pinched nerve in my neck keeps me off of them

:scared:

[RandiFan1290]

8. Does this ever happen at Cedar Point?

I never heard of this anywhere else except Disney. I have been there a hundred times and their rides seem very mellow compared to rides at other parks around the country.

[MadHound]

14. It happens at various different theme parks

Disney, Six Flags, and various regional parks like Valleyfair, to name a few. Here's a link to a report finding higher incidents of brain injury due to the newer, more extreme coasters<http://www.biausa.org/Pages/blue_final_report.html>

[TommyO]

19. From the document you linked to:

The conclusion supported to date is that the risk of brain injury from a roller coaster is not in
the rides, but in the riders. That is, there are some people we already know should not
participate in roller coaster rides. The 6 reported fatalities were in a shared, logical, but
infrequent risk group that could not be established before the fact.

This is a great piece that I had lost the link to a while back, thanks for re-supplying it.

[tammywammy]

23. I worked at a Six Flags park

I was working the night when we had an accident on the Roaring Rapids. One woman died from cardiac arrest later at the hospital. It was a horrible accident, but it was just that, it was an accident. They improved the ride so that it would never ever happen again.

That's the only death of a customer that's ever happened at the park. One thing I learned there, is that most injuries at the park was due to the customer's actions and not the ride or the park. Safety precautions are taken to great lengths to make sure that no one gets hurt.

I have a bad back and you'll never see me get on another roller coaster again, and I really did love them.

[jobycom]

15. Disney just so has so many people go through their parks.

They have four parks in Orlando, and one in California. The Magic Kingdom on a good day can have 50,000 visitors. MGM (where Rockin' Roller Coaster is) is smaller, but still has tens of thousands a day, every day. More in the summer. Cedar Point just doesn't have that much exposure, with just one park. Plus, DisneyWorld is an international family draw, so probably more small children are on it, which increases the chance of an undiagnosed congenital problem suddenly going wrong. The child who died last month on Space had a a heart defect. Most of the deaths at DW have been like that.

The rides are mild compared to others. Universal Studios brags that their rides are wilder.

[MADem]

10. I had never been on one in my life

Didn't like the idea, didn't want the "experience."

Then, years back, when I was at Disney World, I espied a ride called "Space Mountain." Eh, what's not to like, I think...Space, a Mountain...I'm expecting a Small World version of a jaunt through the Swiss Alps and thence to a Jetsons-like space trip, with charming little planets and moons, or something along those lines.

My shock and horror knew no bounds when we went up in the dark, and then started whipping madly about in the dark, plunging down, whipping back up--it was completely the opposite of what I had anticipated. My glasses flew from my face, and with reflexes I did not know I had, I CAUGHT THEM, in mid-air, IN THE DARK.

I just hung on, cursing furiously, for the remainder of the journey.

I think it's funny as hell now, but I was ready to do a Pope John Paul II tarmac-kiss when I got off that damn thing!!!!!

[tridim]

16. Space Mountain is a tame roller coaster!

But super fun the first time I rode it.

I don't want to sound shallow, but I bet much more people die driving to Disney World than on the rides. Relative to life, roller coasters are very safe.

[MADem]

20. Easy for you to say!!!

I don't like them, but I certainly won't stand in the way of those who do. Knock yerself out!!!

I was anticipating one of those cheesy, Disney-style rides, and that ain't what I got!

[karlrschneider]

30. You probably wouldn't enjoy a ride in my aerobatic airplane then...

:D

[MADem]

54. Funny, that wouldn't bother me as much

I've landed on carriers and launched off 'em; it's just that I don't care for roller coasters!

[TommyO]

17. Actually G-forces are being lowered

Insurance companies and ride designers are making sure that g-forces are kept at very reasonable limits, and for very short periods of time.

No designer would last in the industry if they were "snapping bodies like whips".

[Selatius]

7. The boy probably was not in the physical shape to ride it

I worked at MGM-Studios last summer as a college intern, and there are strict guidelines that must be followed prior to going on such rides. I remember the two biggest attractions were and still are Rockin' Roller Coaster and the Tower of Terror.

The year before I came a boy died on the Mission: Space ride precisely because his parents ignored the health warnings prior to putting the boy on the ride. I think the boy had a weak heart.

Edited to add:

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/16/State/Heart_woes_cited_in_2.shtml

[Tace]

9. I Went On A Few Of Those Rides With My Kids Last Fall

My mother-in-law took her entire family to Disney World for a week. Of course, the kids wanted to go on every ride in the place. I went on two, and said, "No Thanks!" They are REALLY violent and scary. The kids all seemed to love them. So I had my five-year-old and seven-year-old girls laughing at me and calling me a "scaredy cat."

The thing is, I've done all kinds of very dangerous things in my time. I'm just not a thrill-seeker, I guess.

[TahitiNut]

12. From the same vomitous mentality that called the Gitmo suicides ...

... an "attack on America." These are people who seem to think the screams of the tortured are grounds for citations for violating noise ordinances. Sick, twisted, and perverted. (That's not to say 'perverted' is all bad, though.)

[arcane1]

13. awww, poor poor pitiful fucking Disney

just more proof that corporate personhood is more important that actual personhood :puke:

[jobycom]

18. Exactly how do you come to that conclusion?

[arcane1]

21. from reading the original post

seems that the news anchor was more concerned about the effect this death had on Disney than on the actual victim

[jobycom]

22. I said the exact same thing. Does that make me "poor fucking Jobycom?"

You claiming that because I was startled by another death at Disney World and said "Wow, Disney's have a bad time lately" that I'm more concerned for Disney than the actual victim? ANd how does that relate to "corporate personhood?"

Actually, (this will probably be wasted time on my part) it's exactly because of corporate law that Disney can be held accountable for such incidents. Otherwise, the victim would have to get each investor of Disney into court and prove that they were individually responsible. Since obviously none of them were, no one would be held responsible. Corporate law, from at least the Roman era, has existed specifically so that a large group of investors can be held responsible collectively for decisions against their investment. The investment is treated as a "body," (you know, corpus, body) as a person. Without the corporate structure, no one could be held responsible for anything like this.

[lonestarnot]

24. Is Michael Eisner still collecting 65 times my fucking salary?

[jobycom]

25. Probably. ANd he's doing 65 times more than you to save the world

or more. Not to mention employing more than 65 times more people than you. Don't see how that's relevant to my post, though. Are you saying you're really just mad that Michael Eisner makes more than you so you want to blame Disney for this?

[LittleClarkie]

27. Don't they have partner benefits?

I remember when I went there, I was quite struck with how they tried to educate the public about the environment an such.

[jobycom]

28. Yes, and Eisner resisted a religious boycott to maintain them

And yes, EPCOT Center has a strong environmental message. Amongst other things, they run a feature film continuously of the Lion King characters condemning real estate developers who exploit the land for profit. Even I was surprised at direct and unambiguous it was.

[lonestarnot]

29. 65 times the average worker's salary should be a fucking crime.

[jobycom]

32. Fucking why?

Dude does 65 times more than you, he deserves 65 times more than you.

[lonestarnot]

36. You have no fucking idea what that motherfucker does. You have no idea

what I do. Looks like I shouldn't waste my time here as you can't even make a fucking point.

[jobycom]

62. I've made several points, using facts, evidence, etc. What have you done?

You've made no points, you've repeated a mindless mantra over and over and refused to explain it. I'm supposed to just hear you say "It should be a crime to make 65 times more than the average worker" without explaining why. But I'm the one who can't make a point. You're right, you are wasting your time here. You need to be out painting grafitti, or partaking in some other form of discussion that doesn't allow people to respond.

[lonestarnot]

33. Oh sure he's saving the world alright. LOL OMG

Saving it with all those dumb asses running to his park to spend $100 a pop to get into see that nonsense. Imagine all that fuel in those SUV's used to get to that dumbass place. Then get killed after riding on something you were supposed to enjoy. Makes a whole lot of sense to those fundies I guess.

[jobycom]

44. Fundies hate Disney because Eisner treats gay employees as *gasp*

regular employees, providing domestic benefits. Epcot has an unofficial Gay Pride day every year. I've been to it. It's pretty cool. My kids liked it, too. And both of them have high IQs, so calling them (and me) dumbasses is inaccurate.

What are you doing to save the world? What do people at your work drive? How many people do you personally employ? Do you feel you do 1/65th of what Eisner does at Disney to make people smile, to promote a cleaner environment, or to further the cause of equality in America? Did you give a grand to Kerry, and Gore? What do you do that makes you think you deserve as much as Eisner?

[lonestarnot]

48. I would be ashamed to take as much as Eisner. But I'm glad he treats

gay people with the respect they deserve. I didn't hear anything else very meaningful. $1000.00 is nothing to that ratbastard. They drive moderate vehicles all of them. I don't need to tell you what I do other than work very hard at my job and saving the world. Have fun in a small world. Eisner should donate one of his palaces to the homeless, use over half of his salary to feed hungry children in Darfur, and the other half to aids research, and be sure to tip the waitress at the ma kettle diner. A smile is not what I'm after, equality is more like it.

[LittleClarkie]

53. Why is he a ratbastard for merely making more than you.

And if you had the opportunity to make as much as he does, would you turn it down?

[lonestarnot]

60. You are wasting you typing skills here. You will never convince me

that making 65 times the average worker is ok. And your intimation of "more than you" tells me you don't get it no matter what I say. Peace moving on.

[LittleClarkie]

63. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I asked questions.

I was kinda hoping for an answer.

No, I probably don't get "it". But I'm not sure I want "it" anyway.

[jobycom]

61. So you do more than the Eisner Foundation and the Eisner Pediatric

Hospital? You donate more time and money than the $130 million charity foundation built and run by Michael Eisner, which spreads millions each year around the nation to medical and child-related charities? On top of turning his corporation into an organization that promotes environmentalism, science, and equality, probably at the cost of the approval of many of his investors?

Sorry, I just don't believe it.

[LittleClarkie]

52. I'm sure they just loved him for using Ellen in one of his attractions too

before she had her talk show and was something of a pariah for having come out, he was using her and her image for a ride I went on there. Ellen the animitronic, it was quite amusing.

[Yollam]

55. Eisner makes 4200 times what an average american makes, not 65 times...

And not discriminating against gays alone does not make Disney a progressive company. Through its new division at ABC it has consistently promoted US wars, it has given huge sums of money to republican candidates, promoted media consolidation, is anti-union and anti-labor in general, produces all of its knicknacks in slavery conditions in the third world etc. etc.


As long as a company's (or a politician's) policies on gay partnerships are the only criteria they are judged on, we are in big trouble. There are more than a few right-wing gays out there, and there are right-wing companies that are gay-friendly. Gay rights are not a significant threat to corporate profits, so many of them embrace it in an effort to reach out to gay consumers - advertising in the Advocate, etc.

Wasn't Mary Cheney the Liaison for ultra-right-wing Coors to the gay community?

[jobycom]

64. Hey, those are all good points.

Glad to see an actual discussion. You are right about its ABC division promoting the war. Don't forget EIsner funded Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" even though he warned Moore in advance that Disney would not distribute it through it's Weinstein division. Maybe Disney has given huge sums of money to Republican candidates--I only know how to look up individuals--but Eisner has clearly supported Dems over Repubs.

As for the slave labor knicknacks argument, I'd have to see better evidence concerning the actual conditions in those nations, and whether the workers would be better off without Disney's money buying these items. That's always a complicated argument--whether the slave wages paid are better than no wages, or whether the wages themselves are keeping the workers in slave conditions. Higher wages would mean that the goods wouldn't sell here, and so the wages would stop. That seems simple, but then there is the question of whether governments and local industry are being bought off to supress conditions to keep wages down, just so these trinket makers can make their products here. The bottom line, though, is that these items wouldn't sell without the low wages, and the money supply from the slave wages up to the US retail wages would dry up. That's never good. If cutting this stream of commerce would help local nations, then it would be the better course of action, but I've never seen a completely convincing argument that this is always the case.

And you underestimate the domestic benefits issue. If Disney does it, other corporations are pressured to do it. That's not a small thing, and it did cost Disney money through boycotts. Disney did the moral thing, not the profitable thing. That should be respected.

I agree with all the points you raised, I just don't think they paint a complete picture. As for Eisner's 4200 times average salary, most of that comes from his investments, not his salary or benefits. His salary for the last eight years has been one million a year, with options to make up to 19 million more, based on profits. The better Disney does, the better Eisner does, in other words. Not to mention those who work for Disney. So Eisner's money is not given to him just to sit around. Actually, I don't know that he made much of his bonus money since that deal was struck. Disney was in a slump for much of that time.

The rest of his money comes from stock investments and stock options. The options are tied to his performance. The investments represent how much money he's loaned to other business ventures or government entities, with risk of loss. I know you weren't the one who made the statement, but do you think a person should be limited not only in the salary they earn, but also in the investments they make? If so, what would you say should be done for companies who can no longer go public and expect investors to help them grow, and to the employees who lose their jobs or see their incomes fall below average as the investments for their employers disappear?

[LittleClarkie]

66. I don't particularly think the Mary Cheney aside was a good point actually

Mary Cheney promoted Coors to gays to help Coors, not gays.

Eisner supported gay causes not to benefit Disney, but to benefit his employees.

I just don't get the comparison between the two.

And I'm still perplexed as to why Eisner is an automatic jerk. Why would all corporations be considered bad? Starbucks is another one I think of as having progressive values when they do business.

If I haven't pursued the kind of work that would get me that kind of money, then who's fault is that?

I just think our friends here have an anti-corporate bias that I don't get either.

[jobycom]

69. Meh. It was a side issue to his post.

I don't like the knee-jerk anti-corporate reaction, either. Corporations aren't bad just because they exist. Some are positively progressive. Most are neutral, and just need tighter regulation. Some are bad. Kind of like people. I don't condemn all people just because my brother and George W Bush were evil. I don't praise them all just because my mother is wonderful. I judge each for themselves, and don't judge unless i have some knowledge to go on. Of course, I can change my opinion with more knowledge. And the previous post was the first one to attempt to give me more knowledge, rather than whining empty diatribes. So I like that post.

Yeah, I'm rambling. I'm supposed to be getting a lot more work done, so I can make 65 times what the average American makes.

[LittleClarkie]

71. And I'm supposed to be working on something that will get me a raise

as well.

I asked the boss what I could do to be making more, and he took me seriously. If it works out, it'll be a buck more an hour, anyway.

Oh well, back to slaving for my corporate masters... ;)

And I know what you mean about finally getting a relatively civil and informative post, even if you disagree with it. Breath of fresh air.

[Yollam]

67. According to the Communist Rag, "Forbes"...

Eisner was compensated by Dinsey to the tune of over $140 million per year from 1999 to 2004.

http://www.forbes.com/2001/04/26/eisner.html

I don't know how that jibes with what you're saying, but it sounds like outlandish compensation to me, and it doesn't include the huge "golden parachute" he left the company with.

"do you think a person should be limited not only in the salary they earn, but also in the investments they make? If so, what would you say should be done for companies who can no longer go public and expect investors to help them grow, and to the employees who lose their jobs or see their incomes fall below average as the investments for their employers disappear?"

I don't think that business proprietors should be limited in the amount of money they can earn, but publicly traded companies are artificial entities that exist at the whim of the law, and as such, I see nothing wrong with limits on CEO compensation, which could be tied to the company's overall profit.

As for their investments, I don't think those earnings should be limited, but I disagree with the multiple cuts in the capital gains tax in recent decades. In principle, I think income from investments (IE OTHER people's work) should be taxed higher than income from WORK.

[jobycom]

72. I agree wholeheartedly on capital gains taxes.

Strong, progressive taxation is the backbone of a healthy economy, and helps to promote small to medium size businesses over giants with loads of deadwood. I wasn't arguing that Eisner or Disney shouldn't be taxed more heavily. Apparently, neither was Eisner, judging by some of the people he gave money to.

The Forbes total includes his stock options and other profit-based bonuses. His base salary was $1 million, his cash bonuses could equal to $19 million a year. The rest were stock options based on his performance. He grew Disney from a $16 billion company to a $64 billion dollar company, so his stock options were worth a lot.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "publicly traded companies are artificial entities that exist at the whim of law." I think I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure. They are real companies. They are not all traditional companies, as in a company founded by a group of people with one goal in mind. But they still create jobs and wealth for a lot of people. I'm all for pruning them back, if I understand what you mean, by higher taxation, especially capital gains taxes on investors and more stringent corporate taxation that can't be as easily avoided. I'm also all for tighter regulation, but I don't see, as I understand how they are structured, why government should be able to limit compensation packages. Investors should be able to do what they want with their money, barring abuses to workers or the environment, etc. If they want to pay a CEO silly amounts of money, more power to them. I don't see how that affects anything other than investors. The wages paid to other workers will still be market based.

I guess I'm against, in general terms, government limiting how high people's salaries climb. I believe they should worry about how low people's living standards fall. Forcing the lower incomes up would probably bring the highest incomes down, but that's not the primary reason it should be done. IMO.

[Yollam]

74. All I'm saying is that corps are artificial constructs.

Yes, they exist, they employ people, etc. but they exist in a manner that is defined and limited by the law. There is no reason why CEO compensation cannot be limited. In fact it should be. Luring the "best people" with huge stock options and the like has not always produced the best performance - case in point - Enron.

"Investors should be able to do what they want with their money, barring abuses to workers or the environment, etc. If they want to pay a CEO silly amounts of money, more power to them. I don't see how that affects anything other than investors. The wages paid to other workers will still be market based."

If CEO pay was limited and investors didn't like it, they could always start their own private business and pay themselves an unlimited amount. Who says they HAVE to invest in a corporation, an entity that exists because the government allows it to?

Seriously, a corporation is whatever the law says it is, and I'm quite certain that limiting CEO compensation to a multiple of profits would not adversely affect shareholders' dividends or stock values, and might actually have a positive effect on profitability.


I could see your point if we were talking about privately owned companies, but I see nothing wrong with government enacting laws requiring corps to act in more socially conscientious ways. I think they need government impetus to do so, since stockholders and boards lack any motivation to do so.

[jobycom]

75. Once again, I agree more than I disagree, except on salaries

I agree with you that government should require corporations to act more socially responsibly, and to me that also includes maintaining higher minimum pay standards. That's part of the beauty of corporate law--it allows government to form such regulations on corporations without having to go after each individual investor.

And I can see what you're getting at. Force investors to switch to private rather than corporate structures, or at least reduce the size of corporate structures, thus creating (probably) more smaller to medium businesses and therefore a more diversified economy, a more competitive labor market (more employers) and a less powerful business world to undermine political power. I don't think limiting CEO salaries would get that done. I think more progressive taxation would do that better. I've long said that's what Clinton did to make the economy boom in the 90s.

[Yollam]

76. I doubt that limiting CEO pay would cause people to flee the stock market

And I also doubt that most small investors are really in favor of inflated CEO pay. They just want to see a return on their investment. If all corps were required to pay their CEOs a maximum that was based on the corps' profit, it would be in the CEO's interest to make the company more profitable (of course they would still get a decent salary even if the company was in the red or just breaking even).

Theoretically, stock options were supposed to be an incentive to do just that, but look how they were abused in the case of Enron. Thousands of employees were conned into throwing away their nest eggs while the CEO was dumping his own shares, knowing they'd soon be worthless.

I've yet to see any tangible proof that huge compensation packages really bring in better people than more down-to-earth compensation, or that the people attracted by such lucre really have the company's best long-term interests in mind.

Nor do I see how limiting CEO pay would harm anyone, except for the infinitesimally small fraction of a percentage of Americans who actually are CEOS. They would still be well-paid, and it's not like they're going to up and run off to other countries, since other countries pay their CEOs FAR less than we pay ours.

[LittleClarkie]

26. Gee, you're right. We should ban evil corporate roller coasters

Sucks to be you and your salary, I guess.

I don't hate rich people for merely making money than me, or corporations for merely being corporations.

Disney strikes me as being quite progressive as companies go.

[lonestarnot]

31. No it doesn't hurt to be me. In fact I like me. But no mother fucker

needs to be making 65 times the average worker's salary. It should be outlawed! And with attitudes like yours I guess you support a class war too. And.... on top of that I guess you don't mind that 58 percent of the nation's wealth is controlled by the top 1%. Something wrong with that fucking picture and it is very much the result of attitudes just like yours which fucking stinks.

[LittleClarkie]

35. Eisner doesn't strike me as a class warrior

Like I said, he's progressive and supports progressive causes. As long as he uses his money for the good of others, I'll not begrudge him having it.

[lonestarnot]

37. Tell me what he has done for the "good of others?"

[Yollam]

43. I'm inclined to agree.

He may be a democrat, (working at a very right-wing company, BTW) but he makes an obscene amount of money, enough that he could live very comfortably on a fraction of it. I reject the notion that a person can be "progressive" and still live in multiple palatial homes and have vast holdings. He may be a liberal, but not a progressive. There is a difference. Progressives are essentially democratic socialists, whereas liberals are pro-capitalists with a conscience.

[lonestarnot]

45. Thank you once again for that clarification.

[Yollam]

39. Eisner makes more like 58 THOUSAND times the average worker's salary.

He is one of the most overcompensated CEOS in history.


I wish CEOs only made a multiple of 58 times the average worker's salary. We would have a much more just, prosperous, peaceful society if that were the case.

[lonestarnot]

41. You need to check your facts.

[Yollam]

46. Okay, I did.

http://www.forbes.com/2001/04/26/eisner.html

During the last five years, Eisner, 59, made $737 million. That's about 19 times the $38 million made by the average CEO on Forbes.com's First Annual CEO Value Survey.

That works out to 147 million per year, which is 4200 times an average worker's salary which is more or less $35k per year in the US.

I was off, but not by much. Eisner, even more than most CEO's, was grossly overcompensated (apparently he stepped down last year).

[lonestarnot]

49. Woohoo stepped down or was run out?

[Yollam]

56. I do believe he had worn out his welcome.

and he quit while he was ahead.

[lonestarnot]

57. Took the money and ran with that golden parachute. Fucking jerk.

Guess he had to put food on his family.

[jobycom]

68. Actually, Roy Disney forced him out, possibly in part because of political

differences. Roy is a big Bush supporter, Eisner disliked Bush. Roy accused him of a whole slew of business mismanagement stuff, and led an investor's revolt against Eisner that cost Eisner his one of his titles, but left him as CEO, though with less power. Eisner could get less done, and a year later announced he was stepping down a year before his contract was up. As for the golden parachute, Eisner refused to take many of the perks and bonuses he had been granted in his contracts. Don't weep for him, he still owns the majority share in Disney and still is worth more than 65 times what you are. But he didn't take his golden parachute and run. He took off his parachute before he jumped.

As for calling him a jerk, since you don't know him or seemingly one single thing about him, that seems extreme.

[lonestarnot]

70. You should take a look at billionaires for bushitler, maybe they can

help you see some light.

[jobycom]

73. Okay, since you like it personal, I'll get personal

You have not contributed one thing to this discussion aside from insults and platitudes you've read on some wall somewhere. If you want me to see some light, show me some light. You spout jargon, I ask you to explain, you spout other jargon, often unrelated to the jargon I asked for. As you said, this discussion with you is pointless. There's another person on this thread who's making valid points, making me think, and raising my awareness. He seems to agree in part with you, but he knows what he's talking about. So I'm done here. Reply, alert, whatever. I won't read it. I've seen what you've got. And I wouldn't have gone this route except for your constant attacks with no redeeming arguments behind them.

[jobycom]

50. Maybe you could spell it out, then, cause I'm not sure I get it

Please explain why making a large salary should be illegal. Explain what is wrong with 58 percent of the wealth being controlled by the top 1%. Don't just assume it's obvious, because I really don't get it. Is there a legal reasoning behind this? An economic reason? Just jealousy? What, spell it out.

[lonestarnot]

58. Believe me when I say I don't have a jealous bone in my body.

Or don't believe me, the choice is yours and it's no shakes to me either way. But, when all the wealth in a country is controlled by the top 1%, it makes for an atmosphere ripe for the creation of slave labor, which we are seeing on a mass scale today. Maybe that sounds good to you, but I will slave for no man ever again.

[Yollam]

34. Yeah, poor Zillion dollar conglomerate Disney.

I'll bet that the brief closure of the ride lost them dozens of dollars (since the park tickets include ride admission), and the bad publicity caused tens of people to cancel their plans to go to Disney parks.



Poor, poor mega-conglomerate.



Oh and some kid is dead, too.

:sarcasm:

[lonestarnot]

40. Yeah! Somebody gets it!

Hi Yollam! You Mencia hater! :rofl: peace.

[upi402]

42. PROFIT is PRIME, never mind the dead kids... ya TV news ditz Candiotti

TV news traitors begone.

[Roland99]

47. Yahoo article on the other recent deaths at Disney

Appears physical ailments were leading factors?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_re_us/disney_death

The boy died after he was brought by ambulance to a hospital at about 11:30 a.m., a Disney statement said. The cause of death was not immediately known, Sheriff's spokesman Jim Solomons said.
Park officials closed the Rock 'n' Roller Coaster but said a preliminary investigation showed the ride was operating normally.

A Disney Web site description of the ride says: "Zoom from 0-60 mph with the force of a supersonic F-14, take in high-speed loops and turns synchronized to a specially recorded Aerosmith soundtrack."

Two other people have died after going on another Disney ride, Epcot's "Mission: Space." The space simulator spins riders in a centrifuge that subjects them to twice the normal force of gravity.
Daudi Bamuwamye, 4, of Sellersville, Pa., died June 13, 2005. An autopsy determined he died of an irregular heartbeat linked to an abnormal thickening of the heart muscle that can cause sudden death.

In April, a 49-year-old woman from Germany became ill and died after taking the ride. A medical examiner's report said she died from bleeding of the brain and had severe high blood pressure.

The ride has signs warning people with heart, back and neck problems not to ride. Epcot now offers a tamer version of the ride that does not include centrifugal force.

[Yollam]

59. Yes, I think the post is more about the McNewswoman's attitude

than it was about the safety of the rides.


There is inherent risk in any amusement park ride, and I'd be willing to bet that Disney's rides are statistically safer than other park chains, and much safer than carny rides.

I wouldn't hesitate to visit a Disney park and ride the rides. Even though I have some qualms with the company itself, and some of the dreck it produces, I do enjoy the parks, when I'm feeling really flush with cash...

[seabeyond]

77. they died of something, a condition of course, doesnt mean ride

wasnt responsible.

i am not buying that at all

[MrSlayer]

65. A shame but not the ride's fault.

Nor Disney's. It's a shame, this kid probably had something wrong with him that no one knew about. The RnRC isn't that extreme a ride.

[allalone]

78. yeah, little rough on the kid too