Rich People Love Goofy

According to several newspaper accounts, extremely rich people are spending their money on something that surprises me: theme parks. It just goes to show how out of touch I am with the ultra rich. I thought that they might treat themselves to things like putting an extra stamp on an envelope "just in case," showering for as long as they want, or splurging at the car wash and getting that carnuba wax. But I was wrong. Now the picture is more like this: After an executive receives his obscene bonus of tens of millions of dollars, he starts for the office door and is stopped by a colleague who asks, "Where are you going?" The guy with the big bucks looks at the camera and replies, "I'm going to Disneyland."

Theme parks are suffering financially these days. While so many people are struggling to pay their grocery bills, the last thing they are thinking about spending their money on is "The Mad Hatter's Tea Cups." However there is a niche market that is spending more than usual on things like Disneyland, Sea World, and Universal tours. That niche with a spending itch is the very rich.

For years, bored, rich people have gone on challenging and dangerous vacations. They've run with the bulls in Pamplona, hunted bears in Alaska, and even taken the ultimate risk by having their kitchens remodeled. So it's not surprising that Disney and the others have been trying to attract this kind of spending. Sea World plans on expanding their special "swim with the dolphins package" that starts at $199 per person now. Disney World has started to sell homes ranging up to $8 million with special access to the rides at the theme park. If I had $8 million to spend on a house, I'd want it to be as far as possible from a theme park. Once again, I'm just not thinking like the very rich.

How much money do you have to have to be considered "ultra rich," and how does anyone know how these people spend their money? American Express gathered the statistics and released them. (Isn't that nice to know that credit card companies can do things like that)? American Express classifies people as "ultra-affluent" if they charge at least $7,000 a month -- or $84,000 a year -- on their credit card. And someone at American Express noticed that these ultra-affluent cardholders spent 32% more on theme parks in the first quarter of this year than in 2009.

So how will theme parks cater to people who have all that money? I assume that they will have more and more adventurous and exclusive experiences. Sea World, for example, already has plans to expand its Discovery Cove. That's where admission is limited to just over 1,000 people a day who do things like hand-feed parrots. You can also pay $500 to be a trainer for a day at Sea world. I guess they think it's worth every penny to have their hands smell like fish for a week. A new addition will give rich visitors a chance to have "shark encounters." The only problem with having some of these Wall Street instant millionaires in that tank is that it'll be hard to tell which ones are the sharks.

There will be more exotic rides and attractions at all of the theme parks. Don't be surprised if a night at "Psycho's" Bates Motel includes being attacked when you take a shower. Isn't that just perfect for the wealthy honeymoon couple? At the "Dumbo, the Flying Elephant" ride, you'll be able to jump out of a plane while sitting on an elephant. I guess for a few bucks more the truly adventurous can do it the other way around – jumping out of a plane with the elephant sitting on them. And on the Jungle Cruise, the pampered but bored ultra-richie will be able to wrestle a python while getting a pedicure.

Maybe I should sign up for one of these exclusive adventures. I could meet somebody there who could help me in the business world. Who knows? I might be in line with a super billionaire who will want to be partners with me. It's possible. Let's face it: it's a small world after all.

The Annoyance Police

@font-face {<br /> font-family: Dark Courier;<br />}<br />@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; }<br />P.MsoNormal {<br /> MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Dark Courier"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"<br />}<br />LI.MsoNormal {<br /> MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Dark Courier"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"<br />}<br />DIV.MsoNormal {<br /> MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Dark Courier"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"<br />}<br />P.MsoHeader {<br /> MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Dark Courier"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; tab-stops: center 3.0in right 6.0in<br />}<br />LI.MsoHeader {<br /> MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Dark Courier"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; tab-stops: center 3.0in right 6.0in<br />}<br />DIV.MsoHeader {<br /> MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Dark Courier"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; tab-stops: center 3.0in right 6.0in<br />}<br />A:link {<br /> COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single<br />}<br />SPAN.MsoHyperlink {<br /> COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single<br />}<br />A:visited {<br /> COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single<br />}<br />SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {<br /> COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; text-underline: single<br />}<br />DIV.Section1 {<br /> page: Section1<br />}

In these very serious times, it seems that it's appropriate to get rid of some of the silly or outdated laws that are still on the books. I'm talking about things like its being illegal in Oklahoma to tease dogs by making ugly faces, Michigan's law that forbids a wife from having her hair cut without her husband's approval, and in Sullivan's Island, South Carolina, the law that prohibits people from "singing, whistling, or hooting" if it annoys somebody else. Wait a minute. That last one isn't an old law. It's an ordinance that was just passed by the South Carolina town.

Before you laugh at this law, I should make it clear that it is not in effect 24 hours a day. That would be ridiculous. It only applies to sounds that annoy somebody between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. It also only deals with these actions if they are performed in public. You can still sing in the shower, and you can still do your indoor hooting wherever you usually do it.

Chief of police, Danny Howard, doesn't want this ordinance to be fodder for people like me to ridicule. He pointed out that nobody is going to get a ticket just for singing in public. However, if that singing annoys other people, then they might get a $500 ticket.

When I first heard about this ordinance, it struck me that if there were just a slight twist to it, it would be the kind of thing that teenagers would like to be the law. That imaginary twist is that the law would apply only to parents, not to kids. If you've ever had a teenager and you started to sing in public, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Typical reactions include the rolling of the eyes, the shaking of the heads, and acting as if they've never seen you before. Similarly, if you talk in a normal voice, but they think it's embarrassingly loud, they would feel that a mere fine would be too lenient of a punishment.

But the law was not written by teenagers to apply to their parents. It was written by adults to apply to everybody. The part I find most intriguing is that it's not the decibels that are the issue. It's whether the sounds somebody makes annoy somebody else. The knee-jerk reaction to this law is that it's too broad. I think it may actually be too narrow.

Why stop at sounds that are annoying to other people? There are lots of annoying things that people do in public that could be outlawed. Here are a few off the top of my head:

In a better world, people who wear T-shirts that read, "I'm with Stupid" shall be committing an offense in all 50 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Anyone walking down the street and talking into one of those cell phones with the ridiculous ear things so you can't tell if they're talking to you, if they're crazy, or if they're just self-important, should be arrested and not allowed to text for 30 days. If you're waiting for an elevator after you've pushed the button and someone joins you and pushes the button as if you wouldn't have had the knowledge or experience to have done it yourself, that person should be taken to jail immediately. If you're in a grocery checkout line, and the person in front of you has... You get the idea.

Everyone could make a list of things that other people do that they find annoying. It might even be people who ask you to make lists. Again, the fascinating thing about the Sullivan's Island ordinance is that the crime is not based on the action of the perpetrator. It's based on the reaction of other people. So you can "sing, hoot or whistle" as loud as you want if it doesn't annoy anyone. On the other hand, if people have a negative reaction to what you do between 11:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., you're in trouble. It's because of this last fact that I must insist that, just in case, everyone in Sullivan's Island only read my column either before eleven or after seven.