Comments

• 

  Max Pesling October 12, 2010 at 7:34pm

  Good golly, just read California's just cut off people from using their welfare debit cards on cruise ships and casinos. Seems "more than $69 million targeted at helping the needy pay their rent and clothe their children was accessed by debit card use in 49 other states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam between January 2007 and May 2010."
  
  This had to be stopped, of course, but I'm concerned this kind of story will be used by a certain political party to bash welfare and justify further cuts. Of course we have to curb the abuse, but isn't there a real need to protect the neediest in our society?
• 

  David Paul Appell July 27, 2010 at 9:07pm

  Real juicy topic on our Gulf Coast Travel Update group: a member's asking why he should spend his vacation dollars on a Gulf Coast beach vaca.... Tell him what you think!
• 

  Anne Sweeney July 9, 2010 at 5:43am

  I don't usually believe in travel boycotts because they hurt the people who work in hotels, restaurants, etc. and who are poorly paid. But I think if I were a travel agent or a meeting planner, I might hesitate to send a group or plan a meeting or event in AZ. First, there would be people in the group or sponsoring organization who would object. But more to the point, could you risk embarassment, harassment and even legal exposure by bringing say, a group of Indian doctors to a convention in Arizona. Would they feel uncomfortable at best and be in harm's way, at worst? No one doubts that whomever gets stopped by the police, they won't be Swedes. Color and ethnicity is the baisis here - not immigration.. There are plenty of illegal Irish in this country but I do not expect that if I go to some backwater in Arizona, a sheriff is going to haul me away. They leave that to airport screeners who seem to think that I'm the mother of Gerry Adams..
• 

  Dave Acton July 7, 2010 at 2:49am

  With all due respect, Mr. Lawrence, I'd like to see the statistics where it says 99% of golfers and tennis players are white. OK, it may be in the 90s, but 99%, no way. And if cheap courts and greens fees are enough to make us forget our principles, well, that's a pretty sad statement on us, isn't it. I agree, ACLU may be exagerrating, but it's to make a point. And the point is valid.
  
  I don't generally believe in boycotts, I think they're pretty much counterproductive. Look at Cuba, we've been at it for 50+ and no change in sight. But this Arizona thing is so wrong, so mean-spirited, that i for one don't plan to set foot in that state till they rejoin 21st century civilization.
  
  Happy duffing.
• 

  John Kipper July 6, 2010 at 11:34pm

  I'm actually dating somebody from Arizona, AND she's Chicana. Born there, and so was her mom AND her grandma AND like 100 generations before them, because her family was in AZ BEFORE we stole the land from the Mexicans. And don't go telling me otherwise, that whole war was a land-grabbing sham.
  
  So I'm telling her NOT to go back, and I personlly don't intend to go either. There's much better places to go spend my money. Why should a good, kind, wonderful person like Jessica expose herself to being picked up by some inbred sunbleached yahoo who thinks he has more right to be in AZ than the people his ancestors stole it from??
  
  Sorry if I sound a little bitter, but this latest Republican-inspired idiocy hits a little too close to home.
• 

  David Lawrence July 6, 2010 at 10:27pm

  ACLU is exaggerating the danger to most people who visit Arizona's resorts. Because 99% of us golfers and tennis players are white, we aren't going to be profiled or arrested. At what price point do the deals at a resort look so tempting that you're willing to say "I can't resist, even if there is a boycott."
• 

  Tripatini July 6, 2010 at 4:23pm

  Last Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union issued travel alerts for Arizona, warning potential visitors that the state's new law designed to crack down on illegal immigrants could result in racial profiling and warrantless arrests. On April 27th, the government of Mexico had warned its own citizens against travel to the state. The city of Boulder, Colorado called for a boycott on official travel to Arizona... whereupon the city of Colorado Springs called for a boycott of Boulder.
  
  Where will the madness end?
  
  Do you agree with the Arizona law? Or do you plan to stay away in protest? Is a boycott even the best or most effective way to influence change in a tourist destination? Please share your thoughts!
• 

  Darryl Musick April 30, 2010 at 5:18pm

  We go to find the Govenator of Kahl-ee-for-nya and go on a long hike. Today's trip report is from capitol of the Golden State, Sacramento. See why it pays to find your duly elected representatives at The World on Wheels: http://tinyurl.com/2wyzzvq
• 

  Max Pesling February 16, 2010 at 7:40pm

  I came across this interesting piece by Jonathan Steele from the U.K. Guardian, on whether tourists should go back to Burma despite its horrendous regime. The upshot seems to yes. It's a long and fascinating piece, but here are the key bits. "
  
  "The International Crisis Group, which often reflects the views of the liberal wing of the western diplomatic elite...suggests western governments suspend their travel bans on junta members, resume normal contact and push the message that political prisoners must be released and election campaigning be allowed to go ahead freely. The Obama administration has also announced a shift in US policy on Burma towards engagement rather than isolation, though without ­specifying any concrete steps.
  
  According to articles on the online opposition website Irrawaddy, Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, is involved in a tough internal debate over whether to take part in the elections. It might back certain candidates even if, as is ­assumed, it is barred from competing in its own right. Taking part would ­allow the party's supporters to revive their networks and contacts.
  
  Meanwhile, the western investment boycott has left the field open to Chinese companies. They are especially visible in Mandalay, which has a large mall called the Great Wall Shopping Centre. "People respect the Chinese – they think they're cleverer than Burmese," said a young man who studied briefly in ­another Asean country. "They don't like Indians because Indians were the main agents of the British occupation. But the Chinese are taking over. They're close to the regime. Each side helps the other. It's like a mafia," he added.
  
  Back, then, to the nagging question: should we have toured a country with so bad a regime and such little prospect of improvement? This young man had no doubt. "Bring in tourists who can spread the word from the outside world and also tell people in their own countries about Burma," he said.
  
  In Britain, the Burma Campaign UK criticises tourism and investment and publishes a "dirty list" of firms that do business with Burma. This includes travel companies as well as the Lonely Planet guidebooks. The campaign's website contains a December 2002 quote from Aung San Suu Kyi: "We have not yet come to the point where we encourage people to come to Burma as tourists."
  
  Two other exile lobbies, Voices for Burma and Free Burma Coalition, which used to support a tourism boycott now take the opposite view. Voices for Burma also enlists Aung San Suu Kyi, though its sourcing is flimsy. Its website says: "According to a close acquaintance, not yet identified but reportedly from her party, the National League of ­Democracy, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been quoted as saying that travel to her country can now be encouraged, provided arrangements are made through private organisations. She now believes that tourism might be beneficial, should the result of the visit draw attention to the oppression of the people by the military junta."
  
  While favouring engagement, Voices for Burma and the Free Burma Coalition urge tourists to do as much as possible to help private Burmese citizens and not put money in the government's pocket, and in fact it is possible to do so now as a tourist. Some fees, such as the entrance ticket for the ruined city of Bagan, the visa charge and airport departure tax, cannot be escaped. But in 2003 the government dropped the requirement that every tourist change $200 at an official exchange place. ­Instead of going on a package or using a UK- or Bangkok-based tour company that inevitably has contacts with the Burmese government, visitors can travel on their own by picking one of the many family-owned Burmese travel agents that work from tiny ­offices in Rangoon. You make your ­arrangements either on the spot or by email in advance. There are also ­numerous family-owned guesthouses and restaurants and thousands of ­private souvenir-makers and sellers. Thanks to the web, details of how to plan your trip are readily available.
  
  The big decision is whether to go at all. No one should imagine tourism is automatically going to make Burma a better place. But can anyone credibly argue the tourism boycott has made it better either?"
  
  It's not so different from the argument re ending the U.S. travel embargo to Cuba. Any thoughts out there?
• 

  David Paul Appell August 24, 2009 at 6:04pm

  Take this week's Go-Lo poll, which asks whether members agree or disagree with travel guru Arthur Frommer's stance against travel to Arizona, where unusually lax gun laws recently allowed gun-toting demonstrators to wield their weapons outside a building where Barack Obama was speaking.