Comments

• 

  Terry Herman September 11, 2009 at 6:17pm

  Sorry, but I think this would be ridiculous to suggest to people to travel less due to global warming. Many are already doing this due to the economy. Exactly what type of travel would this individual have others do? How would something like this impact local economies, employment, families, etc.? If these aspects aren't to be taken into consideration, then the premise is null. There are plenty of writers and travel organizations dedicated to eco-friendly travel and tourism. Perhaps this individual isn't aware of them? On a related, albeit stretch connection, I've heard of some who advocate reducing the number of kids born to also reduce the effects of global warming. Sooner or later, it will be a really silly season and it's fast approaching already with these two instances.
• 

  José Balido September 11, 2009 at 4:25pm

  Help! Got an e-mail from a friend last night who's so green she could pass for a head of lettuce... asking me if we travel journalists aren't contributing to global warming by encouraging people to travel. Wow. My first reaction was to tell her about those carbon offsets you can buy based on the "footprint" your particular trip leaves (not that I've bought any!). But I decided I'd better do my homework before writing back, and frankly, after reading up on the subject, I have as many questions as I did at the beginning. Yes, you can buy offsets from companies that claim to plant happy little saplings to clean up the air, but... how do we know that they really do? What percent of my $$$ do they use for administrative costs? Are they for- or non-profit? And is it better, as some say, to simply travel less? And if so, are we travel writers helping degrade the Earth?
  
  This is admittedly a mighty touchy topic for us travel writer types......... What do you guys think? Should we encourage people to travel less??? Or more responsibly? To take the train rather than a road trip, for example? And are those carbon offsets just a waste of money? Your opinions are highly appreciated!
  
  Here's an interesting read on the subject.
• 

  Allan Lynch September 3, 2009 at 1:36am

  I don't understand why gun-carrying citizens should be allowed near a President when American troops have the firing pins from their weapons removed before they can appear in the area of the President. (That is a little something the Secret Service insists on.)
  
  I could care less what Arthur Frommer says. He's not a force in Canada. But I do mind people, other than the police, carrying guns in public.
  
  As for what Malcom X espoused, in a perverted way I wonder how much differently other races (within America and outside it) might think the same of a Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld? Henry Kissinger can't leave the US for fear of being arrested and tried for things he did in office.
  
  Look, hunt if you wish. Have a gun in your home if you wish. But if the streets are so dangerous you feel the need to carry a gun, then either elect people who will clean up the problem or move. Destinations like Arizona have to be aware that other nationalities and cultures find the display of guns on the streets, stores, and other public places uncomfortable and threatening.
• 

  Terry Herman September 3, 2009 at 12:54am

  The president wasn't in any danger with all of his Secret Service. I'm sure if he felt threatened he would not have come. It would be different if the weapons were concealed, as is usually the case with assassins. These people weren't threatening the president nor trying to intimidate him. The Malcolm X shirts were threatening and advocated violence; wearing them was intentional and certainly wasn't because they had their other shirt in the laundry. Malcolm X espoused social disobedience regardless of the consequences, including injury and using guns - "by any means necessary". At least I can recognize someone carrying a weapon, whereas assassins generally don't parade around their targeted area with an exposed weapon. I'm not too sure about the mental stability of urban punk terrorists roaming around wearing these shirts, which concur with what Malcolm X's preferences for doing harm. Frommer advocating that no one travel to AZ because of individuals legally displaying their weapons was wrong. It's individuals like this that cause economic problems deliberately advocating that no one travel to AZ. Frommer is entitled to his free speech. The legally gun-toting individuals in AZ are also entitled to their free speech and Frommer needs to respect. Just because he says it isn't right, doesn't make it right. Lastly, if local law enforcement or the Secret Service thought any of these individuals were threatening or intimidating to the safety of the president, then I'm sure these individuals would have been removed from the area. I think Frommer's complaints were a way for getting his name back into the news. I'm sure he'd be the first one to whine and moan about others advocating that none of his books be purchased because of his anti-gun rights stance.
• 

  Allan Lynch September 3, 2009 at 12:26am

  Comparing the wearng of a t-shirt to carrying an automatic weapon to an event attended by an American president are hardly in the same category. I live near a university. Most of the freshmen and frosh haven't a clue who Che Guvera was, yet they wear his image on a t-shirt. It hardly makes them communist.
  
  However, carrying a gun to an event where your President is and given American's history of assassinations and attempted assassinations is nothing short of provocative.
• 

  Terry Herman September 2, 2009 at 11:43pm

  I just returned from a press trip to AZ. I wasn't the least bit fearful of my life or safety of my property. Unlike what some would have others think, the gun-toting, legally allowed individuals weren't running around in the streets causing holy terror. I think this is over-kill just because someone like Frommer wants everyone else to think it is. I don't recall Frommer complaining when young urban types paraded around wearing their Malcolm X t-shirts emblazened with his image and an automatic weapon and clenched fists imposed behind his likeness with the saying of "by any means necessary" plastered all over the material. No, instead, he picks what is PC to further his political agenda. As in the t-shirt example and this visible weapons issue, no laws were broken - only Frommer making an issue of it without any regard whatsoever to the potential impact on local economies, tourism or those working in the industry. Frommer should be ashamed of himself.
• 

  CARROLL TROSCLAIR August 26, 2009 at 6:23pm

  We can't surrender the Grand Canyon to Arizona's liberal gun laws,
  
  Are guns allowed at the Canyon?
• 

  Jordan Simon August 24, 2009 at 9:20pm

  Ed, you're not overreacting on a personal level. But there's a difference between travel to a potentially unsafe place and a politically incorrect one. If you're writing about Kenya's coast neat Lamu, warn about Somali pirates and raiding parties. If you're visiting the Mt. Kenya Safari Club, why mention them? Not a great analogy, but the point is that the Chinese government's unforgivable treatment of Tibet does not endanger tourists. And as loathsome as the regime may be, the country has many many glories. Now in a Tibet-specific article you could mention it parenthetically when discussing the government's environmentally unsound "opening up" of Tibet to mass-market tourism, which moreover rarely benefits the locals...
  
  Bob mentioned the Cayman Islands fracas... I recall writing my first book, the original Fodor's Colorado, right after Amendment 2 was approved and the LGBT movement called for a boycott. I discussed the situation with the editor, and included the whole mess in the introduction. But note that A) the boycott unfairly did not "discriminate" between the state's right-wing sectors and towns like Aspen, Vail, and Boulder that had gay rights ordinances on the books and B) it backfired when extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalist groups gave the Colorado Springs area millions in incentive and meetings travel to compensate.
  
  No matter how personally invested you are in a cause, report rather than editorialize (but try to incorporate a few witty zingers where possible). And while few of us have the luxury right now to turn down assignments, we don't have to query about places and policies that don't exactly, um, disarm us. :-)
• 

  Bob Morris August 24, 2009 at 6:50pm

  In this particular instance, these folks are wingnuts and should not be given any more publicity than they've already received. Nor should the whole state of Arizona suffer for it. By taking his stance, Frommer, well intentioned though he might be, played right into their hands. They are hoping for that kind of reaction...
  
  A better example would be when the Prime Minister of the Cayman Islands refused to let gay cruises dock in Georgetown years ago. That sort of outright ignorance is deserving of a public thrashing...
• 

  Ed Wetschler August 24, 2009 at 6:47pm

  And while I'm rambling, I might add that this Tibet-ophile has reservations about visiting China. Do you fellow travel writers feel I'm overreacting?