Comment

Comment by Terry Herman on September 2, 2009 at 5:54pm

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.

Comment by Allan Lynch on September 2, 2009 at 5:26pm

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.

Comment by Terry Herman on September 2, 2009 at 4:43pm

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.

Comment by CARROLL TROSCLAIR on August 26, 2009 at 11:23am

We can't surrender the Grand Canyon to Arizona's liberal gun laws,

Are guns allowed at the Canyon?

Comment by Jordan Simon on August 24, 2009 at 2:20pm

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. :-)

Comment by Bob Morris on August 24, 2009 at 11:50am

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...

Comment by Ed Wetschler on August 24, 2009 at 11:47am

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?

Comment by Jacy Meyer on August 24, 2009 at 11:47am

As a former Arizona resident, the gun "laws" there drove me insane! I actually wasn't all that shocked when I heard about the demonstrators, as it seems anyone can get cleared to carry a weapon, and they all do. I do agree with Ted that we need to include safety mentions in our articles. I'm always warning people about pickpockets and the rip-off taxi drivers in Prague (not overly dangerous situations) Funny enough, I wouldn't even think to warn people off Arizona because of their gun laws. It's interesting what becomes "unsafe" or a "warning" when you are used to something...

Comment by Ed Wetschler on August 24, 2009 at 11:45am

I'm reminded of a story about Myanmar that we assigned at Diversion about one minute before the regime started to get so seriously fascist. As the deadline approached, we kept debating what to do. Finally, the writer, a real pro and an expert on Southeast Asia, incorporated her qualms into the article, which made us all feel better. But we still didn't feel great.

Comment by José Balido on August 24, 2009 at 11:40am

Good answer, Ted. I agree, the traveler should have all the information at his/her disposal and make the decision whether to go or not. Yes, I would probably go to Arizona, but I'd be kinda watching my back all the time, and how relaxing is that?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 120
• 121
• 122
• 123
• 124
• …
• 127
• Next ›
• Page