Mar 27, 2008
The strike down of New York's passenger rights laws should cause us all to pressure Congress to act nationally
You really need to have experienced four or more hours in an airplane stuck on the tarmac, as I have, to fully appreciate how badly legislation is needed to prevent that happening to you. It is a frightening and claustrophobic time that causes great distress, and yet the possibility is quite realistic: several hundreds of flights were affected in that manner in 2007, and the numbers don't even include the flights that were later cancelled.
The airlines, with their eyes on the bottom line, thinking only of the cost of taxiing the plane back to the gate and permitting passengers to disembark, will never correct the situation of their own volition. They have to be forced to do so by law. And since a Federal Court of Appeals has now ruled (as they did this week) that the individual states may not pass laws regulating the airlines in this manner, our recourse must be to Congress. The Federal Government is clearly entitled to establish one uniform standard for the entire country.
In my view, they should not adopt New York State's fuzzy and now-defeated edict that the airlines guarantee the availability of fresh air, water, food and toilets to the passengers on stranded planes. They should set down a clear and automatic requirement that any plane stranded for four hours must be returned to the gate and passengers permitted to disembark.
And you know what? The airlines will find that a four-hour requirement is to everyone's benefit, the airlines' as well as the public's. You can contribute to such a result by contacting your representatives in Congress and urging them to act on this matter.
Write and read comments about this post.
The airlines, with their eyes on the bottom line, thinking only of the cost of taxiing the plane back to the gate and permitting passengers to disembark, will never correct the situation of their own volition. They have to be forced to do so by law. And since a Federal Court of Appeals has now ruled (as they did this week) that the individual states may not pass laws regulating the airlines in this manner, our recourse must be to Congress. The Federal Government is clearly entitled to establish one uniform standard for the entire country.
In my view, they should not adopt New York State's fuzzy and now-defeated edict that the airlines guarantee the availability of fresh air, water, food and toilets to the passengers on stranded planes. They should set down a clear and automatic requirement that any plane stranded for four hours must be returned to the gate and passengers permitted to disembark.
And you know what? The airlines will find that a four-hour requirement is to everyone's benefit, the airlines' as well as the public's. You can contribute to such a result by contacting your representatives in Congress and urging them to act on this matter.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: rights
Mar 11, 2008
The opponents of free speech in travel writing have been slapped down by a court in Belfast, Northern Ireland
Several months ago, I drew attention to a jury verdict in Australia that had found a newspaper journalist guilty of having defamed a local restaurant by writing a critical review of its food. Though at first glance the matter might have seemed comical, the possibility that courts might entertain such lawsuits by hotels and restaurants poses a grave threat to travel journalism. If more similar lawsuits are permitted, there will soon be an end to the critical appraisal of travel facilities in guidebooks, newspapers, and magazines.
As amazing as it may seem, there appear to be no specific constitutional guarantees of free speech in Australia. And though it seems inconceivable that our own courts would permit such lawsuits, it's obvious that in a great many jurisdictions all over the world, no free-speech protections prevail. The possibility that a foreign court may find a writer guilty of defaming a hotel or restaurant in an honest expression of views will prevent honestly written guidebooks from being published in the United States, since most such guidebooks are also circulated overseas.
That's why it's heartening to report that last week, a court in Belfast, Northern Ireland, threw out a lawsuit brought by a restaurant against a newspaper critic who had panned the restaurant's meals. The details are found on www.breitbart.com.
Nevertheless, we all need to remain vigilant against such threats to the honest expression of opinions. You may be interested in one of my own experiences in the world of guidebook-writing:
More than 30 years ago, I was criminally indicted in the courts of Athens, Greece, for having written, in our guidebook to Greece, that the local English-speaking newspaper of Athens, at that time, was "practically worthless." Those two words resulted in a heavy package of legal documents mailed to my home in New York, proclaiming that I was to present myself to a court in Athens to answer charges of criminal libel.
When I called an Athens lawyer to ask what I should do, he responded that I should come to Athens and defend myself.
"But if I come to Athens to defend myself and I lose", I said, "I will be imprisoned." "Oh, chances are you won't lose," he responded.
After making fruitless visits to the Greek embassy in Washington, D.C. (whose officials were too frightened to intervene, this being a period when military colonels had seized power in Greece), and making similar pleas for help to the frightened tourist officials of Greece, all to no avail, I finally and reluctantly settled the case for a small payment, so that I could continue to travel to Greece.
And by the way, that newspaper was "practically worthless."
Write and read comments about this post.
As amazing as it may seem, there appear to be no specific constitutional guarantees of free speech in Australia. And though it seems inconceivable that our own courts would permit such lawsuits, it's obvious that in a great many jurisdictions all over the world, no free-speech protections prevail. The possibility that a foreign court may find a writer guilty of defaming a hotel or restaurant in an honest expression of views will prevent honestly written guidebooks from being published in the United States, since most such guidebooks are also circulated overseas.
That's why it's heartening to report that last week, a court in Belfast, Northern Ireland, threw out a lawsuit brought by a restaurant against a newspaper critic who had panned the restaurant's meals. The details are found on www.breitbart.com.
Nevertheless, we all need to remain vigilant against such threats to the honest expression of opinions. You may be interested in one of my own experiences in the world of guidebook-writing:
More than 30 years ago, I was criminally indicted in the courts of Athens, Greece, for having written, in our guidebook to Greece, that the local English-speaking newspaper of Athens, at that time, was "practically worthless." Those two words resulted in a heavy package of legal documents mailed to my home in New York, proclaiming that I was to present myself to a court in Athens to answer charges of criminal libel.
When I called an Athens lawyer to ask what I should do, he responded that I should come to Athens and defend myself.
"But if I come to Athens to defend myself and I lose", I said, "I will be imprisoned." "Oh, chances are you won't lose," he responded.
After making fruitless visits to the Greek embassy in Washington, D.C. (whose officials were too frightened to intervene, this being a period when military colonels had seized power in Greece), and making similar pleas for help to the frightened tourist officials of Greece, all to no avail, I finally and reluctantly settled the case for a small payment, so that I could continue to travel to Greece.
And by the way, that newspaper was "practically worthless."
Write and read comments about this post.
Feb 6, 2008
One of the earliest supporters of adequate vacation time for Americans was the late, great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
A PBS documentary on the life of the late Louis Brandeis, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is now making the rounds of various PBS stations, apparently mentions that Brandeis valued adequate vacation time for all Americans. A friend who recently saw the film has written me as follows:
I just watched a PBS documentary on the great Justice Louis Brandeis. One thing I learned was that he not only stood up for workers' and women's rights, but he also strongly believed in the right of people to have adequate leisure and vacation time so they could rejuvenate and travel. He said he could do 12 months work in 11 months, but not in 12 months, meaning of course that he could do more work in less time if he had a month of R&R each year.Write and read comments about this post.
It made me think of my grandfather, a lawyer in NYC for many years, and certainly of your comments about the right of all people to have adequate leisure time.
Labels: rights
Jan 15, 2008
Starting now, you've got rights if you're stuck on a grounded airplane in the State of New York; shouldn't your state pass a similar bill?
To the surprise of many, a Federal district court recently upheld -- repeat, upheld -- the New York Passenger Rights Law which requires that airlines supply food, water, fresh air, and clean toilets, to passengers in a plane stuck on the tarmac for more than three hours. That statute went into effect at the beginning of this month, and all us should be aware of it. If such a delay in taking off should occur to you, at a New York airport, you have a right to demand that the airline send cleaners and supplies onto the plane (hoping they'll simply return it to the gate instead).
The New York law doesn't go nearly as far as some had hoped. I, for one, wanted a less-ambiguous requirement that the airlines must physically return such a plane to the gate and permit passengers to disembark and relax within the airport terminal. But I also feared that even such a weak requirement would be invalidated by the courts on the grounds that New York State was interfering in a federal matter (regulation of the airlines).
Henceforth, when three hours have elapsed, and your head is pounding from the claustrophobia and poor air of an enclosed, non-flying airplane, make yourself heard. Point out that if fresh air, food, water and clean toilets are not brought to the plane immediately, that the airline faces substantial monetary penalties.
And why not contact a member of your own legislature and suggest that they file a similar bill to for your own local airports?
Write and read comments about this post.
The New York law doesn't go nearly as far as some had hoped. I, for one, wanted a less-ambiguous requirement that the airlines must physically return such a plane to the gate and permit passengers to disembark and relax within the airport terminal. But I also feared that even such a weak requirement would be invalidated by the courts on the grounds that New York State was interfering in a federal matter (regulation of the airlines).
Henceforth, when three hours have elapsed, and your head is pounding from the claustrophobia and poor air of an enclosed, non-flying airplane, make yourself heard. Point out that if fresh air, food, water and clean toilets are not brought to the plane immediately, that the airline faces substantial monetary penalties.
And why not contact a member of your own legislature and suggest that they file a similar bill to for your own local airports?
Write and read comments about this post.
Nov 26, 2007
You'll never guess what country has recently taken steps to insure a minimum amount of vacation time for its citizens
In the United States, not a single law -- either federal or state -- guarantees a single day of vacation time to anyone. We are the most backward prosperous nation on earth in that regard, and our failings have now highlighted by a recent announcement by the Chinese government. The Legislative Affairs Office of China's State Council has announced draft legislation awarding a week's vacation each year to persons who have been employed for one to ten years. After that, they get a second week and even a third week for more lengthy employment. Although the proposed amount of leave is absurdly short, it is at least a start, and stands in contrast to our own total lack of any public law guaranteeing a single day of vacation to anyone.
In a recent response to one of my post about vacation time, a reader wrote that vacation time should only be a matter for private negotiation between employer and employee, and never mandated by our legislative representatives; that under our free enterprise system, an employee is entitled to quit if he or she is unsatisfied with the length of their vacations, and is therefore in a fair bargaining position to demand more. It's interesting how the opponents of legislative action argue with words in place of reality.
In terms of the minimum wage, in terms of the work-week and the abolition of child labor, in the prohibition of discrimination in employment, in terms of a dozen laws ensuring proper working conditions, it was only when Congress or state legislatures acted that minimum wages, decent hours of work, an end to child labor, reduced discrimination, and proper working conditions, were brought about in America. When and if a humane new Congress is elected in November of 2008, I hope you will join me in forcefully proposing a statute guaranteeing a decent minimum of vacation time to every American. The time has come.
Write and read comments about this post.
In a recent response to one of my post about vacation time, a reader wrote that vacation time should only be a matter for private negotiation between employer and employee, and never mandated by our legislative representatives; that under our free enterprise system, an employee is entitled to quit if he or she is unsatisfied with the length of their vacations, and is therefore in a fair bargaining position to demand more. It's interesting how the opponents of legislative action argue with words in place of reality.
In terms of the minimum wage, in terms of the work-week and the abolition of child labor, in the prohibition of discrimination in employment, in terms of a dozen laws ensuring proper working conditions, it was only when Congress or state legislatures acted that minimum wages, decent hours of work, an end to child labor, reduced discrimination, and proper working conditions, were brought about in America. When and if a humane new Congress is elected in November of 2008, I hope you will join me in forcefully proposing a statute guaranteeing a decent minimum of vacation time to every American. The time has come.
Write and read comments about this post.
Oct 15, 2007
In a frightening case that threatens the existence of travel guides, a Sydney jury has found a writer guilty of defaming a local restaurant
Though it hasn't yet been noticed by U.S. publications, it's a terrifying development that denies the right of a travel journalist to compose an honest opinion about restaurants, hotels, and other tourist facilities. A restaurant in Sydney, whose meals were said to be unpalatable by a newspaper restaurant critic who had taken two meals there, the restaurant having later closed, sued the critic's newspaper for defamation and won a jury verdict. Prior to the trial, the courts of Australia had upheld the right of the restaurant's owners to maintain such an unusual lawsuit.
No one denied that the restaurant critic had eaten there twice. No one claimed that he had an ulterior or improper motive for criticizing the restaurant's meals. Yet an Australian jury found him guilty for rendering an honest opinion.
I am virtually certain that the courts of America would throw out any such lawsuit. Or would they? Too many of us take the right of free speech for granted, and the casual way in which important elements of the Australian society have trampled on free speech rights in this instance is a horrendous development, and one that would find plenty of extremist supporters here. Imagine the state of our newspapers, magazines and guidebooks if we could not criticize a restaurant, hotel, movie or book for fear of being sued for libel over honest criticism.
I think it's important for us to let the Australians know that the world is watching, to provoke opinion leaders in that country to confront the implications of this weird, totalitarian ruling. If you know an Australian, or if you meet an Australian traveling in the United States, shouldn't you let that person know of the horror we feel?
A full write-up of the court's decision is found on the Sydney Morning Herald's website, while this link includes a timeline and breakdown of the case by a legal consulting firm. The Guardian covers the lack of a free speech here.
A somewhat similar lawsuit is currently pending in the courts of Philadelphia, brought by a disgruntled restaurateur against a food critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer who had written that he had been served "a miserably tough and fatty strip steak. The crab cake, though, was excellent." We should all pray that the case will be decisively dismissed, with costs assessed against the restaurateur; otherwise, we'll all suffer the eventual disappearance of critical reviews in our press.
Write and read comments about this post.
No one denied that the restaurant critic had eaten there twice. No one claimed that he had an ulterior or improper motive for criticizing the restaurant's meals. Yet an Australian jury found him guilty for rendering an honest opinion.
I am virtually certain that the courts of America would throw out any such lawsuit. Or would they? Too many of us take the right of free speech for granted, and the casual way in which important elements of the Australian society have trampled on free speech rights in this instance is a horrendous development, and one that would find plenty of extremist supporters here. Imagine the state of our newspapers, magazines and guidebooks if we could not criticize a restaurant, hotel, movie or book for fear of being sued for libel over honest criticism.
I think it's important for us to let the Australians know that the world is watching, to provoke opinion leaders in that country to confront the implications of this weird, totalitarian ruling. If you know an Australian, or if you meet an Australian traveling in the United States, shouldn't you let that person know of the horror we feel?
A full write-up of the court's decision is found on the Sydney Morning Herald's website, while this link includes a timeline and breakdown of the case by a legal consulting firm. The Guardian covers the lack of a free speech here.
A somewhat similar lawsuit is currently pending in the courts of Philadelphia, brought by a disgruntled restaurateur against a food critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer who had written that he had been served "a miserably tough and fatty strip steak. The crab cake, though, was excellent." We should all pray that the case will be decisively dismissed, with costs assessed against the restaurateur; otherwise, we'll all suffer the eventual disappearance of critical reviews in our press.
Write and read comments about this post.
Oct 10, 2007
A new FAA funding bill passed by the House of Representatives takes baby steps toward ensuring air passengers' rights
A passenger rights bill has now passed one house of Congress. It seeks to address the appalling incidents in which people on grounded planes have been kept virtual prisoners for hours at a stretch as food, water, and A/C runs out and the onboard toilets overflow. Problem is, it's a law without any teeth.
I waded through the text (anyone can read the resolution, H.R. 2881, at http://thomas.loc.gov), and it merely demands that large and medium hub airports, and the carriers that use them, each draw up an emergency contingency plan to "provide food, water that meets the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act, restroom facilities, cabin ventilation, and access to medical treatment for passengers onboard an aircraft at the airport that is on the ground for an extended period of time without access to the terminal." It also contains a provision to "allow passengers to deplane following excessive delays."
Notice that it doesn't defines how long constitutes "an extended period of time" or an "excessive delay." What's more, should the airlines and airports fail to file (or, in the case of an incident, abide by) such plans, the Secretary of Transportation may simply "assess a civil penalty." That's all.
Maybe we should be happy over this slight progress. The bill also includes provisions to address noise and congestion issues as well, an amendment ordering the Secretary of Transportation to institute a consumer complaint hotline, and supposedly contains enough funding to start modernizing the antiquated air traffic control system that is contributing to air flight delays.
Meanwhile, the White House has threatened to veto the bill, and the Senate is working on its own version. Complaining about the state of air travel won't get you very far. The only chance to change the system is when the laws governing it are being written, so if any of you frequent fliers out there feel the House version isn't up to snuff, maybe now is the right time to write to your Senator.
Write and read comments about this post.
I waded through the text (anyone can read the resolution, H.R. 2881, at http://thomas.loc.gov), and it merely demands that large and medium hub airports, and the carriers that use them, each draw up an emergency contingency plan to "provide food, water that meets the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act, restroom facilities, cabin ventilation, and access to medical treatment for passengers onboard an aircraft at the airport that is on the ground for an extended period of time without access to the terminal." It also contains a provision to "allow passengers to deplane following excessive delays."
Notice that it doesn't defines how long constitutes "an extended period of time" or an "excessive delay." What's more, should the airlines and airports fail to file (or, in the case of an incident, abide by) such plans, the Secretary of Transportation may simply "assess a civil penalty." That's all.
Maybe we should be happy over this slight progress. The bill also includes provisions to address noise and congestion issues as well, an amendment ordering the Secretary of Transportation to institute a consumer complaint hotline, and supposedly contains enough funding to start modernizing the antiquated air traffic control system that is contributing to air flight delays.
Meanwhile, the White House has threatened to veto the bill, and the Senate is working on its own version. Complaining about the state of air travel won't get you very far. The only chance to change the system is when the laws governing it are being written, so if any of you frequent fliers out there feel the House version isn't up to snuff, maybe now is the right time to write to your Senator.
Write and read comments about this post.
Sep 26, 2007
Can tourism to Fort Lauderdale survive the prejudice of its mayor?
From an office whose walls are lined with framed photographs of Karl Rove and Ann Coulter (there's a role model!), the current mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Jim Naugle, has been issuing statements that have frightened members of his own administration into believing that he is gravely damaging tourism to Fort Lauderdale. Recently, the Tourism Development Council of Broward County unanimously ousted Naugle as one of its commissioners in reaction, they claim, to anti-gay statements made by him. Since approximately 10% of all visitors to Fort Lauderdale are gay, the Council felt that they could not be seen as condoning Mayor Naugle's remarks, which have already caused several gay groups to cancel their visits to the city.
Among other statements issued by him, Naugle has said that the city should re-think its policy of marketing itself to gays because of the incidence of the HIV virus among gays. He has condemned the use of a city building for a gay library, said that homosexuals should not be called "gay" because they are "unhappy," claimed there was rampant gay sex in public restrooms, and made other remarks regarded as offensive by the gay community. Some gay leaders are asking for a tourism boycott of Fort Lauderdale, and according to the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, hundreds of e-mails have been received from both gays and non-gays threatening to cancel or canceling their visits to the city.
The issue here is whether all Americans are entitled to be treated with respect, free from discrimination, prejudice or slander. I, for one, applaud the Broward County tourism body for distancing itself from Naugle, and suggest that the mayor of a city heavily dependent on tourism should be more respectful of the visitors who go there. Would anyone have condoned similar attacks on Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Asians, Hispanics, or native Americans?
Write and read comments about this post.
Among other statements issued by him, Naugle has said that the city should re-think its policy of marketing itself to gays because of the incidence of the HIV virus among gays. He has condemned the use of a city building for a gay library, said that homosexuals should not be called "gay" because they are "unhappy," claimed there was rampant gay sex in public restrooms, and made other remarks regarded as offensive by the gay community. Some gay leaders are asking for a tourism boycott of Fort Lauderdale, and according to the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, hundreds of e-mails have been received from both gays and non-gays threatening to cancel or canceling their visits to the city.
The issue here is whether all Americans are entitled to be treated with respect, free from discrimination, prejudice or slander. I, for one, applaud the Broward County tourism body for distancing itself from Naugle, and suggest that the mayor of a city heavily dependent on tourism should be more respectful of the visitors who go there. Would anyone have condoned similar attacks on Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Asians, Hispanics, or native Americans?
Write and read comments about this post.
Sep 25, 2007
Further to our plea for a tourist boycott of Burma (Myanmar), here are U.S. and Canadian companies sending tourists there
As I pointed out yesterday, the democratically elected President of Burma (Myanmar), the Nobel-prize-winning Aung San Suu Kyi, has begged all sensitive people of the world not to travel as tourists to her country. She has pointed out over and again that foreign tourism to Burma (Myanmar) helps to tighten the Nazi-like grip on Burma by a thuggish military dictatorship. Now, when as many as 100,000 courageous Burmese take to the streets, as they did yesterday, to protest that military mis-rule, it's important that we make every effort to persuade U.S. and Canadian tour operators to cease operating trips to Burma.
The most prominent operators of tours to Myanmar appear to be Pacific Delight Tours (www.pacificdelighttours.com), Abercrombie Kent (www.abercrombiekent.com), Travcoa (www.travcoa.com), General Tours (www.generaltours.com), Sita (www.sitatours.com), Value World (www.vwtours.com), and Canada's GAP Adventures (www.gapadventures.com). I met last week in New York with the President of GAP Adventures and have now sent him an urgent e-mail, pleading with him to cease disregarding the pleas of the democratic opposition in Burma (Myanmar).
I would hope that readers will join me in sending similar communications to the companies named above.
Write and read comments about this post.
The most prominent operators of tours to Myanmar appear to be Pacific Delight Tours (www.pacificdelighttours.com), Abercrombie Kent (www.abercrombiekent.com), Travcoa (www.travcoa.com), General Tours (www.generaltours.com), Sita (www.sitatours.com), Value World (www.vwtours.com), and Canada's GAP Adventures (www.gapadventures.com). I met last week in New York with the President of GAP Adventures and have now sent him an urgent e-mail, pleading with him to cease disregarding the pleas of the democratic opposition in Burma (Myanmar).
I would hope that readers will join me in sending similar communications to the companies named above.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: rights, tour companies
Sep 24, 2007
Now is the time to support a touristic boycott of Myanmar (the former Burma)
Shockingly enough, several major U.S. tour operators continue to operate trips to Myanmar, despite pleas not to do so by the country's democratically-elected leader, the Nobel-prize-winning Aung San Suu Kyi. On occasion after occasion, Mrs. Kyi has emphatically stated that such visits simply support the brutal, thuggish military junta that now rules Myanmar.
Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest in Rangoon for 12 of the last 18 years, and is currently allowed no access to visitors or even use of the telephone. Until a protest march of 10,000 Buddhist monks filed in front of her house last week, she had not been seen by the public for the last four years.
If you live in one of the many U.S. cities whose newspapers carry no mention of the events in Myanmar, then I urge you to obtain a copy of the Economist or the New York Times and read the extensive reporting on the situation in Myanmar that these responsible publications have recently carried. In a country whose citizens become more impoverished and oppressed with every year, things have apparently reached the breaking point, with Buddhist monks leading the public in massive demonstrations, the last one being yesterday's astonishing march by many thousands of monks. The involvement of that country's clergy is the first public protest that Myanmar's grotesque military government has been unable to repress.
To their dishonor and shame, U.S. tour operators have scheduled visits to impoverished Myanmar, whose low price structure is so tourist-friendly. There is never a totally consistent policy for boycotting tourism to certain nations. In some instances, continued tourism keeps a country more open, assists its dissidents, is promoted by all elements of that country.
In the case of Myanmar, the people of that country have made it crystal clear that tourism simply aids the junta and helps keep them in power. As noted above, Mrs. Suu Kyi has pleaded with the travel industry not to send visitors to Myanmar. We should heed that persistent request. Next time you see a brochure or website advertising a visit to Myanmar, you should contact the tour operator and express your disgust over such business-as-usual greed.
Write and read comments about this post.
Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest in Rangoon for 12 of the last 18 years, and is currently allowed no access to visitors or even use of the telephone. Until a protest march of 10,000 Buddhist monks filed in front of her house last week, she had not been seen by the public for the last four years.
If you live in one of the many U.S. cities whose newspapers carry no mention of the events in Myanmar, then I urge you to obtain a copy of the Economist or the New York Times and read the extensive reporting on the situation in Myanmar that these responsible publications have recently carried. In a country whose citizens become more impoverished and oppressed with every year, things have apparently reached the breaking point, with Buddhist monks leading the public in massive demonstrations, the last one being yesterday's astonishing march by many thousands of monks. The involvement of that country's clergy is the first public protest that Myanmar's grotesque military government has been unable to repress.
To their dishonor and shame, U.S. tour operators have scheduled visits to impoverished Myanmar, whose low price structure is so tourist-friendly. There is never a totally consistent policy for boycotting tourism to certain nations. In some instances, continued tourism keeps a country more open, assists its dissidents, is promoted by all elements of that country.
In the case of Myanmar, the people of that country have made it crystal clear that tourism simply aids the junta and helps keep them in power. As noted above, Mrs. Suu Kyi has pleaded with the travel industry not to send visitors to Myanmar. We should heed that persistent request. Next time you see a brochure or website advertising a visit to Myanmar, you should contact the tour operator and express your disgust over such business-as-usual greed.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: rights
Aug 24, 2007
New York State has passed an mild "passenger bill of rights" for air travel; when will Congress do more?
In early August, the New York State legislature passed, and Governor Eliot Spitzer signed, a "passenger bill of rights" for air travel, making the airlines send staff to clean the restrooms and provide fresh food and water to any aircraft that has left the gate and then been stranded on the tarmac for more than three hours. This was an obvious slap on the wrist, by a legislature reluctant to trespass more positively in an area of national concern.
Far more forceful are bills introduced in the U.S. Congress that would require planes actually be returned to the gate and passengers permitted to leave if they have been kept on the tarmac for more than three-to-five hours (the hours vary in different versions of the same measure). As you can imagine, airline lobbyists are violently fighting those proposals and demanding that the airlines remain unregulated as far as tarmac tedium is concerned. Trust us, they say.
It's clear to me they can't be trusted. Over and over, Americans read of planes stranded on the tarmac for five, six, seven, eight, and even nine and eleven hours, followed by contrite apologies on the part of the airline. It happened most recently on a JetBlue aircraft, and it is happening constantly for perhaps lesser amounts of time on other airlines. You have to experience such a condition to realize how traumatic it is. I recently underwent a lesser version of that ordeal (and got an inkling of how often it happens) when the plane I was on at La Guardia Airport left the gate and was then kept on the tarmac for nearly three hours before taking off. Its flight crew was obviously reluctant to cause their company added expense, or lose the chance to operate a money-making flight, by returning it to the gate and permitting passengers to deplane.
Someday a tragedy will occur. A passenger stressed by the stale air and claustrophobia of a motionless plane will suffer a seizure or heart attack, or a child will be made hysterical and sick by long hours of enclosure.
In an area where the airlines cannot be trusted, the Congressional version of the "passenger bill of rights" should be passed. I encourage our readers to contact their representatives in Congress.
Write and read comments about this post.
Far more forceful are bills introduced in the U.S. Congress that would require planes actually be returned to the gate and passengers permitted to leave if they have been kept on the tarmac for more than three-to-five hours (the hours vary in different versions of the same measure). As you can imagine, airline lobbyists are violently fighting those proposals and demanding that the airlines remain unregulated as far as tarmac tedium is concerned. Trust us, they say.
It's clear to me they can't be trusted. Over and over, Americans read of planes stranded on the tarmac for five, six, seven, eight, and even nine and eleven hours, followed by contrite apologies on the part of the airline. It happened most recently on a JetBlue aircraft, and it is happening constantly for perhaps lesser amounts of time on other airlines. You have to experience such a condition to realize how traumatic it is. I recently underwent a lesser version of that ordeal (and got an inkling of how often it happens) when the plane I was on at La Guardia Airport left the gate and was then kept on the tarmac for nearly three hours before taking off. Its flight crew was obviously reluctant to cause their company added expense, or lose the chance to operate a money-making flight, by returning it to the gate and permitting passengers to deplane.
Someday a tragedy will occur. A passenger stressed by the stale air and claustrophobia of a motionless plane will suffer a seizure or heart attack, or a child will be made hysterical and sick by long hours of enclosure.
In an area where the airlines cannot be trusted, the Congressional version of the "passenger bill of rights" should be passed. I encourage our readers to contact their representatives in Congress.
Write and read comments about this post.
Aug 23, 2007
What should we do about the lack of adequate vacation time in America?
In response to a number of posts by me about our pitifully limited amount of vacation time, one reader has asked: what can we do about it? Writing in direct response to our post entitled "An increase in the amount of vacation time is unfinished business of our democracy," reader Janna Luttrell wrote:
There's a possibility, however, that the election of November 2008 (it's scheduled for Tuesday, November 4) may bring to the Congress a greatly increased number of members who would consider such legislation. If it does, then I propose to form, the very next day after that election, an organization called the "League for Longer Vacations" and to submit a draft bill about American vacation time through a friendly member of Congress. And I shall ask you, through this blog, to join me in persuading Congress to consider it.
Now the next election may not turn out as I've hypothetically predicted, but if it does -- if there's a sharp increase in the number of humane, progressive, open-minded members of Congress -- we should then immediately proclaim that the time has come for a serious consideration of the vacation issue. And though it may take several sessions of Congress to finally pass such a bill, the time for it has obviously come -- the contrast between our own vacation policies and those enjoyed in numerous other prosperous and developed nations is simply too overwhelming. With the European Union already requiring that every member nation guarantee a minimum of four weeks of paid vacation to their citizens, how can we fail to require a paltry three weeks of paid vacation in the United States?
So let's talk again on November 5, 2008. And let's be ready at that time to vigorously fight for a final act of humanity in the American workplace. Having achieved the forty-hour week and the minimum wage, the elimination of discrimination in employment, the abolition of child labor, the requirement of safe working places, and a dozen other such advances, it's time to guarantee an adequate minimum amount of vacation time to every American.
Write and read comments about this post.
I think this is an issue as big as universal healthcare and that many Americans are concerned enough to do something about it. Does anyone know of any groups in Washington lobbying for this? This is an issue that I'd really like to see solved before I'm too old to care! Its an issue that is worthy of a letter (or thousands) to our Congressmen, lobbyists, and anyone who will listen.My thoughts are more cautious: given the current composition of Congress, it is inconceivable that legislation could currently be passed mandating a basic minimum of three weeks per year of paid leave. It is equally inconceivable that the votes would be there to overcome a presidential veto of such legislation. This is all so clear, in my view, that it becomes almost a waste of time in 2007 and early 2008 to form organizations to lobby for such legislation.
There's a possibility, however, that the election of November 2008 (it's scheduled for Tuesday, November 4) may bring to the Congress a greatly increased number of members who would consider such legislation. If it does, then I propose to form, the very next day after that election, an organization called the "League for Longer Vacations" and to submit a draft bill about American vacation time through a friendly member of Congress. And I shall ask you, through this blog, to join me in persuading Congress to consider it.
Now the next election may not turn out as I've hypothetically predicted, but if it does -- if there's a sharp increase in the number of humane, progressive, open-minded members of Congress -- we should then immediately proclaim that the time has come for a serious consideration of the vacation issue. And though it may take several sessions of Congress to finally pass such a bill, the time for it has obviously come -- the contrast between our own vacation policies and those enjoyed in numerous other prosperous and developed nations is simply too overwhelming. With the European Union already requiring that every member nation guarantee a minimum of four weeks of paid vacation to their citizens, how can we fail to require a paltry three weeks of paid vacation in the United States?
So let's talk again on November 5, 2008. And let's be ready at that time to vigorously fight for a final act of humanity in the American workplace. Having achieved the forty-hour week and the minimum wage, the elimination of discrimination in employment, the abolition of child labor, the requirement of safe working places, and a dozen other such advances, it's time to guarantee an adequate minimum amount of vacation time to every American.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: rights
Jul 26, 2007
"Sicko" reminds us once again of our fatuous embargo against travel to Cuba
Michael Moore's latest film, Sicko, ends with a trip to Cuba. After discovering that three of the "early responders" to Ground Zero have apparently suffered lung ailments that their insurance plans refuse to cover, Michael accompanies these heroes of 9/11 to a hospital in Havana.
I have myself traveled to Cuba twice in the last five years. I went there, I am ashamed to say, legally, as a journalist, under license from the Treasury Department. I express that regret because I believe our government does not have the constitutional right to choose the countries that we, as freeborn Americans, are entitled to visit or not visit in peacetime. Travel is a learning activity, a means by which we expand our knowledge of the world; we travel, among other reasons, to reach our own judgments about the foreign policy of our nation. It follows that our government has no more right to prevent us from traveling to a particular country than it has to stop us from attending a lecture or reading a book.
I am aware of the difficulty of making a trip to Cuba into a learning experience, of ascertaining facts in a totalitarian state. And I know full well that Cubans are less than free to express their own opinions to tourists passing through. But while those factors make information-gathering difficult, they do not make it impossible, and there is much that can be learned about such a state in visits to it, just as there is in visits to Vietnam and China, to which our country not only permits but encourages travel.
It is now several years since agreement was reached between aviation officials of the U.S. and communist Vietnam permitting direct flights between major American cities and Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. We readily permit Americans to travel to all sorts of antagonistic countries without legal hindrance, provided only that such tourists recognize that they do so at their own risk. What distinguishes the regime of Cuba from the regimes of Vietnam, North Korea, China and others, other than the political influence of a community of émigrés in Florida?
It is time to stand up for our right to travel, in peacetime, to wherever we wish.
Write and read comments about this post.
I have myself traveled to Cuba twice in the last five years. I went there, I am ashamed to say, legally, as a journalist, under license from the Treasury Department. I express that regret because I believe our government does not have the constitutional right to choose the countries that we, as freeborn Americans, are entitled to visit or not visit in peacetime. Travel is a learning activity, a means by which we expand our knowledge of the world; we travel, among other reasons, to reach our own judgments about the foreign policy of our nation. It follows that our government has no more right to prevent us from traveling to a particular country than it has to stop us from attending a lecture or reading a book.
I am aware of the difficulty of making a trip to Cuba into a learning experience, of ascertaining facts in a totalitarian state. And I know full well that Cubans are less than free to express their own opinions to tourists passing through. But while those factors make information-gathering difficult, they do not make it impossible, and there is much that can be learned about such a state in visits to it, just as there is in visits to Vietnam and China, to which our country not only permits but encourages travel.
It is now several years since agreement was reached between aviation officials of the U.S. and communist Vietnam permitting direct flights between major American cities and Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. We readily permit Americans to travel to all sorts of antagonistic countries without legal hindrance, provided only that such tourists recognize that they do so at their own risk. What distinguishes the regime of Cuba from the regimes of Vietnam, North Korea, China and others, other than the political influence of a community of émigrés in Florida?
It is time to stand up for our right to travel, in peacetime, to wherever we wish.
Write and read comments about this post.
May 8, 2007
The Premier of Bermuda defends the right to travel
What a leap there's been in the ability of gays and lesbians to travel openly and without fear! As recently as eight years ago, the Cayman Islands denied landing rights to a boatload of law-abiding gay vacationers, claiming that their very presence was an affront to public morals. Yet few cruise or tour operators cut back on their programs to the Caymans or supported my own argument that a destination denying access to some Americans is not entitled to receive tourism from any Americans. For years, the government of the Cayman Islands took no step to reverse their hostile policy.
Last week, in sharp contrast to the attitudes of nearly a decade ago, the prime minister of Bermuda, Ewart Brown, went out of his way to announce that Bermuda was totally receptive to gay and lesbian tourists. He made that statement after learning that Rosie O'Donnell's tour company, R Family Vacations, had canceled a cruise stop in Bermuda because various church groups had protested their presence, issuing a formal government pronouncement:
Apparently, more and more leaders and their countries' citizens are at last recognizing that discrimination against any group because of their sexual orientation is unacceptable.
Add a comment about this post.
Last week, in sharp contrast to the attitudes of nearly a decade ago, the prime minister of Bermuda, Ewart Brown, went out of his way to announce that Bermuda was totally receptive to gay and lesbian tourists. He made that statement after learning that Rosie O'Donnell's tour company, R Family Vacations, had canceled a cruise stop in Bermuda because various church groups had protested their presence, issuing a formal government pronouncement:
"Bermuda is a democracy that welcomes all people of all races, colors, creeds and sexual orientation ... We stress to the international community the Bermudian government's position of inclusion and acceptance of all who wish to visit our beautiful and friendly country ... While the government of Bermuda has done everything we can to welcome the Rosie O'Donnell-hosted cruise, we respect their decision however saddened we are by it."
Apparently, more and more leaders and their countries' citizens are at last recognizing that discrimination against any group because of their sexual orientation is unacceptable.
Add a comment about this post.
Labels: caribbean, gay, lesbian, rights
Fifty years ago, 
Arthur Frommer is generally acknowledged to be the nation's foremost travel authority. He is the founder of the
