[IP] two on more on A don't fly day???
Begin forwarded message:
From: Zach White <zwhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 14, 2006 7:06:55 PM EST
To: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on A don't fly day???
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:26:44PM -0500, David P. Reed wrote:
I beg to disagree with Mr. White. Perhaps he is a young man, born
after
1968 or so, and not privy to experience the power of creative
non-violent action (aka Satyagraha).
I am a young man, but I do know the power of "creative non-violent
action."
A "hunger strike" or "bus boycott" works for reasons that don't
seem to
fit into Mr. White's worldview, perhaps because he thinks of it as
pointless, even suicidal to inconvenience oneself, rather than taking
out one's anger through violence or its corporate analog - killing the
company by cutting its profits.
That it makes no sense to him merely shows his youth and
narrowmindedness, assuming that the airlines require actual loss of
profits to be moved, or that the only actor is the airline.
A boycott is an excellent idea. However, the boycott needs to be
effective, and a one day boycott is not effective in this case.
If it was proposed to boycott airlines until this TSA silliness ends,
I would be behind it 100%. Instead, what's being proposed is a one day
boycott. All we're doing is shifting travel off of one day, and on to
another day. We're not depriving the airlines of our money, and we're
not depriving the TSA of theirs. We're only making them take it a bit
sooner or a bit later. The airlines are publically traded companies,
and they respond to the bottom line.
A one-day boycott has too many problems to be workable. For starters,
except for a few frequent flyers, no one flies every day. Most people
don't even fly every year. Right there, we've limited our pool of
potential boycotters to those who fly frequently enough to care about
what the TSA does AND happen to be flying that day.
Another problem we face is that it's likely the airline executives and
the TSA won't even know why people aren't flying that day, unless we
manage to get media attention focused on the boycott.
I think there are a number of better ways to get their attention.
Perhaps
people could start taking the train for trips less than 2000 km. They
could drive for trips less than 1000km. Maybe they'll take a cruise
instead of taking a plane trip to a destination. Whatever they choose
to do, they need to actually deprive themselves of the airline travel,
or the airlines won't see the value of changing anything.
Perhaps now that we have balance between the legislative and the
executive branch, we'll be able to get our represenatives and senators
in the government to actually change some of this TSA silliness
directly.
Finally, before you assume that I consider it "pointless" or "suicidal"
to inconvience one's self, you should consider the fact that I've driven
4 hours out of my way to buy something I could have gotten at Wal-Mart.
I've driven 4 hours to fight a $50 ticket I didn't deserve, and every
day
I go out of my way to patronize the business that doesn't care that
I'm not wearing shoes, even though I could spend less time and money
at a closer business with a "No Shoes/No Shirt/No Service" sign. I
understand very well what it means to be inconvienenced for one's values
and beliefs.
-Zach
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/