A Geezer's Advice To Young Travelers

Back in MY day we.......No, wait. Sorry, I got ahead of myself, which seems easy to do these days.

First, I should assure readers that I really don't expect you to follow the advice I'm about to give -- the best I can hope for is that you will consider the relevance and suitability of some of my observations distilled from 45 years (really, 45?) of international travel. Second, I should clarify that by "young" I don't mean children, but rather anyone old enough to travel on their own (that includes older "young-at-heart" types who haven't done much traveling but now have the time and inclination). Third, I want to pre-apologize to anyone I may offend with observations that seem to criticize the way you choose to travel. But hey, this is my blog, and of course, I'm right...

Okay, if anyone is still reading, here's a bit of background.  My wife and I have been traveling internationally since shortly after we got married. We were youngsters back then, and although neither of us had traveled much out of the country we made a joint decision that this was something we wanted to do very much. We were fortunate during our working years to have careers that allowed us time during the summer months to travel (we were both in education).  We didn't have children and this made it much easier to travel, especially in the early days. The only thing we didn't have was a lot of money, a factor that didn't stop us from traveling but certainly dictated how we did it.

Now a bit of history for context. Our travels began in what will seem to young'ns as the dark ages.  There was no WWW.  The internet existed, but just barely -- it began in 1969.  There were no cell phones. No laptops. In fact, no truly personal computers of any kind until the mid- to late 70's. Travel arrangements were made through somebody called a "Travel Agent" or done on the fly using guidebooks for recommendations or through a local tourist office in each foreign town or city who would help you find accommodations and give you information. Not many people in foreign countries spoke English so it was often necessary to learn a little of the local language so that you could ask for directions, inquire about an available room, find a toilet, avoid liver.  Airplane tickets were actually made of paper and had to be guarded very carefully because without them you couldn't even check in.  If they were lost or stolen replacing them was a time-consuming and onerous process.  Very few merchants accepted credit cards, and there were almost no ATMs. You traveled armed with a bunch of "traveler's checks," which you bought at a U.S. bank before leaving. To change money you had to go to a foreign bank or professional money changer and exchange them for local currency. If you ran out of money --- well, you ran out of money. There was no easy way to get more.
 
In short, these were the days when travel was truly an adventure. Over the years things have changed remarkably, and today travel is considerably easier.  That's not necessarily a good thing in my opinion, because when something is easy we all have a tendency to take it for granted and lose sight of its beneficial qualities. As you will now see, much of my advice is tempered by this conviction.

Here goes.

Do It NOW
 
I know, you're young and you'll have plenty of time to enjoy traveling later.  Plus, you're vigorous and invincible and will never develop physical ailments or mental impairments that will limit where you go and what you do. Please, please believe me when I tell you from experience that you are woefully ignoring reality -- see the 15 blogs in my Geezerhood series for documentation. In the blink of an eye you will find that your mind is willing but your body no longer seems to be listening to your brain.

In our travels my wife and I distinguish between two kinds of trips: those undertaken for relaxation and rejuvenation (aka slug-imitation sojourns), and those meant to truly explore a destination and to experience its culture, history, geology, art, architecture, etc.  A third type that we haven't done much ourselves but is growing in popularity is "sport" or "adventure travel."  The goal here isn't so much to appreciate culture or history as it is to enjoy the unique geology and geography of a destination while indulging in sports activities like golf, skiing, diving, trekking, or maybe hanging by your fingernails from a cliff. The first type is easy and can be done well into advanced Geezerhood. The second and third can be physically and mentally challenging, particularly in exotic locales where infrastructure requires daily sacrifices in comfort, food is sometimes unfriendly to an American's delicate system (see A Traveler's Tales of Tummy Troubles), and where many of the most magnificent and rewarding sights require considerable physical exertion and stamina. The usual accompaniments to Geezerhood -- bad joints, COPD, mental fuzziness, and issues of balance and flexibility -- can make these kinds of travel increasingly difficult. My wife and I have been trying to visit the most challenging destinations while we still can, and we strongly recommend you consider this "carpe diem" approach also. But no matter what your travel objective is, start now. You will acquire coping skills and a tolerant attitude that will serve you well later.

An additional reason for not procrastinating comes from our personal experience in a number of "currently-exotic-and-out-of-the-way-but-soon-to-be-overrun-with-hoards-of-tourists" places. If you wait too long the character and essential uniqueness of many destinations will be less than it is now, the inevitable result of mass tourism's influence on infrastructure, economy, and local attitudes toward visitors. A variant of this which we have also experienced is that natural disasters, political instability and religious extremism may suddenly make it impossible to visit certain places. For instance, we were in Syria just before the current turmoil there and it was one of the most interesting and enjoyable trips we have ever taken (see, "The Benefits of Dangerous Travel").  Now, however many of the fabulous archeological treasures in Syria and even some of the cities have been destroyed by violent conflict.  We feel fortunate and privileged to have experienced these things before this happened.

Do It OFTEN

There are a lot of places in the world worth exploring.
Life is too short to see them all.
Keep your butt moving if you want to enrich your life as much as you can in the time that you have.

Do It SLOOOOW

This may seem like a contradiction to what I just said, but it really isn't.  If you approach travel with the idea that you are going to do it often then it isn't necessary to plan a trip to see 30 countries in 2 weeks -- an exhausting, numbing experience that is pretty much a waste of time and money, IMHO. I remember sitting in a European restaurant where I overheard a dinner conversation among some American travelers on a blitzkrieg tour of all of Europe.  One was having trouble recalling a sight the group had visited the day before and had to ask his fellow travelers, "Now, what's the name of that country we were in yesterday?"  How enriching can travel be if you don't know where you've been?

My wife and I have tried to restrict our trips to fairly small geographic areas -- one country or a small region -- and we try to spend as much time as we can there. In our case we have been fortunate that our 9-month teaching contracts allowed us to devote a month or more to each trip. But even for those of you with less time to spend, our advice is to narrow your focus -- you will have a much deeper and more meaningful experience. As you go, pay attention to details that are often missed if you are zipping through on the way to the next thing on the itinerary.  By details I mean architectural features, artistic nuances, small aspects of flora and fauna, and especially details of the way locals are living their lives and interacting with each other and with you.

By the way, when we tell people we are going to spend a month in, say Laos or South Africa or Argentina, many seem amazed that we could stand traveling that long. Not only can we "stand" it, we have sometimes regretted the end of the trip and wish we had more time to spend.  I think this may be the result of our years of experience tolerating the inconveniences of travel, and finding that the inconveniences are a small price to pay for the privilege of enjoying experiences only travel can allow.

Do It With VARIETY

Okay, this is where I may step on some toes. The fact is that there are many ways to travel these days, and they differ markedly in the quality and depth of the experience they provide. I have pretty strong opinions about some of them, as you will see, but my overall advice is that if you are serious about travel for enrichment then you should employ a variety of travel methods not just stick with one.  Here are some thoughts:

• Group Tours:  I really don't like group tours. Yet despite what I believe are significant shortcomings in this form of travel there have been about a dozen times (even recently) over my 45 years of traveling when this seemed the best approach, usually when the local infrastructure and social conditions would make it extremely difficult, uncomfortable, time-consuming, or perhaps unsafe to do otherwise.  However, I find that it is easy to greatly overestimate the difficulty and danger of non-group travel, so the decision to use a group tour requires careful consideration of why a tour is advisable in this particular instance -- something many travelers prefer not to do.  Indeed, the seeming advantage of tours is that all the planning and decision-making is done for you, and once you arrive everything is taken care of.  But this feature is also a flaw of group tours -- they require very little active involvement, cognitive investment, or problem solving.  This passivity can lead to a somewhat shallow and unmemorable experience of the destination and its culture (remember the case of the oblivious American group tourist I mentioned previously who didn't even know where he had been).  A second shortcoming of group tours in my opinion is another feature that I acknowledge many people find to be positive.  Groups invariably lead to social interaction focused within the group.  For example, I recall traveling in Vietnam with some very interesting and sociable fellow travelers.  One day our bus was going through a picturesque agricultural area where locals were busy planting rice, a fascinating and uniquely characteristic sight.  However, almost nobody on the bus was looking out at the scene because they were engrossed in conversations with each other.  To the extent that "groupiness" distracts travelers from appreciating the noteworthy qualities of the culture they are visiting, it is a negative feature of this form of travel, albeit enjoyable. Finally, while it is certainly true that group tours are efficient and you will see a lot, please consider that a jam-packed itinerary doesn't necessarily mean you will have an in-depth exposure to a culture and its people. The best tour companies try to counteract superficiality by deliberately including interactions with local people -- certainly a laudable effort.  But keep in mind that these encounters are hand-picked and structured by someone else and therefore aren't necessarily representative of what you would experience on your own. I have many other criticisms of group touring, but I'll stop with the advice that you not rely on it exclusively, but instead consider other modes of travel as well.  

• Cruising: In certain circumstances cruise ships offer an excellent perspective from which to enjoy unique geography and geology, and a good way to visit places difficult to reach by other means (Antarctica, South Pacific, River passages, Greek Islands). They are certainly a convenient, comfortable, and fairly affordable way of traveling, especially for families, solo travelers, and those who are mobility challenged. I'm not convinced, however, that they are a good way to truly come into contact with a culture and its people. Most cruise ports are quite unrepresentative of a country, and a day in port seems unlikely to offer more than a quick superficial introduction. Staying onboard offers cushy accommodations and amenities that are, of course, the same for the entire trip -- a plus for cruise-lovers because they don't have to pack and unpack many times.  For me this is a real detraction, however, because over the years my wife and I have stayed in a wide range of wonderful small inns and hotels, often in extraordinarily picturesque places, that offer quite a bit more character and history than a ship's stateroom. They also afford the opportunity for casual interactions with local people that are missing on a cruise. A final objection is that when thousands of boat people descend on a particular destination, particularly a small one, it can greatly distort the true nature of the place. For example, my wife and I stayed several days on the Greek island of Santorini, having arrived there by regularly scheduled ferry service. This is a lovely place that people who visit by cruise ship usually rave about.  We watched each morning as several large ships would enter the harbor and disgorge thousands of people who then drifted shoulder-to-shoulder through the tiny cliff-side port town, shopping, photographing, and perhaps having lunch before returning in the late afternoon to their boats. As much as the passengers may have enjoyed Santorini, I can assure you it was far more pleasant after they were gone.  The merchants relaxed and were more friendly and less aggressive, the restaurants emptied out and offered spectacular sunset views of the departing ships, and the warm evenings were a delightful time to slowly explore the town.

• Independent Travel:  This category includes three major variants.  All three have become easier to arrange in recent years thanks to the internet.  The first is the old familiar winging-it-on-your-own-as-you-go style that definitely requires a lot of effort, problem-solving, and a high tolerance for uncertainty.  I'm too old for that kind of travel anymore.  The second is more structured but still allows for flexibility and requires some degree of on-the-fly decision-making and coping with challenges.  In this case you plan an itinerary around your own interests and preferences by studying guidebooks, tour itineraries, and online discussion forums.  You then make your own arrangements online for accommodations, transportation, and even local tours (again, by consulting and vetting various sources of information).  This is by far our preferred mode of travel.  It requires considerable advanced effort, but as I've tried to suggest above, this active involvement in planning a trip makes it more meaningful and memorable.  The third kind of independent travel is increasingly available in recent years and is attractive if you want some degree of choice in making your own itinerary but would rather leave decisions about hotels, activities, transportation, etc. to a professional.  In many parts of the world this is not nearly as pricey as you might expect. Companies that specialize in this kind of travel consult with you online about your interests and preferences, then put together an itinerary for you which you can then modify further. The price depends on the level of accommodations you have chosen, the length of the trip, and the number of included activities. All three of these variations have the advantage of bringing you into maximum contact with local culture while also providing opportunities for appreciating the art, history, architecture, and natural attractions of a destination. 

Ok, that's it.  I have lots of other tips but I'm sure I've outstripped your patience already.  No matter what manner of travel you choose or what combinations you select, I truly hope you find travel as rewarding and enriching as I have. I think that seeing the world first-hand is far superior to experiencing it any other way, and provides a more balanced and complex view of the world than that which is filtered through other people's attitudes and agendas. Above all,  the personal encounters that travel can provide will very likely change you for the better.  And may even give you a unique opportunity to have a positive impact on other people's lives as well....

Happy travels!

A Traveler's Tales of Tummy Troubles

Betty the Bat made another circle through the latrine, this time dipping a wing in friendly recognition (or so I imagined).  I had been there four times already and the night was still young. The open-pit latrine was down a walkway lit by kerosene lamps, the smell of which brings a touch of nausea to this day. Another smell that haunts me is the disinfectant/deodorizer the lodge used in the latrine, because this night effluvia was coming out both ends of me, meaning at times my head was disturbingly close to the source of the odor.  The latrine was about 100 feet from the rooms in our lodge on the Amazon River in Peru, where earlier in the day we had arrived for a few days of exploring flora and fauna of the jungle.  In the afternoon we had gone fishing for piranha and the chef had prepared them for us to taste at dinner.  I, however, never got that far -- before I could take my first bite my intestines told me in no uncertain terms to make that first trip to the latrine.  Probably something I ate for lunch, but it was never clear. Whatever the exact cause, after a day in a hammock watching the Amazon flow by (while my wife had a great adventure trekking through the jungle),  I rejoined the living.

Over the 40+ years my wife and I have been traveling, we have both had a number of incidences of traveler's tummy troubles. When we relate stories like the one above to other people (usually in a bout of "competitive complaining") they often assume our intestinal problems occur more often in third-world countries and exotic locales within them.  Actually, our experience doesn't offer strong support for this.  A counter example to my upchucking along the Amazon occurred recently in Sweden, undoubtedly one of the most developed, squeaky clean places on the planet.  In this case some "Toast Scoggen" cleaned me out better than a colonoscopy prep. On the other hand, a trip to Zambia, Africa a few years ago included a meal cooked for us by local village women in open pots on the ground  -- no problems at all. And yes, it happens in the good old USA.  I once ran back to our motel after dinner at a restaurant in Maine, nearly leaving a trail of DNA as I went. 

Timid travelers also assume that if they stick to eating in upscale places they will be less likely to encounter problems.  Again, not our experience.  Many years ago I remember having lunch at the very posh Acapulco Princess hotel and then waiting outside a bathroom shortly afterwards for my wife's bipolar evacuation of it.  On the same trip, however, we ate a fish dinner at a local beach restaurant, selected from several as being the most upscale and clean-looking.  But as we left we discovered the food had actually come from the restaurant next door, prepared in a tiny shack where cockroaches seemed to be the dishwashing staff.  No intestinal distress at all.

Another of our observations is that there are definitely individual differences in susceptibility -- some people are just plain more prone to traveler's tummy than others.  Many years ago my wife and I started sharing our food in restaurants -- two or more dishes which we split between us. Since then we have discovered that even when exposed to exactly same food we have different intestinal reactions.  Perhaps the first time this was apparent was on our first trip to France, where I spent a good portion of time in the bathroom but my wife never had any problems. On this trip I did a very good imitation of a Bulimic, because even though I was sick a lot I kept on eating because the food was so good.  We later figured out that part of the difficulty was that in those days my stomach was pre-loaded with a high amount of acid from many cups of coffee, vitamin C supplements, and routine ingestion of aspirin for various aches and pains. Mixing all that acid with rather rich food was like a recipe for a volcano science project.  After cutting down on the supplemental acid, the next trip to France was much more pleasant, though far more fattening.

Although my problems in France were likely due to stomach acid, the most common cause of traveler stomach troubles is exposure to microbes.  About 80% of all cases are caused by bacteria of several kinds (mostly of the E. coli variety) and 10% or so by viruses (like the infamous Norovirus) and various protozoa (see Wikipedia). According to the CDC, intestinal problems are the most common travel affliction (other than walletus depletiosis) hitting 30-70% of all travelers, usually within the first week or so of their trip.  Although visitors to developing countries are at higher risk, all destinations have a significant risk level, even the most highly developed (as my personal experience attests).  Also, travelers from developed countries get sick more often than those from developing regions (Medicinet), and all visitors have a higher incidence than locals because the residents have developed resistance to the most common pathogens (Wikipedia) . Note, this often makes terms for traveler's tummy troubles like "Montezuma's Revenge" rather appropriate -- it is payback for germs invaders brought from Europe that infected the natives who had no natural immunity.

Traveler's intestinal problems nearly always last only a few days and go away on their own, though many people like to take antibiotics and anti-motility drugs like Lomotil.  (I love the double meaning of "anti-motility").  These treatments have their downsides, however.  Popping antibiotics may kill the offending bad microbes but it will also kill the beneficial ones that live in your gut and help protect you from other kinds of infections (see How About a Fecal Transplant?, Microbes for Breakfast!, and Fabulous Synthetic Poop!).  And male geezers with prostrate problems should be wary of the side effects of some anti-motility medications -- you may become plugged up in more ways than you wish (I speak from experience on this one).

So, is there any way to prevent this unpleasantness?  Being very careful in what you eat and drink is certainly good advice, but as the CDC notes, "Traditionally, it was thought that TD [Traveler's Diarrhea] could be prevented by following simple recommendations such as 'boil it, cook it, peel it, or forget it,' but studies have found that people who follow these rules may still become ill."  It is also the case that often a traveler can't follow these recommendations for practical reasons (like when traveling with a group or as a guest of a local resident).  The CDC is pretty blunt and realistic about this: "Although food and water precautions continue to be recommended, travelers may not always be able to adhere to the advice. Furthermore, many of the factors that ensure food safety, such as restaurant hygiene, are out of the traveler’s control."  My own experience, as illustrated by the examples above, is certainly in line with the CDC's conclusion -- being careful is prudent but hardly guarantees you won't still get sick at some point and predicting when or where is very difficult.

Besides trying to watch what you eat and drink, there is evidence that taking daily doses of bismuth subsalicylate, the active ingredient in Pepto Bismol, can cut the incidence of stomach illness by up to 50%. But there are a number of side effects and interactions that make its use questionable for many people:  "BSS commonly causes blackening of the tongue and stool and may cause nausea, constipation, and rarely tinnitus. BSS should be avoided by travelers with aspirin allergy, renal insufficiency, and gout and by those taking anticoagulants, probenecid, or methotrexate. In travelers taking aspirin or salicylates for other reasons, the use of BSS may result in salicylate toxicity" (CDC ). Sounds like the cure may be as bad as the problem. Likewise, preventative doses of antibiotics do seem to work, but they may lead to greater stomach problems down the road by encouraging bad microbes that are resistant to antibiotics and therefore very difficult to treat. Also, good microbes aid in digestion and help fight a wide range of diseases -- killing them may not be a very wise thing to do.  Speaking of good microbes, one preventative measure which seems to me like it should work is to ingest probiotics (like yogurt, kefir, and soft cheese), but so far the research is inconclusive (even so, I try to keep up my input of yogurt while traveling).

It seems to me we are left with two choices.  One is to buy some virtual reality goggles and experience travel electronically, without the messiness and risk of actually doing it. This certainly avoids traveler tummy troubles, but also removes some of the most rewarding aspects of real travel, like unplanned interactions with real people.  As you might guess, I heartily reject this option. The second is to accept that occasional tummy troubles are a small cost to pay for the life-enriching experiences that come from being exposed to cultures other than your own.  Traveling in total comfort and safety is not possible and even if it were, I don't think it would be desirable because the most beneficial aspects of travel involve a certain degree of challenge and adventure that can lead to surprisingly positive experiences.  Like making friends with Betty the Bat.

My New Chip & Pin Card Works! (Well, Sort Of...)

I've blogged previously about the difficulty my wife and I had last year while traveling in Europe with our "Swipe & Sign" credit card (see American Travelers Abroad: The Chips Are Down). Briefly, the problem is that U.S. credit card technology is way behind most of the rest of the world, where the standard is the much more secure "Chip & PIN."  Transaction information is encrypted via the chip embedded in the card, and then rather than a signature that anyone can fake, a personal PIN number is required to complete the transaction.  An American traveling abroad can still charge things because most card readers there do have a swipe slot and will generate a paper slip to be signed.  However, this assumes the transaction involves face-to-face interaction.  Many point-of-sale transactions in Europe are at unattended machines that (a) only accept chip cards and (b) require a PIN. These include toll booths, gas stations, parking garages, and ticket machines for public transportation --- in other words, many of the venues tourists are likely to encounter.

After our difficult experiences last year my wife and I decided to see if we could get a chip and pin card for future travel.  I quickly found that several companies offered Chip cards, but they were not true Chip & PIN cards because they still required a signature.  Indeed, the first type is what American credit card companies are now distributing in the wake of several high profile data hacks, such as the Home Depot and Target debacles.  These cards, if used with a chip reader, are definitely more secure than the swipe cards they replace because they are harder to counterfeit and the transaction is more securely encrypted.  However, they may do you no good at all in the unattended purchase situations you are likely to encounter while traveling abroad.  Here is the description included with my new Chase chip card that I recently received:

You may be asked for a PIN, rather than a signature, when using chip card readers abroad.  If this happens, you may be able to cancel the PIN prompt and complete the transaction.  Just in case, it's always a good idea to carry local currency for payments at unattended kiosks that may require a PIN.

News Flash, Chase:  Many of those unattended kiosks won't allow payment with cash!

The card my wife and I settled on was the Barclay Arrival + which was touted as having true PIN capabilities and no foreign transaction fees. We received the card and set up a PIN, but of course we had no opportunity to test it here in the U.S.  Our first complete test abroad came a short while ago on a trip to Scandinavia, the Baltic States, and Saint Petersburg, Russia.  Here's my report.

When the chip was inserted into card readers it worked flawlessly everywhere.  Not once did a merchant have to swipe the card.  So far so good.  However, I was disappointed to find that in all face-to-face transactions I was required to sign the charge slip, rather than enter my PIN.

The real test came when we encountered unattended machines.  This occurred  when we landed in Stockholm and needed to buy tickets for the transfer bus from the airport to the downtown area.  In the arrivals area we found a collection of unattended machines selling train and bus tickets.  We stuck in our Barclay card and it asked for our PIN. I entered the number and .... voila! IT WORKED! Wow, we Americans had finally entered the 21st century in terms of banking technology!

Later we needed to buy metro tickets, which in Stockholm are available for sale in certain stores and from unattended machines located near the metro turnstiles.  I held my breath the first time we stuck in the card.  Bingo! -- it asked for our PIN and accepted it!  This happened several more times during the course of our stay.  In short, every time we encountered an unattended machine on this trip the PIN functioned perfectly.  What would have happened if we tried to use a Swipe & Sign or a Chip & Sign card?  Don't know, don't care.  I do know that last year in Europe we were unable to complete these transactions with our old credit card and it was a major pain in the butt.

Apparently the Barclay card's default is to require a signature, but if a PIN is absolutely required it will accept it.  This isn't as good as I had hoped, but it is certainly an improvement and probably the best we can do at the moment.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no true Chip&Pin card where the default is PIN available to Americans at this time (see Note 1 below).  If you know of one, please forward the information to me.

In preparing this blog I did some research on chip cards and immediately found that there is still a lot of confusion about them, especially the difference between Chip&Sign cards and Chip&PIN (with signature also, like my Barclay card).  I even found one forum in which a person with a Barclay Arrival + card claimed the PIN wasn't accepted abroad -- clearly false given my experience of a few weeks ago, as well as reports of other travelers.  At any rate, here is the best and latest assessment of true Chip&PIN cards available to Americans I could find, dated August 1, 2015:  MileCards.Com, "11 Chip & PIN credit cards with no foreign fees."

Happy travels!!
_______________________________
Related Blogs & Notes
American Travelers Abroad: The Chips Are Down
One Way That Chip Credit Cards Aren't More Secure
Note 1 -- I've come across a few unofficial reports of Chip & PIN cards from some credit unions that will ask for a PIN when read by the new readers now being distributed in the U.S.
Note 2 -- I've also come across an unofficial report that foreign chip readers are being modified to accept Chip & Sign cards from the U.S.  This seems doubtful to me -- or a least a bad idea if true -- because it lowers the security of unattended transactions.

One Way That Chip Credit Cards Aren't More Secure

Within three days of arriving in "Country X" fraudulent charges began appearing on our credit card account from vendors elsewhere in the country.  (I'm withholding the name of our destination because I don't want you to think there is something uniquely dastardly about people there -- this was just as likely to have happened in any large city in the U.S.)

We were particularly frustrated because this was the maiden foreign voyage of our new Barclay chip-and-pin credit card that my wife and I obtained after a trip to Europe to last year, where our antiquated and grossly insecure swipe-and-sign card had proven to be a major pain in the butt -- see my blog, American Travelers Abroad: The Chips Are Down. As soon as we noticed the fraudulent charges we naturally notified the company, whose solution was to cancel the card immediately.  They assured us that we wouldn't be liable for the fraudulent charges and that they would send a new card immediately.  Oh, ok, that's grea.... Wait -- we were thousands of miles from our home and since we were traveling for the next month we were moving targets for any attempt to deliver a card somewhere else.  Bottom line is that we had to go without that bright shiny, chip card for the rest of the trip.  We fortunately had a couple of fall-backs -- the old swipe and sign card we had replaced because it was inconvenient and insecure, and an ATM card.

So what had happened?  We racked our brains to try to figure out how this supposedly more secure card could have so easily become the plaything of nefarious ne'er-do-wells.  We had used the card a number of times after starting the trip, but it never left our sight because this country, being somewhat more advanced than the U.S. in these matters, follows the practice of bringing a point-of-sale-device to you and inserting your card into the machine right in your presence.  And since these were chip transactions, they were much less susceptible to some fancy electronic hack of the payment system. Hmmm....

It then occurred to us that the Barclay fraud department agent we had spoken to said that the transactions had been "manually" entered, the same way your credit card details are entered when you make a phone order or a mail order for merchandise.  These are called "card-not-present" transactions.  The proper security procedures in these cases is for the merchant to ask for information that (supposedly) only someone in possession of the card could supply -- namely the expiration date of the card and the CVV ("Card Validation Value").  The CVV is that three digit number printed on the back of your card, or in the case of American Express, the four digit number on the front.

Gee, how in the world could some criminal get our expiration date and CVV?

How about by looking?  All a clerk has to do is glance at your card during a card-present transaction to obtain this information.  It's then a matter of having sophisticated cronies who can charge merchandise by phone or mail order and then have it delivered to some temporary pick-up point.  Or perhaps the merchants supplying the illicit goods or services might be in on the scheme. If they're lucky the victim won't notice the transactions on their card statement, something more likely in the case of travelers who make a number of foreign charges that are hard to recognize as fraudulent ones, especially if currency conversion makes the amounts unfamiliar.  If the charges are reported as fraudulent, as in our case, all that happens is that the merchant is forced to reverse them.  Note there is no real victim if the merchant was in on it -- the credit card company isn't out anything, nor is the merchant, nor is the customer.  Seems to me like a good way to reward bad behavior.

Note that this is a potential problem regardless of  whether you have a chip card or not.  All currently issued credit cards are susceptible because they all have CVV's and expiration dates on them.

Am I being overly paranoid (in addition to my many other personality quirks)?   Not according to a number of sources, including the highly respected internet security firm, AVG which gives this explicit advice about the CVV:

"...when purchasing an item or service in person, you should never provide the details of your CVV...Handing over your CVV for purchases completed offline serves no purpose other than providing someone with the opportunity to steal the information. Because if they were to do this, they’d have everything they need to go ahead and make a bunch of fraudulent online [and offline] transactions – on you! 
...Don’t provide your CVV when processing a payment in person. It should never be required and if someone tells you otherwise, it’s a reason to be highly suspicious!  " (AVG article by Michael McKinnon, January 15, 2015)

Unfortunately, the wisdom of AVG stops short of telling you how, during an in-person transaction, you can prevent a clerk from seeing the CVV and expiration date.  If the transaction requires a signature, the clerk is perfectly justified in turning the card over and looking at the signature and even refusing the card if it hasn't been signed.  That CVV is right next to the signature on most cards and even easier to spot on Amex cards.  And even if a signature isn't required a little artful fumbling with the card can allow a quick glance at the code.  I'm not the only person to have made this observation and the security risk it entails -- see Henry Bagdasarian's paper on CVV and Identity Theft Awareness. In other words AVG's admonishment to never hand over your CVV information during in-person purchases is nearly impossible to follow.

My solution has been to black out the CVV's on all of my credit cards (I keep the numbers in a cloud-based secure service where I can access them if I need to).  I found, though, that the number is hard to obliterate completely because it is actually embossed into the card surface.  Still, the number can only be seen by tilting the card back and forth to catch the light just right, a rather obvious maneuver.  Another approach suggested by Bagdasarian is to tape a small piece of paper over the CVV. 

In my humble opinion, credit card companies are foolish (I had another word in mind) to put this important information right on the card.  It really should be treated like a pin, with the same level of secure handling. When I did research for this blog, I came across several references to developments that will make CVV theft more difficult in the future by using something called a "Dynamic CVV," essentially a code that changes for each transaction. (See articles by CNNMoney, Credit Card Reviews, and Money Nation).  Don't hold your breath, though.  The estimated cost of these cards to produce is about 10 times that of a chip card, which is in turn about 6 times more than an ordinary swipe and sign card.  And credit card companies are all about the bottom line -- it is generally cheaper for them to absorb fraud losses than to upgrade technology.

The current switchover to chip cards will be expensive -- about $8 billion for the card companies, and about $25 billion for merchants, according to CNNMoney analyst Jose Paglieri.  But as Paglieri and many others have pointed out, the new U.S.-style chip cards really aren't that much more secure if lost or stolen because they don't require a pin. So why isn't the U.S. joining the rest of the world in moving to chip-and-pin?  Paglieri suggests it is at least partly a matter of profit -- banks charge merchants more for each signature transaction than one involving a pin (currently only debit cards) and would lose huge amounts of revenue.  Retail merchant lobbyist Mallory Duncan has made this point very clear about the motives of credit card companies:  "They'd rather have fraud-prone signatures, because it potentially makes them more money than a secure PIN."

Of course, as my experience shows, even chip-and-pin cards are vulnerable to certain kinds of fraud, namely the CVV scam.  In the future we are probably not going to have cards at all and instead move toward something like ApplePay, which most analysts believe to be much more secure.  That reality is some ways off, however, and in the meantime we will remain vulnerable to preventable fraud.  The reassurance of banks that the customer isn't financially liable for fraudulent charges is bogus.  The hassle and inconvenience of dealing with a compromised credit card account can be major wastes of time and energy for the account owner.  Further, the $ billions in card fraud each year don't just vanish -- they are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

Banker's Math wins again.

________________________________
Source Links

You're about to get a new credit card ... and it's an epic failure - CNNMoney, Mar. 25, 2015

Card Verification Code (CV) -- Identity-Theft-Awareness.Com)

Your Credit Card Security Code (CVV) – Is It Safe To Give Out? AVG.Com

Credit card of the future could stop fraud - CNNMoney, Mar. 26, 2015

Could Dynamic CVV Be the Card of the Future? - CreditCardReviews.com

This Morphing Credit Card Stops Fraud - Money Nation 

Driving With Aloha (But Not in Rome or LA)

During our travels over the past 40+ years my wife and I have had the "interesting" experience of driving in a number of different countries as well as in different parts of the U.S. and Canada.  Traveling by rented car gives you some unique insights into a culture and the everyday experiences of people as they go about their lives.  It also requires some careful observation of road etiquette and adapting to it in order to avoid getting killed -- or at least to avoid being deafened by other drivers' horns.

Merge Mayhem at Night

Take Italy for example.  We have visited there several times and it is one of our favorite travel destinations.  The very first time, however, included an intense introduction to Italian driving and a lesson in "Italian Merge Mayhem ."  After several days in Rome we picked up a rental car to head to the countryside.  We were smart enough to realize that driving in Rome wasn't a good idea and so our main objective was to get out of town as quickly as possible. However, this necessitated negotiating several intersections and roundabouts in which the main rule of the road was to forge ahead forcefully and with conviction (aka blind faith) that other drivers would yield to you, though not without playing a game of chicken first.  We learned after an hour or so that if we didn't follow this strategy we would be stuck in traffic for the rest of our lives.  If you want a visual illustration of the mayhem I'm referring to, take a look at this short video of a Rome intersection at night.

Other aspects of road etiquette in Italy include traffic signal behavior.  As recounted in the very helpful website Life in Italy, "Traffic lights are generally respected, though you will be expected to be quick off the starting line as soon as the lights change. Rules change when you get to Naples where stopping at traffic lights is an option rather than a rule. A general safety rule when driving late at night or early morning (and probably most other times as well), is to check the intersection for approaching traffic before moving on a green light. Some Italian drivers shoot through intersections when the light has already turned red for them, and sometimes they move forward before they get the green light."

Mama Mia!!

And of course there is proper behavior on the motorways, or autostrade, where extra care is required to arrive alive.  As Life in Italy puts it: "Expect cars to get too close and start flashing at you if you go too slow ( according to the Italian too slow) ... so keep to the right. The speed limit is approximately 80 miles (130 kilometers) per hour but some cars move a lot quicker than that. There are also quite a few drivers who don't observe the safety distance behind you, so again it is best to keep to the right and don't get nervous."  Right, don't get nervous.  Except maybe when you see trucks doing what is documented in this video taken along an Italian highway.  Life in Italy's overall advice matches our own experience very closely: "The rules of the road may seem at times to be open to interpretation ... keep your feet poised over both accelerator and brake - you never know which one will come in most useful."

Driving in different parts of the mainland U.S. poses similar challenges to follow local norms. In California, for example, be prepared for high-speed entrance ramps where any hesitation won't be tolerated by fellow drivers, and changing lanes and tailgating at 80 mph are SOP.  There are also the inevitable 12-lane traffic jams in which maneuvering to the proper exit lane involves a strategy similar to that in Italian Merge Mayhem.  If your are timid or hesitant you'll wind up in Mexico or Oregon before you can get off.

Visitors to Hawai'i sometimes find themselves puzzled over our peculiar driving habits, which are much different than locations on the mainland U.S., and rather different from anything described above. For one thing, we have very few multi-lane highways (mostly on Oahu and the "big" city of Honolulu).  Most of our roads here on my island have just two lanes and narrow shoulders bordered by very unforgiving lava rock.  Distances can be deceiving because travel takes far longer than many people assume -- tourists commonly look at a map and decide to drive completely around the island in a day, which invariably leads them to see most sights in a blur and to be totally exhausted at the end of the day.  Rule #1 here is sloowww downnnnn.  You're in one of the most unique places in the world -- take time to appreciate it.

In the relatively rare situations where merging is required, mainlanders naturally gear up for the battle to force themselves into the stream of traffic.  But something odd often happens:  other drivers make way for them and even gesture them to cut in front! This takes some real getting used to -- people yielding their right of way seemingly without any vehicular intimidation whatsoever.  Wow!

Similar behavior occurs when you are trying to enter a main thoroughfare from a side street.  As you watch a long string of cars coming toward you, it is very likely one of them will slow and allow you to turn in front of them, sometimes signalling you by flashing their headlights.  If you are turning right, quickly and gratefully accept this gift.  If you are turning left, however, be more cautious because the cars traveling in that direction may not be expecting you to suddenly cut in front of them.  It took me quite a while after moving here before I would accept the invitation to turn left, and even now I do so very selectively.

Hawaiian Shaka -- A Good Thing

In general there is a norm of yielding your right of way if you think it will help either a specific driver or it will ease everyone's predicament (for instance when there is a long line of cars waiting to turn onto the road you're on).  This is not necessarily pure altruism -- there is a general expectation that the favor is likely to be returned when you are the one in the difficult situation -- but it is part of a  general attitude here that it's nice to be nice. Helping another driver is often acknowledged with an uniquely Hawaiian hand gesture -- the "shaka, " which consists of the pinky and thumb being extended while the middle three fingers are tucked away.  Visitors may at first mistake this gesture for something rather more negative that they have observed coming from angry drivers elsewhere.  However, the shaka is definitely a good thing -- in this context it means "thanks" or "appreciate it."

Another expectation here is that you will start up quickly from a traffic light, or turn quickly if you are in a turn lane and the arrow comes on.  But people do this not because they're in a big rush and impatient to get somewhere, but rather because they don't want to hold up others.  There is one situation where you might encounter local drivers who are driving fast and are impatient with tourists for going too slow, and that is when they are commuting to or from work.  Lack of affordable housing in areas where jobs are concentrated forces many people to drive a fair distance to work.  Couple this with lots of rubber-necking tourists and very few multi-lane roads and you're bound to have some cranky locals at times.

Basically, the norms of driving in Hawai'i are extensions of the concept of "Aloha" or "Aloha Spirit."  This may sound like hype from a travel advertisement, but it really does characterize a good deal of everyday life here.  "Aloha" is a general concept of friendship, understanding, compassion, and solidarity -- expressed in driving through yielding and trying to help others.

I have to admit that there are times when "driving with aloha" is taken too far.  For example, sometimes local drivers will yield when it isn't really necessary and is even detrimental. This happens when natural breaks in the traffic flow or signals that control flow allow merging or turning and therefore make yielding superfluous, and may even slow traffic for everyone.  In these cases the unintended consequence of being nice is ironically negative.

Despite the occasional negative aspects of driving here in Hawai'i, I'll take a few instances of that over the horn-honking, finger flipping, every-driver-out-for-themselves driving I encounter elsewhere. 

Driving with aloha is definitely one of the reasons I like living here.
 ________________
More in My "Life in Hawai'i" Series

• What Do Snow Birds, Humpbacks, and Cruiseships Have in Common?

• Lessons from Hawai'i

• More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About Geckos

• "Lei"zy Horses and Hot Malasadas

• Tons of Fun: Humbacks in Hawai'i 

• 2.4+112+26.2 = ?

• Lava Love: Geezers Gone Wild!

• A "Pele" Merry Christmas

• The Curious Case of The Kona Coyote

• Cleaning Up Poop In Paradise

American Travelers Abroad: The Chips Are Down

[Note -- it is hard to believe, but this is my 100th post!  That's a lot of hot air!  Thanks for listening.......]

Despite the title, this blog is actually another in my "Banker's Math" series. Or maybe a dual entry -- the other being my "Traveler's Woes" series.

My wife and I travel regularly to Western Europe. For example, a year ago last fall we returned for our fourth visit to Italy, that time to northern regions just in time for mushroom season. This spring we flew to Holland for tulip time, then continued down to southern France for three weeks.

Over the years it has become easier for us to travel independently in Europe, thanks in part to the availability of internet technology for booking hotels, finding restaurants and attractions, and obtaining information about the local region. Language problems have nearly disappeared as English has become the universal travel language (we often hear other travelers talking to locals in heavily accented English, then return to their native language among themselves). Navigation GPS devices make it easier to drive yourself through the maze of ancient streets and web of country roads, assuming you don't always believe the instructions (that will be another blog!). Europe has also become increasingly hi-tech in the sense of allowing (and even requiring) payment by credit card and providing access to local currency via ATMs.

Although we have thoroughly enjoyed all of our trips to Europe, we recently have encountered some problems due to our antiquated American financial technology. I'm referring to the "swipe and sign" credit card that has facilitated several high-profile hacker attacks recently, for example the infamous Target data breach.  These attacks are the work of nefarious ne'er do wells, of course, but their efforts have been made much easier by the vulnerability of the credit cards issued by U.S. banks. The information on the magnetic strips is easy to hack, the cards are easy to counterfeit, and the information transmitted by data terminals at retail outlets is easy to intercept. 

The weaknesses of "swipe and sign" credit cards have been known for some time, and most of Europe has moved to a much more secure system which involves embedding a small integrated circuit chip (called the EMV chip) in each card that encrypts the user's data and protects it with a pin number. Point of sale machines can read the chip (once the pin is supplied) and the data is then encrypted for transmission.  Though there have been a few hacks of this kind of system, it is much less vulnerable than ours. As Tom Groenfeldt of Forbes magazine describes it:

Much of the rest of the world uses a small chip on the credit card to validate with a transaction. The chip employs cryptography and a range of other security features and measures that create a multi-layered defense against card fraud. When combined with a Personal Identification Number or PIN code (the sort used on ATM cards), it substantially raises security. Even with just a signature it makes a marked improvement over a simple magnetic stripe. (Groenfeldt, 2014).

Now enter the hapless American traveler abroad, equipped with banking technology widely regarded as woefully insecure and antiquated.

As my wife and I discovered last month while exploring Holland and France, the issue isn't so much the insecurity of our cards -- they aren't more insecure when we use them in Europe as when we use them here in the U.S.  Rather, the difficulty comes from the fact that Holland and France are very advanced countries, and credit/debit cards are used for nearly everything.  For example, here in the U.S. getting cash from ATM is a matter of convenience. In Holland and France, only banks in the largest cities have human tellers who can dispense cash on demand, so using an ATM is nearly a necessity for getting currency.

The ubiquity of card transactions (and the weakness of our swipe and sign card) was brought home to us the very first night we were in Holland.  We had driven to a restaurant for dinner and learned that nearly all parking in the town required payment -- not to a human being but to a central machine that only accepted coins or...you guessed it...cards with the EMV chip.  Having just arrived we didn't have any coins and we were going to have to find a nearby store to get change -- not something most merchants are keen on doing, particularly since all we had were large bills. Plus unless one of us stayed with the car we ran the risk of getting a ticket. Fortunately a nice Dutch family waiting to pay gave us the minimum required in coins -- about $1.40.  Of course, they then stepped up to the machine, stuck in their chip card, keyed in their pin and away they went.

Parking machines aren't the only places where our credit card failed us -- trying to buy train tickets went from a simple matter of interacting with a machine to having to stand in a long line to pay at a counter -- only to have the agent's machine refuse to read our magnetic strip. On another occasion we had a major hassle when we tried to use a Park and Ride system in Amsterdam. Without the EMV chip we were unable to buy a special discounted ticket for city transportation and were forced to locate the parking structure attendant and try to explain our predicament. Again, the helpfulness of locals (and maybe their pity) won the day, and the attendant unlocked the machine and manually forced the discounted fare somehow.

Getting gas for our rental car also proved to be a hassle without the EMV chip, as I discovered the first time I inserted my swipe card into a pump's pay terminal, thinking this would work like it does here in the U.S. The station attendant came on the intercom and said something in rapid fire French, which of course I couldn't understand.  The tone, though was very clear.  I tried to fill up anyway, but the pump didn't have any obvious way of allowing for filling and then paying inside.  Soon the attendant came out of the kiosk and with more rapid fire French and a bit of charades she communicated that I had to move our car to the "penalty pump," which she would activate for filling and then paying inside. By the way, the security of the chip and pin cards allows many service stations in Europe to remain open 24/7 without any attendants at all after normal hours. We would have been out of luck -- and out of gas -- had this happened late at night.

Fortunately, most merchants, hotels, and restaurants in both Holland and France have machines that can (for the time being) process our cards -- in addition to the slot where the machines read an EMV chip, they also have a slit that allows swiping a card.  In fact most of these European machines are portable -- in a restaurant the waiter brings the machine to your table when you are ready to pay your bill and the whole transaction takes place right there.  Since your card never leaves your sight, this is another way in which the European system is more secure. Although we never had a problem with a merchant refusing our swipe and sign card, this isn't always the case. Tom Groenfeldt quotes one credit card vendor as saying that merchants, especially in France where they have had EMV the longest, are very resistant to taking a card that isn’t chip and PIN, and restaurants sometimes don’t want to accept cards with just a mag stripe. In other words, unless you want to wind up washing dishes for your delicious meal in Cannes or Monaco, take plenty of cash as a backup.

So why haven't American banks switched to the new cards?

According to an analysis posted on the Credit Card Forum there are several reasons:

Why? Well, there isn’t exactly a huge demand for them. Unless you’re traveling abroad, you don’t really have an everyday need for a chip card, as few merchants have upgraded to payment terminals that accept them. Add in the fact that chip cards a more expensive to produce, and you wind up with three parties (consumers, merchants and issuers) who haven’t been in a big hurry to make the switch.

From a Banker's Math perspective the expense to card issuers of covering fraudulent charges is less than the cost and inconvenience of changing to the chip system. The public concern over identity theft and insecure credit card transactions may be changing that equation, however.  Credit card issuers now see the chip technology as a possible competitive advantage in attracting new accounts and have begun to offer them in limited markets -- but almost always in connection with yearly fee cards and not necessarily with cards that have no foreign transaction fees.  For current lists of who offers what, see posts by The Points Guy,  Credit Card Forum and NerdWallet.

To make things even more confusing, most of the chip cards now being made available to Americans are "chip and sign," not "chip and pin."  (If a pin is issued with these cards, it is for obtaining cash advances at ATM's, not for point of sale purchases.) And a quick search of internet forums will reveal many reports of people being unable to use them in Europe, or finding that they will work in some instances and not others.  Not a good solution but still better than the old system.

For now we have adopted a wait-and-see stance.  But before our next trip abroad we will have one of the chip cards The front runners right now are Barclaycard Arrival Plus ($89) and the Chase Sapphire Preferred ($95).  The Barclaycard is a true chip and pin card.  The Chase Sapphire is chip and signature now and likely to have chip and pin later in the year.  We'll keep you posted.

Happy travels, happy banking.........

Fasten Your Seatbelts: Your Reward Miles Are In For A Bumpy Ride

I predict that airline reward "miles" will soon disappear, judging from a recent move by Delta.  In a stunning display of "it's a feature not a flaw," the company announced that starting in 2015 it will determine the number of reward "miles" on the basis of the ticket price, not the miles flown, and tried to tout this as an improvement for customers. As one Delta executive said in an interview with CBS news, the change was necessary because people paying top dollar for Business and First Class were having difficulty because so many seats were already taken by award travelers who had upgraded using their miles.  Imagine the gall of those riff-raft -- actually cashing in their award miles!  (Obviously my snide addition).  By changing to a revenue-based reward system, the company wished to recognize those travelers who contribute most to the bottom line.

Most industry analysts have determined that the new change effectively cuts the miles awarded for most travelers by 20-50%.  Despite what Delta says, this includes those who purchase more expensive tickets in Business Class because Delta is also dropping the bonus for this higher class of service. For instance, in a careful analysis by The Points Guy, the current award for an economy Delta ticket from Seattle to Boston is 4,992 miles versus 2,240 under the new system. For Business Class it is currently 7,448 miles (including the bonus) but will be 7,050 miles next year. The only time Business and First Class will actually benefit from the new system will be on very long haul flights, such as New York to London. Economy travelers, though will see dramatic cuts on these routes.

And there is still another shoe to drop -- Delta has held off announcing what the new requirements will be for obtaining award travel (i.e., cashing in your miles), which will likely be raised (again).  In other words, fewer miles awarded and more miles required to actually benefit from being in the Delta loyalty program. Hmmm.

Airlines have been moving in this direction for some time by issuing reward credit cards that allow people to earn miles for purchases that have nothing to do with travel.  The more you spend, the more miles you accrue, whether it is on buying milk or magazines.  Delta has now completely disconnected actual travel and reward miles -- the only thing that drives the reward process is money spent.  The more expensive the ticket the more you earn.  Period.  At this point it will be more accurate and honest to drop the "miles" and use a term like "points" or "units."  This seems to also be more in the spirit of what drives our economy -- spending, not saving.  Perhaps we should just give Delta credit for being honest:  you get what you pay for -- nothing is really free -- and the more you have the more you get.

In fact, I have to admit that if airlines had begun their rewards programs with this kind of structure I think I could have easily accepted it.  I use other programs that are based on this idea -- cash back credit cards, for example, and they seem perfectly reasonable to me.  I think what irks me here, though is the change from one kind of philosophy to another, and the motivation behind it.  It feels like a "bait-and-switch" -- I joined reward programs because I saw the value of the reward structure, but now the structure has been altered in a way that doesn't recognize my past loyalty and seems not to care much for my future loyalty, either. But then, I've never paid for a Business Class or First Class ticket and never will, and Delta is making it very clear that unless I do they aren't interested in rewarding me for using their airline.

The other irksome thing to me is that this kind of change comes when Delta is earning great profits and is hardly cutting corners in some areas.  For example, based on a $1 billion profit for 2012, Delta boosted CEO Richard Anderson's total compensation by 42%, to $12.6 million (about $ 3 million in cash, the rest in stock options and deferred retirement compensation).

I suspect he'll get a big bonus this year, too.  Perhaps we should give it to him in Reward Miles.
____________________________________
Some Relevant Resources and Related Blogs:
Delta to Frequent Flyers: Distance Mileage Is Over, Show Us the Money - Businessweek
Taking a Deeper Look at Delta’s New Mileage Earning Structure for 2015 and Beyond | The Points Guy

Delta Air Lines boosts CEO's pay package by 42%|USA Today| 

Top 10 Reasons Why I Dumped Delta | The Points Guy
Business Math + Banker's Math III:  Flying High (Snow Crash)
Flying the (Un)Friendly Skies (Snow Crash)

Bombs Away! America's Lethal Legacy in Laos

A huge 2,000 year-old stone jar was standing miraculously unbroken on the edge of a crater about 30 feet in diameter and 15-20 feet deep created by a bomb dropped by the U.S. on Laos during the Vietnam War. The jar is one of thousands clustered in several sites around the Plain of Jars in Laos, a place of archeological mystery, agricultural richness, and great strategic importance during the Vietnam War.  The jars were probably funerary urns but no one knows for sure because the people who made them left almost no other trace. 

Also unknown is how many jars were destroyed by the heavy American bombing campaign in this area, but fortunately enough survived to make a visit here very rewarding.

My wife and I had the good fortune to spend about three weeks traveling throughout Laos recently.  It is a beautiful country of only about 7 million people, many of whom live in mountainous rural farming areas. The country is rich in natural resources but sorely lacking in infrastructure, and it is clearly the least developed of its neighbors, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

It is also the most heavily bombed country in history.

Bombing Sites in Laos.  Peter Larson

From 1964 through 1973 the U.S. dropped approximately 2.5 million tons of ordnance on Laos, about 1,700 pounds for each man, woman, and child. Although the primary military target was the area in eastern Laos where supplies from North Vietnam traveled south along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, nearly all parts of the country were bombed during more than 580,000 bombing missions carried out by the U.S.  According to analyses by epidemiologist Peter Larson the tonnage dropped in some regions reached 5 tons per person.

The full scale of the U.S. bombing operations was kept secret from the American people for many years, but is now well documented by recently declassified military records, U.N reports, Congressional Hearings, and evidence provided by NGO organizations working in Laos to remove unexploded bombs, such as the well-regarded international Mines Advisory Group (MAG) and the U.S. Legacies of War educational and advocacy organization.

Over 280 million bombs were dropped on Laos by the U.S. Many of these were anti-personnel and anti-tank weapons called cluster bombs which open before reaching the ground and release dozens of smaller grapefruit-sized devices informally called "bombies" by the Laotians. Unfortunately an estimated 30 percent of the bombies, or about 80 million, failed to explode upon initial impact and now pose a serious risk to those who disturb them. During the war years the bombing campaign and other military actions killed around 30,000 Laotians.  Since then another 20,000 have been killed or injured from encounters with UXO, or unexploded ordnance.  In the last decade 40% of the casualties have been children.  According to the Mines Advisory Group, approximately 25 per cent of the country's villages are contaminated with UXO, and contamination is found in all 17 of the country's provinces. Finding and removing 80 million unexploded bombs would be a challenge even for the richest and most technically sophisticated country.  Laos is certainly neither rich nor technically sophisticated and UXO continues to be a significant deterrent to its development and a serious threat to the safety and well-being of its citizens.


Many of the casualties from UXO occur when farmers attempt to cultivate land that has not been thoroughly cleared.  Despite the risk, economic desperation makes large numbers of poor rural farmers ignore the dangers. Another even more widespread problem is that villagers can earn a lot of money from UXO scrap metal, leading them to collect UXO even though it has not been properly defused.  Not all the scrap metal is sold, however. As we traveled through Laotian farming areas we saw the bomb casings that once held the bombies being used for barn supports, water troughs, flower pots, and even supports for t.v. antennae. Seeing remnants of U.S. weapons used in these ways was a poignant moment for us as Americans.

During Congressional hearings on the UXO problem held in 2010, Deputy Assistant Secretary Scot Marciel of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs offered a positive-sounding account of the U.S. role in helping Laos cope with the UXO problem:

"To address the explosive remnants of war problem in Laos, the Department of State supports a variety of humanitarian demining and unexploded ordnance clearance projects, with funding from the Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related programs (NADR) appropriation account. One of the top goals of the program is to clear all high priority areas (specifically agricultural land, health and education facilities); another is to develop indigenous mine and UXO abatement capacity. These projects are selected and managed by the Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement in the Bureau of Political Military Affairs, in close coordination with the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs and our Embassy in Vientiane. Although the bulk of U.S. NADR funds for Laos goes to UXO Lao — the Government of Laos’ quasi-independent government agency charged with conducting clearance operations — we also fund NGOs that conduct independent clearance operations and run school-based campaigns to educate children about the dangers of tampering with UXO. Our funding supports work performed by Lao national entities (primarily UXO Lao) as well as by international NGOs such as the Mine Advisory Group, Norwegian People’s AID, the Swiss Demining Foundation, and the World Education Consortium. We view our programs in Laos as very successful overall, and one in which the national authorities have established a credible and effective UXO action system."

 And the monetary support for these programs?  Read carefully:

"The U.S. is the single largest donor to the UXO sector in Laos. Other major donors include Japan, the European Commission, Ireland, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany, and Australia. From 1993 through 2009, U.S. assistance has totaled more than $25 million...In FY 2009, our total assistance for Laos UXO projects was $3.7 million. In FY 2010 we will provide $5 million on UXO funding for Laos."

Whoa! In this day of a billion here and a billion there, the U.S has provided a total of just $25 million over a 16-year period .  And though we provided the most of any other donor, this still suggests that the overall international support for mitigating the Laos UXO problem is rather small given the scope of what needs to be done.

I will avoid getting into the geopolitics of the Vietnam War and whether it was justified.  I'll also dodge the question of whether hiding the scale of military operations in Laos from the American public was justified or not.  But I suggest that no matter which side of those arguments you are on, surely we can agree that America has left a dangerous legacy in Laos that is still killing and injuring innocent people 40 years later.  If we really are the compassionate and well-meaning country we believe ourselves to be, then maybe we can do more to contribute something positive to the lives of the Laotian people. As we traveled through Laos were were treated warmly even when people discovered we were Americans. The most negative reaction was usually one of puzzlement over why the U.S. had done what it did and why it doesn't seem to recognize the extent of its legacy today.  Why, indeed?
__________________________________
Some Additional Source Material:
Scot Marciel's Congressional Testimony, 2010.
2010 Congressional Hearings on UXO in Laos
Entire Congressional Record Account of Congressional Hearings on Laos, including written follow-up material requested by Committee members.
Analyses of U.S. Bombing Missions by Peter Larson
Mines Advisory Group in Laos Website
Legacies of War Website
"Forty years on, Laos reaps bitter harvest of the secret war."  2008 article in The Guardian summarizing UXO problem
"Laos' Unexploded Bombs: Deadly Scrap Metal, Toys." Transcript of 2010 NPR segment on UXO scrap metal dangers.

Business Math + Banker's Math III: Flying High

Airlines are having a tough time these days.  For example, the recent merger between United and Continental apparently didn't go as smoothly as hoped and the company lost $723 million last year.  Poor Jeff Smisek, United's CEO, suffered from his mistakes in handling the merger -- his total compensation for the year dropped a whopping 41% leaving him with a mere $7.9 million, down from $13 million the year before.  Barely enough to make ends meet, I'm sure. Though Jeff's compensation is still extravagant (IMHO) at least this is one case where it appears to have been influenced by the company's financial performance.  This is rare, however -- industry-wide studies of the connection between CEO income and company profits have repeatedly shown that overall there is very little correlation between the two.

As airlines have struggled to cut costs and increase revenue it has more often been the passengers, not the CEO's who have borne the brunt -- more crowded planes, charges for food, baggage fees, extra fees for booking over the phone, no blankets or pillows or snacks, charges for reserving seats in advance, higher change fees, greatly diminished rewards for miles flown (see my blog, "Flying the (Un)Friendly Skies"), etc., etc.

These are the obvious ways of raising income, but there are a number of costs that are hidden in the price of the ticket itself.  One I came across for the first time recently was a KLM ticket my wife and I purchased online for a European trip. When it came time to pay for the ticket we were stuck with a 15 euro fee (about $20) for paying with a credit card.  The only way to avoid the extra charge was to purchase the ticket via a direct debit transfer from our bank. The 15 euros is a flat fee, the same regardless of the cost of the ticket.  In our specific case it amounted to a rather stiff 5% of the total that goes to KLM, not to the credit card company.  I'm sure U.S. carriers are watching public reaction to this very carefully and would love to do the same thing if they can get away with it.

Extra charges and fees can add up to a substantial portion of the total cost of a ticket.  In the case of our KLM ticket (Amsterdam to Nice, France) these add-ons comprised a stunning 61% of the total!  Don't think this is just true of European carriers, either -- for our ticket on United Airlines from the U.S to Amsterdam the extra charges were less, but still a hefty 44% of the total price. Note, both of these are international tickets but differ in two ways:  KLM is a European carrier and the flight is within Europe. United is a U.S. carrier and the flight is from the U.S. to Europe.

So what are these add-ons, exactly and are they different for the two tickets?  A close look at the ticket cost breakdowns suggests the following categories, along with the %  for each category in the case of the two tickets described above:

• Extra Airline Charges: booking fees, international surcharges, credit card fee (26% KLM, 33% United)
• Airport Fees: airport service charges, airport international airport service charges (16% KLM, 2.3% United)
• Security Fees: "Security Charge" (8.4% KLM), "September 11th Security Fee" (3.4%United)
• Taxes and Government Fees:  "French Aiport Tax, Soilidarity Tax, Netherlands Noise Isolation Charge" (11% KLM),  "U.S Customs User Fee, U.S. Immigration Fee, U.S. APHIS Fee, U.S. Federal Transportation Tax, U.S. Flight Segment Tax" (5% United)

There are a few things I find interesting about the breakdown.  First, most of the extras don't go to the airlines themselves but to other entities.  Second, the KLM add-ons are greater in every category except for the portion going to the airline itself.  Perhaps we shouldn't blame KLM for the credit card fee -- they're just trying to bring their portion of the ticket to the same level as other major carriers based in the U.S.

Third, it is interesting to note that the biggest difference by far is the portion going to the airports (16%% for KLM versus 2.3% for United). I don't know if this is true of other countries and carriers, but at least in this case it seems that some the funds for building and maintaining airports are coming from the users of those facilities.   We have found a general superiority around the world in foreign airports compared to those in the U.S.  -- perhaps this might be a good idea for us to consider as a way to upgrade U.S. facilities.

Fourth, the next biggest difference is that our concern with security in the U.S. isn't reflected in the portion of our tickets that supports security efforts -- KLM adds more than twice as much to a ticket as United does, 8.4% versus 3.4%.  Of course, this might be due to the way security is funded -- in the U.S. it is through general income taxes to fund the TSA's budget ($7.6 billion in 2012), whereas in Europe it may again be supported more by user fees assessed through ticket charges.

Finally, the amount added specifically for government taxes and fees is greater for the progressive European countries of Holland and France than for the U.S., but the absolute levels (11%, 5%) don't seem to me to give much support to the "damn taxes for big guvment!" folks.

Now for some disclaimers.  My analysis is not very general and different results might be obtained using different airlines and different countries.  I invite you to do your own research.  Also, my analysis is limited to international travel in which a sizable portion of the add-ons were those assessed because of this.  Indeed, when I did a quick check using domestic travel the add-ons dropped to 48% for KLM and just 12% for United.

The lesson I got from this analysis is that increases in airfare are not necessarily under the control of the airlines.  To maintain profitability and competitiveness they have turned to those things they can control, like baggage fees, configuration of seating, charging for food, etc. I can't blame them for that, though it has made air travel particularly unpleasant these days.

However I'd feel a whole lot better if airlines would show frugality in another area they can control -- CEO compensation.  Or, if you are still going to pay someone like Jeff Smisek nearly $8 million in a year the company lost $723 million, at least make him fly to Europe in the middle seat of the last row of the plane, with the video of him breathlessly touting all the wonderful changes coming to United looping over and over on the screen.

My Favorite Cemeteries

[Note:  Special thanks to CH for giving me the idea for this blog ]

When my wife and I travel there are three kinds of places we always try to see besides the usual tourist sites:  community markets, hardware stores, and cemeteries.  You can learn a lot about a culture from these places -- the quality and variety of people's food, the gizmos and gadgets in their homes, their attitudes and beliefs about life and death.  And besides being interesting and informative we've found these places are enjoyable because people in them are almost always friendly and welcoming (or at least very quiet).

Cemeteries have always been fascinating to me, even when I was a child. My early interest was no doubt fueled in part by ghost stories and the allure of mysterious and possibly dangerous realms, captured brilliantly by the graveyard in the Disney attraction "Haunted Mansion."  As I've gotten older I've come to appreciate that cemeteries are much more than the repositories of dead bodies, however.  They are places where history is tangible and personal, cultural values and beliefs are embodied in architectural style, and social structure is clearly and sometimes poignantly discernible in stone.  Here are a few of my favorites.

Cemeteries: A Walk Through Both Personal and Monumental History

Death figures prominently in the history of all communities, and cemeteries offer a poignant look at historical events and the role of death in individual families. For example, in many cemeteries we have seen gravestones of several very young children in one family all dying within a short time of each other, probably from some epidemic for which there was no defense at the time. The angst of these families as they revisited the grave site to bury yet another of their children is almost palpable.

One of my favorites in this category is a Louisiana cemetery we came across while driving between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.  We saw the expected prevalence of local sons who perished in the Civil War, a vivid reminder of the horrors of that conflict.  A history lesson less prominent in the history books was portrayed by one plot where the family patriarch was buried alongside his several wives who successively died during childbirth, a common risk for women in those times. The same cemetery revealed that women often died at a younger age than men but the few who did survive wound up living longer than the oldest men.  Evolution in action?

For monumental burial sites there is one that stands out for me, though around the world I have a number of other favorites.  By "monumental" I mean containing the remains of many influential and prominent people in western history.  Although it is not technically a cemetery, Westminster Abbey in London is the final resting place of an astonishing number of historical figures, marked by gravestones set in the cathedral floor:  Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Geoffrey Chaucer, Charles Dickens, George Frederic Handel, Henry Irving, David Livingstone, etc., etc.  These legendary names seemed almost mythical until I stood on top of the spot where they were buried -- the tangible evidence of their deaths made their lives seem more real for me.

Somber and Vast

Two cemeteries are tied in this category:  The American Military Cemetery in Normandy, France and Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

The American Cemetery in Normandy contains the remains of more than 9,000 soldiers who died in

World War II, many during the invasion of France in 1944.  The emotional impact of standing in the center of thousands of identical white crosses stretching in perfect alignment as far as you can see is difficult to describe.  Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia is also vast and has the added somber quality of covering conflicts dating from the Civil War to the present day.  Both of these places are vivid reminders of warfare's deadly effects but Arlington's historical perspective suggests that war is a continuing and perhaps inevitable force in human societies. Wars do not prevent wars.

Spooky

I have two favorites that stand out in my memory. The first was a small cemetery my wife and I came across while visiting Vermont during the fall.  It was set on a hill not far from a small picturesque New England town.  Huge old hardwood trees were scattered among the tombstones, many of which were tilting helter-skelter from lack of attention.  We visited the cemetery one morning when the fog made the scene gauzy and out of focus.  It was eerily quiet, except for the sound of dew dropping from the trees onto the leaves.  Like I said, spooky.

Another spooky place is St. Louis No. 1 Cemetery in New Orleans.  Established in 1789, this was New Orleans' first cemetery and resembles a small city, with the house-like whitewashed tombs laid out along streets.  Many of the crypts mimic the French urban architecture style in vogue at the time, adding to the city-of-the-dead visual effect.  Among the residents here is the famous Voodoo priestess Marie Laveau, whose tomb always has a strange assortment of offerings outside, and has many "X's" marked on it by devotees who use this to ask Marie to grant them a wish.  There are other Voodoo practitioners buried in the cemetery as well, and if you wander around in here long enough you're guaranteed to get goose-bumps.

Architectural Delights

My hands-down favorite in this category is La Recoleta Cemetery in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  It was founded in 1822 on the grounds of a former monastery and was Buenos Aires' first public cemetery.  Some of the buildings of the old religious order are still there, notably the beautiful little church built in 1732.  Buenos Aires was a very prosperous and sophisticated place during the 1800's and early 1900's, and the wealth of many of its citizens shows in the magnificence of their tombs. Many of them were built in the Neo-Gothic style of the 19th century using marble and granite imported from France and Italy, and look like small European cathedrals.

But the real stars for me are the tombs in the Art Nouveau and Art Deco styles, and I think La Recoleta must have one of the highest concentrations of them in the world.  Art Nouveau was popular around the turn of the 19th century, 1890-1910 and was characterized by soft, organic lines and flowery designs.  An absolute gem of this style is the tomb of a young woman named Rufina Cambaceres who died in 1902, and even includes an Art Nouveau casket.  Rufina was 19 years old when she died and there are some who believe she may have been accidentally buried alive after having a seizure, awoke in her coffin and then died of exhaustion trying to escape.  Regardless, the tomb is a masterpiece of Art Nouveau, one of several in the cemetery.

Art Deco flourished in the late 20's and 30's.  It is characterized by bold, blocky lines and simple yet powerful designs.  Recoleta tombs in this style are more prevalent than those in Art Nouveau which I think reflects the growth in the numbers of wealthy Argentinians.  In fact, several of the tombs even look a bit like banks, including that of Eva Peron, one of its most famous residents.  Hers pales in comparison though to many, many others.

Closing the Lid

There are quite a few more cemeteries I could mention in other categories, like "Humorous Headstones" (Valparaiso, Chile) and "Culturally Distinctive" (Cairo, Egypt), but I'll stop here.  Please feel free to share your own favorites.
 
One final observation is that cemeteries are the ultimate equalizers. The
most elaborate and grand tombs and headstones, meant to convey status, social superiority, and religious piety crumble and decay the same as the most humble monuments -- it may take more time but eventually entropy will win.  And though people fervently believe otherwise, this is equally true for all religions and creeds, including non-believers.  Maybe that's the ultimate lesson that cemeteries can teach us.