The world's least-visited countries

Most people haven't even heard of them:

Parisian bridges are weighted down with copycat "love locks," while visitors crowd cheek-to-jowl into Barcelona churches and Dubrovnik's historic center. In Italy, attempts to manage the impact of tourism range from segregating visitors to fines for flip-flops.
As a glut of anxious headlines document overtourism, it's easy to think that the planet is simply full. 

But stray from the well-worn tourist trails, and you'll discover another travel story entirely. In much of the world, there are places that are eager to welcome tourists -- and when practiced sustainably, where tourism can even help alleviate poverty. 

The contrast between the most- and least-visited places is stark. In 2017, nearly 87 million international tourists arrived in France. That same year, a mere 2,000 international tourists visited the South Pacific country of Tuvalu, where it's easy to find a beach -- or even an entire island -- to yourself. 

Based on the most recent data (PDF) compiled by the United Nations World Tourism Organization, this list reflects many of the world's least-visited countries and overseas territories, where you'll find gorgeous natural beauty, culture and history without pushing through a thicket of selfie sticks.

I completely understand the tourist-related problems of Dubrovnik, Venice, and Santorini, where we found ourselves packed into narrow streets with other visitors. (Of course, the fact that we were tourists in these places - off of cruise ships, no less - meant that we were part of the problem.) The thing I like about the idea of visiting under-the-radar destinations is that you can actually be part of the solution, rather than the problem, by pumping money into these economies (as long as your trip is done sustainably).

What's interesting about CNN's list of the 25 least-visited countries (which actually contains only twenty sovereign nations; the other five are dependencies of other countries, even if they have some measure of autonomy) is that many of them are also among the twenty-five smallest independent countries that I want to visit before I die, including Tonga, Tuvalu, Kirabati, and São Tomé and Príncipe. That stands to reason, because the world's tiniest, most obscure countries would also see the fewest visitors. (Two of the nations on CNN's list - Lichtenstein and St. Kitts and Nevis - are ones I've already visited and checked off of my list.)

My goal remains visit these countries, although I know it won't be easy getting to many of them. There's also the paradox that countries with few tourists probably don't have a lot of tourist infrastructure. I'll need to do my research before I visit some of these places.

Belated Game of Thrones thoughts

(Spoilers follow.)

The ending of Game of Thrones was pretty much the most disappointing finale I've ever watched.  (I've been underwhelmed by series finales before, but this one was especially unsatisfying.)

Much has been written about the series' unsatisfactory ending, but this video kind of sums everything up for me:

         

Aside from the fact that the ending of the series left so many questions unanswered, many of the plot "resolutions" delivered by the finale were difficult to believe.

Let's start with Bran becoming king. Maybe that was what George R. R. Martin envisioned, and perhaps his reasoning will be better explained in the books (if and when he ever gets around to completing them), where Bran's character is apparently more central to the story than it was in the TV series. But his character's story in the TV series, where he does little more than stare at people, warg into ravens and get Hodor killed (Bran didn't even appear at all in one of the series' seasons), simply doesn't suggest that he has any business becoming king of Westeros. It's hard for longtime fans to accept.

It's also hard to accept the way that Bran got to be king, which was the result of a decision by a council of Westerosi lords and ladies that miraculously convened outside of King's Landing after Daenerys's death. This council was, in a matter of minutes, able to resolve all of the struggles, wars and intrigue that Westeros had experienced over the previous several years by simply replacing the continent's hereditary monarchy with an elective one (those never work, by the way, and will probably just make things worse in the long run). They made this decision based on nothing more than an impassioned soliloquy by Tyrion (who was supposed at the council to be judged for his crime of disobeying Dany, rather than to chart a new political course for Westeros).*

And don't even get me started on Jon, who somehow is not summarily executed by Grey Worm, the rest of the Unsullied, or the remaining Dothraki** for murdering Daenerys, but is rather sentenced to be returned to the Night's Watch (which no longer has a reason for existing) for his crime. The huge plot reveal that he was the son of Lyanna Stark and Rhaegar Targaryen served no purpose after all.

The fact is, the entire final season (not just the finale) was pretty much a disaster. It was rushed and contrived, and the character development that had made the series so great over the years was simply tossed aside.

For example, I didn't have a problem with Daenerys's descent into villainy. It follows age-old themes regarding the corruptive nature of power or the idea that well-intentioned tyranny is still tyranny. I did have a problem with how it was manifested. Whether Dany's decision to turn King's Landing into Dresden was the result of emotionally-deranged genocidal madness or a ruthless calculation to destroy the seat of Westerosi power and send a message to the other lords of the continent, the writers simply did not justice to her character's turn. Jaime's decision to return to Cersei after his one-night-stand with Brienne (a regrettably unnecessary and gratuitous hookup, by the way) was similarly hollow. 

Perhaps it was inevitable that the series would degrade the further it got from George R. R. Martin's source material (a viral Twitter thread from a professor of philosophy at UConn explains this situation). And it was certainly a bad decision to shorten the last two seasons, as it gave the creators less "real estate" to work with. In the rush to bring everything to a close with as much spectacle as possible, the series forgot what it was all about.

The bottom line is that Game of Throne's creators, David Benihoff and Dan Weiss, spent the first six seasons painting a masterpiece of lavish character development, intriguing plot twists, and compelling storytelling. Then they spent the seventh season vandalizing it with spray paint, and spent the eight season shitting all over it. It's a very disappointing ending that will forever tarnish the legacy of what was once the best show on television.

* Also, when Sansa made the declaration that The North would opt out of the Bran-led kingdom, Yara Greyjoy should have done the same for the Iron Islands and Nameless Dornish Guy should have done the same for Dorne. Those three kingdoms were always culturally and structurally different from the core of Westeros (i.e. Westerlands, Crownlands, Stormlands, Riverlands, Vale and Reach) and seeing all three of them fall out would have reinforced the idea of a new political era for Westeros. This was a huge miss on the part of the writers.

** We were led to believe that almost all of the Dothraki died in the Battle of Winterfell, but apparently there were plenty of them left to overrun Kings Landing. This was one of the many continuity failures of the final season of the series.

Goodbye to middle school

Hard to believe that Thursday was Kirby's last day of eighth grade. His mom and I attended his promotion ceremony at Lanier Middle School and took some pictures afterward:

He'll be heading on to high school this fall. The "Beast" is growing up!

Governor signs UH medical school into existence

Obligatory update to a story I've been following for a while:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has signed a bill creating a medical school at the University of Houston amid concerns about a physician shortage in the state. 

Under the legislation signed into law Wednesday, the University of Houston's College of Medicine will be the 13th medical school in Texas. It will be based in the UH System's flagship campus in Houston. Nearly half of the Texas medical schools are in the Houston area. 

On Thursday, Abbott described UH as on the way to being "one of the world's preeminent universities." He said he plans to do a ceremonial signing of the bill in Houston. 

“The University of Houston continues to cement itself as a top tier University, and I was proud to sign HB 826 into law establishing the University Of Houston College Of Medicine," Abbott said in a statement. "As Governor, I have pledged to elevate Texas’ institutions of higher education and this bill furthers that goal."

My understanding is that the only hurdle remaining for UH Med is approval from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education. If that happens, the college would enroll its first students in the fall of 2020. Stay tuned.

CHVRCHES at White Oak Music Hall

A couple of Fridays ago, Corinne and I went to the lawn at the White Oak Music Hall to see CHVRCHES. It was a good concert at a nice venue that I'll need to visit more often.

Not too much to report form the concert itself. The synth-pop trio from Glasgow played most of their better-known songs; keyboardist Martin Doherty even took over from foul-mouthed frontwoman Lauren Mayberry to sing a couple of tunes. The back-and-forth chatter between band members between songs was just as entertaining as the songs themselves.


The set was rather short, at 15 songs total, and left out a couple of my favorites, including "Gun" and "Lies." My biggest complaint wasn't that, but rather the Gen Z douchebags standing in front of us who were more interested in talking over the songs than watching the show. Such is the nature of outdoor festival-type concerts such as these.

Otherwise no complaints. the late-spring evening was perfect for an outdoor concert. The lawn at WOMC is a small and comfortable space to watch the show. The lines for drinks were short, and a couple of food trucks handled eating options (although they probably could have used one or two more). I have no complaints about acoustics or sightlines.

We didn't try to drive and park, but rather took the METRORail Red Line up from Midtown, got off at Quitman Station, and made the short walk to the venue. I would recommend this option for getting there, if you are able to do so.

The Houston Press review, including the setlist, is here.

Houston's climate and transit use: it's not an excuse

Local public transportation advocate and former METRO Board member Christof Spieler recently spoke to the Kinder Institute at Rice regarding "myths, misconceptions and facts" about transit in Houston. Here's one topic that resonated with me:

Myth: “Nobody walks in Houston or the climate in Houston is too bad for anyone to be able to walk.” 

"Those two [weather conditions and walking] are obviously not the case," Spieler said. "I think people overestimate the importance of climate in these cases. There are cities that have very tough winters and they do transit very well. If you want to compare a summer in Houston vs. a winter in Minneapolis, I don’t think Houston summer heat is a much worse climate than a Minneapolis winter." 

Minneapolis, which has an annual snowfall of 55 inches and winter temperatures in the teens, is one of the few American cities that have experienced increases in public transportation ridership. A part of that increase is credited toward thousands of parking spots being lost in downtown Minneapolis in recent years. 

Further, Houston has also seen gains in public transportation ridership in recent years, thanks in part to a 2015 bus route redesign and the introduction of additional light rail.

Obvious fact: this city's climate can be brutal for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users during the daytime hours in the summer months (which, in Houston, last from mid-May to late October). Houston's not unique in that regard; there are conditions that are challenging to pedestrian, bicycle and transit activity in every climate, as Christof's examples from Minneapolis imply. 

That's no excuse. 

Too many people (including local bloggers who are smart enough to know better, which is why I no longer read or link to them) still use the "but it's soooooo hot" pretext as to why Houston shouldn't spend its time or money improving its transit services, or improving access to transit (or active transportation in general) through better sidewalks or high-quality bicycle facilities. It's a bullshit, purposefully-defeatist argument that puts too much emphasis on temporary personal comfort and ignores the fact that for the vast majority of the time Houston has a perfectly comfortable climate.

But taking this a step further: this argument is, perversely, a reason for better transit service (as well as better access to transit through better bike/ped connections). Walking to and waiting for a bus in the August afternoon might be a brutal experience for most Houstonians today. But imagine that, even during that August afternoon, you can walk no more than a quarter-mile (i.e. a five-minute walk) to a transit stop, and along that walk there are easy-to-provide amenities such as shade trees along sidewalks and non-reflective pavement that make things just a little bit less brutal. Then, once you get to the bus stop or train station (which provides a shade canopy from the sun as well as a bench to sit), your wait is no less than ten or fifteen minutes (i.e. the generally-recognized minimum headway for "frequent" service) until the next transit service arrives. You get into the air-conditioned vehicle, and off you go. 

All of a sudden, that trip gets a lot less "brutal," doesn't it? And this is during the heat of the day; it doesn't address the average morning or evening during Houston's long summer, which is perfectly walkable if not humid.

Christof is correct: people overestimate the importance of climate, and underestimate the ways in which we can combat that climate by providing comfortable (and ADA-accessible!) access to transit, as well as the frequency and coverage of that transit service itself. Let's quit making excuses and give this city the pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastructure that it deserves.

(Oh and by the way: as bad as Houston's climate can be, I'll take "hot and sweaty" over "trip over snowbanks and slip and fall on ice patches" anytime.)

Graz, Austria

We're approaching the summer of 2019, but I'm still not done with my series of posts about our trip to Europe during the summer of 2018. Which is fine, considering that time and budget constraints mean that no vacation this coming summer will be anywhere as amazing as last summer's.

Austria's capital of Vienna was just a little too far out of range for a day trip from our timeshare in Schladming. Austria's second-largest city, however, was not. So one morning we all loaded into the rental car and drove to Graz.

In addition to being Austria's second-largest city, Graz is also the capital of the Styria state. And while it might not be as well-known as places like Vienna or Salzburg, there's still plenty worth visiting there, including some rather quirky features.

Like many European cities, Graz developed around a large hill, atop of which was a fortress. However, the fortress is no longer there; some guy from France had it demolished in 1809. A few things remain, including a clock tower. The Urhturm took its present shape sometime in the 1500s and is an icon of Graz:


From the top of the Schlossberg there is an excellent view of the city (as well as a really cool Biergarten). The Uhrturm is to the left. and that weird black thing to the right is the Kunsthaus Graz, a modern art museum built in 2003:


Here's my father standing in front of the Kunsthaus, which is also known as the "Friendly Alien:"




Near the Kunsthaus is another piece of modern architecture floating in the Mur River. The Murinsel also dates to 2003 (the year Graz served as the European Capital of Culture) and contains an outdoor amphitheater as well as an indoor cafe:


Here's what the Murinsel looks like on the inside. The cafe contains a bar as well as a stage:




Graz Cathedral was built between 1438 and 1462 by the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick III:


The interior of the cathedral is built in a gothic architectural style and is ornately beautiful:

Across the street from the cathedral is an old municipal building notable for its double spiral staircase with two separate flights that diverge and then converge back upon one another at each floor. Corinne and I climbed it and decided that it was interesting, but probably caused a lot of people bumping into each other as they went up and down it back in the day:


The Grazer Landhaus was built in 1527 by Italian Renaissance architect Domenico dell'Allio and features a delightful arcaded courtyard. The Styrian state parliament still meets in this complex; the Styrian Armory is located here as well:

Adjacent to the Landhaus is the Rathaus, or city hall, of Graz. It was completed in 1893 and faces the Hauptplatz, which is the city's main square:

Herrengasse (literally, "Street of the Lords") is Graz's historic main street. It passes by the Hauptplatz, Rathaus and Landhaus, and is lined by stores. Several streetcar lines run along it. (Interesting fact: "next station" announcements on Graz's streetcars are in German and American English, rather than the British accent you would normally expect to hear in Europe. Maybe it's Graz's way of throwing shade at Britain because of Brexit?) One point of interest along Herrengasse is the Painted House, seen to the left:

Heading back to the train station on the edge of the town center, there is a monument erected to commmorate the hundredth anniversary of Esperanto in 1987. It reads "the hope for world communication in piece and freedom." (Next to the monument is cafe Das Esperanto; sadly, the menu is not actually printed in Esperanto, which I found to be a huge disappointment):

All in all, an interesting trip to an interesting city. We spent a full day there and still didn't see anything close to everything Graz has to offer. Because it is off the beaten path, so to speak, there were not crushing numbers of tourists in Graz. We found this a welcome respite from Venice, Dubrovnik, Athens and even Salzburg.

Graz has an airport served by short-haul flights, a major train station and is accessible via autobahns A-2 and A-9 (if you're only visiting by car for the day, park close to the train station; it's not the cheapest parking in town but there's plenty of it and it's very convenient). While you're there, take advantage of their excellent public transportation network to get around. A 24-hour pass is €5.30 while a three-day ticket is €12.40. Graz is also bicycle-friendly. Knowledge of basic German helps, of course, but we found that a decent number of people that we came across in Graz spoke English.

The unsung success story of rail transport in the United States

A common lament among Americans who have traveled to places like Europe or Japan is that the United States does not have a rail system on par with what exists in those parts of the world. But they're missing part of the story. The United States actually has one of the best rail systems in the world... for moving freight.

Often there is the perception that the U.S. lags behind other countries when it comes to rail, but in many cases that is not true. The country has, arguably, the best freight rail system in the world, which is owned, operated, and financed by private companies. Passenger service in specific corridors is comparable with the European counterparts: for example, in the Northeast. On long-distance routes and in less densely populated areas, however, there are often empty seats on Amtrak trains.

The primary difference between Europe and North America could be summarized like this: In America there is a freight rail system with some passenger, while in Europe there is a passenger rail system with some freight—the emphasis is different.

A further difference is that the rail network is private in the U.S. and operated to yield a profit, while in most other countries the rail infrastructure is owned by the government (similar to the freeway system in the U.S.) and heavily subsidized.

A given rail network can either move passengers well or move freight well, but it doesn't do a good job moving both well. This is why Amtrak's cross-country lines are so slow and erratic: they are running on systems designed to move freight, not people.

Running passenger and freight trains on the same lines is possible but poses many challenges, as the characteristics of the two train types are very different; freight trains tend to be long, heavy, and comparatively slow, while passenger trains are short, fast, and comparatively light. If there are not too many trains on a line, this mixed traffic can be managed, but if there are a lot of trains, then separate infrastructure is the way forward.

When journey times are less than four hours, people usually prefer to travel by train instead of alternative options, such as air or road. For many corridors in the U.S. it would be necessary to upgrade existing lines or to build new infrastructure to achieve competitive journey times.

This is why suggestions that involve increased passenger service on existing Class I freight railroad networks (i.e. those operated by Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, CSX and KCS), such as increasing frequency of Amtrak services or implementing new commuter rail service, are typically non-starters. They are in the business of moving freight, not people, and their networks and capacities are designed to move the former at the expense of the latter.

As the article notes, rail is an extremely efficient mode of transportation, for people as well as freight; a freight railroad can, on average, move a ton of freight for the equivalent of almost 480 miles per gallon of fuel, which is a level of efficiency that semi trucks can't touch. The US rail system excels at moving freight and should be recognized as such.

Passenger rail could be similarly effective and efficient, especially in the too-far-to-drive, too-short-to-fly "sweet spot." But it will require completely new -and costly - infrastructure to do so. Kinda like what some folks are trying to do here in Texas.

AAF folds before season even ends

I had no delusions of the league surviving long-term, but I truly didn't expect for it to end this soon:

The Alliance of American Football League is suspending football operations as of 5 p.m. Tuesday, according to a person familiar with majority investor Tom Dundon’s plans. The person spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the development. 

Pro Football Talk and The Action Network were the first to report the news. 

The AAF was entering Week 9 of the 10-week regular season. 

"I am extremely disappointed to learn Tom Dundon has decided to suspend all football operations of the Alliance of American Football," AAF co-founder Bill Polian said in a statement Tuesday, according to ESPN. "When Mr. Dundon took over, it was the belief of my co-founder, Charlie Ebersol, and myself that we would finish the season, pay our creditors, and make the necessary adjustments to move forward in a manner that made economic sense for all. 

"The momentum generated by our players, coaches and football staff had us well positioned for future success. Regrettably, we will not have that opportunity."

Too bad. I was enjoying following the former UH players who were playing for the San Antonio Commanders, and Corinne and I even talked about making a trip over to the Alamodome to watch a game.

So what happened for the league to get shuttered before it could play a full season? The Sporting News places the blame for the league's demise squarely at Dundon's feet:

It is worth noting that the apparent collapse of the AAF is not related to TV ratings. Action Network's Darren Rovell reported the league’s TV ratings were "respectable" through its inaugural season despite a significant drop-off after its opening weekend. Instead, the collapse appears to be tied directly to Dundon. 

The owner of the NHL's Carolina Hurricanes, Dundon committed $250 million to the AAF in February, an investment that reportedly kept the league afloat. He became the controlling owner of the league at that point, something Ebersol and Polian might now regret. 

Days before the AAF suspended football operations, Dundon told USA Today he needed cooperation from the NFL Players' Association (NFLPA) in order to feed current NFL players into the league and, therefore, maintain the AAF's viability — in Dundon's mind, at least. 

"If the players' union is not going to give us young players, we can't be a development league," Dundon said.

The NFLPA, citing its collective bargaining agreement with the NFL and the overall safety of its players as reasons, declined to enter into such an arrangement, so Dundon pulled the plug.

Rovell reported Dundon had been funding the AAF on “a week-to-week basis," and that as of Tuesday, he had invested $70 million of the $250 million he committed to the league. 

Which begs yet another question, and one to which even those in the AAF reportedly can't fathom an answer: Why would Dundon waste $70 million and pull the plug on the league over a silly stare-down with the NFLPA? 

According to Pro Football Talk, which cited a source, "Dundon signed on to kick the tires. Once he realized how expensive it was to own and operate a sports league, he initially tried to cut costs. But that resulted in a cutting of functionality. He then pinned the league’s future to a deal with the NFL for permission to borrow its bottom-of-roster players."

Previously, Albert Breer of The MMQB had offered a possible explanation for Dundon's actions: "Perception inside the AAF is that Dundon bought a majority stake in the league simply for the gambling app being developed."

As its primary owner and investor, Dundon is within his rights to pull the plug on the league. However, killing the league before its even had a chance to crown a champion, and leaving in the lurch all the players, coaches, trainers, front office staff and everyone else who committed themselves to the new league, is truly a dick move on his part.

Assuming that no deep-pocketed benefactor swoops in to salvage the league's inaugural season (spoiler alert: they won't), the AAF joins a long list of failed start-up football leagues. However, spring football aficionados should not despair; the second iteration of the XFL is still, as of the time of this writing, expected to kick off in the spring of 2020; it will now be able to do so without competition*. Perhaps the XFL could learn from the AAF's experience if it wants to survive, even if history says it won't.

ESPN's story is here. CBS Sports has more on what went wrong and what happens next. Deadspin tells the stories of players who have been left "high and dry" by the league's sudden collapse. Sports Illustrated takes stock of some AAF players that could get another shot at the NFL. SB Nation surveys the league's rise and fall - "Nobody is better off for the AAF dying, and it’s all a shame" - and offers more lessons for the XFL.

*XFL owner Vince McMahon's was reportedly approached with an offer to buy the AAF, which he declined. That being said, the XFL's buying some of the AAF's better assets - The San Antonio Commanders led the league in attendance (27,721 fans/game) when the league folded, and Steve Spurrier's Orlando Apollos were clearly its strongest on-field organization - and unveiling a ten, rather than eight, team XFL next spring wouldn't be the worst idea in the world.

Good monarch news

As somebody who has dedicated considerable space in this blog sounding the alarm on behalf of the State Insect of Texas (see here, here, here and here), I'm pleased to report that the monarch butterfly population appears to be on the rebound:

After an upward trend in monarch butterfly populations, Texas experts are expecting a massive surge in the flying insects through Texas this season. 

This year is different, according to Craig Wilson, director of the USDA Future Scientists Program and Texas A&M research associate. This year, there has been a 144 percent increase in breeding population among monarchs compared to previous years. 

That means there are nearly 300 million butterflies in northern Mexico that make will make the annual journey north during this summer, according to Texas A&M Today. For several years, the number of butterflies breeding had been on the decline, Wilson said. 

"Figures show the highest number of hectares covered since at least 2006," Wilson said, adding that monarchs' numbers are measured in hectares. "That's a really positive sign, especially since their numbers have been down in recent years."

The yearly overwintering area graph produced by Monarch Watch shows this dramatic improvement:

Before butterfly lovers celebrate too much, it should be recognized that one good year does not guarantee that monarch populations will remain stable long-term, and that our fluttery orange and black friend still faces threats:

While the population that winters in Mexico saw an increase last year, another population that migrates to California almost vanished. 

One good year for the Midwestern migratory monarchs also doesn't mean the factors that contributed to their decline — like habitat destruction — have improved. 

"We have to face the facts that climate is changing," says Taylor. "This whole migration is in jeopardy given the loss of milkweed and the fact that climate is changing in an unfavorable way to sustain this population."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: plant that milkweed, folks. (And be sure to use native varieties, as non-native varieties could become harmful to the monarch butterfly population.)