Home > News & Events > Blog

Rick Steves: Blog Gone Europe

I'm sharing my travel experiences, candid opinions and what's on my mind. If you think it's inappropriate for a travel writer to stir up discussion on his blog with political observations and insights gained from traveling abroad, you may not want to read any further. — Rick

I have just enjoyed a fascinating fortnight traveling around our country, giving talks. The trip left me inspired to explore the USA. I was hosted by wonderful people in Fort Smith Arkansas, Port Huron north of Detroit, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, at the International House on campus in Berkeley, and at Apple and Google headquarters in Silicon Valley. Going from Apple to Arkansas, I was struck by the variety in this country. Given that, it's a compliment to our civility that we hold together as well as we do.

My fantasy is to put together a 20-cities-in-30-days lecture tour to small towns in unlikely corners, letting locals share their pride in their communities with me each afternoon as part of the deal. (I must admit that a two-bit celebrity is treated like a four-bit one in smaller towns.)

I felt the pride and goodness of people everywhere. Philadelphians, while a bit apologetic that they are neither DC or NYC, love their city. The people of Arkansas have a good humor about their reputation. Even though they still joke “thank God for Mississippi” when it comes to leading the country in obesity, teen pregnancies, lack of education, and poverty, they are making impressive progress as a state. These days, joking about Arkansas that way is like joking about England's food — it shows you haven't been there in a while.

But the Deep South wears its conservatism like Seattleites wear their liberalism. Laying my head on an American flag pillowcase in my B&B, hearing people say with pride, “Eighty percent of America's soldiers come from The South,” and the omnipresence of Fox News in breakfast rooms and lobbies made me feel a bit of a foreigner.

I met many Europeans. It seemed most were wives of locals. I didn't realize how many German war brides came here after WWII. Apparently, most ended up in the South. Whenever I met a European spouse, they expressed how they enjoyed hearing a European perspective in a public forum. (But that yearning always seemed to be trumped by the gentility, goodness, and strong community of Southern living.)

The people I met, while culturally different from me, were smart, caring, and proud of the accomplishments of their communities. My last stop was Oklahoma City, where I enjoyed talking to a huge crowd of 1,400. People even drove in from out of state. From the big turnout to the VIP meals before and after, it was a delightful experience.

While news stories (like retired generals making fortunes on the boards of companies that sell the USA weaponry) seemed particularly annoying on this trip, traveling around the USA made me feel good about the people of this country.

Wherever I went, people were trying to be good citizens and caring neighbors. They enjoyed the edgy message I brought with my “Travel as a Political Act” lectures, and I enjoyed the caliber of their character. I feel I planted some progressive seeds. And, at the same time, I gained more respect for Conservative America. I want to do more of this.

Posted by Rick Steves on November 20, 2009
Comments (10)

To bring some diverse experience into the discussion on health care reform here in the USA, I've asked my friends in Europe to share how health care works in their lives. In this final of four entries, here are comments from my friends in Switzerland and Belgium:

From Fritz in Switzerland:

In Switzerland, everyone has health insurance provided either through an employer (by payroll deduction) or by paying privately to a health insurance company. A family with two children has an annual premium of about 8,000 CHF (about $7,300). For every doctor's bill, the insured person pays 10 percent. If a person becomes unemployed, then the goverment pays the premium based upon 80 percent of the average wage earned by that person over the past five years. The health insurance company reimburses the insured person, who then pays the doctor or hospital. There is talk of reforming this system because it has been misused.

Switzerland can no longer afford the luxury we've had in the past. We have over 1,000 hospitals — that's too many for Switzerland. All the hospitals want the newest technology, scanners, MRIs, etc. Health care lobbying, corrupt politicians, an aging population, and billions in revenue makes changing the system almost impossible. So I pay and pay, this year 15 percent more than last year!

We have the system you are dreaming about, but our wishes and demands are so high that it gets unaffordable. Careless socialist politicians denied the missuse of our social security insurance and allowed hugh deficits. Now we have to stop and turn things around. When it comes to health care, no society can afford everything, top quality, any time, for everybody. Switzerland will now deal with that reality.

From Christian and Danielle in Belgium:

In Belgium we pay €20 (about $28) to see a general practitioner at his or her office. We are reimbursed 85 percent of this amount. Surgery is paid directly between the hospital and the social security system. A visit to the dentist is free once a year. Glasses are almost all at our expense.

One of the disadvantages of our system is a lack of responsibility. Patients have the right to change doctors without any reason given and then have the same exams done over. Doctors tend to charge for examinations which they did not do, or to do operations which are not needed. Retirement pensions are getting strained, because we live longer.

It seems that people in Belgium get their prescriptions almost always when their company is restructuring. That can be a problem. Half of the prescription is paid by your company and half by the state.

But as a whole, it is a good system, as we also pay for those who have no money at all.

Posted by Rick Steves on November 13, 2009
Comments (6)

To bring some diverse experience into the discussion on health care reform here in the USA, I've asked my friends in Europe to share how health care works in their lives. In this third of four entries, here are comments from my Italian friends:

From Susanna in Italy:

The system in Italy is faaaaar from being perfect, but the idea behind it is the right one: Everybody has the right to have health care — it's really one of those things that makes a democracy, a real democracy.

In Italy, I pay for the national health care system through taxes. The rate depends how much you make per year (there are income brackets to determine how much you are going to pay). Recently, the government decided to ask for a payment for examinations or medicines (we call it a “ticket,” in America you call it a “co-pay”). There are some categories — such as retired people with low income, people with chronic diseases, and the unemployed — who don't have to pay.

What I really dislike about the system is the long lines to get appointments for any kind of tests (from basic to more complex). It depends on the region, but it's a problem all over the country.

Italy is a country of paradoxes. We have, on one side, excellent doctors with incredible training, and, on the other side, we have “scandals” involving important Italian hospitals in which the hygienic conditions are poor and dangerous. The other problem is that Italy has an “aging” population. We have fewer people working to support the retired population, which is living longer and longer. Because of that, health care costs to our society as a whole have gone way up, while tax revenue has not.

Overall, I'm satisfied with the system, but it must be said that I'm in good health. When my father had cancer and later died from it, I have to say that we were so lucky to meet such fantastic people (doctors, nurses, and volunteers) that it made this traumatic experience less severe. Moneywise, we didn't have to pay a penny for all the treatments he went through.

From Donald in Italy:

The Italian health system has the usual diversity of standards from north to south. In my tour guiding over the years, I have assured dubious tourists in Sicily that the hospital we were in was perfectly competent (whilst hoping they did not notice the crunch of the cockroach I had just stealthily stood on). But I have also been hospitalized in an institution in the Italian Alps where I was given a private room with balcony and mountain view, four-star meals with my choice of dishes, and treated with medical equipment worth thousands — all on national health. In the end, I would rather have national health care than be without it.

In Italy, you have to know how to work the system. A few years ago, I was spending a fortune at a private optician in Milan, who kept trying to convince me to have laser surgery costing thousands of euros per eye. I didn't have much confidence in him, so I did the Italian thing — I talked to everyone I knew until I found a friend of a friend who knew a brilliant Russian optician working nearby. A couple of phone calls and a couple of days later, I found myself in the Russian's office where, in half an hour, I was given excellent, unbiased, and free advice about laser surgery and a prescription for contacts and glasses. When in Rome...

I know critics will say that there is less inefficiency in a private system. Would the critics of nationalized medicine advocate the privatization of other government departments such as the ministry of defense? Might that not lead to a series of business-driven wars being fought...ooops! Call me naive, but I would rather support a country which spends more money on inefficiently curing its citizens rather than on inefficiently destroying its perceived enemies.

From Nina in Italy:

I have dual citizenship and have lived abroad for 13 years. I have experienced health care systems in the US and Italy. For me, one particular misconception about the US system is the notion of choice. It seems to be a topic that elicits such strong emotions. In the US, we are led to believe that buying into a private insurance plan means that as consumers we have more choices. In reality, the choice of care is never ours, and not even left to our doctors to decide. More often than not, it is insurance companies that decide when, where, and for how long we can receive treatment.

Here in Italy, everyone has access to a government-run system that is funded through taxes, with some private alternatives for those who want to or can afford to go beyond our public service. Health care decisions are not made by someone worried about making a profit. Even the language we use to discuss health care in America (patients are “consumers”) echoes the fact that in the US we rely on a system meant to generate profits — whereas in Italy health care is viewed as every person's right.

It seems impossible to me that a country as wealthy as the US cannot find a way to guarantee access to health care for everyone. There are so many ways to cut costs, including eliminating all of the frills. In the US, when you walk into a hospital or doctor's office, you are greeted by a nice reception area with art on the walls, plants, matching chairs, etc. In Italy the paint may be peeling off the walls, and the chairs in the waiting room may not be the most comfortable — but the care you get is good and thorough.

Posted by Rick Steves on November 09, 2009
Comments (15)

To bring some diverse experience into the discussion on health care reform here in the USA, I've asked my friends in Europe to share how health care works in their lives. In this second of four entries, here are comments from my British friends:

From Martin in Wales:

The National Health Service (NHS) in Wales is essentially the same as the English NHS founded over 60 years ago. Today, the main difference between the services in England and Wales is that in Wales (as in Scotland) we pay nothing for medications. Our Welsh Assembly decided that no matter the cost of the drugs, the duration of the illness, or the wealth of the patient, no charge is made for prescription drugs.

This fulfils of the one of founding principles of the NHS — like justice, health care is “blind.” You are treated no matter who you are or what your financial means are. None would pretend that the NHS is perfect: New and expensive drugs are used to combat diseases in an increasingly aging population, which puts financial strains on our system. However, knowing that the NHS will try always to treat you to the best of its ability is something valued highly by most Welsh people.

Treatment under the NHS is free, but the cost is huge. We pay for it in our taxes. In the US, people pay insurance companies for their health care, whereas in Britain, we pay the government. You may think this makes the two systems the same, that it's only a matter of who you pay. I don't think so. Don't forget that the NHS is “blind” and its blindness is its true virtue. Insurance companies insure the individual for a profit, while the NHS delivers care, free to all.

From Tom in England:

The United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) was 60 years old last year and continues to provide “free” health care from cradle to grave. The NHS is state-funded. It is paid for by employers and employees making a contribution direct from earnings. Care and treatment is free to citizens. Drugs are about $10 per prescription. The NHS system enables completely free access and care for people who can't pay taxes: the poor, unemployed, and elderly.

When things go wrong with the NHS, it's given massive prominence by a media looking to sell newspapers and pump up TV ratings. However, for the majority of the English — those not made fools by hysterical media coverage — it is quite popular. We like the NHS because it takes away the worry about what would happen if your health fails, if there's an accident, or if you just need help as you get older. It's not perfect. No health care system is. But there are millions of people who would testify that they'd be dead without it.

The creation of our free service came after World War II, when there was a desire to spread health care to all citizens. The demographics have changed since then, however. A population that lives longer requires more costly care. Every society needs to deal honestly with this reality. Life-saving treatments have been developed that cost more. And so, in 2009, the NHS is one of the biggest topics of political debate — it's called by some a “sacred cow.” The bottom line is that none of the major political parties will try to remove it — and certainly not when they are facing a general election in 2010. I think most of us would call our NHS a 60-year-old success story, regardless of today's financial challenges.

Posted by Rick Steves on November 07, 2009
Comments (21)

To bring some diverse experience into the discussion on health care reform here in the USA, I've asked my friends in Europe to share how health care works in their lives. In this four-part series, we'll start with the most highly taxed and socialistic part of Europe: Scandinavia.

From Hakan in Sweden:

In Sweden, we have free choice in health care. It means that patients can choose a hospital anywhere in the country.

In 2005, the cost of the health and medical care sector amounted to 8.4 percent of GDP (in the US, it was over 15 percent). This amount includes the cost of pharmaceutical products, dental care, eyeglasses, and patient fees paid by households.

We employ a “high-cost protection scheme” that means that no patient ever needs to pay more than a total of 900 SEK (about $125) over a 12-month period. For pharmaceutical costs, no patient has to pay more than SEK 1,800 (about $250) over a 12-month period for prescription drugs. This way, no citizen will be put into poverty because of health problems.

The fee for visiting a doctor or hospital varies from 100-300 SEK (about $14-32), but once you have paid 900 SEK in a 12-month period, the rest of the care is totally free — no matter what kind of treatment you need. Private-care providers are also “clients” of the government. A patient can choose a private doctor or hospital, pay the small fee, and the government pays the difference.

The health and medical services have an obligation to strengthen the situation of the patient, for example, by providing individually tailored information, freedom to choose between treatment options, and the right to a second opinion in cases of life-threatening or other particularly serious diseases or injuries.

Having lived here all my life and raised my family here in Stockholm, I honestly do not see anything bad with our health care system.

From Richard in Demark:

I have lived and worked in Denmark for 24 years and have had numerous encounters with the health care system. In all cases I was satisfied or impressed with the quality of service and the low cost (apart from the tax system — more about that later).

The health care system in Denmark is free to all who live here. Even visiting tourists will be treated free of charge in case of an emergency. A non-Danish friend of mine who sprained her ankle during a recent visit was X-rayed, bandaged, treated by a doctor, and even given a pair of crutches to use — and was not charged anything. She was only asked to return the crutches when she left Denmark.

The quality of Danish health care — which is not run on a profit motive — is very good, though there is a waiting time for some non-life-threatening operations like a hip replacement. But everyone will eventually get the operation they need. Hospitals are free, doctor visits are free, and medicine is highly subsidized so that those who need a lot of medicine get it at a greatly reduced charge. Dentistry is subsidized.

This is paid for through our tax system, which — at 52 percent — is perhaps the highest in the world. None of the 10 political parties in Denmark has ever wanted to change that, because they know that they would not get any votes. The vast majority of Danes are agreeable to pay these high taxes; they know that they get about 50 percent of the money back each year in a vast array of benefits. Seven out of 10 Danes are willing to pay even more taxes, if necessary, to maintain the health care system we expect.

Danes have the mature and realistic understanding that you cannot give everyone a quality health care system, good schools, and the elements that help to make for a good quality of life, without paying for it. Freedom does not mean not paying taxes. For us, freedom is paying taxes. By taking care of each other, and the weaker elements in our society, we all have a better quality of life with very low crime rates, few prisons, and a sense of security that it is not “me against the world.” That is part of what it means to be Danish.

From Hanne and Trond in Norway:

In Norway, everyone has, in principle, equal rights to health care. Norwegian hospitals are “free” for patients (being financed with taxes) and everyone is entitled to treatment, irrespective of income and insurance. However, many things are not always working well here.

When hospitalized, no one asks for insurance coverage. You can stay for as long as it takes without having to worry about costs. At the hospital, every part of the treatment is free, indefinitely. At home, people with chronic illnesses get medicine and necessary medical equipment almost for free, save for a limited, annual base payment.

But some parts of the system don't function well. Depending on the illness, you could wait a long time for necessary hospital treatment (typically non-emergency surgery). For instance, you have to go through your family doctor in order to be referred to a specialist. When the family doctors have way too many patients and limited opening hours (and limited telephone hours!), this is often an obstacle. Of course, any emergency treatment is exempt from “queuing.”

As for the cost, the hospitals operate with a combined budget of approximately NOK 75 billion ($13 billion). Our health care is not free — we pay for it in our taxes: Our corporations pay a flat tax rate of 28 percent on their profits. Wage income is taxed under a progressive structure, from almost zero (very low, part-time wages) to a maximum marginal tax rate of 54 percent. The average “industrial worker” has a tax rate of 30 to 35 percent.

Posted by Rick Steves on November 04, 2009
Comments (33)

I've been in San Francisco for a couple of days — giving talks, enjoying a bit of the Bay Area, and meeting with travel publishers and travel editors. Today was filled with philosophy about the role of a travel writer and tour guide. I'm not sure exactly what we were talking about, but it stirred my thoughts nicely.

I spent breakfast talking with Spud Hilton (travel editor of the San Francisco Chronicle). One of only about a dozen journalists in the USA still earning their income as a full-time travel editor, Spud gave me an update on the state of newspapers in our economy.

As we lamented the cost to society of traditional journalism morphing into blogs and amateur Internet postings, Spud compared “citizen journalism” to “citizen dentistry” or getting a “citizen plumber” — do we really want to dispense with the professionals in trying to understand our world through news reporting?

Spud also talked about the challenges of getting good articles for his travel section. He likes a travel story that gives a place a personality profile, written by a writer who shares his experiences there in a way that tells more about the place than the writer.

I lamented how I can do a month of really productive guidebook work and come up with almost nothing of any value for newspaper articles. Then I can go out for two days without my guidebook chores and stir up plenty of great anecdotal material for newspaper and magazine writing.

Spud said one reason he likes to run my articles in the Chronicle is that people in the Bay Area already feel like they know me. This is helpful because he figures they get up and running with me more quickly, and that enables me to establish myself in a place with fewer words. And fewer words is a plus when you have limited newspaper space.

Conventional thinking is that people go to the travel section of a newspaper to learn about good deals. Spud believes you can find countless deals online these days, and for a paper to offer something unique it needs to run finely crafted articles that take you there. We were talking about my new Travel as a Political Act book, and found that we were both dealing with the same notion that there are two fundamentally different ways to travel — the old “tourist versus traveler” thing — and that one is not necessarily right or wrong. My passion has been to inspire people to both have fun and have that broadening experience.

Spud, who landed his position in part because he's an expert in (and a fan of) the cruise industry, also sees two kinds of travel: what he terms “discovery travel” and “leisure travel.” We agreed that these are not mutually exclusive. You can go to Mazatlán and have the leisure on the beach (with a plastic wristband giving you unlimited margaritas and a stretch of Pacific beach cleared of locals)...and then head a couple blocks inland to eat real Mexican food with locals. Then I had lunch with my publisher, and the fun conversation continued. My publisher is a futurist/visionary/travel publishing wonk — a wonderful man to collaborate with if you want your guidebooks to succeed. In analyzing the ebb and flow of various guidebook series, he was into the notion that some guidebooks are into aggregation while others are into curation (as if designed by a “curator”).

Aggregation publishers build their guidebooks by pooling all the data in a giant content bank, and then ladle out various configurations as if buying modular furniture: Would you like an L-shaped sofa? How about a guidebook to clubs and shopping in capital cities? Other guidebooks are a result of “curation” — designing, organizing, and interpreting information that works together holistically, like a body works together. Knowing what a traveler needs and what they've learned or experienced so far, a "curation" guidebook intuits what is helpful as the trip unfolds.

I told my publisher that I experimented this summer with letting my staff dedicate days to hotel updates, freeing up time for me to “live the books” and have the experiences in order to better shape and design this end of the information. I was thinking this might be the most valuable use of my time. He said, “Yes...curation.” (Perhaps the word is just made up...but I like it much better than aggregation.)

Then, this afternoon, I talked on the phone with my tour operations department and grappled with the challenge of guides who keep their groups very happy by aggregating the travel experiences on a tour, but aren't curators in bringing everything together to give a big context and maximize meaning and learning by weaving together what the various local guides have shared and taught.

Whether its through newspaper articles, guidebooks, or tour experiences, we are scrambling to make the travel experience as rich and meaningful as possible.

Posted by Rick Steves on October 29, 2009
Comments (13)

I love recommending good restaurants in my guidebooks. But they seem to have a quality arc and often don't belong in a good guidebook forever. Typically they start tentative, become stars, get lazy and greedy, and then often fall out.

Trattoria der Pallaro, one of my favorites in Rome, seems to be heading down. I visit almost every year unannounced and wander through the place talking with diners and staff and reassessing the place. It is funky, memorable, and in my 2009 visit most people there were having a wonderful experience with a quirky hostess in a memorable neighborhood setting. But now I'm getting bad reports and need to reconsider my recommendation.

Almost every place will get occassional bad feedback...but when a pattern emerges, I need to take note, even if the place is a long establshed favorite that is still generally making people happy customers. For an insight into how we deal with this phenomenon, here's a recent thread of correspondence between our travelers using the guidebook, my managing editor (Risa), and me:

----

Hi Rick,

Here are some recent negative reader-feedback emails concerning Trattoria der Pallaro in Rome. We talk up Pallaro quite a lot in the Rome guidebook. Should we contact Paola or reconsider our recommendation?

Risa

Forwarded Message #1: Dear Rick,

I am a solo woman traveler, elderly, who has always used your travel guides to help along my holidays.

I was in Rome in September and went for dinner to Trattoria der Pallaro run by Paola which you recommend in your Rome guidebook. Well I had a terrible experience there and hence this letter.

The meal was OK but as I do not take coffee I asked for my check before coffee was served. Paola herself came to my table and I gave her €21 as your book stated. She asked for €25.... OK, the rates may have gone up after your book was published. So I gave her a €5 note and then she asked for €20. I told her that I had already given her this amount, but she insisted that I hadn't...I had seen her slip it into the pocket of her apron and I said so. She then started to raise her voice and spat out a volley of words in Italian, in a loud and uncouth way. She then called a waiter who spoke no more English than she did, saying she did not understand what I was saying. I refused to pay more and she kept a loud tirade so that heads started to turn in our direction...rather embarrassing too as I had no idea what she was saying. Whatever I said fell on her deaf ears and finally I had to pay an extra €20... a meal that now cost €45 and was certainly not worth it. And at the end of all this, she did not give me my bill...an offense in Italian law. If I did not have to leave early the next morning, I would have gone to the Italian Tourist Police and lodged a complaint. Too late now. A very disturbing event. And an eating place best avoided.

Regards, Katie B

Forwarded Message #2:

Dear Rick,

I returned this week from a trip to Italy and relied heavily on your Rome guidebook. I found it helpful, up-to-date and precise in many of the details.

A major disappointment on the last night in this magnificent city propels me to write with the hope for some correction in your description of the Trattoria der Pallaro. I had dinner there with four friends and felt that it was a bad experience. My friends unanimously agree with my assessment.

The first dish of lentils was bland and uninteresting, but we still hoped for better things to arrive. Even an amateur cook could produce this easiest of dishes. Next came hard-to-chew penne (pasta al dente is good, pasta quasi cruda e altra cosa) with what must have been a weak tomato coulis mixed with either a little cream or milk. In an effort to enhance the taste, a tiny quantity of grated pecorino was on the table. Despite that, I could not finish the dish. Another complete miss was the secondo piatto, a kind of non-descript meat ragout — probably made of leftovers. In addition to the food the house wine served, I think, was acidy and reminded me of the very cheap wine I would drink in my student days three decades ago: some rather unremarkable commercial brand. Service was sloppy. To top it all off, there was a small bowl of peaches in a sugary syrup. I do not remember the other offerings in this gastronomic palette, but I am quite sure they were of the same ilk.

The package was offered at somewhat above €26, but we would have been very pleased to pay a bit more if only the quality of the meal would have been slightly higher.

We hope to continue to rely on your guides and that somehow attention will be given to this complaint.

Sincerely, Gerald R

----

Risa,

While just two unhappy customers, this is disconcerting and part of a trend. On my visit this spring, while most of our readers were having a blast there, I heard similar complaints and have had similar concerns with Paola getting more aggressive and taking our recommendation for granted. Send me our guidebook listing and I'll edit it down. We should email her about this troublesome pattern, too.

Rick

---

Rick,

Here is the current listing in Rick Steves' Rome:

Trattoria der Pallaro, a well-worn eatery that has no menu, has a slogan: "Here, you'll eat what we want to feed you." Paola Fazi - with a towel wrapped around her head turban-style - and her family serve up a five-course meal of typically Roman food for €25, including wine, coffee, and a tasty mandarin juice finale. As many locals return day after day, each evening features a different menu (Tue-Sun 12:00-15:30 & 19:00-24:00, closed Mon, cash only, indoor/outdoor seating on quiet square, a block south of Corso Vittorio Emanuele, down Largo del Chiavari to Largo del Pallaro 15, tel. 06-6880-1488).

Risa

---

Risa,

Let's go with this edited listing warning readers about the potentially uneven experience. This is what I should have written after this year's visit, but my judgment was clouded by happier visits in past years and wishful thinking:

Trattoria der Pallaro, an eccentric and well-worn eatery that has no menu, has a slogan: "Here, you'll eat what we want to feed you." Paola Fazi - with a towel wrapped around her head turban-style - and her gang dishes up a five-course meal of bland but typically Roman food for €25, including wine and coffee, and capped with a thimble of mandarin juice. While the service is odd and the food is forgettable, the experience can be fun (Tue-Sun 12:00-15:30 & 19:00-24:00, closed Mon, cash only, indoor/outdoor seating on quiet square, a block south of Corso Vittorio Emanuele, down Largo del Chiavari to Largo del Pallaro 15, tel. 06-6880-1488).

Rick

---

Rick,

We'll use this for reprints and the next edition. Thanks. Sounds like Pallaro is turning into a quirky experience like the Cimbraccola in Milano (run by Stefanini, with mediocre food, pins in the map, and imaginary mama in the kitchen). This write-up better reflects the experience our readers will have.

Risa

Posted by Rick Steves on October 23, 2009
Comments (31)

There's an exciting buzz among travelers and travel publishers about electronic books replacing paper ones. For those of us in travel publishing, this is a season of digital scrambling. And users' heads are spinning with all the new technological options: iPhone apps, books on phones, electronic books on Kindle (the Amazon electronic book reader), small books printed on command (like our popular new Snapshots series), Urbanspoon, and Yelp.

I've met lots of travelers in Europe enthusiastically toting Kindles. Some are obnoxiously evangelical about them. Others are not so happy. I just received this interesting email report from someone upset about traveling with an electronic “book.”

Dear Rick,

We made a huge mistake. We thought we could use the Kindle version of your Venice guidebook. Wrong! We just arrived and there is no way to use it as a guidebook while traveling. It is great reading, but not convenient to use while exploring. (That is a Kindle issue.) Is there someplace in Venice that carries your guidebook? Or, is there one of your people in Venice that we can get a copy of your book from? Please help.

- Charlie and Mary

I am pretty slow in all of this. And, while determined not to be a Luddite about the demise of paper, I recently invited one of my employees (who I thought was a bit over-enthusiastic about futuristic forms of travel information) into my office, pointed to the 30 different Rick Steves guidebooks lining my windowsill, and said, “This is what we do...paper guidebooks.”

I know the publishing world is changing very fast. I just like paper guidebooks. I've bumped into lots of people in Europe thrilled with their Kindles. While it is a brilliant innovation and certainly the future, at this point some find the technology still clunky for guidebooks.

I'd love to hear about your own thoughts and experiences in the Comments.

Posted by Rick Steves on October 21, 2009
Comments (51)

The world honors our president with its most prestigious award — the Nobel Peace Prize. And, somehow, many Americans find a way to twist it into a negative. I'm perplexed. For a decade I've prayed that our country could retake its position as a leader among nations. Suddenly, we're there. The ideals of our country are shining brightly, we have a leader who is credible and respected, and our country takes a giant leap in the listing of most admired nations. My work is so impacted by how America is perceived abroad, and my patriotism has had me lamenting how the brand of America was tarnished in the last decade. I'm not alone in this concern. I spent a day on Capitol Hill last year helping Bread for the World lobby for aid for hungry people. As they needed Republican votes, they basically found out which of those Members of Congress enjoyed European travel, and had me going from office to office talking travel and segueing from there to developmental aid.

During my visits on Capitol Hill, I kept hearing two concepts: the emerging importance of “soft power” and the need to polish the tarnished “brand of America.” Republicans I met were talking about how waging “soft power” (helping people with our brains and hearts) could actually be more cost-effective for our national interest than waging “hard power” (forcing things with our muscles). And they were lamenting how the sorry state of “the brand of America” was threatening our economy.

So now we have a man who, less than a year into his presidency, is doing all he can to wage soft power and polish the brand of America. And the world applauds us the best way it knows how, as it essentially says, “Lead us, and we will follow.” Yet our president practically needs to apologize for the honor of that award here at home.

I was ready to collect my thoughts on this for a blog entry, and I stumbled on a great editorial in the New York Times by Bono dealing exactly with this topic from a European point of view. Much as I hate to give up my bully blog pulpit, I find Bono brilliant and must simply offer you his words on this timely topic. Here's Bono:

Rebranding America (by Bono, from NY Times, Oct 18, 2009)

A few years ago, I accepted a Golden Globe award by barking out an expletive. One imagines President Obama did the same when he heard about his Nobel, and not out of excitement.

When Mr. Obama takes the stage at Oslo City Hall this December, he won't be the first sitting president to receive the peace prize, but he might be the most controversial. There's a sense in some quarters of these not-so-United States that Norway, Europe and the World haven't a clue about the real President Obama; instead, they fixate on a fantasy version of the president, a projection of what they hope and wish he is, and what they wish America to be.

Well, I happen to be European, and I can project with the best of them. So here's why I think the virtual Obama is the real Obama, and why I think the man might deserve the hype. It starts with a quotation from a speech he gave at the United Nations last month: "We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year's summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time." They're not my words, they're your president's. If they're not familiar, it's because they didn't make many headlines. But for me, these 36 words are why I believe Mr. Obama could well be a force for peace and prosperity — if the words signal action.

The millennium goals, for those of you who don't know, are a persistent nag of a noble, global compact. They're a set of commitments we all made nine years ago whose goal is to halve extreme poverty by 2015. Barack Obama wasn't there in 2000, but he's there now. Indeed he's gone further — all the way, in fact. Halve it, he says, then end it.

Many have spoken about the need for a rebranding of America. Rebrand, restart, reboot. In my view these 36 words, alongside the administration's approach to fighting nuclear proliferation and climate change, improving relations in the Middle East and, by the way, creating jobs and providing health care at home, are rebranding in action.

These new steps — and those 36 words — remind the world that America is not just a country but an idea, a great idea about opportunity for all and responsibility to your fellow man. All right ... I don't speak for the rest of the world. Sometimes I think I do — but as my bandmates will quickly (and loudly) point out, I don't even speak for one small group of four musicians. But I will venture to say that in the farthest corners of the globe, the president's words are more than a pop song people want to hear on the radio. They are lifelines.

In dangerous, clangorous times, the idea of America rings like a bell (see King, M. L., Jr., and Dylan, Bob). It hits a high note and sustains it without wearing on your nerves. (If only we all could.) This was the melody line of the Marshall Plan and it's resonating again. Why? Because the world sees that America might just hold the keys to solving the three greatest threats we face on this planet: extreme poverty, extreme ideology and extreme climate change. The world senses that America, with renewed global support, might be better placed to defeat this axis of extremism with a new model of foreign policy.

It is a strangely unsettling feeling to realize that the largest Navy, the fastest Air Force, the fittest strike force, cannot fully protect us from the ghost that is terrorism .... Asymmetry is the key word from Kabul to Gaza .... Might is not right.

I think back to a phone call I got a couple of years ago from Gen. James Jones. At the time, he was retiring from the top job at NATO; the idea of a President Obama was a wild flight of the imagination.

General Jones was curious about the work many of us were doing in economic development, and how smarter aid — embodied in initiatives like President George W. Bush's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief and the Millennium Challenge Corporation — was beginning to save lives and change the game for many countries. Remember, this was a moment when America couldn't get its cigarette lighted in polite European nations like Norway; but even then, in the developing world, the United States was still seen as a positive, even transformative, presence.

In an asymmetrical war, he said, the emphasis had to be on making American foreign policy conform to that formula.

Enter Barack Obama.

If that last line still seems like a joke to you ... it may not for long. Mr. Obama has put together a team of people who believe in this equation. That includes the general himself, now at the National Security Council; the vice president, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; the Republican defense secretary; and a secretary of state, someone with a long record of championing the cause of women and girls living in poverty, who is now determined to revolutionize health and agriculture for the world's poor. And it looks like the bipartisan coalition in Congress that accomplished so much in global development over the past eight years is still holding amid rancor on pretty much everything else. From a development perspective, you couldn't dream up a better dream team to pursue peace in this way, to rebrand America.

The president said that he considered the peace prize a call to action. And in the fight against extreme poverty, it's action, not intentions, that counts. That stirring sentence he uttered last month will ring hollow unless he returns to next year's United Nations summit meeting with a meaningful, inclusive plan, one that gets results for the billion or more people living on less than $1 a day. Difficult. Very difficult. But doable.

The Nobel Peace Prize is the rest of the world saying, "Don't blow it."

But that's not just directed at Mr. Obama. It's directed at all of us. What the president promised was a "global plan," not an American plan. The same is true on all the other issues that the Nobel committee cited, from nuclear disarmament to climate change — none of these things will yield to unilateral approaches. They'll take international cooperation and American leadership. The president has set himself, and the rest of us, no small task.

That's why America shouldn't turn up its national nose at popularity contests. In the same week that Mr. Obama won the Nobel, the United States was ranked as the most admired country in the world, leapfrogging from seventh to the top of the Nation Brands Index survey — the biggest jump any country has ever made. Like the Nobel, this can be written off as meaningless ... a measure of Mr. Obama's celebrity (and we know what people think of celebrities).

But an America that's tired of being the world's policeman, and is too pinched to be the world's philanthropist, could still be the world's partner. And you can't do that without being, well, loved. Here come the letters to the editor, but let me just say it: Americans are like singers — we just a little bit, kind of like to be loved. The British want to be admired; the Russians, feared; the French, envied. (The Irish, we just want to be listened to.) But the idea of America, from the very start, was supposed to be contagious enough to sweep up and enthrall the world. And it is. The world wants to believe in America again because the world needs to believe in America again. We need your ideas — your idea — at a time when the rest of the world is running out of them.

(Bono is the lead singer of the band U2 and a co-founder of the advocacy group ONE.)

Posted by Rick Steves on October 18, 2009
Comments (47)

Last year we traveled together via this blog through Iran. That experience inspired me to write my Travel as a Political Act book. And since then, my life has been enriched by lots of connections with people who care about peace with the Muslim world. For instance, two nights ago I shared a stage at Seattle's Town Hall with Gina Salá, an amazing musician who bridges cultures in her music (www.ginasala.com) at a fundraiser for the Voices Education Project. With both music and travelogue, Gina and I helped bring the world to Seattle.

Yesterday I got a fun surprise: The Society of American Travel Writers awarded Rick Steves' Iran with the Gold Medal in the “Special Package/Project” category. While there was a “Travel Broadcast Video” category, the Society decided to award our Iran program not just on the show itself, but on the way we used many multimedia components to engage with the viewers: our related radio interviews, newspaper columns, website, vodcasts, online discussion boards, the $5 Iran DVD for groups initiative (in which we sent the DVD to over 7,000 community groups), the printed Iran journal, and my lectures across the country. Our hope to humanize a country of 70 million people was selected for being a multimedia extravaganza! How exciting!

So many people worked very hard to make this campaign what it is. I am thankful to have such a great team to collaborate with. Here are the judges' official comments on our project:

Category 10: Special Package/Project Gold: Rick Steves, “Rick Steves' Iran: Yesterday and Today,” multimedia This is a gold winner for two reasons — the challenging subject and the extraordinary presentation across multiple media. Rick Steves takes us on this unusual journey with a public television special, radio program, Web site with audio, video, links and reader feedback, newspaper reports, day-by-day travel blog and color booklet.

While I generally go about my merry travel writing way without concerning myself with the world of other travel writers, I have great respect for the SATW and am honored to be recognized by them for our Iran project. Just last month, we made our Iran show into a pledge special that will be airing all over the USA this winter, giving the program new life and (we hope) further raising awareness of the struggles of good people living under a bad government.

It's interesting to see what other awards were given to America's many fine travel writers. Learn about this year's awards.

Posted by Rick Steves on October 13, 2009
Comments (13)

Previous entries >>