If traveling to experience other cultures can broaden one's horizon and overall human experience, why do some Americans insist that traveling within the US would be sufficient or hence no need to acquire a passport?
Well, I’ll never argue that Americans shouldn’t have passports (it is the best ID to have: it’s the only one that proves both your identity and your citizenship, since the US has no national ID card) but it is true that the US is huge (fourth largest country by area and third largest country by population) and it holds many different cultures. Traveling just within the US, a person can meet the Lakota, the Amish, Orthodox Jews who speak Yiddish as a vernacular, Cajuns who still speak French, the Texas Germans (their German has mostly died out, but there are revival efforts underway) and of course a huge Mexican American population (including some whose ancestors were in New Mexico when it was still Mexico). That’s not a comprehensive list (I couldn’t name all of the Native American/First Nations cultures if I had to) and it doesn’t include any of the recent immigrant populations. Want to meet Buddhists, Hindus, Vauduisants, Santeros, or Neopagans? They’re there. Want to find people who speak Arabic, Vietnamese, Russian, or Chinese? They’re there. It’s a huge and diverse country and, if you’re on a budget, it’s a hard country to leave. Sure, some people live close to the two land borders (and some people live in the island territories like Puerto Rico, the USVI, and Guam) and can easily leave, but if you live in Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Kentucky, or God-forbid someplace in the geographic center, it either takes an expensive plane ticket or a very long road trip to exit the US. The flight to Europe is long and expensive from the US Atlantic coast. The flight from the Pacific coast to east Asia is longer (and more expensive). I encourage everyone to travel whenever possible, as much as possible, and I encourage Americans to have a passport (even if they have no immediate travel plans) but it’s not always possible. (And remember: the US imprisons more people than any nation on earth, and some ex-felons cannot acquire a passport.)
Why do so many people hate Rolex and those who wear them?
Let’s look at the facts. 99% of people that are hating Rolex and those who wear them are jealous. Those are the same people that see a Rolex as a status symbol object but have not a single clue of what the actual product is.Those people are haters.What is there to hate about Rolex seriously? The fact that Rolex pioneered the first ever watch case with screw down crown, bezel, and caseback that offered water resistance and dust protection? Or the fact that they were the first brand to release a watch waterproof to 100m with the Submariner?Maybe it is the fact that Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay, well known for their first ascent of Mount Everest, were equipped with a Rolex watch? Or is it because the first watch to be tested at the CERN, the world’s biggest particle physics laboratory was the Rolex Milgauss? Or because Rolex is the only brand to produce watches that are guaranteed for five years with an accuracy ranging from -2 sec / +2 sec per day?I KNOW! It’s because of Roger Federer! Yeah, he’s such a bad guy! And the Rolex Hans Wilsdorf foundation, financing culture and students that can’t afford university. Horrible stuff as well! Let’s all hate on Rolex!I could go on forever like that.Of course no one has the obligation to like Rolex. But there’s nothing that could justify a feeling as strong as hate towards a brand like Rolex.It all comes down to jealousy. Jealousy from the success of Rolex and people that are able to afford one. And unfortunately, that’s just human nature.