Which country do you want to visit absolutely?

[JackFrost]

Now, this is only basic racial diversity. As for cultural diversity, there isn't much aside from Mexican, American and several very small minority groups. And take into account that California is the most populous state in the country... Winnipeg has much more cultural diversity than SoCal does, for example. There are so many cultures there - French, Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, German, Filipino, Spanish, etc, so many languages spoken - Native languages, European languages, Asian languages, African languages, so many recent immigrants from India, China, and even quite a few from Europe.

Hmm...today a lawyer told me that interpreters for over 40 different languages are used on a weekly basis in Southern Californian courts - this figure is up to 20 languages on a daily basis. There's much more to the situation than you would like to see here...

Of course, cause SoCal has like..what..20 million people? But out of that 20 million, how many speak sth besides English or Spanish as their native tongue?

Over 37 million actually.

Languages...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#Languages

As of 2000, 60.5% of California residents age five and older speak only English at home. In addition to any other language that may be spoken (such as English), 25.8% speak Spanish, 2.6% speak Chinese, and 2.0% speak Tagalog.[16] Over 200 languages are known to be spoken and read in California. Including indigenous languages, California is viewed as one of the most linguistically diverse areas in the world (the indigenous languages were derived from 64 root languages in 6 language families).[17] About half of the indigenous languages are no longer spoken, and all of California's living indigenous languages are endangered, although there are now some efforts toward language revitalization.

[Sisyphe]

What do you suspect, Sisyphe, from all he writes here on the forum he seems to live in a basement and hardly to go out of there

We don't have basements here. That isn't practical when you live on the San Andreas fault...

And you live practically on it too. :/


Jack responded to you, so I don't feel so much of an obligation to show you how multicultural California is. But personally, I didn't decide to learn (or to try to learn) Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Persian, Armenian, etc. particularly because I couldn't use them, but because there are extensive communities within our own which operate primarily by using these languages.

[Boself]

I was just kidding around with the eco-terrorist and tax remarks. I'm not against most of them (taxes) you have on the Continent. Keep in mind I have socialist tendences. But it would be a nice idea to do that to "cheap" airlines...to make them pay for the pollution they cause with some kind of "green tax" levied on the flyers (or the airlines...although they'll just shift the cost to the flyers). However I find it very temping to try them out, but the cost benefits would strink because the airports are often far from the city center and the cost of train or bus would make the cheap plane ticket moot when compared to just taking the train only (I researched a lot when I was planning to go to Germany last winter, but canceled). And I heard some bad reviews about them, so it's unlikely I'll use them.

I rarely use the plane because they're too expensive for me. I would only take them for a very long distance where the bus or train or car would take quite more a day to reach. Last time I used the plane is when I was 12 years old and it was going to Florida from Pennsylvania.

Glad we're clear on this now about the trans-oceanian and trans-continential flights.

Cool, I'd say hitchhike your way through Europe if you have lots of time and want to cover a decent, but not too large area (and if your company isn't too numerous). Road trips rock and they are synonym for adventure!
To make your journey easy, say you're from Canada And if you pass through Belgium, stop by a local fries-stand! (Fries+mayo)

[Oleksij]

Planes are expensive in Europe, so it's highly unlikely I'll fly within Europe. I prefer taking a train or carpool. Cheaper that way.

That's not quite true, there are low-cost airlines like Ryanair and Sky Europe, but their services are rather horrible. Besides, who would not want to go through Europe by car?

[Zorba]

"Let's tackle industry first": this means you are simply cutting branches instead of solving the problem by it's root.

The problem is not going to be easy to tackle. If we extend your tree metaphor a little further , no-one is realistically going to agree that the entire tree of industrialisation and modern living can be felled.

People have gained too much from modern conveniences to be willing to sacrifice all of them and return to living in a pre-industrial society. Any government that tried to tackle the problem at its root, would involve creating a pre-industrial society by closing all the factories, switching off the power plants and removing all the cars and airports, would lead to instant revolt and civil war. Millions of people would try to emigrate to the nearest industrialised country.

In fact, 'tackling the problem at its root' may involve attempting to change human nature itself, since many human societies show evidence of striving toward 'progress' and controlling the natural world.

So, if we have to reject this Utopian solution, we are only left with the possibilities of deading with the tree of industrialisation bud by bud, branch by branch. It's partly the job of educators to raise awareness about the environment among the public, partly the job of business to be responsible, partly the job of the government to set targets and taxes that wil promote sustainable development. International organisations will need to be involved too.

I am, as you say, in favour of increased air taxes, as well as drastic investment in the British public transport system. Unfortunately this will have the detrimental effect of making air travel less 'democratic', I have never denied that.

What I was indicating about the democracy of air travel was that the arguments about 'Aren't the budget airlines doing awful damage to the environment?' are often made by rich people who drive a SUV, travel abroad and have gained money from the capitalist/industrial sector. There is undoubtedly an element of snobbery in these condemnations, especially since Ryanair run a fairly environmentally-friendly fleet and Easyjet have been already been active in raising awareness about the environmental cost of flying.

The liberal elite are often well-intentioned, but they do have their own blind spots and bias, just like everybody else. Many of them are completely unaware that the high standard of living that they enjoy depends on the success of the capitalism and the complex economic systems of globalisation.

Sorry if I seem particularly harsh on this group of people, but to be honest I am sick of hearing people scream all about the need for 'activism' and protesting about Easyjet or Tony Blair or the oil industry before going back to their central-heated detached houses in Daddy's Mercedes. 'Activism' should begin at home, with simple things like cycling to work instead of driving, buying local produce rather than imports, and re-using the same plastic bag for your shopping. You're more likely to make a difference doing these simple things than campaigning for global change.

It is obvious that perhaps now the common and rich Western man can travel by plane. But the common African can't... you exclude Africans, Asians, etc, just like "the common man" in the West was excluded 50 years ago.

Again, it would be nice if there was world equality and people in developing countries enjoyeed the standard of living that we do in the West. This goal has proved elusive whether one adopts a capitalist, social democratic, Communist or anarchist approach to international development. Indeed, Marxist Angola seems to have fared rather worse than capitalist Botswana.

How can we create sustainable development in these countries, so that they might be able to enjoy so much of what we take for granted in the West? I admire those who propose a mass redistribution of wealth from the developed to the developing world, but I can't see how it can work in practice. A Western government that pledged, say 50% of their GDP to an African country, would quickly lose popularity with its public and again they will lose the election or else have to establish an unpopular autocratic regime, which will lead to Civil War.

Again, it has to be about a slow, steady approach to development and redistribution. Again, it will involve work of educators, governments, international organisations and NGO's. Personally, I can't see any way towards development that doesn't include the use of responsible capitalism, globalisation and the market, but maybe I've been brainwashed by my own evil Western system. Let me know if you have any ideas about how this might be done.

[Boself]

The problem is not going to be easy to tackle. If we extend your tree metaphor a little further , no-one is realistically going to agree that the entire tree of industrialisation and modern living can be felled.

People have gained too much from modern conveniences to be willing to sacrifice all of them and return to living in a pre-industrial society. Any government that tried to tackle the problem at its root, would involve creating a pre-industrial society by closing all the factories, switching off the power plants and removing all the cars and airports, would lead to instant revolt and civil war. Millions of people would try to emigrate to the nearest industrialised country.

In fact, 'tackling the problem at its root' may involve attempting to change human nature itself, since many human societies show evidence of striving toward 'progress' and controlling the natural world.

So, if we have to reject this Utopian solution, we are only left with the possibilities of deading with the tree of industrialisation bud by bud, branch by branch. It's partly the job of educators to raise awareness about the environment among the public, partly the job of business to be responsible, partly the job of the government to set targets and taxes that wil promote sustainable development. International organisations will need to be involved too.

I am, as you say, in favour of increased air taxes, as well as drastic investment in the British public transport system. Unfortunately this will have the detrimental effect of making air travel less 'democratic', I have never denied that.

What I was indicating about the democracy of air travel was that the arguments about 'Aren't the budget airlines doing awful damage to the environment?' are often made by rich people who drive a SUV, travel abroad and have gained money from the capitalist/industrial sector. There is undoubtedly an element of snobbery in these condemnations, especially since Ryanair run a fairly environmentally-friendly fleet and Easyjet have been already been active in raising awareness about the environmental cost of flying.

The liberal elite are often well-intentioned, but they do have their own blind spots and bias, just like everybody else. Many of them are completely unaware that the high standard of living that they enjoy depends on the success of the capitalism and the complex economic systems of globalisation.

Sorry if I seem particularly harsh on this group of people, but to be honest I am sick of hearing people scream all about the need for 'activism' and protesting about Easyjet or Tony Blair or the oil industry before going back to their central-heated detached houses in Daddy's Mercedes. 'Activism' should begin at home, with simple things like cycling to work instead of driving, buying local produce rather than imports, and re-using the same plastic bag for your shopping. You're more likely to make a difference doing these simple things than campaigning for global change.

I wasn't clear about my metaphor. The root that needs to be tackled is the 'individual preferences' (in economical terms). If you socialize people with 'environmental sustainability' values, and have them internalize these (in sociological terms), than you won't need to cut branches. You might want to tackle the branch of automobile use, by raising taxes on gasoline by 50%. This would reduce the use of cars, but it's only a temporary solution. A durable solution is to socialize people: "What is a responsible use of a car; What is a responsable way of tackling our transport problem?". Socializing people with the right values is the key.

I notice a bit of a standard criticism on ecology (/green parties) in your post. I essentially say we need to change our lives, but that doesn't mean we need to go back to prehistoric times and live like cavemen. We need to adopt another way of life, a more responsable way of life.

Again, it would be nice if there was world equality and people in developing countries enjoyeed the standard of living that we do in the West. This goal has proved elusive whether one adopts a capitalist, social democratic, Communist or anarchist approach to international development. Indeed, Marxist Angola seems to have fared rather worse than capitalist Botswana.

It would need to be a very different standard of living, that is for sure.

How can we create sustainable development in these countries, so that they might be able to enjoy so much of what we take for granted in the West? I admire those who propose a mass redistribution of wealth from the developed to the developing world, but I can't see how it can work in practice. A Western government that pledged, say 50% of their GDP to an African country, would quickly lose popularity with its public and again they will lose the election or else have to establish an unpopular autocratic regime, which will lead to Civil War.

Again, it has to be about a slow, steady approach to development and redistribution. Again, it will involve work of educators, governments, international organisations and NGO's. Personally, I can't see any way towards development that doesn't include the use of responsible capitalism, globalisation and the market, but maybe I've been brainwashed by my own evil Western system. Let me know if you have any ideas about how this might be done.

The development question is something totally different. The school of sustainable development tries to address, both the issue of development and the issue of sustainability. It's a very complex matter and I don't know how it should be done, if it can be done.
My point was however, that you as a liberal are faced with a huge dilemma. You can't reject the idea of equality of a global scale. You also (desperatly?) cling on to 'rights' citizens have in Western societies (e.g. the right to make use of global commons without bearing any responsability). These rights are however only rights on a national (or better Western) level. Once we go to a global level, the true nature of these rights is exposed, they are in fact oligarchic priviliges. So your's is the choice: Are all humans equal? Or do you prefere to be able to continue our current priviliged lifestyle? "The right answer" doesn't really exist, the only certainty is that you can't have both

[JackFrost]

I was just kidding around with the eco-terrorist and tax remarks. I'm not against most of them (taxes) you have on the Continent. Keep in mind I have socialist tendences. But it would be a nice idea to do that to "cheap" airlines...to make them pay for the pollution they cause with some kind of "green tax" levied on the flyers (or the airlines...although they'll just shift the cost to the flyers). However I find it very temping to try them out, but the cost benefits would strink because the airports are often far from the city center and the cost of train or bus would make the cheap plane ticket moot when compared to just taking the train only (I researched a lot when I was planning to go to Germany last winter, but canceled). And I heard some bad reviews about them, so it's unlikely I'll use them.

I rarely use the plane because they're too expensive for me. I would only take them for a very long distance where the bus or train or car would take quite more a day to reach. Last time I used the plane is when I was 12 years old and it was going to Florida from Pennsylvania.

Glad we're clear on this now about the trans-oceanian and trans-continential flights.

Cool, I'd say hitchhike your way through Europe if you have lots of time and want to cover a decent, but not too large area (and if your company isn't too numerous). Road trips rock and they are synonym for adventure!
To make your journey easy, say you're from Canada And if you pass through Belgium, stop by a local fries-stand! (Fries+mayo)

Hitchhiking, carpooling, and trains are core parts of my eurotrip in the future.

A little off-topic, but there is a fries place in Montreal serving à la belgique (with mayo sauce). http://www.fritealors.com/ They're just absolutely delicious, though they could serve more sauce than just a small cup... for a big basket of fries. Of course, I'll have to be in Belgium first to see if the taste is authentic. Afterall...Belgium is on my travel wishlist.

say you're from Canada

Erm...my nationality is American. I just happen to live in Canada sometimes for my Canadian boyfriend and school (now it's summer holidays).

Planes are expensive in Europe, so it's highly unlikely I'll fly within Europe. I prefer taking a train or carpool. Cheaper that way.

That's not quite true, there are low-cost airlines like Ryanair and Sky Europe, but their services are rather horrible. Besides, who would not want to go through Europe by car?

I did mention the bad reviews from them...and as well as airports being too far from city centres.

[Gormur]

Over 37 million actually.

Languages...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#Languages

As of 2000, 60.5% of California residents age five and older speak only English at home. In addition to any other language that may be spoken (such as English), 25.8% speak Spanish, 2.6% speak Chinese, and 2.0% speak Tagalog.[16] Over 200 languages are known to be spoken and read in California. Including indigenous languages, California is viewed as one of the most linguistically diverse areas in the world (the indigenous languages were derived from 64 root languages in 6 language families).[17] About half of the indigenous languages are no longer spoken, and all of California's living indigenous languages are endangered, although there are now some efforts toward language revitalization.

So that is diverse to you? So less than 2% of the population speak other languages besides those mentioned...that isn't much. That's about what I had thought it was.

[Gormur]

Here's Winnipeg's list. You can decide for yourself which is more linguistically-diverse...I'm not good at Math.

The most common languages spoken by Winnipeggers are:

Languages spoken

English (99.0%)
French (11.1%)
German (4.1%)
Tagalog (3.8%)
Ukrainian (3.1%)
Spanish (1.7%)
Chinese (1.7%)
Polish (1.7%)
Portuguese (1.3%)
Italian (1.1%)
Punjabi (1.0%)
Vietnamese (0.6%)
Ojibway (0.6%)
Hindi (0.5%)
Russian (0.5%)
Cree (0.5%)
Dutch (0.4%)
Non verbal languages (0.3%)
Arabic (0.3%)
Croatian (0.3%)
Greek (0.3%)
Hungarian (0.3%)
Japanese (0.2%)
Creoles (0.1%)
Danish (0.1%)
Gaelic languages (0.0%)
Inuktitut (0.0%)
Micmac (0.0%).


In terms of Canada's official languages: 88.0% spoke English only, 11.0% both English and French, 0.9% neither English nor French, and 0.1% French only.

Source: Statistics Canada (Census 2001)[12]
Source: Winnipeg 2001 census summary[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg#Demographics

[Zorba]

Socializing people with the right values is the key.

Who decides what the 'right' values are? Do we need to choose our educators according to their political beliefs - if they aren't left-wing environmentalists, then they can't teach? Do we root out and sack teachers who don't conform to these values? How do we counter protests against ideological bias and freedom of speech? This would require new laws which limit freedom of expression. How far should these be taken? Should people be sacked/fined/imprisoned for not having the 'right' ideological stance?

What happens if the new educators fail in their roles and the new generation revolts?

I notice a bit of a standard criticism on ecology (/green parties) in your post. I essentially say we need to change our lives, but that doesn't mean we need to go back to prehistoric times and live like cavemen. We need to adopt another way of life, a more responsable way of life.

I agree that people need to act more responsibly. I don't know how much it is possible to change people's lives, to go 'back in time', or how much it is necessary to do this for the long-term environmental future of the planet.

Being ignorant of these things, I think that it is best to begin at home and do small things to protect the environment rather than try and address big questions.

Are all humans equal? Or do you prefere to be able to continue our current priviliged lifestyle?

This is a massive philosophical question, but I think what we have realised is that there are no clear solutions to it.

Utopian attempts to make 'all humans equal' have failed. They ultimately end up producing new elites and they often create more restrictive societies than those they destroy. There is no clear alternative to capitalism and inequality will probably always exist at some level, seeing humankind is wicked, prone to conceit, vanity and arrogance. (You can see this in theological terms of 'original sin' or in biological terms of a 'selfish gene'). So the 'Right' have won this argument.

It is also clear that there is a moral imperative that a human life is worth the same, whether that is a man in Denmark, a woman in Malawi or a transsexual in Iran. Again, various theological/cultural/biological explanations can be put forward for this ("Love thy neighbour", "Man is naturally gregarious" etc. etc.) It is largely accepted that racist theories about the superiority of some people are disproven; most modern states have some kind of wealth redistribution programme; most developed states give aid in some form. The 'Left' has won this argument.

In short, we now know everyone should be equal. But we live in a world that is possibly more unequal than ever before. I believe that we should be focusing on ways of squaring the equation, making our fallen world as fair a place as possible, through political and non-governmental institutions etc. etc., rather than revamping all of Western philosophy and bringing the fires of revolution to all Western governments.

But this conversation in no way answers the question "Which country do you want to visit absolutely?"

Erm...my nationality is American.

I can understand why Boself tells you to say you're from Canada. Lots of Americans who live here say that because it spares them a lot of hassle. If you say you're American, expect to be questioned and held accountable for the actions President Bush and the Iraq War, even if you don't agree with either of them. Even in UK and Ireland, by far the most pro-American countries in Western Europe, there is spreading knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

That said, you shouldn't be ashamed of who you are. It's important to show Europe that there are lots of educated Americans like yourself wandering about.

[JackFrost]

Sorry I missed some posts that involved me.

Boself: Cool. Then I must be an eco-terrorist according to your definitions.

How am I going to cross the Atlantic...swim?

Well, Boself didn't actually mention terrorism...

I was just kidding around.

I just wanted to see what he has to say about travels that would take days if you don't use the plane...when a plane can do it in about 24 hours.

And when did the USA banish the income tax, huh ?

Again...kidding.

How am I going to cross the Atlantic...swim? Planes are expensive in Europe, so it's highly unlikely I'll fly within Europe. I prefer taking a train or carpool. Cheaper that way.

See my posting above, you might well find out that the cheapest way to get around is booking Ryanair tickets...

Erm, a Ryanair across the Atlantic? From Canada/USA to Europe?

Here's Winnipeg's list. You can decide for yourself which is more linguistically-diverse...I'm not good at Math.

No...English is only spoken by 99% of the population...not 60%.

I can understand why Boself tells you to say you're from Canada. Lots of Americans who live here say that because it spares them a lot of hassle. If you say you're American, expect to be questioned and held accountable for the actions President Bush and the Iraq War, even if you don't agree with either of them. Even in UK and Ireland, by far the most pro-American countries in Western Europe, there is spreading knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

That said, you shouldn't be ashamed of who you are. It's important to show Europe that there are lots of educated Americans like yourself wandering about.

I am not proud of some actions what my country's government has done in history, but that doesn't change my pride for my country very much. I don't hold against the people for the actions of the government. All we could do...is scream "why did we elect them?" for the rest of our lives.

Actually, so far I have been fortunate to receive very good experience from the Canadians during my stay there. No questioning about Iraq...no questioning about the actions of my country... Usually just "Oh, you're American? That's nice...I had some nice trips down there.". And for other nationalities I met when they were traveling in the USA and Canada...same situation, positive experience and a lot of talks about cultural differences and languages. And then we often just move on to another subject. I may talk a lot of politics here, but I rarely do so in real life...except with my boyfriend.

Ugh...I think I'm way too off-topic (I say that way too much...it's too addicting...)

[Zorba]

@JackFrost

It's great that you can maintain a sense of your own national identity. I must say that I personally don't like the word 'pride' in this context, because it has always seemed odd to me to be proud of something you can't change, like your nationality, your sexuality or the colour of your skin. But nonetheless it is good to have a reasoned sense of respect for your country's achievements as well as its faults.

James Baldwin put it beautifully when he said "I love America so much that I must insist on the right to criticise her perpetually".

I'd say that you'll have to take some stick for being American around your tour of Europe, but it shouldn't amount to anything too serious other than a bit of ribbing. And you probably don't want to get to know people who judge you because of your nationality anyway.

There are lots of cheap options for travelling within Europe by air and I suspect that is what nighean meant. Of course a combination of hitch-hiking and trains can be a very rewarding way of travelling, but if you are going to fly any distance, it is worthwhile checking prices on www.ryanair.com and www.easyjet.com. They get a lot of bad press, but in terms of value for money they are really excellent. For example, a one way flight from Berlin to Belfast (2 hours) can be as little as $50.

Talking of which, aren't you coming to see us up in UK/Ireland during your European tour? I hear there's a free guided tour of the historic town of Oxford on offer...

[ctoncc]

I've heard this a lot - telling people you are from Canada instead of the US when in Europe - but I've been there several times and have never been given a hard time when I say I'm from the US. I've only experienced polite interest and then they usually relate some place they have been in the US(almost always Florida - which I just don't understand why). I think you chance missing out on some good conversations if you just lie and say you're from Canada.


By the way the next country that I absolutely want to visit - Russia.

[JackFrost]

Maybe pride is not the right word, but you get what I mean to say. I'm stuck being American...even I become Canadian and live in Canada all of my life (immigration is my goal for this fall or winter)...I'll be still be stuck with an American mentality alongside with an adopted Canadian one.

Personally, I think planes skip too much landscapes that I could experience from trains and hitchhiking/carpooling. So I would prefer to avoid it as much as I can. I am poor...I doubt I could visit many countries at once with a budget of, let's say $2000 (including plane ticket), so I will simply pick two or three countries that border each other. I have a whole life to see everything, so my first eurotrip in the future will not be my only one. So I will live on bare dollars...living in hostels, using tents to sleep on campgrounds, take carpools, using student discount on trains (perhaps a multi-countries rail pass as well), buying cheap foods from supermarkets...like pastas (instead of restaurants and cafés all the time), and etc. My boyfriend did spend a month in an exchange in Berlin last January and lived on just $1500CND. With the help of his host, he was able to visit some German cities like Dresden, Munich, and few small cities, a quick half-hour drive into Poland, a day in Salzburg, and several hours in Amsterdam (his plane from Canada had to make a stop there). The rest of his expenses had to go for food and gifts.

Plus, there is an extremely flexable company for independent traveling students...letting us use their transportation to major cities all over Europe by purchasing a region, and we can leave anytime we want...even it takes a month to visit all nine cities. The cost just nearly made me faint...to have transportation to 11 cities to be only $640CND. I could start anywhere. I could finish anywhere. No time-limit (meaning I can leave whatever I am ready). So I am going to take this chance, since I am a very independent person and I hate tours...I don't want to go to some museum or attraction that i would have no interest in. Oh, to see what I am talking about... http://www.travelcuts.com/en/08%20Hot%2 ... p#explorer

And it's kind of you to offer me a tour in Oxford. It's a rarity for people to debate with an Oxford University student. I do want to visit the UK for sure. My some of my ancestors were from Wales and I would like to follow my great-grandmother and grandfather's footsteps to explore the Welsh mountains and green valleys. Scotland is another in my list. And then of course, England...I can't miss London. But I'm afraid it will be unlikely I'll include the UK in my first tour. I do like the UK, but I feel several countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden, and few others should be checked out before seeing the UK and Ireland.

[Oachkatzlschwoaf]

I would really like to visit Croatia. Dubrovnik seems as if it's one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

On the topic above:

I can relate, basically I currently live in the United States, but I was born in Mexico to immigrant parents from Spain and France. I suppose I'm technically Mexican, but it's so much easier especially in the United States (because of attitudes towards Mexicans) to just tell people I'm European (more specifically Spanish), since I can get away with it.

[JackFrost]

I would really like to visit Croatia. Dubrovnik seems as if it's one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

On the topic above:

I can relate, basically I currently live in the United States, but I was born in Mexico to immigrant parents from Spain and France. I suppose I'm technically Mexican, but it's so much easier especially in the United States (because of attitudes towards Mexicans) to just tell people I'm European (more specifically Spanish), since I can get away with it.

Do you hold a Mexican citizenship though?

[Gormur]

Here's Winnipeg's list. You can decide for yourself which is more linguistically-diverse...I'm not good at Math.

No...English is only spoken by 99% of the population...not 60%.

So what does that prove? I'll use your words: don't pretend to be stupid. I mean, 11% of the population have French as a first language and they are included in that 99%. It isn't 99% native English-speaking. Duhhh.

[Oachkatzlschwoaf]

I would really like to visit Croatia. Dubrovnik seems as if it's one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

On the topic above:

I can relate, basically I currently live in the United States, but I was born in Mexico to immigrant parents from Spain and France. I suppose I'm technically Mexican, but it's so much easier especially in the United States (because of attitudes towards Mexicans) to just tell people I'm European (more specifically Spanish), since I can get away with it.

Do you hold a Mexican citizenship though?

Currently only Mexican, but in about a year or so I should have dual American/Mexican.

[nighean-neonach]

How am I going to cross the Atlantic...swim? Planes are expensive in Europe, so it's highly unlikely I'll fly within Europe. I prefer taking a train or carpool. Cheaper that way.

See my posting above, you might well find out that the cheapest way to get around is booking Ryanair tickets...

Erm, a Ryanair across the Atlantic? From Canada/USA to Europe?

You had mentioned flying within Europe

And yes, you're right, there are far too many interesting landscapes and it would be a shame to fly across them.

By the way, if you come to Germany, just tell me, I'll be glad to help you (if I'm not in Scotland at that particular time, which happens quite often, especially during the summer when it's far too hot here ).

[Anesthesia]

Chile, Nepal, Norway (fjords), Russia, many countries in Asia....