Accepting Travel Annoyances or Changing Locations

Annoyances to Travelers and Tourists, and the need to accept some, tolerate a few, and move when needed.

There are people who are so annoyed with the USA, that anger seeps, leaks, and spills from every word they say, their anger at the USA defines them. They are known by what they hate, despise, and attack, it is what they aspire to be in life. It is common for many of these people, I would guess that 50-70 percent of the people who live abroad, to leave the USA because they are angry. Please do not think this was some type of noble anger, most of them are probably wanted by the law in the USA.


I apply this rule to situations:
"I need to accept the things I cannot change."
When they are just naive, or stupid,
I say to myself,
"Forgive them, they do not know what they are doing."

Unfortunately, I am human, and have a few angers that define me, and acceptance is always a challenge. The better option, it I will avoid annoyances when I am incapable of tolerance, or acceptance. But always, I am Andy Lee Graham, perpetual world traveler of 14 years, and 90 countries, and imperfect  human.

Yet, after visiting 90 countries on the planet, what I dream of most is what is best found inside the USA and fading fast away because of the PC people.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
- The phrase is meant to exemplify the "inalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and for the protection of which they institute governments.

This phrase by Thomas Jefferson has changed the world, for example, the word "Rights," is a constant, people in all countries demand their rights. Whether it is a right, or not, they make things a right, they use the words for marketing, it in a way, the word right challenges the words "Eco Tourism," as the leader in over-used marketing words.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I am in Guatemala presently, and just the other day, I read this about Santiago de Atitlan here on Lake Atitlan.

"In the indigenous village of Santiago Atitlan, Internet access has been declared “a human right” by both inhabitants and local authorities."

I instantly keyed in on the words "a human rights," this to me is an abuse of the word "Rights," it sounds as a bad as an American in Guatemala screaming,
"I have rights, I am American."
American really do this when abroad, even though they are in Guatemala, where they have no rights as an American, too funny.

I went over to Santiago, de Atitlan, they have one open signal in the parks... oops Woo Woo's with an agenda...

Church Noise and Dogs Annoy me on Lake Atitlan

I was discovered yesterday, a woman from the USA said,
"You are angry at missionaries."
"Yes, I hate them, they believe they have the right to do anything they want."
I probably should avoid this woman.

It is impossible to avoid tribes, or clubs, or groups of like minded people who believe they have the right to annoy me with noise. I would love to have Thomas Jefferson around to debate this issue for kicks, for laughs.

I believe all people have the right to respect, this means bums, drunks, girls of the night, loud, quiet, small, missionaries, NGO's, and fat Americans waddling around in pompous glory, oops, I forgot homosexuals.

Everyone deserves respect, and I demand they have respect for me... hehehe, even when they have not respect for me, I call this having boundaries. And the people who do not do this, I call wimps.

I am not going to keep my mouth shut, I will complain, I hope Tom J would agree with me, they did say also I have the right to freedom of speech also. I am sad, of all the cultures on the planet that deny me freedom to have an opinion, it is the American people who refuse to grant me the respect to think as I want, I am supposed to keep my mouth shut, and my opinions to myself.

What I truly enjoy about the Guatemalan people is their ability to tolerate, ignore, and shut out other people, they just go do what they do, and they do not attack.

I am a lucky man, I have a mobile household, if the dogs start to bark too much, or the church, and missionaries fail to respect me, and make too much noise, I can just move to another location.

There is nothing noble about wanting to change the world, it just means someone is angry, they need to change locations, or maybe try to accept people, and love people as they are, not as they want them to be. I am surrounded by people who came to Guatemala to change the people I love, please do not destroy this country. They are not poor people, when you want to change people, you believe you are superior to them.

Please do not destroy paradise.


By clicking on the "Subscribe to Comments" you will receive an email when members post new comments on this page

Having visited many countries and lived in a few one of the most important things I learned about rights when in another country is you have the right to be either intelligent or stupid.
Being intelligent is to learn what many call "menu language" which means to have a basic knowledge of the local culture, how to order food, count your money, a few well chosen words, phrases, etc. Carrying one of the many small travel translation books helps.
Doing a little research on line, smile, do not flash your ego, dress appropriately when necessary and at times knowing something of their laws, etc.
Common sense goes a long way in making friends, staying out of trouble and therefore enjoying life wherever you are.

I also discovered it is generally a good idea to avoid certain subjects such as politics, religion, cultural differences at least until you KNOW it is safe to do so. Part of common sense is to realize people of other nations generally are as patriotic and caring about their country as we are of ours and trying to convince them we are the greatest in the world is not the smartest thing you can do.

Bravo Andy! Yes we are losing the right of freedom of speech in the USA. We have the right to love and hate how ever we want but we can't voice our opinion about it for PCs sake. If I hate "Fags" (I better watch out for the PC police...) I should be able to say just that. Just because you have accepted homosexuality as a life choice and you have a few miscreant friends doesnt mean I can't say I dislike them while you sing their praises. I wonder what our Missionary friends think about it. In the OT Yahweh considers the gay folk "abominations" but in the NT His son says forgive them BUT don't accept them because if you do you are just as guilty as they are for performing perverted acts with members of the same gender...

The Apostle Paul wrote
"God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done."

Then he speaks about the PC folks...
"Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

So Andy I don't know how much longer you have to voice your non-PC opinions here but your finances might suffer from it. There are many battles being fought in the States over web neutrality but I see censors lining up on the horizon and Big Brother is already watching...even if your not Facebooked up.(although that will slow them down)What's next? Thought police?

So Andy just how much is it worth to you to tell everyone you hate homosexual dogs that go to church?

"The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls" -Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Hi Andy... After I wrote my last comment I started regretting a few words and discovered there is no way to edit a comment after posting it. Or am I missing something?

Well it is quite ironic that I would fall under the pressure of what others thought of my writings at the same time I am writing about freedom of speech and peer pressure.

So I will exercise my right to freedom of speech while I still can...

BTW FYI I do like your writing. It's sort of Dave Barryesque but without the humor. Lighten up! A little jocularity will buffer your hard core stuff and make for more enjoyable reading. But I don't want to tell you how to write but I WILL express my opinion... :)

Missionaries as problems? What bothers you really Andy? Do your feel that they pressure you to make changes in your life? Do they challenge you to live life differently. Maybe this is a good thing. Or, are they just tireless in engaging you in conversation and you feel overwhelmed by their continuous flow into and out of your life. Do they remind you of your brother?

Why hate missionaries? They are attempting to do a good thing and to be of service to others. Cut the missionaries some slack - take a breather Andy.

Freedom of Speech is being kicked to the curb around the globe....
WikiLeaks and Free Speech
Published: August 20, 2012
WE have spent our careers as filmmakers making the case that the news media in the United States often fail to inform Americans about the uglier actions of our own government. We therefore have been deeply grateful for the accomplishments of WikiLeaks, and applaud Ecuador’s decision to grant diplomatic asylum to its founder, Julian Assange, who is now living in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.
Enlarge This Image
Keith Negley
Ecuador has acted in accordance with important principles of international human rights. Indeed, nothing could demonstrate the appropriateness of Ecuador’s action more than the British government’s threat to violate a sacrosanct principle of diplomatic relations and invade the embassy to arrest Mr. Assange.
Since WikiLeaks’ founding, it has revealed the “Collateral Murder” footage that shows the seemingly indiscriminate killing of Baghdad civilians by a United States Apache attack helicopter further fine-grained detail about the true face of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars United States collusion with Yemen’s dictatorship to conceal our responsibility for bombing strikes there the Obama administration’s pressure on other nations not to prosecute Bush-era officials for torture and much more.
Predictably, the response from those who would prefer that Americans remain in the dark has been ferocious. Top elected leaders from both parties have called Mr. Assange a “high-tech terrorist.” And Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has demanded that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Most Americans, Britons and Swedes are unaware that Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime. Rather, it has issued a warrant for his arrest to question him about allegations of sexual assault in 2010.
All such allegations must be thoroughly investigated before Mr. Assange moves to a country that might put him beyond the reach of the Swedish justice system. But it is the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of an investigation, not Mr. Assange.
Swedish authorities have traveled to other countries to conduct interrogations when needed, and the WikiLeaks founder has made clear his willingness to be questioned in London. Moreover, the Ecuadorean government made a direct offer to Sweden to allow Mr. Assange to be interviewed within Ecuador’s embassy. In both instances, Sweden refused.
Mr. Assange has also committed to traveling to Sweden immediately if the Swedish government pledges that it will not extradite him to the United States. Swedish officials have shown no interest in exploring this proposal, and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt recently told a legal adviser to Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks unequivocally that Sweden would not make such a pledge. The British government would also have the right under the relevant treaty to prevent Mr. Assange’s extradition to the United States from Sweden, and has also refused to pledge that it would use this power. Ecuador’s attempts to facilitate that arrangement with both governments were rejected.
Taken together, the British and Swedish governments’ actions suggest to us that their real agenda is to get Mr. Assange to Sweden. Because of treaty and other considerations, he probably could be more easily extradited from there to the United States to face charges. Mr. Assange has every reason to fear such an outcome.The Justice Department recently confirmed that it was continuing to investigate WikiLeaks, and just-disclosed Australian government documents from this past February state that “the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr. Assange has been ongoing for more than a year.” WikiLeaks itself has published e-mails from Stratfor, a private intelligence corporation, which state that a grand jury has already returned a sealed indictment of Mr. Assange. And history indicates Sweden would buckle to any pressure from the United States to hand over Mr. Assange. In 2001 the Swedish government delivered two Egyptians seeking asylum to the C.I.A., which rendered them to the Mubarak regime, which tortured them.
If Mr. Assange is extradited to the United States, the consequences will reverberate for years around the world. Mr. Assange is not an American citizen, and none of his actions have taken place on American soil. If the United States can prosecute a journalist in these circumstances, the governments of Russia or China could, by the same logic, demand that foreign reporters anywhere on earth be extradited for violating their laws. The setting of such a precedent should deeply concern everyone, admirers of WikiLeaks or not.
We urge the people of Britain and Sweden to demand that their governments answer some basic questions: Why do the Swedish authorities refuse to question Mr. Assange in London? And why can neither government promise that Mr. Assange will not be extradited to the United States? The citizens of Britain and Sweden have a rare opportunity to make a stand for free speech on behalf of the entire globe.
Michael Moore and Oliver Stone are Academy Award-winning filmmakers.

For any who may reply directly or indirectly to whatever I may say, in general my right is to reply or not. I will basically ignore those who digress from the original subject and those I probably disagree with. I feel it is a waste of time to attempt to discuss any subject with someone who has mind set different from mine. Why bother as neither of us are going to change. Andy has written a couple things I disagree with so I do not bother to post anything about the subject and as for a few others I also will always ignore.

As for freedom of speech it is not always so in many other countries. I may disagree with various cultural and legal differences but I will do my best to respect their ways as I am the foreigner. I have often seen the worst of the "ugly American, Canadian, German, Japanese, etc" in my travels and I do my best to avoid them.
Free speech may be a right in this country but if anyone should visit my abode and use profanity, vulgar language around my family they would be asked to go away or worse.
Keep in mind those of other nations could care less about our rights they have their own laws and culture (many over 1,2 and 4 thousand years old).

Religion is good for those who want it, need it, believe in it but I do not want anyone telling me I need it or it is what is good for me.
I was brought up a Christian and attended a parochial elementary school and even a Jesuit University for 1 semester. I have studied the Bibles, Koran and other religions. Very interesting history lessons at best. I consider religion as an invention of man to explain that which is unexplainable based on faith.

I now and have for many years considered myself a "Philosophical Buddhist" not a religious one.

One more time, Nabashalam stay on topic or go somewhere else to post your comments.

to Leave a Comment or