Leaderboard

During the past several months, several threads have discussed negative changes in connection with visiting Brazil. Crime and inflation were the most important items. However, last night when I went to the airport to catch my flight home from Brazil, I checked in at my airline and got a boarding pass. Note that Americans cannot check in on line in Brazil. After obtaining my boarding pass, I walked toward the security point. As I got closer to the security access point, I noticed long disorganized lines of people blocking access to security. This was odd, especially for an early Thursday evening. The disorganized lines backed up into the corridor of the airport. The lines moved slowly. Finally, after almost one hour, I was able to see the actual security area where passengers place their carry on luggage then pass through a metal detector. I could finally see the reason for the bottleneck of people trying to get through the security process. For the first time in all my trips to Brazil, all passengers were told to remove their shoes! They were not told of the shoes off requirement until they actually got to the conveyer belt where they place their carry on objects to be scanned. The shoes off thing was time consuming and unexpected. As I looked around the area, I saw hundreds of people removing their shoes only to return to the scanner and put their shoes through the x-ray scanner then wait for their shoes to put them back on again. After the scanning was done, some passengers had to wait for a place to sit so they could tie their shoe laces. All the while, the lines got longer. I asked a few agents why the shoes off policy began. I was told that Brazil is exercising its "reciprocity" authority because Americans make Brazilians take off their shoes when Brazilians pass through American security in the U.S. I stated to the agents that not all passengers going through the Brazilian security are Americans but they are still required to remove their shoes. All I got were a few shrugs from my questions. In addition to the long lines and unnecessary waste of time, the worse thing about the shoe nonsense is preventing people from going out to their planes on time. During the silly “security” process, representatives from various airlines came out to the crowds that were waiting in line and shouted out certain flight numbers and certain destinations. They did this because many passengers were stuck in line and were about to miss their flights. Passengers were told to identify themselves if they were on specific flights being announced. These passengers were given priority clearance because their flights were due to depart while they were still in the so-called security process. I recall, more than ten years ago in Brazil, there was a similar “reciprocity” arrangement (payback) at Brazilian immigration against Americans visiting Brazil. This had to do with a requirement to fingerprint and photograph all foreigners visiting America. All foreigners (including Brazilians) had to be fingerprinted and photographed when they visited the U.S. A judge in Brazil got angry over that American requirement and ordered immigration in Brazil to fingerprint and photograph only Americans out of what Brazil called “reciprocity.” That childishness ended after a few months. I wonder how long the shoes off policy with last. I suspect the shoes off policy will end after airlines complain that the boarding process cannot begin on time because passengers are unnecessarily delayed in security. One positive thing at Brazil immigration is the fact that passengers are no longer selectively harassed at the boarding gates to have their carry on luggage inspected. Such a silly process accomplished nothing except to prevent passengers from finding overhead space for their carry on luggage. One would think that since Brazil is having such a rough time economically and it is getting such a bad name in the press because of the high crime rate and high inflation, Brazil would not behave in such a childlike manner when it comes to requiring all passengers to remove their shoes merely because such a requirement originated in the U.S.

Agree this one time is much the exception not the rule. Pity his several good ideas are mired in the rest of him.

His or mine? Best regards, RA1

Just be sure you discuss your policy on licking.

According to the prosecution, Hastert systematically withdrew about $1.7m from banks, and then periodically delivered payments to Individual A for four years. I bet he wishes he had that money back now! Fortunately, my own reputation is sufficiently shabby that spending $3.5 million to defend it wouldn't cross my mind, even if I had the ready cash. Thirty-five dollars, sure, maybe even three hundred and fifty but, beyond that, it can go and defend its own seedy self.

Wow, the next time I need emergency treatment at 10 PM I will remember that a vet might be available vs an MD. ( I take better care of my dogs than I do of myself.) Best regards, RA1

Ain't It ???

And dictate the amount of chrome on your coffin hardware and the number and arrangement of the flowers in your wreath. (Assuming that AS & I can stump up the cash for a wreath)

Finally Rand Paul is good for something.

It would be hilarious if 'Turd Blossom' was W's way of calling him a poufter.

It has been a big month for gay rights and for marriage equality. In the USA, the SCOTUS heard oral arguments. (I never argue with oral) In Ireland, they voted a resounding yes for legalization of marriage by popular vote. In Brazil, the Court of Justice order all notaries to issues couples the ability to marry. Big victory in 3 places! http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/15/world/americas/brazil-same-sex-marriage/index.html?eref=edition

I was in NYC many years back and had to pay for a visa that was more expensive than other countries. I was told this was in reciprocity. I was also fingerprinted one time as there was a special line in Brazil for US citizens with the fingerprint. They seem to really enjoy this reciprocity thing.

Reminds me of Talullah's wonderful line at a party: 'I was raped in our driveway when I was eleven. You know, dahling, it was a terrible experience because we had all that gravel.'

I've been dashing my h-o-p-e-s since the early eighties, a strikingly bold shift soon after my worldview became slanted and my outlook jaded.

"Wrestling coach." ...almost a Jeopardy line!

HA! I called it! I so wanted to cut to the chase in my original post and discard the possibility of a female dalliance. Sadly I let my misguided sense of political correctness overwhelm my intuition. "Surely," says I to myself, "it's neither fair nor balanced just to assume any sexual scandal involving a prominent Republican is necessarily going to feature a teen aged boy somewhere under the sheets." Just goes to show you shouldn't second guess yourself w/o a good solid reason.

RA1, was that on that History Channel show right after Finding Bigfoot? I think I remember it.

...The indictment, in US district court in Illinois, notes that between 1965 and 1981, Hastert worked as a high school teacher and coach in Yorkville, Illinois. The indictment then notes that Individual A, whom he is alleged to have paid, has known Hastert most of Individual A's life. In or about 2010, the indictment says, Hastert met with this person and discussed past misconduct by [Hastert] that had occurred years earlier. The indictment alleges that Hastert then agreed to provide this person $3.5m in order to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct against them. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/28/former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert-indicted "...a dead girl or a live boy." -- Edwin Edwards

Really, the last one - Dear Abby, I've suspected that my son is a homosexual, and when confronted with the evidence, he denied everything and said it would never happen again.