mvan1

Good point!

? Don't over read it- the Brazilian real is trading at is highest ever - not its lowest. We, who buy the currency, get more for our money - therefore, the real is trading higher to us, the buyer

Come on, you are a bright guy - think about what you wrote - We are getting more for our dollar which means it is trading at is highest - not lowest. Since you are a nice guy, you are forgiven for this -

Today the real is trading at the highest it has been in nearly 15 years - R$4,07 to $1 - today - https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/currency Historically, the Brazilian Real reached an all time high of 4.18 in September of 2015 and a record low of 0.01 in January of 1993 when it was almost equal to the U.S dollar.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3927028/Aisle-seat-won-t-nap-not-dressed-weather-Pilots-cabin-crew-reveal-spot-air-marshal.html and https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1239770-sitting-next-air-marshal.html

Sorry, I meant it is easier for me to get to 202 from Copacabana - up Siqueira Campos - rather than to 117 (via metro)

Why must one argue? It is really not becoming. There is a nice way to express disagreement without resorting to name calling.

I think he is joking. Go to the NPR link I provided in my post and you will see how the "Open Skies" program works. Here is the link: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/30/633980912/tsas-quiet-skies-program-tracks-observes-travelers-in-the-air

Hi, it is really simple to make a request. Click on the link I provided in my original post, then, follow the directions to make your request. Yes, you send the request to the TSA which is one of several agencies listed in the link. Also the site says they take a long time to furnish a report to you, but in my case and in the case of my friend, it did not take long at all. I think they say it takes long to protect themselves in case there is a large number of requests and/or maybe to discourage people from requesting. In my case it took about six weeks. I was out of the U.S. when the report arrived and there is no date stamp on the envelope. Therefore, the report might have arrived a week or so before I returned home. I am now overly curious about the bizarre snooping our government does on unsuspecting law abiding citizens. In that regard, I found another article that was presented by the Boston Globe. Here is that article: Welcome to the Quiet Skies By Jana Winter July 28, 2018 Read more: Lawmakers demand answers on 'Quiet Skies' surveillance program after Globe report Federal air marshals have begun following ordinary US citizens not suspected of a crime or on any terrorist watch list and collecting extensive information about their movements and behavior under a new domestic surveillance program that is drawing criticism from within the agency. The previously undisclosed program, called “Quiet Skies,” specifically targets travelers who “are not under investigation by any agency and are not in the Terrorist Screening Data Base,” according to a Transportation Security Administration bulletin in March. The internal bulletin describes the program’s goal as thwarting threats to commercial aircraft “posed by unknown or partially known terrorists,” and gives the agency broad discretion over which air travelers to focus on and how closely they are tracked. Brynn Anderson/Associated Press But some air marshals, in interviews and internal communications shared with the Globe, say the program has them tasked with shadowing travelers who appear to pose no real threat — a businesswoman who happened to have traveled through a Mideast hot spot, in one case; a Southwest Airlines flight attendant, in another; a fellow federal law enforcement officer, in a third. It is a time-consuming and costly assignment, they say, which saps their ability to do more vital law enforcement work. TSA officials, in a written statement to the Globe, broadly defended the agency’s efforts to deter potential acts of terror. But the agency declined to discuss whether Quiet Skies has intercepted any threats, or even to confirm that the program exists. Release of such information “would make passengers less safe,” spokesman James Gregory said in the statement. Read the checklist Already under Quiet Skies, thousands of unsuspecting Americans have been subjected to targeted airport and inflight surveillance, carried out by small teams of armed, undercover air marshals, government documents show. The teams document whether passengers fidget, use a computer, have a “jump” in their Adam’s apple or a “cold penetrating stare,” among other behaviors, according to the records. Air marshals note these observations — minute-by-minute — in two separate reports and send this information back to the TSA. All US citizens who enter the country are automatically screened for inclusion in Quiet Skies — their travel patterns and affiliations are checked and their names run against a terrorist watch list and other databases, according to agency documents. Explore the behavior checklist 1. SUBJECT WAS ABNORMALLY AWARE OF SURROUNDINGS (If observed, check any that apply below) | Y N Unknown Reversing or changing directions and/or stopping while in transit through the airport Attempting to change appearance by changing clothes, shaving etc. while in the airport or on the plane Using the reflection in storefront windows to identify surveillance Observing the boarding gate area from afar Boarded last Observing other people who appear to be observing FAM team and/or subject 2. SUBJECT EXHIBITED BEHAVIORAL INDICATORS (If observed, check any that apply below) | Y N Unknown 3. SUBJECT’S APPEARANCE WAS DIFFERENT FROM INFORMATION PROVIDED (If yes, check any that apply below) | Y N Unknown 4. SUBJECT SLEPT DURING THE FLIGHT (If observed, check any that apply below) | Y N Unknown 5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS (Provide detailed descriptions of any electronic devices in subject’s possession in AAR) | Y N Unknown 6. FOR DOMESTIC ARRIVALS ONLY (If possible, provide identifiers (license plate, vehicle description) of pick up vehicle in AAR) | Y N Unknown The program relies on 15 rules to screen passengers, according to a May agency bulletin, and the criteria appear broad: “rules may target” people whose travel patterns or behaviors match those of known or suspected terrorists, or people “possibly affiliated” with someone on a watch list. The full list of criteria for Quiet Skies screening was unavailable to the Globe, and is a mystery even to the air marshals who field the surveillance requests the program generates. TSA declined to comment. When someone on the Quiet Skies list is selected for surveillance, a team of air marshals is placed on the person’s next flight. The team receives a file containing a photo and basic information — such as date and place of birth — about the target, according to agency documents. The teams track citizens on domestic flights, to or from dozens of cities big and small — such as Boston and Harrisburg, Pa., Washington, D.C., and Myrtle Beach, S.C. — taking notes on whether travelers use a phone, go to the bathroom, chat with others, or change clothes, according to documents and people within the department. Flying the quiet skies Air marshals are following citizens to or from cities big and small, including these airports Seattle Minneapolis Detroit Boston New York Chicago Harrisburg San Francisco Philadelphia Washington, D.C. Las Vegas Charlotte Phoenix Myrtle Beach Los Angeles Atlanta Houston Miami Quiet Skies represents a major departure for TSA. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the agency has traditionally placed armed air marshals on routes it considered potentially higher risk, or on flights with a passenger on a terrorist watch list. Deploying air marshals to gather intelligence on civilians not on a terrorist watch list is a new assignment, one that some air marshals say goes beyond the mandate of the US Federal Air Marshal Service. Some also worry that such domestic surveillance might be illegal. Between 2,000 and 3,000 men and women, so-called flying FAMs, work the skies. Since this initiative launched in March, dozens of air marshals have raised concerns about the Quiet Skies program with senior officials and colleagues, sought legal counsel, and expressed misgivings about the surveillance program, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Globe. Send The Boston Globe a confidential news tip Send a tip “What we are doing [in Quiet Skies] is troubling and raising some serious questions as to the validity and legality of what we are doing and how we are doing it,” one air marshal wrote in a text message to colleagues. The TSA, while declining to discuss details of the Quiet Skies program, did address generally how the agency pursues its work. “FAMs [federal air marshals] may deploy on flights in furtherance of the TSA mission to ensure the safety and security of passengers, crewmembers, and aircraft throughout the aviation sector,” spokesman James Gregory said in an e-mailed statement. “As its assessment capabilities continue to enhance, FAMS leverages multiple internal and external intelligence sources in its deployment strategy.” ▶ Play Scott LaPierre/Globe Staff Agency documents show there are about 40 to 50 Quiet Skies passengers on domestic flights each day. On average, air marshals follow and surveil about 35 of them. In late May, an air marshal complained to colleagues about having just surveilled a working Southwest Airlines flight attendant as part of a Quiet Skies mission. “Cannot make this up,” the air marshal wrote in a message. One colleague replied: “jeez we need to have an easy way to document this nonsense. Congress needs to know that it’s gone from bad to worse.” Experts on civil liberties called the Quiet Skies program worrisome and potentially illegal. “These revelations raise profound concerns about whether TSA is conducting pervasive surveillance of travelers without any suspicion of actual wrongdoing,” said Hugh Handeyside, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “If TSA is using proxies for race or religion to single out travelers for surveillance, that could violate the travelers’ constitutional rights. These concerns are all the more acute because of TSA’s track record of using unreliable and unscientific techniques to screen and monitor travelers who have done nothing wrong.” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Quiet Skies touches on several sensitive legal issues and appears to fall into a gray area of privacy law. “If this was about foreign citizens, the government would have considerable power. But if it’s US citizens — US citizens don’t lose their rights simply because they are in an airplane at 30,000 feet,” Turley said. “There may be indeed constitutional issues here depending on how restrictive or intrusive these measures are.” Turley, who has testified before Congress on privacy protection, said the issue could trigger a “transformative legal fight.” Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor chosen by President Obama in 2013 to help review foreign intelligence surveillance programs, said the program could pass legal muster if the selection criteria are sufficiently broad. But if the program targets by nationality or race, it could violate equal protection rights, Stone said. Asked about the legal basis for the Quiet Skies program, Gregory, the agency’s spokesman, said TSA “maintains a robust engagement with congressional committees to ensure maximum support and awareness” of its effort to keep the aviation sector safe. He declined to comment further. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Beyond the legalities, some air marshals believe Quiet Skies is not a sound use of limited agency resources. Several air marshals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly, told the Globe the program wastes taxpayer dollars and makes the country less safe because attention and resources are diverted away from legitimate, potential threats. The US Federal Air Marshal Service, which is part of TSA and falls under the Department of Homeland Security, has a mandate to protect airline passengers and crew against the risk of criminal and terrorist violence. John Casaretti, president of the Air Marshal Association, said in a statement: “The Air Marshal Association believes that missions based on recognized intelligence, or in support of ongoing federal investigations, is the proper criteria for flight scheduling. Currently the Quiet Skies program does not meet the criteria we find acceptable. “The American public would be better served if these [air marshals] were instead assigned to airport screening and check in areas so that active shooter events can be swiftly ended, and violations of federal crimes can be properly and consistently addressed.” TSA has come under increased scrutiny from Congress since a 2017 Government Accountability Office report raised questions about its management of the Federal Air Marshal Service. Requested by Congress, the report noted that the agency, which spent $800 million in 2015, has “no information” on its effectiveness in deterring attacks. Late last year, Representative Jody Hice, a Georgia Republican, introduced a bill that would require the Federal Air Marshal Service to better incorporate risk assessment in its deployment strategy, provide detailed metrics on flight assignments, and report data back to Congress. Without this information, Congress, TSA, and the Department of Homeland Security “are not able to effectively conduct oversight” of the air marshals, Hice wrote in a letter to colleagues. “With threats coming at us left and right, our focus should be on implementing effective, evidence-based means of deterring, detecting, and disrupting plots hatched by our enemies.” Hice’s bill, the “Strengthening Aviation Security Act of 2017,” passed the House and is awaiting consideration by the full Senate. Read the bulletin The Globe, in its review of Quiet Skies, examined numerous TSA internal bulletins, directives, and internal communications, and interviewed more than a dozen people with direct knowledge of the program. The purpose of Quiet Skies is to decrease threats by “unknown or partially known terrorists; and to identify and provide enhanced screening to higher risk travelers before they board aircraft based on analysis of terrorist travel trends, tradecraft and associations,” according to a TSA internal bulletin. The criteria for surveillance appear fluid. Internal agency e-mails show some confusion about the program’s parameters and implementation. Quiet Skies focuses on a person’s international travel patterns and potential affiliations. Passengers are not under investigation and their names are not on a terrorist watch list or in a screening database. Air marshals have surveilled a businesswoman, a

Although this article belongs in the general area of the forum, considering that the majority of my international travel is to South America, I will place my thread here. I just returned from another international trip. I travel often to Brazil and to several other foreign countries. Prior to leaving for my most recently completed trip, an occasional travel companion suggested that I ask for a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) report of any history of my travels in connection with the TSA “Quiet Skies” program. I had never heard of such a program and I had no interest in wasting time requesting something that had nothing to do with me. However, my friend continued to encourage me to make a request for such data. In so doing, he showed me a report that he recently received on himself. He was not happy with the report. Nor with the U.S. government snooping that allowed such a meaningless report on him. My friend has no criminal background, was born in the United States, is not on any terror list, is highly educated, has an impressive work history and is independently comfortable, financially. The only thing unusual about him (or me) is that he (we) travels often to various foreign countries (mainly to Brazil, Colombia and various parts of Europe and occasionally to Asia. I was shocked at reading his FOIA report. It is several pages long. It showed that he, personally, had been singled out for “Quiet Skies” project because of his excessive travels. The report shows that he was followed around airports while waiting to board his flights and that an air marshal had been assigned a seat near him on at least one of his flights (what a waste of taxpayer dollars). There were notes in the file about my friend making several phones calls while in the airport lounge and while in line waiting to board the plane. There was a note that he had purchased wifi on the flight and used it for several hours. The report went on and on like a small-town gossip column. After seeing that report, I got curious and submitted a request for myself, fully expecting that there would be nothing reported on me. When I got home and checked my mail, my requested report had arrived. There was a similar report prepared on me. The report described my activities at an airport and in the airport lounge and what I did while on board my flight (put the seat back and fell asleep for a while and ate and used the restroom). I then did a Google search for this bizarre government program called - “Quiet Skies” - - and, sure enough, there is such a program. And the rules of the program allow following and monitoring harmless passengers with respect to spying on them merely because they do not conform to a typical passenger. I found an excellent article that was compiled by NPR that discusses the program. Here is a link to the article: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/30/633980912/tsas-quiet-skies-program-tracks-observes-travelers-in-the-air If anyone is curious to see if our government is spending your tax dollars to follow you and pay an air marshal to observe your behavior while on board an airplane, or at an airport, you can request your file by going to this link and following the instructions. https://www.foia.gov/ Please don’t get me wrong, I am not angry over this nonsense. I just find it incredible that our laws allow for such foolishness and we, as tax payers, pay for this.

With 202 being busy lately with garotos, are any of the garotos that are found at 202 the same garotos formerly seen at 117? For me, getting to 202 is a lot easier than going to 117.

https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-entertainment/queermuseu-opens-at-rios-parque-lage-school-of-visual-arts-this-saturday/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRioTimes+(The+Rio+Times) Even though the article calls the exhibit "queermuseu" I will call it gay for our purposes. Based on reading the above linked article, the exhibit has been rejected by at least two major cities in Brazil. So, anyone in Rio who might be interested in seeing this exhibit might want to check it out. Times are posted in the article - Maybe even report back with your opinion of the exhibit.

It appears that you decided against using Uber that was discussed in another thread not long ago. Had you used Uber, you would have been taken directly to the facility.

While it is good practice putting away our valuable belongs while a gentlemen caller is visiting with us in Brazil, I can understand why you did not feel the need for caution. After all, you had prior meetings with this same garoto, without any negative issue. Nonetheless, it is probably a good idea to be overly cautious even if we know the garoto. Oscar Wilde's famous quote came to mind when I read of the garoto who could not resist stealing from you even though you had befriended him. I can resist everything except temptation." (O.W.)

How sad that the guy was a thief in addition to being a cop and being a good sensual companion. One must wonder if his theft of $350 from you was worth it to him in the long run. In the short run, he got quick use of the money. But, in the long run, he lost your friendship and lost the opportunity to make additional money had he not been a thief. I suspect he regretted doing that to you. But, you cannot unring a bell.

Actually, what you wrote is not so far fetched - - for Rio. When I first began visiting Brazil about fifteen years ago, there used to be an extremely handsome Rio cop that directed traffic on a busy street in Copacabana. When I first saw him, I looked at him probably too long as he was strikingly handsome. He noticed my stare and looked over at me with an inquisitive look and then he winked and went on directing traffic. I saw him there during several trips and he sometimes smiled or waved but never spoke. About a year later and after several more trips to Rio, I happen to be walking down that same busy street as he was getting off work. To my surprise, he said hello to me. He spoke almost no English. At that time, I knew very little Portuguese. Even though the cop did not speak English, he knew certain critical words. He was able to say to me - "Americano?" to which I replied yes (sim). He could say "you give present to me for sexo" and other comments that let me know it might work out with him. We stood on the corner trying to communicate (this was before hand held translators like we have now). With me using a dual dictionary book and he doing the same with my book, he was able to tell me that he meets lots of Americans and that his friends also meet lots of Americans to make money for sex. After we agreed he would come to my hotel with me, I first had to walk with him to the place he kept his handbag so that he could change out of his policeman clothes to civilian clothes. He said he could not enter the hotel wearing his uniform. At that time, I was staying at a hotel that allowed visitors. The cop was great. I saw him several more times and then one day, he disappeared and was no longer directing traffic at that corner. I sometimes wonder what became of him. So, you just never know about Brazil. For sure, that would never happen in the U.S.

https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-politics/rio-de-janeiro-sees-thefts-decline-but-homicides-increase/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRioTimes+(The+Rio+Times) And, if you have occasion to have a policeman or policewoman ask you a question, don't be sassy to them - the odds of going on about your way, if you are not polite, are not in your favor.

Suicidal?

Launch_of_a_hang_glider.ogv

What you wrote is correct. The title of the thread does not include travel expense and multiple encounters. What I wrote says - the title of the thread is false. "Prices Are Way Up For The Hot Boys at Club 117" = false Plain and simple.

Thread title: "Prices Are Way Up For The Hot Boys at Club 117" Something does not compute with the thread title! Is there another way to define"way up" Over the years, prices have not materially increased in Brazil. Such a bargain we could never find anywhere else. "

It is time to Make America America Again. and and and

Bucky, is this the kind of links you mean? https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sausage-links-45952900?src=em4GxgWSIFAG3g712Lj_Og-1-57

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/opinion/trump-bites-putin-love-story.html

No, Bucky, I do not "hope and pray" about anything connected with Trump. Any person who can read and connect the dots can see disaster on the horizon for the U.S. economy. "Hey, maybe Putin is making America great again with Trump LOL" Is this how you mean maybe Putin is making American great again with Trump"? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/opinion/trump-bites-putin-love-story.html