Trip Report - SDF-DTW-AMS-BCN-MAD-JFK-CVG-SDF

I am just a stranger here, not an American, and not learned in the law.
From what has been said, it appears that the TSA is overly intrusive at
least some of the time. The question seems to be whether or not one is
obliged to accept this, and whether this can be considered normal behaviour.
A number of different people who seem to be conversant with what is
acceptable as legislation, and what is not, have argued various points
concerning various actions. I grant them all sincerity and good intentions,
and I am simply not in a position to say which of them is correct at law. I
can say that non-Americans generally view all this as arbitrary, and
authoritarian. One hears a good deal about American officials being rude,
when compared to other customs and immigration officials, and unusually long
clearance times are complained of as well. My impression is that it has
affected tourism, certainly to Florida, by tourists from the UK. The idea is
that it's not worth the effort and embarrassment, and that it's easier to go
to Spain. My opinion is that Mr Mattocks is right or should be right.


"The Bill Mattocks" wrote in message
om...
"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...
I'm not convinced that the 4th Amendment is applicable, at any rate.
Submission to inspection is voluntary.

One can choose to walk instead of drive. If one chooses to drive, the
state does not gain the right to search your vehicle thereby. If one
refuses such a request, one does not lose the right to drive upon
public highways, or even for that period of time.

Saying that an inspection is voluntary is a moot point if an
underlying right of all US citizens (the right to travel) is abrogated
thereby.

You can always refuse to be
inspected (though, of course, you won't be able to fly).

And that's the point. I have the *right* to travel, including any
method I choose (flying, for example). If I must be inspected by the
government before being allowed to exercise a right, it is either not
a right, or the government is incorrect.

You'll note that
the inspectors always ask, "My I look in your bag?" You can say, "No,
you
may not," if you choose.

Actually, many of them don't do that anymore - surely you have
noticed? They don't even ask if they can pat down my ankles or
pockets - they just do it without saying a word.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:28:24 GMT, mrtravel wrote:

john wrote:

It seems that government is the only place that allows this to
happen.

Even in a very successful company like IBM the CEO is forced to retire
at 60 ( or 65).

http://archive.infoworld.com/article...o.xml?0129tupm

IBM CEOs rarely retain their position past their 60th birthday. Gerstner
addressed that trend in his e-mail to the staff.

"Some people believe IBM CEOs are required to step aside at age 60.
That's not so. There is no rule or age limit that requires me to do this
now. I am doing it because I am convinced that the time is right. The
company is ready, and so is our new leader," he wrote.


Maybe you can point out one IBM CEO who stayed longer.

They MAY not be forced to retire (as you nitpick and point out). But
they do retire early in their sixties so that new young fresh blood
can take over the reins of the company and keep it going as one of
the top companies in the world.

Oh, If we can get only rid of all the old *******s in Congress and
the Supreme Court that are over 70 years of age!

"john" wrote in message
...

Oh, If we can get only rid of all the old *******s in Congress and
the Supreme Court that are over 70 years of age!

60 dammit! 60!!!!

john wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:28:24 GMT, mrtravel wrote:


john wrote:


It seems that government is the only place that allows this to
happen.

Even in a very successful company like IBM the CEO is forced to retire
at 60 ( or 65).

http://archive.infoworld.com/article...o.xml?0129tupm

IBM CEOs rarely retain their position past their 60th birthday. Gerstner
addressed that trend in his e-mail to the staff.

"Some people believe IBM CEOs are required to step aside at age 60.
That's not so. There is no rule or age limit that requires me to do this
now. I am doing it because I am convinced that the time is right. The
company is ready, and so is our new leader," he wrote.

Maybe you can point out one IBM CEO who stayed longer.

They MAY not be forced to retire (as you nitpick and point out). But
they do retire early in their sixties so that new young fresh blood
can take over the reins of the company and keep it going as one of
the top companies in the world.


Maybe they retire in their 60's because they have a nice retirement plan
offered to them. The point is that you stated they were "required" to
retire at 60 or 65, but provided no documentation showing they were
forced to retire due to their age. You said "required". I don't think it
is nit picking to state and opposing view and document it.

"john" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:36:42 GMT, "None" wrote:


"Dennis G. Rears" wrote in message
...

"mrtravel" wrote in message
m...

Great observation
Why should they let these old *******s stay on in goverment for ever?

Maybe because the dumb ass voters reelected him :-(

dennis

PAC money. The old ****s are so deep into the pockets of special interests
and big business that their campaign war chests are loaded with millions
before their term is half over.

No one ever elected to congress, OR the senate has what is good for the
citizens on their agenda. It's all about what they can get into their own
pockets while they are there, and serving that ONE SINGLE DAY IN OFFICE to
qualify for their FULL salary and FULL 100% NO CO PAYMENT NO DEDUCTIBLE
health care for them and their family for the rest of their lives.

Thats right, they only have to be sworn in and serve ONE DAY in office,
then, they can step down, resign, whatever and still draw all the benefits
and 165,000.00 and full health care for life isn't a bad retirement at any
age.


"Dennis G. Rears" wrote in message
...
"john" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:36:42 GMT, "None" wrote:


"Dennis G. Rears" wrote in message
...

"mrtravel" wrote in message
m...

Great observation
Why should they let these old *******s stay on in goverment for ever?

Maybe because the dumb ass voters reelected him :-(

dennis

"Dennis G. Rears" wrote in message
...
"john" wrote in message

Great observation
Why should they let these old *******s stay on in goverment for ever?

Maybe because the dumb ass voters reelected him :-(

dennis

"None" wrote in message
link.net...
PAC money. The old ****s are so deep into the pockets of special
interests
and big business that their campaign war chests are loaded with millions
before their term is half over.

No one ever elected to congress, OR the senate has what is good for the
citizens on their agenda. It's all about what they can get into their own
pockets while they are there, and serving that ONE SINGLE DAY IN OFFICE to
qualify for their FULL salary and FULL 100% NO CO PAYMENT NO DEDUCTIBLE
health care for them and their family for the rest of their lives.

Thats right, they only have to be sworn in and serve ONE DAY in office,
then, they can step down, resign, whatever and still draw all the benefits
and 165,000.00 and full health care for life isn't a bad retirement at any
age.

This is not true. They get nowhere near $165K a year. They have to serve
at least 5 years to qualify for any retirement benefits. Their health
program is the same as any Federal Employee. They pay part of the premium
and depending upon what health insurance program they are in they do pay
deductables and copayments. I have a cite, it is
http://www.senate.gov/reference/comm..._members.shtml.
Wher do you get you rinformation from?

dennis

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

"john" wrote in message
...

Oh, If we can get only rid of all the old *******s in Congress and
the Supreme Court that are over 70 years of age!

60 dammit! 60!!!!

Why 60? What magically happens to everyone at that particular
age? Especially since life expectancy (AND the portion of that
lifetime during which one is capable of doing useful work)
continues to increase...


Bob M.

Because 60 is the magic age when senility begins to set in. It's also the
age when the memory starts to go, motor skills are not as sharp, and quite
frankly, I don't like old people telling everyone else what to do just
because they think age equals knowledge . . . because in the case of
politicians, it clearly does not.


"Bob Myers" wrote in message
...

"None" wrote in message
ink.net...

"john" wrote in message
...

Oh, If we can get only rid of all the old *******s in Congress and
the Supreme Court that are over 70 years of age!

60 dammit! 60!!!!

Why 60? What magically happens to everyone at that particular
age? Especially since life expectancy (AND the portion of that
lifetime during which one is capable of doing useful work)
continues to increase...


Bob M.

None wrote in message
nk.net...
Because 60 is the magic age when senility begins to set in. It's also the
age when the memory starts to go, motor skills are not as sharp, and quite
frankly, I don't like old people telling everyone else what to do just
because they think age equals knowledge . . . because in the case of
politicians, it clearly does not.

Spoken like a true 18year-old(note: it'll be a long time before I get to
60,heh)