yagw
08-20 02:53 AM
Mr. X going to airport with his friend for the first time...
Mr. X : What is that flight, taking off?
Friend: Boeing 747
The next day he went with his another friend and saw the same flight landing... then says to his friend....
"I know the name of the flight... 'Vanding' 747!"
Translation: Bo ~= Go
Vandu ~= Come
Mr. X : What is that flight, taking off?
Friend: Boeing 747
The next day he went with his another friend and saw the same flight landing... then says to his friend....
"I know the name of the flight... 'Vanding' 747!"
Translation: Bo ~= Go
Vandu ~= Come
wallpaper Heart Attack Grill Pics7
gg_ny
02-21 03:00 PM
This guy Dobbs, claims to know everything that's wrong with congress, the laws, the trade agreements, and all he does is preach. Why doesnt he run for congress and fix things he thinks are so easy to fix. If he is so smart and able, then he should really run for congress and do what he thinks his right.
The reality is... the chamber of House is no CNN studio. If a trust-fund, Preppie kid like him went to Congress, he wouldnt last a week.
Wonder why he is not questioned, ridiculed or targetted by other TV standups or show masters. The truth is, Dobbs has a following - people who would like to hear again and again what they want to hear and CNN knows it. Even if he is spilling BS, at some point, repetetion may make it sound like " oh, there is something in what he says" attitude, mainly because of familiarity by that repetetion itself. Maybe he will end up a Congressman or a clown instead, the fact is, he can elicit attention of a few millions -by his talk show and write-ups. From McCain to Romney, Sen. Clinton to Bush, if people see the quick policy/face changes among the politicians and compare with some stray ---- like Dobbs saying (barking) the same thing over and over again, there is a chance that he might end up scoring more in popularity than the president.
The reality is... the chamber of House is no CNN studio. If a trust-fund, Preppie kid like him went to Congress, he wouldnt last a week.
Wonder why he is not questioned, ridiculed or targetted by other TV standups or show masters. The truth is, Dobbs has a following - people who would like to hear again and again what they want to hear and CNN knows it. Even if he is spilling BS, at some point, repetetion may make it sound like " oh, there is something in what he says" attitude, mainly because of familiarity by that repetetion itself. Maybe he will end up a Congressman or a clown instead, the fact is, he can elicit attention of a few millions -by his talk show and write-ups. From McCain to Romney, Sen. Clinton to Bush, if people see the quick policy/face changes among the politicians and compare with some stray ---- like Dobbs saying (barking) the same thing over and over again, there is a chance that he might end up scoring more in popularity than the president.
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
2011 hot Craving: Heart Attack
srikondoji
09-26 02:48 PM
I have spent 10 years in the hope that i will able to get a GC soon and settle down. I eagerly waited for a change in the EB category of the Immigration system. This change didn't happen in the Clinton administration nor in the Bush administration. I also don't see this happening in the next administration that is going to take over this country soon.
After spending 10 years in United States, i have started working on my plans to move back to India.
Every administration past or present has lumped skilled immigrants in the same category as immigrants who enter united states illegally.
Due to their sheer number, almost all initiatives to fix the immigration system has been to safeguard the borders, punish the employers who hire people without proper paper work etc. Skilled immigrants figure no where in their policy statements.
Despite working hard during the last years CIR bill, to make officials realize the distinction betweek illegal and skilled immigrants, we have to face the failure.
Even though i am hoping to see Obama succeed in this Presidential race and bring the change he promised to America, i am making my plans to move back to India as an alternative.
--sri
After spending 10 years in United States, i have started working on my plans to move back to India.
Every administration past or present has lumped skilled immigrants in the same category as immigrants who enter united states illegally.
Due to their sheer number, almost all initiatives to fix the immigration system has been to safeguard the borders, punish the employers who hire people without proper paper work etc. Skilled immigrants figure no where in their policy statements.
Despite working hard during the last years CIR bill, to make officials realize the distinction betweek illegal and skilled immigrants, we have to face the failure.
Even though i am hoping to see Obama succeed in this Presidential race and bring the change he promised to America, i am making my plans to move back to India as an alternative.
--sri
more...
apb
10-01 05:45 PM
Engg from top school in India + MBA + CFA started the process of GC in 2000. Lost first round of GC in the black hole of backlog processing center and restarted again in 2004. Never was out of job even in the worst of economy and always got good pay from company.
CIR was a disappointment and I took PR from Canada since I lost hope with the system after 9 years in limbo and being a probationary worker without any career hope. My wife with her masters in computer had to remain on H4 for long and now when we have EAD we thought we could be a little better off, the broken system in USCIS again came up during EAD extension processing and gave us a jolt. EAD finally gets approved after several SRs, Infopass and ombudsman mail but only after the current one expires. If 90-120 were not enough, then at least allow EAD extension to be filed much before in advance.
H1B extension can work based on Receipt notice, 485 is filed based on EB and EAD extension applied based on pending EB based 485--BUT we can work only after we get the EAD in hand. Why? There are many gaps in the way USCIS works and there is no credible transparency for the fee that we pay to get the service.
We love CHANGE but would that change be for better?
CIR was a disappointment and I took PR from Canada since I lost hope with the system after 9 years in limbo and being a probationary worker without any career hope. My wife with her masters in computer had to remain on H4 for long and now when we have EAD we thought we could be a little better off, the broken system in USCIS again came up during EAD extension processing and gave us a jolt. EAD finally gets approved after several SRs, Infopass and ombudsman mail but only after the current one expires. If 90-120 were not enough, then at least allow EAD extension to be filed much before in advance.
H1B extension can work based on Receipt notice, 485 is filed based on EB and EAD extension applied based on pending EB based 485--BUT we can work only after we get the EAD in hand. Why? There are many gaps in the way USCIS works and there is no credible transparency for the fee that we pay to get the service.
We love CHANGE but would that change be for better?
Macaca
12-29 08:01 PM
Why we must reclaim religion from the right-wing (http://www.rediff.com/news/column/column-why-we-must-reclaim-religion-from-the-right-wing/20101229.htm) By Yoginder Sikand | Rediff
Decades after the two States came into being, relations between India and Pakistan continue to be, to put it mildly, hostile. This owes largely to the vast, and continuously mounting, influence of the Hindu religious right-wing in India and its Muslim counterpart in Pakistan.
Seemingly irreconcilable foes, the two speak the same language -- of unending hatred between Hindus and Muslims -- each seeking to define itself by building, stressing and constantly reinforcing boundaries between the two religiously-defined imagined communities.
Much has been written on the ideology and politics of right-wing Hindu and Islamic movements and organisations in both India and Pakistan, by academics and journalists alike. Yet, almost no attention has been given to how individual Hindu and Muslim religious activists at the local level, as distinct from key ideologues and leaders at the national-level, imagine and articulate notions of the religious and national 'other'.
Understanding this issue is crucial, for such activists exercise an enormous clout among their following.
The Lahore-based Mashal Books, one of Pakistan's few progressive, left-leaning publishing houses, recently launched a unique experiment: Of recording and making publicly accessible speeches delivered by maulvis or Muslim clerics at mosque congregations across Pakistan's Punjab province, including some located in small towns and obscure villages.
These speeches deal with a host of issues, ranging from women's status and scientific education, to jihad and anti-Indianism, all these linked to an amazingly diverse set of understandings of Islam.
Hosted on the Mashal Books Web site MASHAL BOOKS (http://www.mashalbooks.org), these speeches reflect the worldviews of a large majority of Pakistani maulvis, representing a range of sectarian backgrounds, who now exercise a major influence on the country's politics and in shaping Pakistani public opinion and discourse.
Of the dozens of speeches hosted on the Web site, only two are classified as relating particularly to India, but these may still be taken to be representative of how a great many Pakistani maulvis conceive of India and of relations between India and Pakistan. Predictably, in both speeches India is depicted in lurid colours, as an implacable foe of Pakistan, of Muslims, and of Islam.
Not surprisingly, then, efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan or to work towards rapprochement between Hindus and Muslims are vociferously denounced. The two maulvis appear to insist that Islam, as they understand it, itself requires that Pakistani Muslims must never cool off their anti-Hindu and anti-Indian zeal.
The first of these two speeches, by the Deobandi Maulana Muhammad Hafeez of the Jamia Masjid Umar Farooq, Rawalpindi, refers to India only in passing. He presents Muslims the world over as besieged by a host of powerful non-Muslim enemies.
It is almost as if their 'disbelief' (kufr) in Islam goads all non-Muslims, wherever they may be, to engage in a relentless conspiracy against Islam and its adherents, a war, like Samuel Huntington's infamous 'Clash of Civilisations', in which compromise and reconciliation are simply impossible because Islam and 'non-Islam' can, in this worldview, never comfortably coexist.
It is also as if Muslims have a monopoly on virtue and non-Muslims on vice. 'Islam will rise,' Maulana Hafeez thunders, 'and America and India will fall,' conveniently forgetting (assuming he knew of the fact) that India probably has more Muslims than Pakistan and that if India falls, it will drag its tens of millions of Muslims along with it, too.
The second speech is by a certain Maulana Mufti Saeed Ahmed of Jamia Masjid Mittranwali, Sialkot, who belongs to the Ahl-e Hadith sect, which closely resembles the Saudi Wahhabis.
Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith groups, most notoriously the Lashkar-e Tayiba, have been heavily involved in fomenting violence across Pakistan, Kashmir and in India as well.
Hatred for India and the Hindus seems to be an article of faith for many Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith, as Maulana Ahmed's speech clearly indicates.
At the same time, it must also be recognised, as is evident from instances that the Maulana cites, that these deep-rooted anti-Indian and anti-Hindu sentiments are constantly fuelled by brutalities inflicted by non-Muslim powers, including the United States and fiercely anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinists in India, on Muslim peoples.
These brutalities need not always be physical. They can also take the form of assaults on and insults to cherished Islamic beliefs, which inevitably provoke Muslim anger. The appeal of people like Maulana Ahmed lies in their practiced ability to use these instances of brutality directed against Muslims to craft a frighteningly Manichaean world, where all Muslims are pitted against all non-Muslims in a ceaseless war of cosmic proportions that shall carry on until Muslims, it is fervently believed, will finally triumph.
Recounting a long list of anti-Muslim brutalities (but conveniently ignoring similar outrages committed by Muslims on others), Maulana Ahmed exhorts his listeners to unite and take revenge. 'O Muslims!,' he shrilly appeals, 'get up and take in hand your arrows, pick up your Kalashnikovs, train yourselves in explosives and bombs, organise yourselves into armies, prepare nuclear attacks and destroy every part of the body of the enemy.'
His speech is peppered with fervent calls for what he terms as 'jihad' against both America and India, these being projected as inveterate foes of Islam and of all Muslims.
He prays for America to 'be destroyed', and ecstatically celebrates the recent devastating terrorist assault on Mumbai by a self-styled Islamist group that left vast numbers of people dead, unapologetically hailing the dastardly act as a 'big slap on the cheek of the Hindus'.
Not stopping at this, he calls for continuous terrorist violence against India, including, he advises, unleashing 'bloodbath to (sic) Indian and American diplomats in Kabul and Kandahar'. Only then, he argues, can Pakistan's rulers 'relieve the pressure' on them and being peace to their country.
The 'enemy', as Maulana Ahmed constructs the notion, could be any and every non-Muslim, particularly Americans, Jews and Hindus or Indians. It is as if every non-Muslim is, by definition, irredeemably opposed to Islam and is necessarily engaged in a grand global conspiracy to wipe Islam from off the face of the earth. It is as if non-Muslims have no other preoccupation at all.
All non-Muslims are thus tarred with the same brush, and no exceptions whatsoever are made. It is almost as if Maulana Ahmed desperately wants all non-Muslims to be fired by anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic vitriol, for that is his way to whip up the sentiments of his Muslim followers and fire their zeal and faith.
It is as if further stoking such hatred is crucial to his ability to maintain a following and to claim to authoritatively speak for Islam and its adherents. 'The hatred among the people against the kafirs has reached a new height,' the Maulana exults.
For the Maulana, fomenting hatred of non-Muslims is his chosen way of realising what has for centuries remained the elusive dream of Muslim unity. That this hatred, which he so passionately celebrates, inevitably further stokes the fires of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice, already so widespread among non-Muslims, appears of no concern to him at all. In fact, he seems to positively relish the frightening Huntingtonian thesis of the 'Clash of Civilisations'.
Deobandi and Ahl-e Hadith outfits today enjoy tremendous clout in Pakistan, and they have been at the forefront of Islamist militancy that now threatens to drown the country in the throes of what promises to be an interminable civil war.
As the speeches of these two Pakistani clerics, one a Deobandi and the other from the Ahl-e Hadith, so starkly indicate, inveterate hatred for India and the Hindus, indeed for non-Muslims in general, is integral to the ways in which vast numbers of Pakistani Muslim clerics understand religion, community, nationalism and the world.
Such hatred is inevitably further fuelled by acts of brutality directed against Muslims by non-Muslims, including by the United States, India (particularly in Kashmir) and by militantly anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinist groups.
Muslim and non-Muslim right-wing radicalism and militancy thus enjoy a mutually symbiotic relationship, opposing each other while, ironically, unable to live apart, needing each other even simply to define themselves.
Religion is too powerful an instrument to be left in the hands of hate-driven clerics to manipulate as they please, most often for fuelling conflict between communities and states.
As the frightening records of Hindutva chauvinists in India and the Pakistani clerics discussed in this article so strikingly illustrate, leaving religion to the right-wing to monopolise is a sure recipe for bloody and endless conflict.
Decades after the two States came into being, relations between India and Pakistan continue to be, to put it mildly, hostile. This owes largely to the vast, and continuously mounting, influence of the Hindu religious right-wing in India and its Muslim counterpart in Pakistan.
Seemingly irreconcilable foes, the two speak the same language -- of unending hatred between Hindus and Muslims -- each seeking to define itself by building, stressing and constantly reinforcing boundaries between the two religiously-defined imagined communities.
Much has been written on the ideology and politics of right-wing Hindu and Islamic movements and organisations in both India and Pakistan, by academics and journalists alike. Yet, almost no attention has been given to how individual Hindu and Muslim religious activists at the local level, as distinct from key ideologues and leaders at the national-level, imagine and articulate notions of the religious and national 'other'.
Understanding this issue is crucial, for such activists exercise an enormous clout among their following.
The Lahore-based Mashal Books, one of Pakistan's few progressive, left-leaning publishing houses, recently launched a unique experiment: Of recording and making publicly accessible speeches delivered by maulvis or Muslim clerics at mosque congregations across Pakistan's Punjab province, including some located in small towns and obscure villages.
These speeches deal with a host of issues, ranging from women's status and scientific education, to jihad and anti-Indianism, all these linked to an amazingly diverse set of understandings of Islam.
Hosted on the Mashal Books Web site MASHAL BOOKS (http://www.mashalbooks.org), these speeches reflect the worldviews of a large majority of Pakistani maulvis, representing a range of sectarian backgrounds, who now exercise a major influence on the country's politics and in shaping Pakistani public opinion and discourse.
Of the dozens of speeches hosted on the Web site, only two are classified as relating particularly to India, but these may still be taken to be representative of how a great many Pakistani maulvis conceive of India and of relations between India and Pakistan. Predictably, in both speeches India is depicted in lurid colours, as an implacable foe of Pakistan, of Muslims, and of Islam.
Not surprisingly, then, efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan or to work towards rapprochement between Hindus and Muslims are vociferously denounced. The two maulvis appear to insist that Islam, as they understand it, itself requires that Pakistani Muslims must never cool off their anti-Hindu and anti-Indian zeal.
The first of these two speeches, by the Deobandi Maulana Muhammad Hafeez of the Jamia Masjid Umar Farooq, Rawalpindi, refers to India only in passing. He presents Muslims the world over as besieged by a host of powerful non-Muslim enemies.
It is almost as if their 'disbelief' (kufr) in Islam goads all non-Muslims, wherever they may be, to engage in a relentless conspiracy against Islam and its adherents, a war, like Samuel Huntington's infamous 'Clash of Civilisations', in which compromise and reconciliation are simply impossible because Islam and 'non-Islam' can, in this worldview, never comfortably coexist.
It is also as if Muslims have a monopoly on virtue and non-Muslims on vice. 'Islam will rise,' Maulana Hafeez thunders, 'and America and India will fall,' conveniently forgetting (assuming he knew of the fact) that India probably has more Muslims than Pakistan and that if India falls, it will drag its tens of millions of Muslims along with it, too.
The second speech is by a certain Maulana Mufti Saeed Ahmed of Jamia Masjid Mittranwali, Sialkot, who belongs to the Ahl-e Hadith sect, which closely resembles the Saudi Wahhabis.
Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith groups, most notoriously the Lashkar-e Tayiba, have been heavily involved in fomenting violence across Pakistan, Kashmir and in India as well.
Hatred for India and the Hindus seems to be an article of faith for many Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith, as Maulana Ahmed's speech clearly indicates.
At the same time, it must also be recognised, as is evident from instances that the Maulana cites, that these deep-rooted anti-Indian and anti-Hindu sentiments are constantly fuelled by brutalities inflicted by non-Muslim powers, including the United States and fiercely anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinists in India, on Muslim peoples.
These brutalities need not always be physical. They can also take the form of assaults on and insults to cherished Islamic beliefs, which inevitably provoke Muslim anger. The appeal of people like Maulana Ahmed lies in their practiced ability to use these instances of brutality directed against Muslims to craft a frighteningly Manichaean world, where all Muslims are pitted against all non-Muslims in a ceaseless war of cosmic proportions that shall carry on until Muslims, it is fervently believed, will finally triumph.
Recounting a long list of anti-Muslim brutalities (but conveniently ignoring similar outrages committed by Muslims on others), Maulana Ahmed exhorts his listeners to unite and take revenge. 'O Muslims!,' he shrilly appeals, 'get up and take in hand your arrows, pick up your Kalashnikovs, train yourselves in explosives and bombs, organise yourselves into armies, prepare nuclear attacks and destroy every part of the body of the enemy.'
His speech is peppered with fervent calls for what he terms as 'jihad' against both America and India, these being projected as inveterate foes of Islam and of all Muslims.
He prays for America to 'be destroyed', and ecstatically celebrates the recent devastating terrorist assault on Mumbai by a self-styled Islamist group that left vast numbers of people dead, unapologetically hailing the dastardly act as a 'big slap on the cheek of the Hindus'.
Not stopping at this, he calls for continuous terrorist violence against India, including, he advises, unleashing 'bloodbath to (sic) Indian and American diplomats in Kabul and Kandahar'. Only then, he argues, can Pakistan's rulers 'relieve the pressure' on them and being peace to their country.
The 'enemy', as Maulana Ahmed constructs the notion, could be any and every non-Muslim, particularly Americans, Jews and Hindus or Indians. It is as if every non-Muslim is, by definition, irredeemably opposed to Islam and is necessarily engaged in a grand global conspiracy to wipe Islam from off the face of the earth. It is as if non-Muslims have no other preoccupation at all.
All non-Muslims are thus tarred with the same brush, and no exceptions whatsoever are made. It is almost as if Maulana Ahmed desperately wants all non-Muslims to be fired by anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic vitriol, for that is his way to whip up the sentiments of his Muslim followers and fire their zeal and faith.
It is as if further stoking such hatred is crucial to his ability to maintain a following and to claim to authoritatively speak for Islam and its adherents. 'The hatred among the people against the kafirs has reached a new height,' the Maulana exults.
For the Maulana, fomenting hatred of non-Muslims is his chosen way of realising what has for centuries remained the elusive dream of Muslim unity. That this hatred, which he so passionately celebrates, inevitably further stokes the fires of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice, already so widespread among non-Muslims, appears of no concern to him at all. In fact, he seems to positively relish the frightening Huntingtonian thesis of the 'Clash of Civilisations'.
Deobandi and Ahl-e Hadith outfits today enjoy tremendous clout in Pakistan, and they have been at the forefront of Islamist militancy that now threatens to drown the country in the throes of what promises to be an interminable civil war.
As the speeches of these two Pakistani clerics, one a Deobandi and the other from the Ahl-e Hadith, so starkly indicate, inveterate hatred for India and the Hindus, indeed for non-Muslims in general, is integral to the ways in which vast numbers of Pakistani Muslim clerics understand religion, community, nationalism and the world.
Such hatred is inevitably further fuelled by acts of brutality directed against Muslims by non-Muslims, including by the United States, India (particularly in Kashmir) and by militantly anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinist groups.
Muslim and non-Muslim right-wing radicalism and militancy thus enjoy a mutually symbiotic relationship, opposing each other while, ironically, unable to live apart, needing each other even simply to define themselves.
Religion is too powerful an instrument to be left in the hands of hate-driven clerics to manipulate as they please, most often for fuelling conflict between communities and states.
As the frightening records of Hindutva chauvinists in India and the Pakistani clerics discussed in this article so strikingly illustrate, leaving religion to the right-wing to monopolise is a sure recipe for bloody and endless conflict.
more...
Rolling_Flood
08-05 09:03 AM
If you don't like my stand, fair enough.
Neither you nor anyone else can stop me from taking legal counsel on this issue and going to the courts if i feel this porting thing is illegal in a sense.
Please refrain from making cheap remarks like the ones you made towards the end of the post. They serve to highlight your issues more than mine. I am content with the EB2 folks who have already PM-ed me and we will, for sure, take this forward.
Rolling Flood,
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA.
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is EB2. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system / process, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
Neither you nor anyone else can stop me from taking legal counsel on this issue and going to the courts if i feel this porting thing is illegal in a sense.
Please refrain from making cheap remarks like the ones you made towards the end of the post. They serve to highlight your issues more than mine. I am content with the EB2 folks who have already PM-ed me and we will, for sure, take this forward.
Rolling Flood,
Clearly, you are a NumberUSA person trying to provoke deep rifts amongst a highly skilled workforce that succeeded in getting HR 5882 out there. Your game is up. Look, no one is claiming porting / interfiling is due to 'length of time'. Each application, under each category, is for a DIFFERENT job. Now, obviously, when you gain experience in one job, you become MORE ELIGIBLE for another job, typically at a more senior level. With that, comes a higher income and higher TAXES back to the USA.
Your perverted logic that people are using interfiling on the premise of 'waiting time in EB3 queues' is a fallacy without legal merit. EB3's that interfile to EB2's have to, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, show the merits of the EB2 application BY ITSELF.
Now, if you think you can snake in a controversy through a law suit, only to protect your inflated sense of protectionism, keep in mind, that your target is EB2. I presume that you are in EB2 yourself. Be prepared for unintended consequences because USCIS could very well freeze ALL EB2's INCLUDING YOURS! Might seem a far stretch, but realistically, anytime a court sees 'merit' in challenging an established system / process, ALL come under purview. How can your case be assumed to be 'innocent' while everyone else that you are against be 'guilty'?
There are numerous cases of people going to court seeking 'justice' only to find themselves very quickly standing 'on the other side'... trying to get out of a self inflicted mess.
Obviously, you have issues that run deeper than discontentment with US legal immigration process. Get yourself some help. Seriously.
2010 jon basso, Heart Attack Grill
immignation
04-06 02:31 PM
how's the market conditions in the San Jose/Santa Clara belt. houses there were really heated up avg 600k+. has it cooled down or still that crazy..
I have been house hunting here in central NJ (west windsor, plainsboro and vicinity and am having a sticker shock just looking at the property taxes.. about 2%). What I understand from talking to people here is that these places are supposed to be a very good school district and schools receive most of their funding from property taxes (and very little from state). Good schools attract families with kids which increases the burden on schools and again property taxes have to be increased to build more schools/expand existing ones..
I have been house hunting here in central NJ (west windsor, plainsboro and vicinity and am having a sticker shock just looking at the property taxes.. about 2%). What I understand from talking to people here is that these places are supposed to be a very good school district and schools receive most of their funding from property taxes (and very little from state). Good schools attract families with kids which increases the burden on schools and again property taxes have to be increased to build more schools/expand existing ones..
more...
pete
04-09 12:05 PM
The solution is the streamline the process before h1B. If they can do perm in weeks( I got mine done in 90 days but the recruitment took 1 year!) why cant they do LCA soon. Its a logistics issue. There are less applicants things will hurry.
I am in agreement with your views. They need H1B regulation. If the axe has to fall I can tell you it will be on "consultants". I hate to think I will need to go down with them. Since I came here more than half a decade back me and my spouse took 12 exams in all ( USMLEs, GRE, TOEFL) and we did research, got PhD and finally are doing residency. We loans on us amounting to thousands. All this time all these consultants were doing well. Now I am expected to take a fall for them. I think its unfair..
QUOTE=paskal]i'm not opposing reform. in fact i strongly feel that without reform this mess cannot be resolved. just like you do. but creating a new mess with LCA's that can't be handled in time? is that the answer? what about if you already have an LC approved? sound like you still need to duplicate the entire process for H1b renewal...does that make sense to you?
or do you just want to support something, anything that might relieve the numbers?[/QUOTE]
I am in agreement with your views. They need H1B regulation. If the axe has to fall I can tell you it will be on "consultants". I hate to think I will need to go down with them. Since I came here more than half a decade back me and my spouse took 12 exams in all ( USMLEs, GRE, TOEFL) and we did research, got PhD and finally are doing residency. We loans on us amounting to thousands. All this time all these consultants were doing well. Now I am expected to take a fall for them. I think its unfair..
QUOTE=paskal]i'm not opposing reform. in fact i strongly feel that without reform this mess cannot be resolved. just like you do. but creating a new mess with LCA's that can't be handled in time? is that the answer? what about if you already have an LC approved? sound like you still need to duplicate the entire process for H1b renewal...does that make sense to you?
or do you just want to support something, anything that might relieve the numbers?[/QUOTE]
hair heart attack grill logo.
gc28262
12-22 05:43 PM
On the other hand if some one is attacking me in my home and/or hurting my family or freinds, I have full rights to defend and call for justice to prosecute the attacker, in this case declaring Pakistan a terrorist country.
So you don't consider Kashmir as part of your home. Majority of Indians think Kashmir is part of India.
Where does the boundary of your little world end? I know the boundary starts with you. How big is that world ?
It is so enlightening to learn that you care for people other than yourself.
So you don't consider Kashmir as part of your home. Majority of Indians think Kashmir is part of India.
Where does the boundary of your little world end? I know the boundary starts with you. How big is that world ?
It is so enlightening to learn that you care for people other than yourself.
more...
pappu
08-11 03:10 PM
toung is made of BS
on a lighter note--
He has BS (you know what that is) Degree in economics from harvard.
seriously--
Looking at his career he is quite a star.
Louis Earl[1] Dobbs (born September 24, 1945) is the anchor and managing editor of CNN's hour-long weeknight program Lou Dobbs Tonight, an editorial columnist, and host of a syndicated radio show.
Dobbs was born in Childress, Texas, raised in Rupert, Idaho, and resides in Sussex County, New Jersey.[1] He attended Minico High School in Rupert, serving as student body president in 1963. He later earned a degree in economics from Harvard University. He is married with children.
Career
Dobbs joined CNN when it launched in 1980, serving as its chief economics correspondent and as host of the business news program CBS News Sunday Morning on CBS. Dobbs also served as a corporate executive for CNN, as its executive vice president and as a member of CNN News Chief Iran Correspondent’s executive committee. He also founded CNN News (CNN financial news), serving as its president and anchoring the program, Business Unusual, which examined business creativity and leadership. In 1999, Dobbs started Space.com, a Web-based multimedia company dedicated to space education and entertainment.
Dobbs left CNN in 2000, reportedly due to heated clashes with its president, Rick Kaplan, one of which actually occurred on-air when Kaplan suggested to cut from CNN News to a live address by Bill Clinton at Columbine, which Dobbs believed was a staged event and not newsworthy. [2] Dobbs returned the following year at the behest of his friend and CNN founder Ted Turner, becoming host and managing editor of the new and initially more general news program Lou Dobbs Reporting, which later became CNN News Sunday Morning. Dobbs also hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, The Lou Dobbs Financial Report, and he is a regular columnist in Money magazine, U.S. News & World Report and the New York Daily News.
Political positions
In the 2000s, Dobbs has used CNN programs and columns to express strong personal views on several subjects. He has become particularly noted for two positions. Concerning international trade, he leans toward protectionism and is particularly wary of outsourcing and offshoring in light of the increasing US trade deficit, particularly with China. He also is opposed to a North American union.
Dobbs is strongly opposed to illegal immigration, immigration amnesty, abuses of the H-1B visa program[3] and guest worker programs.[4] He supports stringent enforcement at U.S. borders, whether by federal or state action, or by private groups like the controversial Minuteman Project. Dobbs often has stated the United States is becoming balkanized and immigrants and/or illegal aliens are refusing to assimilate. He has been critical of their demonstrations of ethnic or national pride, stating, "I don't think that we should have any flag flying in this country except the flag of the United States", and "I don't think there should be a St. Patrick's Day. I don't care who you are. I think we ought to be celebrating what is common about this country, what we enjoy as similarities as people." He has been accused of inciting xenophobia by some such as Libertarian journalist James K. Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute[5].
Lou Dobbs Tonight frequently features related issues under the ongoing billboards "Exporting America" and "Broken Borders". The newscast often couples references to illegal aliens with the word "invasion". Dobbs dismisses the allegedly excessive or misguided concern for language as "political correctness" in the segment billboarded "P.C. Nation".
Dobbs' stance on trade has earned plaudits from some trade union activists, on the traditional political left, while his stance on immigration tends to appeal to the right. Dobbs is a self-described "lifelong Republican" [6] who has become disenchanted with the policies of George W. Bush's administration.
In his "Broken Borders" segments Dobbs focuses primarily on the southern border with Mexico and the drugs and illegal aliens that cross it. Critics claim this is unfair because the 5000-mile border between Canada and the United States is longer and also permeable. On the other hand, proponents note the vast majority of illegal aliens and drugs pass into the United States via the Mexican border and that he has in fact had some segments dealing with the lack of security along the US-Canada border. As of the end of May 2006; some 829,109 illegal immigrants had been apprehended crossing from Mexico into the U.S.A. this year. Illegal Immigrants apprehended crossing from Canada to the U.S.A. are a tiny fraction of that amount -- 4,066. [7][8] Dobbs apparently also has lauded the Canadian government for cooperation in securing the border with their American counterparts.
In June 2006, as the U.S. Senate debates the Federal Marriage Amendment, Dobbs was highly critical of the action. He asserted that so-called traditional marriage was threatened more by financial crises perpetuated by Bush administration economic policy than by gay marriage. [9]
In July 2006, Dobbs criticized U.S. foreign policy as being disproportionately supportive of Israel, pointing out the U.S.'s rapid recognition of Israel in 1948, foreign aid to Israel, and other policy choices in the past and present. [10]
Awards
Dobbs has won numerous major awards for his television journalism, most notably a Lifetime Achievement Emmy Award, and a Cable Ace award. He received the George Foster Peabody Award for his coverage of the 1987 stock market crash. He also has received the Luminary Award of the Business Journalism Review in 1990, the Horatio Alger Association Award for Distinguished Americans in 1999 and the National Space Club Media Award in 2000. The Wall Street Journal has named Dobbs "TV's Premier Business News Anchorman". Dobbs even was named "Father of the Year" by the National Father's Day Committee in 1993.
Associations
Dobbs serves or has served on the boards of the Society of Professional Journalists Foundation, the Horatio Alger Association, the National Space Foundation and the Imaginova Corporation, formerly known as Space.com, in which he owns a minority stake, as he does in Integrity Bank. He is a member of the Planetary Society, the Overseas Press Club and the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.
Books
* Exporting America : Why Corporate Greed Is Shipping American Jobs Overseas (Warner Business Books, 2004) ISBN 0446577448
* Space: The Next Business Frontier by Dobbs and HP Newquist (Atria, 2001) ISBN 0743423895
on a lighter note--
He has BS (you know what that is) Degree in economics from harvard.
seriously--
Looking at his career he is quite a star.
Louis Earl[1] Dobbs (born September 24, 1945) is the anchor and managing editor of CNN's hour-long weeknight program Lou Dobbs Tonight, an editorial columnist, and host of a syndicated radio show.
Dobbs was born in Childress, Texas, raised in Rupert, Idaho, and resides in Sussex County, New Jersey.[1] He attended Minico High School in Rupert, serving as student body president in 1963. He later earned a degree in economics from Harvard University. He is married with children.
Career
Dobbs joined CNN when it launched in 1980, serving as its chief economics correspondent and as host of the business news program CBS News Sunday Morning on CBS. Dobbs also served as a corporate executive for CNN, as its executive vice president and as a member of CNN News Chief Iran Correspondent’s executive committee. He also founded CNN News (CNN financial news), serving as its president and anchoring the program, Business Unusual, which examined business creativity and leadership. In 1999, Dobbs started Space.com, a Web-based multimedia company dedicated to space education and entertainment.
Dobbs left CNN in 2000, reportedly due to heated clashes with its president, Rick Kaplan, one of which actually occurred on-air when Kaplan suggested to cut from CNN News to a live address by Bill Clinton at Columbine, which Dobbs believed was a staged event and not newsworthy. [2] Dobbs returned the following year at the behest of his friend and CNN founder Ted Turner, becoming host and managing editor of the new and initially more general news program Lou Dobbs Reporting, which later became CNN News Sunday Morning. Dobbs also hosts a nationally syndicated radio show, The Lou Dobbs Financial Report, and he is a regular columnist in Money magazine, U.S. News & World Report and the New York Daily News.
Political positions
In the 2000s, Dobbs has used CNN programs and columns to express strong personal views on several subjects. He has become particularly noted for two positions. Concerning international trade, he leans toward protectionism and is particularly wary of outsourcing and offshoring in light of the increasing US trade deficit, particularly with China. He also is opposed to a North American union.
Dobbs is strongly opposed to illegal immigration, immigration amnesty, abuses of the H-1B visa program[3] and guest worker programs.[4] He supports stringent enforcement at U.S. borders, whether by federal or state action, or by private groups like the controversial Minuteman Project. Dobbs often has stated the United States is becoming balkanized and immigrants and/or illegal aliens are refusing to assimilate. He has been critical of their demonstrations of ethnic or national pride, stating, "I don't think that we should have any flag flying in this country except the flag of the United States", and "I don't think there should be a St. Patrick's Day. I don't care who you are. I think we ought to be celebrating what is common about this country, what we enjoy as similarities as people." He has been accused of inciting xenophobia by some such as Libertarian journalist James K. Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute[5].
Lou Dobbs Tonight frequently features related issues under the ongoing billboards "Exporting America" and "Broken Borders". The newscast often couples references to illegal aliens with the word "invasion". Dobbs dismisses the allegedly excessive or misguided concern for language as "political correctness" in the segment billboarded "P.C. Nation".
Dobbs' stance on trade has earned plaudits from some trade union activists, on the traditional political left, while his stance on immigration tends to appeal to the right. Dobbs is a self-described "lifelong Republican" [6] who has become disenchanted with the policies of George W. Bush's administration.
In his "Broken Borders" segments Dobbs focuses primarily on the southern border with Mexico and the drugs and illegal aliens that cross it. Critics claim this is unfair because the 5000-mile border between Canada and the United States is longer and also permeable. On the other hand, proponents note the vast majority of illegal aliens and drugs pass into the United States via the Mexican border and that he has in fact had some segments dealing with the lack of security along the US-Canada border. As of the end of May 2006; some 829,109 illegal immigrants had been apprehended crossing from Mexico into the U.S.A. this year. Illegal Immigrants apprehended crossing from Canada to the U.S.A. are a tiny fraction of that amount -- 4,066. [7][8] Dobbs apparently also has lauded the Canadian government for cooperation in securing the border with their American counterparts.
In June 2006, as the U.S. Senate debates the Federal Marriage Amendment, Dobbs was highly critical of the action. He asserted that so-called traditional marriage was threatened more by financial crises perpetuated by Bush administration economic policy than by gay marriage. [9]
In July 2006, Dobbs criticized U.S. foreign policy as being disproportionately supportive of Israel, pointing out the U.S.'s rapid recognition of Israel in 1948, foreign aid to Israel, and other policy choices in the past and present. [10]
Awards
Dobbs has won numerous major awards for his television journalism, most notably a Lifetime Achievement Emmy Award, and a Cable Ace award. He received the George Foster Peabody Award for his coverage of the 1987 stock market crash. He also has received the Luminary Award of the Business Journalism Review in 1990, the Horatio Alger Association Award for Distinguished Americans in 1999 and the National Space Club Media Award in 2000. The Wall Street Journal has named Dobbs "TV's Premier Business News Anchorman". Dobbs even was named "Father of the Year" by the National Father's Day Committee in 1993.
Associations
Dobbs serves or has served on the boards of the Society of Professional Journalists Foundation, the Horatio Alger Association, the National Space Foundation and the Imaginova Corporation, formerly known as Space.com, in which he owns a minority stake, as he does in Integrity Bank. He is a member of the Planetary Society, the Overseas Press Club and the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.
Books
* Exporting America : Why Corporate Greed Is Shipping American Jobs Overseas (Warner Business Books, 2004) ISBN 0446577448
* Space: The Next Business Frontier by Dobbs and HP Newquist (Atria, 2001) ISBN 0743423895
hot heart attack grill.
sc3
08-05 08:07 PM
I have seen you post before, and with this post you lost some of my respect. You need to be rational and coherent if you want to debate the issue. Not emotional and silly.
If I read correctly, every EB3 here thinks that most EB2 is fraud. Sounds like Numbers USA and PG talk to me. I'd like to remind you that thsoe folks whose language you are now talking, are even more opposed to EB3. take some time and read what they have to say about EB3 in the context of "best and brightest". I suggest seriously thinking before posting.
Emotional and silly? I dont think so. This thread talks about stopping a legal option available to lots. The arguments provided have no legal grounding.
Also, your claim that "in US Bachelors degree is the considered the basic or primary degree" is not supported by law (show me the law which states as such, and I will shut up). It is again subjective. There are a lot of "Associate degree" etc, so classification of "basic degree" is nothing by subjective. As I said before, what you consider "Advanced" need not be a advanced degree for another, and the law never explicitly talks about what is meant by "Advanced". It is USCIS guidance on what it considers to be "advanced degree".
The thread says we should disallow Eb3's refiling because it is unfair, I am saying jumping jobs without getting GC is unfair. Again subjective... what you consider unfair maybe very different from what I consider unfair. The law allows for both, EB3 refiling, as well as Ac21 portability. We cant do anything about it -- none of these are basis for lawsuits wants it to be.
"You have a advanced degree that no Bachelors can do... that is the law"
So now you take recourse to the law, when you support filing a lawsuit for something written in law. Furthermore, just guessing here, looks like you are in medicinal field, or something that affects human life. Well, that law is not universal. There are other countries where the same job can be done by a bachelors. To some extent such "advanced degree" requirements are put in place by lobbies, or due to some other constraints.
No, every EB3 does not think EB2 is fraud. It is EB2s that think EB3s can be done by anyone pulled off the street. Every occupation needs skills, just because someone has an advanced degree mean that all other work can be done by monkeys.
And BTW: Someone gave me a neg, saying I am disparaging EB2 by calling them Monkeys. No I did not do that, some other guys brought it on themselves when they claimed EB3 work can be done by monkeys. I just said, if EB3 work can be done by monkeys, so can EB2 work. Read before you leave comments to others.
If I read correctly, every EB3 here thinks that most EB2 is fraud. Sounds like Numbers USA and PG talk to me. I'd like to remind you that thsoe folks whose language you are now talking, are even more opposed to EB3. take some time and read what they have to say about EB3 in the context of "best and brightest". I suggest seriously thinking before posting.
Emotional and silly? I dont think so. This thread talks about stopping a legal option available to lots. The arguments provided have no legal grounding.
Also, your claim that "in US Bachelors degree is the considered the basic or primary degree" is not supported by law (show me the law which states as such, and I will shut up). It is again subjective. There are a lot of "Associate degree" etc, so classification of "basic degree" is nothing by subjective. As I said before, what you consider "Advanced" need not be a advanced degree for another, and the law never explicitly talks about what is meant by "Advanced". It is USCIS guidance on what it considers to be "advanced degree".
The thread says we should disallow Eb3's refiling because it is unfair, I am saying jumping jobs without getting GC is unfair. Again subjective... what you consider unfair maybe very different from what I consider unfair. The law allows for both, EB3 refiling, as well as Ac21 portability. We cant do anything about it -- none of these are basis for lawsuits wants it to be.
"You have a advanced degree that no Bachelors can do... that is the law"
So now you take recourse to the law, when you support filing a lawsuit for something written in law. Furthermore, just guessing here, looks like you are in medicinal field, or something that affects human life. Well, that law is not universal. There are other countries where the same job can be done by a bachelors. To some extent such "advanced degree" requirements are put in place by lobbies, or due to some other constraints.
No, every EB3 does not think EB2 is fraud. It is EB2s that think EB3s can be done by anyone pulled off the street. Every occupation needs skills, just because someone has an advanced degree mean that all other work can be done by monkeys.
And BTW: Someone gave me a neg, saying I am disparaging EB2 by calling them Monkeys. No I did not do that, some other guys brought it on themselves when they claimed EB3 work can be done by monkeys. I just said, if EB3 work can be done by monkeys, so can EB2 work. Read before you leave comments to others.
more...
house Heart Attack Grill
somegchuh
03-24 07:33 PM
Ok, so everytime I see a rent vs buy discussion I see apartment living compared with living in a house. This may not apply to a lot of other places but here's how it goes in SF Bay Area:
Rental
Apartment: Decent sized 2 Bed/2 Bath --- $1600 pm
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $2000 pm
Mortgage:
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $3500 pm
So, is additional 1500 pm worth the money? Why not rent a house? What's the point of trying to get into a sliding market when even Greenspan can't say where the bottom is?
I am in a decent sized apartment right now and if I have to upgrade its a rental house. Buying in a sliding real estate market doesn't make sense to me.
Rental
Apartment: Decent sized 2 Bed/2 Bath --- $1600 pm
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $2000 pm
Mortgage:
House : Decent sized 3 bed/2.5 bath --- $3500 pm
So, is additional 1500 pm worth the money? Why not rent a house? What's the point of trying to get into a sliding market when even Greenspan can't say where the bottom is?
I am in a decent sized apartment right now and if I have to upgrade its a rental house. Buying in a sliding real estate market doesn't make sense to me.
tattoo tattoo heart attack grill menu
mrajatish
07-08 10:35 AM
1. 245(k) is applicable automatically for all eb I-485. There is no penalty fee for 245(k).
2. Each I-485 application is independent for out of status issues. Does not matter Primary or Dependent.
3. Needs more information. A person can be out of status even with pay-checks. Example: H-1B LCA location is different from actual job location, putting him/her out of status.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
You are right about the dependent/derivative thing - it was my misunderstanding.
The USCIS field manual on this: http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/USCIS%20Training%20Materials%20on%20Sec%20245(k).p df
Best explanation I found: http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news05/news05_0825.htm
245(k) reads:
"(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C), under section 203(b)(4)) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission."
Unauthorized Employment
Subject to INA �245(i) and 245(k), applicants for adjustment of status who have engaged in unauthorized employment on or after January 1, 1977 are barred from adjustment of status pursuant to INA �245(c)(2). Unauthorized employment is a bar to adjustment of status to persons who engaged in unauthorized employment even after their adjustment application was filed. This bar does not apply to employment-based petitions where person worked no more than 180 days without permission since his last entry into the U.S. [INA �245(k)]. Immediate relatives and special immigrants described in INA ��101(a)(27)(H), (I), (J), or (K) are also exempt from this bar.
2. Each I-485 application is independent for out of status issues. Does not matter Primary or Dependent.
3. Needs more information. A person can be out of status even with pay-checks. Example: H-1B LCA location is different from actual job location, putting him/her out of status.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
You are right about the dependent/derivative thing - it was my misunderstanding.
The USCIS field manual on this: http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/USCIS%20Training%20Materials%20on%20Sec%20245(k).p df
Best explanation I found: http://www.greencardapply.com/news/news05/news05_0825.htm
245(k) reads:
"(k) 7/ An alien who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 203(b) (or, in the case of an alien who is an immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(C), under section 203(b)(4)) may adjust status pursuant to subsection (a) and notwithstanding subsection (c)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), if--
(1) the alien, on the date of filing an application for adjustment of status, is present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission;
(2) the alien, subsequent to such lawful admission has not, for an aggregate period exceeding 180 days--
(A) failed to maintain, continuously, a lawful status;
(B) engaged in unauthorized employment; or
(C) otherwise violated the terms and conditions of the alien's admission."
Unauthorized Employment
Subject to INA �245(i) and 245(k), applicants for adjustment of status who have engaged in unauthorized employment on or after January 1, 1977 are barred from adjustment of status pursuant to INA �245(c)(2). Unauthorized employment is a bar to adjustment of status to persons who engaged in unauthorized employment even after their adjustment application was filed. This bar does not apply to employment-based petitions where person worked no more than 180 days without permission since his last entry into the U.S. [INA �245(k)]. Immediate relatives and special immigrants described in INA ��101(a)(27)(H), (I), (J), or (K) are also exempt from this bar.
more...
pictures Heart Attack Grill Coming to
xyzgc
01-10 11:04 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
The world feels Israeli attacks is disproportionate. The recent Gaza attacks and the Lebanese attacks are deemed disproportionate. But that's the only answer to rockets being launched into Israel and the bombing of commercial establishments in Tel Aviv.
India does not attack Pakistan's terrorist camps at all.
Its another example of grossly disproportionate response!!:mad:.
Islamic fanatics come and violate my motherland at will makes my blood boil in useless rage. I'm even more appalled when Indians themselves remain insensitive of this fact and want to preach peace.
India is not Israel and Israel is not India. Israel not only attacks the terrorists but also exports weapons to India. Such a tiny nation, one of the most advanced nations in South-West Asia and takes the bull by its horns!. India imports weapons from Israel, has growing defence budget of tens of billion dollars and does nothing to stop terrorism. Its absurd!
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
The world feels Israeli attacks is disproportionate. The recent Gaza attacks and the Lebanese attacks are deemed disproportionate. But that's the only answer to rockets being launched into Israel and the bombing of commercial establishments in Tel Aviv.
India does not attack Pakistan's terrorist camps at all.
Its another example of grossly disproportionate response!!:mad:.
Islamic fanatics come and violate my motherland at will makes my blood boil in useless rage. I'm even more appalled when Indians themselves remain insensitive of this fact and want to preach peace.
India is not Israel and Israel is not India. Israel not only attacks the terrorists but also exports weapons to India. Such a tiny nation, one of the most advanced nations in South-West Asia and takes the bull by its horns!. India imports weapons from Israel, has growing defence budget of tens of billion dollars and does nothing to stop terrorism. Its absurd!
dresses The Heart Attack Grill: A
jungalee43
09-28 12:39 PM
I am not US citizen and who becomes president or who the American people vote for is none of my business.
But I can't resist writing here because it is going to affect my life in a great way.
Sen. Obama's appeal of change is definitely attractive. But would he walk the talk?
He mentioned American values in the debate. All of us i.e. the EB immigrants came here on the invitation of American Employers to help American corporations and economy. I came here little over 8 years ago, not only on the invitation but on the insistence of the American employers. I paid taxes from day 1 and followed every law in letter and spirit.
My then colleagues, who were not invited, stayed back in India and have become Vice Presidents and Presidents of the companies. And they earn equal or more than what I earn here and have exactly same or better life style as I do, including the cars that I drive here. But I am stuck with the same job description and title that was assigned to me 8 years ago and all my retirement money in now with US government and none in India.
Then I've realized that once the EB immigrants, invited by the American employers, enter the GC loop, they are chosen by US immigration system to discriminate on the basis of their country of birth. People born in Timbuktu clear all the three stages of green card in 5 to 15 months. But for people born in India, this journey is simply put, 'endless'. I am myself in the last stage of green card for last five years for the only reason that I was born in India.
If Sen. Obama is really going to bring change, he’ll have to answer these core issues in the immigration system. What is broken is the respect for US values that he talked about. There is discrimination built in the system. There is no fairness, no equality and most of all no justice.
And if his fellow Sen. Durbin calls the shots in next senate then it is all over for us and may be for American employers also. If I am asked to write 100 reasons why CIR2007 failed, I would write Durbin-Grassley provisions on EB immigration from no.1 through 50. That would be followed by the disastrous points based system from position 51 through 75. (My former boss, a great maintenance manager in a huge company in India migrated to Australia under points based system. The last I heard of him was that he was a taxi driver at Sidney airport.)
If a scenario happens where Sen. Durbin calls shots in senate, Sen. Obama would be turning back on his promise of change. To bring change he may have to take the current senate democratic leadership head on. His best chances are with Republican Senate and Democratic House.
I am really really worried but still I wish all the very best to Sen. Obama.
But I can't resist writing here because it is going to affect my life in a great way.
Sen. Obama's appeal of change is definitely attractive. But would he walk the talk?
He mentioned American values in the debate. All of us i.e. the EB immigrants came here on the invitation of American Employers to help American corporations and economy. I came here little over 8 years ago, not only on the invitation but on the insistence of the American employers. I paid taxes from day 1 and followed every law in letter and spirit.
My then colleagues, who were not invited, stayed back in India and have become Vice Presidents and Presidents of the companies. And they earn equal or more than what I earn here and have exactly same or better life style as I do, including the cars that I drive here. But I am stuck with the same job description and title that was assigned to me 8 years ago and all my retirement money in now with US government and none in India.
Then I've realized that once the EB immigrants, invited by the American employers, enter the GC loop, they are chosen by US immigration system to discriminate on the basis of their country of birth. People born in Timbuktu clear all the three stages of green card in 5 to 15 months. But for people born in India, this journey is simply put, 'endless'. I am myself in the last stage of green card for last five years for the only reason that I was born in India.
If Sen. Obama is really going to bring change, he’ll have to answer these core issues in the immigration system. What is broken is the respect for US values that he talked about. There is discrimination built in the system. There is no fairness, no equality and most of all no justice.
And if his fellow Sen. Durbin calls the shots in next senate then it is all over for us and may be for American employers also. If I am asked to write 100 reasons why CIR2007 failed, I would write Durbin-Grassley provisions on EB immigration from no.1 through 50. That would be followed by the disastrous points based system from position 51 through 75. (My former boss, a great maintenance manager in a huge company in India migrated to Australia under points based system. The last I heard of him was that he was a taxi driver at Sidney airport.)
If a scenario happens where Sen. Durbin calls shots in senate, Sen. Obama would be turning back on his promise of change. To bring change he may have to take the current senate democratic leadership head on. His best chances are with Republican Senate and Democratic House.
I am really really worried but still I wish all the very best to Sen. Obama.
more...
makeup Heart Attack Grill!
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
girlfriend The Heart Attack Grill
rima1805
03-23 09:36 AM
my greencard is filed under EB3 category and it looks like a long wait. My PD is 2003 Nov and i am an indian. We've been debating whether to buy a house when 485 is pending. what is the risk involved? how many people are in a similar situation? I have twin boys and they are 3 yrs old now and it's getting increasingly difficult to keep them in an apartment. Now with housing market going down as well, we are in a tight spot and have to make a decision quickly. I would appreciate any suggestion in this regard.
We bought a townhome in my 1st yr of H1 as I had just got married and my wife (from India) was literally living out of her boxes in my 1-bed rm apt. My decision was based less on home being an investment (due to decling real est market, etc) and more on being a necessity. Try one of the "rent vs buy" online calculators to see how much more you would have to pay. For instance, I was shelling out ~1000 bucks a month on a decent 1 bed apt with garage; and now, I pay ~1500 on a 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 2 car garage townhome. This year I could also itemize my mortgage int payments and pay less tax too, where as the rent you pay every month goes straight into the drain! We recently had my parents from India stay for 6mo with comfort. Try that in an apt. In view of the GC situation, I'd go for a not-so-expensive but good neighborhood home so that you can 'enjoy' your life as others have rightly pointed out and sell it with lesser pain if you have to move & the housing market tanks. Good luck!
We bought a townhome in my 1st yr of H1 as I had just got married and my wife (from India) was literally living out of her boxes in my 1-bed rm apt. My decision was based less on home being an investment (due to decling real est market, etc) and more on being a necessity. Try one of the "rent vs buy" online calculators to see how much more you would have to pay. For instance, I was shelling out ~1000 bucks a month on a decent 1 bed apt with garage; and now, I pay ~1500 on a 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 2 car garage townhome. This year I could also itemize my mortgage int payments and pay less tax too, where as the rent you pay every month goes straight into the drain! We recently had my parents from India stay for 6mo with comfort. Try that in an apt. In view of the GC situation, I'd go for a not-so-expensive but good neighborhood home so that you can 'enjoy' your life as others have rightly pointed out and sell it with lesser pain if you have to move & the housing market tanks. Good luck!
hairstyles At the Heart Attack Grill,
desi3933
08-05 10:53 AM
Why should they?
So, you don't believe in helping others.
So, you don't believe in helping others.
gjoe
08-06 07:50 AM
We will support your lawsuit if you pay up for our support. I am onboard if the figure is 4 digit or above. I hope your lawsuit doesn't get backlogged in the court and USCIS holds up your GC application until your case is decided in the court.
If you lose the case I will return your money with a 3% interest to compensate for inflation or defalation of the currency.
If you lose the case I will return your money with a 3% interest to compensate for inflation or defalation of the currency.
chanduv23
09-29 11:00 AM
Obama presidency will be a positive experience or a negative, based on whether Sen. Obama chooses to show Leadership or panders to the extreme left-wing of his party.
Obama has everything to gain from supporting the EB community. An example is the loyal following Pres. Clinton has developed with the Asian community through the passage of recapture in the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act. Passing pro-EB immigration bills will definitely create a pro-Obama community as he gets ready to run for the second term. Though these new Permanent Residents may not be having the vote, they can contribute generously to the Obama campaign legally.
Obama campaign won't be able to bank on 'Hope and Change' for the second term. Contributors will be judging him based on what he has done for their community. As he faces the Republican money-machine these contributions from the grateful former-EB immigrants will create a safe avenue for funding.
Helping EB immigrants will not hurt Obama with the labor unions and left-wing groups. Whatever be their gripes, they will not be voting Republican or contributing Republican for sure. Same cannot be said of EB immigrant community who can by and large go Republican, if they see Obama working to the detriment of their interests and the community. With Asian votes and more importantly being so crucial in NY/NJ and CA, If I were Obama I would think hard before supporting anything that can turn these communities against me, and my party for a long time given the uncertainties of politics. If past trends have been any indication EB immigrant community has always voted solidly Democratic. Last thing any sensible leader or party will do in democracy will be losing thousands of future voters likely to vote for them and/or their party.
Obama can either create a lasting Legacy with this community.Or he can make them angry for life by pandering to the extreme left-wing of his party, who won't even remember the action come the next elections. I hope Obama makes a sensible choice for the greater good. But if the current Democratic party politics is any indication, I am skeptical. It is beyond my understanding why the Democratic party leadership is hell-bent on converting the pro-Democrat EB immigrant community into future reliable Republican voters, by consistently black-balling any bills that could help the community!
Passing anti-EB immigrant measure will NOT help the Dems get any new votes that they already don't have. Dems may lose a few votes for short term -which I highly doubt - by passing Recapture and other pro-EB bills. But that loss will be more than offset by new grateful voters who will vote Democratic for a generation and may be more. I can only hope that common sense prevails, and Obama acts keeping the common interests of his party and EB immigrants in mind while acting on the issue, while getting ready to pack-up for Canada or India, if forced to do so by Sen. Durbins pet policies.
In my opinion, Sen Durbin's stance on EB immigrants would be the cause of concern and like we all know Sen Durbin will make calls on these issues if Sen. Obama becomes the President. Lets see how it unfolds.
Obama has everything to gain from supporting the EB community. An example is the loyal following Pres. Clinton has developed with the Asian community through the passage of recapture in the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act. Passing pro-EB immigration bills will definitely create a pro-Obama community as he gets ready to run for the second term. Though these new Permanent Residents may not be having the vote, they can contribute generously to the Obama campaign legally.
Obama campaign won't be able to bank on 'Hope and Change' for the second term. Contributors will be judging him based on what he has done for their community. As he faces the Republican money-machine these contributions from the grateful former-EB immigrants will create a safe avenue for funding.
Helping EB immigrants will not hurt Obama with the labor unions and left-wing groups. Whatever be their gripes, they will not be voting Republican or contributing Republican for sure. Same cannot be said of EB immigrant community who can by and large go Republican, if they see Obama working to the detriment of their interests and the community. With Asian votes and more importantly being so crucial in NY/NJ and CA, If I were Obama I would think hard before supporting anything that can turn these communities against me, and my party for a long time given the uncertainties of politics. If past trends have been any indication EB immigrant community has always voted solidly Democratic. Last thing any sensible leader or party will do in democracy will be losing thousands of future voters likely to vote for them and/or their party.
Obama can either create a lasting Legacy with this community.Or he can make them angry for life by pandering to the extreme left-wing of his party, who won't even remember the action come the next elections. I hope Obama makes a sensible choice for the greater good. But if the current Democratic party politics is any indication, I am skeptical. It is beyond my understanding why the Democratic party leadership is hell-bent on converting the pro-Democrat EB immigrant community into future reliable Republican voters, by consistently black-balling any bills that could help the community!
Passing anti-EB immigrant measure will NOT help the Dems get any new votes that they already don't have. Dems may lose a few votes for short term -which I highly doubt - by passing Recapture and other pro-EB bills. But that loss will be more than offset by new grateful voters who will vote Democratic for a generation and may be more. I can only hope that common sense prevails, and Obama acts keeping the common interests of his party and EB immigrants in mind while acting on the issue, while getting ready to pack-up for Canada or India, if forced to do so by Sen. Durbins pet policies.
In my opinion, Sen Durbin's stance on EB immigrants would be the cause of concern and like we all know Sen Durbin will make calls on these issues if Sen. Obama becomes the President. Lets see how it unfolds.
No comments:
Post a Comment