Macaca
02-18 01:11 PM
Mickey Goes to Washington (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302837.html) Lobbyists for America's richest mouse set out to persuade Congress to scare up $200 million to promote U.S. tourist destinations By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum | WP, Feb 17
wallpaper Lindsay Lohan and Nicole
unitednations
08-02 10:35 PM
You mean the spouse gets 245i benifit even if the spouse was not present here on dec 2000 and came after 2001.
I haven't read the memo in a long time. You would need to research it.
It just piqued my interest because it could be used by people who need the 245i benefit but weren't eligible for it and they got it through their spouse even though spouse may have not needed it and spouse relationship didn't even exist at that time.
I haven't read the memo in a long time. You would need to research it.
It just piqued my interest because it could be used by people who need the 245i benefit but weren't eligible for it and they got it through their spouse even though spouse may have not needed it and spouse relationship didn't even exist at that time.
Macaca
02-27 07:18 PM
Democrats Should Read Kipling (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18kristol.html?ref=opinion) By WILLIAM KRISTOL | NYT, Feb 18
Browsing through a used-book store Friday � in the Milwaukee airport, of all places � I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell�s essays. That�s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell�s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn�t be surprised that its argument would shed light� or so it seems to me � on contemporary American politics.
Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is �morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.� Still, he says, Kipling �survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.� One reason for this is that Kipling �identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.�
�In a gifted writer,� Orwell remarks, �this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.� Kipling �at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.� For, Orwell explains, �The ruling power is always faced with the question, �In such and such circumstances, what would you do?�, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.� Furthermore, �where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.�
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell�s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party � with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats� academic and media supporters � a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition � seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush�s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn�t turn those failures around. Democrats were �against� the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13 to 2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government�s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the United States. The full Senate passed the legislation easily � with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Senators Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail.
But the Democratic House leadership balked � particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. Director McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to antiterror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. �Your country is at risk if we can�t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time,� he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies � and to the Bush administration � seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
An Old Hand Goads Democrats to Get Tough on Ethics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002831.html?hpid=sec-politics) By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane | WP, Feb 21
Browsing through a used-book store Friday � in the Milwaukee airport, of all places � I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell�s essays. That�s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell�s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn�t be surprised that its argument would shed light� or so it seems to me � on contemporary American politics.
Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is �morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.� Still, he says, Kipling �survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.� One reason for this is that Kipling �identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.�
�In a gifted writer,� Orwell remarks, �this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.� Kipling �at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.� For, Orwell explains, �The ruling power is always faced with the question, �In such and such circumstances, what would you do?�, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.� Furthermore, �where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.�
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell�s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party � with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats� academic and media supporters � a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition � seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush�s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn�t turn those failures around. Democrats were �against� the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13 to 2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government�s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the United States. The full Senate passed the legislation easily � with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Senators Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail.
But the Democratic House leadership balked � particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. Director McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to antiterror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. �Your country is at risk if we can�t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time,� he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies � and to the Bush administration � seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
An Old Hand Goads Democrats to Get Tough on Ethics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002831.html?hpid=sec-politics) By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane | WP, Feb 21
2011 counterpart Nicole Richie,
puddonhead
06-05 03:53 PM
This is your justification for renting? Your 1300 goes to that owners mortgage. You are paying so that he can own the property you live in. I would not be surprised if he has multiple condos renting to others like you.
Since you cite an example, let me cite one of mine.
Co-op bought in 2004, Queens NY 2 bedroom: $155,000
Rented now for $1,350 / month (Wife and I live in another home we also own also in queens)
Appraised value (Feb 2009) $195,000, Peak market value (my opinion) ~230,000 in 2006 but it seems to be worth more now which is clueless to me.
Outstanding balance: 60,000
Current mortgage (15y fixed@4.25): 452 / month (+525 maintenance)
Monthly cost total: ~1,000
Comps in area: See for yourself: http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/rea?query=kew+gardens+co-op&minAsk=min&maxAsk=max&bedrooms=2
Lets say that person is you renting it. You are paying to stay in my unit, pay my mortgage, pay my monthly, allow me to build equity which i just used to buy another property (thank you) and using standard deductions, allowing me to have a healthy tax return from interest paid based on your money. I dont even need to do any math here to prove I am making money from your rent because believe me I am.
Renters will never understand why owning a home is better than renting as thus they will continue to make arguments to continue doing so. And I'm sure that giving 1 example or 100 examples will not change your mind in the slightest. Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
With those rent/price ratio - it makes no sense indeed to rent.
If I may ask you for a huge favor - could you please PM me more details about where specifically in Queens you have those kind of rent/price ratios?
Since the market prices got so inflated - my experience is that the rent/price ratios are still wayy off historical trends. My impression (based on a few examples I have seen) is that in most of the situations - the rent would not cover the interest + property tax + maintenance, which would mean throwing away money if you buy.
If indeed there are rent to buy ratios like the ones you have mentioned - then renting would be foolishness.
Since you cite an example, let me cite one of mine.
Co-op bought in 2004, Queens NY 2 bedroom: $155,000
Rented now for $1,350 / month (Wife and I live in another home we also own also in queens)
Appraised value (Feb 2009) $195,000, Peak market value (my opinion) ~230,000 in 2006 but it seems to be worth more now which is clueless to me.
Outstanding balance: 60,000
Current mortgage (15y fixed@4.25): 452 / month (+525 maintenance)
Monthly cost total: ~1,000
Comps in area: See for yourself: http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/rea?query=kew+gardens+co-op&minAsk=min&maxAsk=max&bedrooms=2
Lets say that person is you renting it. You are paying to stay in my unit, pay my mortgage, pay my monthly, allow me to build equity which i just used to buy another property (thank you) and using standard deductions, allowing me to have a healthy tax return from interest paid based on your money. I dont even need to do any math here to prove I am making money from your rent because believe me I am.
Renters will never understand why owning a home is better than renting as thus they will continue to make arguments to continue doing so. And I'm sure that giving 1 example or 100 examples will not change your mind in the slightest. Which is why you will always be paying owners like me for a roof to live under.
With those rent/price ratio - it makes no sense indeed to rent.
If I may ask you for a huge favor - could you please PM me more details about where specifically in Queens you have those kind of rent/price ratios?
Since the market prices got so inflated - my experience is that the rent/price ratios are still wayy off historical trends. My impression (based on a few examples I have seen) is that in most of the situations - the rent would not cover the interest + property tax + maintenance, which would mean throwing away money if you buy.
If indeed there are rent to buy ratios like the ones you have mentioned - then renting would be foolishness.
more...
alterego
07-14 04:32 AM
Why are you so worried about this initiative. Do you think an official at USCIS will read a letter and change the process in one day. If you think so then i wish you had written a letter during the letter campaign, we needed someone with your 'positive' attitude. I have sent letters to everybodies uncle and this is my 8th year waiting in EB3 and 12th year in US. Give us a chance to express our thoughts and wallow in our black hole.
We as EB3 feel that we got a raw deal due to a change in the intrepretation of a law. There is nothing wrong in sending a letter to express our opinion.
You can send a letter to thank USCIS for helping EB2 and the fact that you have an MS and that makes you great etc...(isnt this what every other post says, disregarding the fact that EB3's have people from top US universities too, there top universities around the world. I guess that you guys or the USCIS thinks that 5yrs consultancy at desi bodyshop with manufactured resume = 2yrs MS at Yale). Nothing against you, let us post a simple letter and get on with our miserable lives.
That is exactly it. This letter sounds desperate. Not exactly a recipe for success. Merely a shot in the wind, with no plan, and it is directed at someone with no power to legislate. Additionally, a few people mention they want to make him aware of this situation. Don't you think as someone who sets the PDs monthly he is aware of it already? He testified in front of congress recently about it.
Getting the interpretation of the law changed is not going to happen especially after they changed their interpretation recently with congressional input.
It is entirely up to the employer (except EB1OR and EB2NIW which are self petitioned) to file in a particular category. It should be based on the job description. If someone feels their job was EB2 qualified but their employer filed only in EB3, then they could consider moving jobs. Once the 140 is processed, the law allows a retention of PD across EB categories which to my mind is fairly generous.
This letter cannot achieve anything, it in no way helps with the visa recapture. That is the only thing that helps everyone EB2, EB3 and EB3ROW. Visa recapture has a moral argument that is stronger ie. the Gov't agency involved did not process efficiently and wasted numbers while there were immense backlogs and it was the intent of congress to approve 140K visas a year in EB immigration so lets redress this...........
This letter is certain to cause a distraction for all and lead to internecine warfare between EB categories. EB2I will most likely have a retrogression again in the Oct, bulletin and we will be back to the old scenario.
Additionally, after 7 pages, I have not seen a single post explain to me how either spillover method ie previous vertical or newer horizontal spillover will help EB3I. Either way has to go through the gate of Eb2I and C. One can argue that since they had the wrong interpretation of spillover for nearly 2 yrs, those visas should be redirected in favor of EB2 I and C.
Ultimately this is not the type of solution we need to our issue. We need to overall pie to be bigger.
We as EB3 feel that we got a raw deal due to a change in the intrepretation of a law. There is nothing wrong in sending a letter to express our opinion.
You can send a letter to thank USCIS for helping EB2 and the fact that you have an MS and that makes you great etc...(isnt this what every other post says, disregarding the fact that EB3's have people from top US universities too, there top universities around the world. I guess that you guys or the USCIS thinks that 5yrs consultancy at desi bodyshop with manufactured resume = 2yrs MS at Yale). Nothing against you, let us post a simple letter and get on with our miserable lives.
That is exactly it. This letter sounds desperate. Not exactly a recipe for success. Merely a shot in the wind, with no plan, and it is directed at someone with no power to legislate. Additionally, a few people mention they want to make him aware of this situation. Don't you think as someone who sets the PDs monthly he is aware of it already? He testified in front of congress recently about it.
Getting the interpretation of the law changed is not going to happen especially after they changed their interpretation recently with congressional input.
It is entirely up to the employer (except EB1OR and EB2NIW which are self petitioned) to file in a particular category. It should be based on the job description. If someone feels their job was EB2 qualified but their employer filed only in EB3, then they could consider moving jobs. Once the 140 is processed, the law allows a retention of PD across EB categories which to my mind is fairly generous.
This letter cannot achieve anything, it in no way helps with the visa recapture. That is the only thing that helps everyone EB2, EB3 and EB3ROW. Visa recapture has a moral argument that is stronger ie. the Gov't agency involved did not process efficiently and wasted numbers while there were immense backlogs and it was the intent of congress to approve 140K visas a year in EB immigration so lets redress this...........
This letter is certain to cause a distraction for all and lead to internecine warfare between EB categories. EB2I will most likely have a retrogression again in the Oct, bulletin and we will be back to the old scenario.
Additionally, after 7 pages, I have not seen a single post explain to me how either spillover method ie previous vertical or newer horizontal spillover will help EB3I. Either way has to go through the gate of Eb2I and C. One can argue that since they had the wrong interpretation of spillover for nearly 2 yrs, those visas should be redirected in favor of EB2 I and C.
Ultimately this is not the type of solution we need to our issue. We need to overall pie to be bigger.
Macaca
08-14 11:27 AM
Convention Party Favors Include Face Time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081301067.html?hpid=topnews) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum Washington Post Staff Writer, August 14, 2007
Congress just completed ethics legislation designed to put distance between lawmakers and the interests that seek favors from them.
But the people in charge of next summer's presidential nominating conventions are busy selling package deals that would put them closer together.
The host committees of 2008's biggest political gatherings are soliciting corporations, wealthy individuals and others with a lot at stake in government decisions for seven-figure payments. In exchange, the givers receive all sorts of goodies, including access to lawmakers and other politicians. The more money the donors spend, the more access they get. Donors also garner valuable publicity for their businesses and the convention's locale, which has its own commercial payoff.
Microsoft and AT&T, to name two, have been high-profile donors to the host committees of previous conventions.
At the Republican convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, donors of $5 million or more will receive (among many other things) a private dinner and a separate golf outing with the Republican leadership, according to a list of benefits distributed by the host committee.
At the Democratic convention in Denver, a million-dollar contribution purchases invitations to a series of private events that feature Colorado's governor, Denver's mayor and members of the state's congressional delegation, among other special advantages.
The host committees do not hide their cash-for-access offers; they flaunt them. "As a corporate sponsor, you will be invited to exclusive forums and special events where you will interact with our state's and the nation's government and business leaders," the Democratic solicitation states. "In financial terms, your sponsorship is an investment in the future."
The host committees, which are run by local officials separate from the political parties, collect the tens of millions of dollars needed to put on the extravaganzas, which next year will take place for the Democrats in late August and for the Republicans in early September.
Yet the marketing comes at a sensitive time. Congress just passed -- and President Bush is likely to sign into law soon -- a bill that aims to restrain the amount of influence lobbyists and their clients will have at the conventions.
The legislation aims to stop lobbyists and lobbying groups from paying for lavish parties that honor the lawmakers and the congressional committees they are hired to influence most. Such parties, a staple of the previous conventions, have been criticized by government-reform groups as giving undue clout to interests that have lots of money.
But the bill is silent about other kinds of parties and events, including those put on by the host committees. And those not only will continue but also appear likely to proliferate.
Top givers to the GOP convention are invited to a private reception that will include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Norm Coleman and local mayors. They also will have the right to advertise in prime locations throughout the Twin Cities.
The biggest contributors to the Democratic convention get invitations to all events sponsored by the host committee and special recognition in all host-committee publications.
The nominating conventions, which are held in the late summer before presidential elections, have offered similar benefits packages before. Sponsors are the primary source for the money needed to put on these massive events, which bring together delegates from every state, a who's who of the nation's political establishment and journalists from around the world.
Host committee representatives said they are promoting their cities and are seeking funds from corporations and others who want to make an impression locally and to a large national audience. Acting as a go-between for lawmakers and the interests that want to persuade them is a much more minor concern, they say.
"We're not here to put on a bunch of parties to honor a bunch of individual members" of Congress, said Jeff Larson, interim chairman of the Minneapolis-St. Paul host committee. "We want to promote the quality of life we have here in Minnesota."
"We're reaching out to a lot of constituencies, not just members of Congress," said Elbra Wedgeworth, president of the Denver host committee. "We are hoping to promote the Rocky Mountain west."
Washington gadflies, however, see more calculation than that. Easy access to lawmakers and other senior Washington officials, they say, has long been a major attraction of these conventions and will remain so despite the recent legislation.
"It's ironic given that the last thing Congress did before the August break is pass lobbying reform that included a provision limiting the parties that can be thrown at these conventions," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "That would suggest that they didn't mean it, which will really come as a surprise to no one."
Congress just completed ethics legislation designed to put distance between lawmakers and the interests that seek favors from them.
But the people in charge of next summer's presidential nominating conventions are busy selling package deals that would put them closer together.
The host committees of 2008's biggest political gatherings are soliciting corporations, wealthy individuals and others with a lot at stake in government decisions for seven-figure payments. In exchange, the givers receive all sorts of goodies, including access to lawmakers and other politicians. The more money the donors spend, the more access they get. Donors also garner valuable publicity for their businesses and the convention's locale, which has its own commercial payoff.
Microsoft and AT&T, to name two, have been high-profile donors to the host committees of previous conventions.
At the Republican convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, donors of $5 million or more will receive (among many other things) a private dinner and a separate golf outing with the Republican leadership, according to a list of benefits distributed by the host committee.
At the Democratic convention in Denver, a million-dollar contribution purchases invitations to a series of private events that feature Colorado's governor, Denver's mayor and members of the state's congressional delegation, among other special advantages.
The host committees do not hide their cash-for-access offers; they flaunt them. "As a corporate sponsor, you will be invited to exclusive forums and special events where you will interact with our state's and the nation's government and business leaders," the Democratic solicitation states. "In financial terms, your sponsorship is an investment in the future."
The host committees, which are run by local officials separate from the political parties, collect the tens of millions of dollars needed to put on the extravaganzas, which next year will take place for the Democrats in late August and for the Republicans in early September.
Yet the marketing comes at a sensitive time. Congress just passed -- and President Bush is likely to sign into law soon -- a bill that aims to restrain the amount of influence lobbyists and their clients will have at the conventions.
The legislation aims to stop lobbyists and lobbying groups from paying for lavish parties that honor the lawmakers and the congressional committees they are hired to influence most. Such parties, a staple of the previous conventions, have been criticized by government-reform groups as giving undue clout to interests that have lots of money.
But the bill is silent about other kinds of parties and events, including those put on by the host committees. And those not only will continue but also appear likely to proliferate.
Top givers to the GOP convention are invited to a private reception that will include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Norm Coleman and local mayors. They also will have the right to advertise in prime locations throughout the Twin Cities.
The biggest contributors to the Democratic convention get invitations to all events sponsored by the host committee and special recognition in all host-committee publications.
The nominating conventions, which are held in the late summer before presidential elections, have offered similar benefits packages before. Sponsors are the primary source for the money needed to put on these massive events, which bring together delegates from every state, a who's who of the nation's political establishment and journalists from around the world.
Host committee representatives said they are promoting their cities and are seeking funds from corporations and others who want to make an impression locally and to a large national audience. Acting as a go-between for lawmakers and the interests that want to persuade them is a much more minor concern, they say.
"We're not here to put on a bunch of parties to honor a bunch of individual members" of Congress, said Jeff Larson, interim chairman of the Minneapolis-St. Paul host committee. "We want to promote the quality of life we have here in Minnesota."
"We're reaching out to a lot of constituencies, not just members of Congress," said Elbra Wedgeworth, president of the Denver host committee. "We are hoping to promote the Rocky Mountain west."
Washington gadflies, however, see more calculation than that. Easy access to lawmakers and other senior Washington officials, they say, has long been a major attraction of these conventions and will remain so despite the recent legislation.
"It's ironic given that the last thing Congress did before the August break is pass lobbying reform that included a provision limiting the parties that can be thrown at these conventions," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "That would suggest that they didn't mean it, which will really come as a surprise to no one."
more...
Beemar
12-26 11:31 PM
Pakistan's nukes' user manuals are in Chinese language. How will they know how to fire them?
BUNCH OF IDIOTS WAKE UP. PAKISTAN IS A NUCLEAR STATE.
WAR IS NO SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEM.
BUNCH OF IDIOTS WAKE UP. PAKISTAN IS A NUCLEAR STATE.
WAR IS NO SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEM.
2010 Skinny Lindsay Lohan
mpadapa
09-26 10:14 AM
Yes, I would also love to see Sen Obama as President. I have no doubt in my mind that a Harvard graduate can get USA out of this economic turmoil. Obama presidency comes with a price for high-skilled immigrants because of the influence of Sen. Durbin on Sen. Obama on EB immigration issues. Past proposals from Sen. Durbin has scared the heck out of EB folks. If there is any changes to AC21 law like portability and H1 extensions, then many high-skilled immigrants might be sent packing because they cannot maintain status.
I have been in this country for almost 10 years and still have a long way to go before I get my green card. A Green Card system that was devised for a wait time of few years, has been clogged and is taking decades for people to get Green Cards. On top of it if the rules of the game is changed (like that proposed in CIR), I certainly don't want to get into this black hole queue again. If I have to start over my GC process again I would rather start it else where other than USA. I am strongly inclined to start my Canadian PR process if I don't see any process improvement in the GC process in the next year. Decades of waiting for a Green card has taken the edge out of my creativity and innovative spirit. It has causes me to compromise on professional ambitions. Even after 10 years of wait for this never ending ordeal, I still have to spend thousands of dollars every year on immigration expenses. I still cannot commit to buying a house and settling down because of the uncertain future due to Green Card limbo.
The luke warm reception to Lofgren bills by the Republican's have shown what we can expect if Sen. McCain becomes the President. Why did the so called maverick who supposedly supports immigration let the Lofgren bills die in the committees, while Republicans filibustered the bill in all the markup sessions. Sen. McCain has forgotten the word immigration after he has become the Republican nominee.
I have been in this country for almost 10 years and still have a long way to go before I get my green card. A Green Card system that was devised for a wait time of few years, has been clogged and is taking decades for people to get Green Cards. On top of it if the rules of the game is changed (like that proposed in CIR), I certainly don't want to get into this black hole queue again. If I have to start over my GC process again I would rather start it else where other than USA. I am strongly inclined to start my Canadian PR process if I don't see any process improvement in the GC process in the next year. Decades of waiting for a Green card has taken the edge out of my creativity and innovative spirit. It has causes me to compromise on professional ambitions. Even after 10 years of wait for this never ending ordeal, I still have to spend thousands of dollars every year on immigration expenses. I still cannot commit to buying a house and settling down because of the uncertain future due to Green Card limbo.
The luke warm reception to Lofgren bills by the Republican's have shown what we can expect if Sen. McCain becomes the President. Why did the so called maverick who supposedly supports immigration let the Lofgren bills die in the committees, while Republicans filibustered the bill in all the markup sessions. Sen. McCain has forgotten the word immigration after he has become the Republican nominee.
more...
mpadapa
09-26 11:07 AM
Sen. Obama's proposals to invest heavily in alternative energy will spur a lot of innovation and high-skilled immigrants can be a great part of that initiative. I would rather see piece meal approach like recapture, STEM, etc rather than the CIR, but will Sen Durbin let it happen?? If CIR 2007 is brought back then EB backlogs will further increase, remember the back logs created by the 245i applicants (in 2000) we are still recovering from that. High-skilled immigrants can only be benefited by bills like recapture, STEM, country quota removal, etc.
hair Nicole Richie and Lindsay
Macaca
05-09 05:50 PM
China’s America Obsession
Why Osama bin Laden's death is making Chinese leaders nervous. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/06/china_s_america_obsession)
By JOHN LEE | Foreign Policy
In Thursday's edition of China's Communist Party-owned Global Times newspaper, the lead editorial was headlined, "After Bin Laden, will China become US's foe?" Hoping that economic integration would defuse "right-wing paranoia" about China in the United States, the editorial nevertheless concluded: "The rise of China is certain to cause friction" in America. On Friday, the paper led with an editorial that referenced an interview I had given the Global Times in late April to admit that "China could be the loneliest rising power in world history."
Of course, editorials in state-owned newspapers do not always mirror the Communist Party's thinking or policies. But in this case, these two editorials remind us of two related points about Beijing's worldview. First, China respects and even fears the United States more than the vast majority of Americans probably realize. And second, China's sense of isolation is not an act but acute and real -- and Osama bin Laden's death will only accelerate America's reengagement with its Asian allies and partners at China's expense.
When Washington shifted its focus toward terrorism and the Middle East after the September 11 attacks in 2001, Beijing experienced genuine relief. As China's leaders and strategists came to believe, an America distracted by two wars and a weak economy presented a priceless window of opportunity for China to extend its influence in Asia and beyond. But Beijing realizes that Washington's strategic attention will eventually turn eastwards, and the death of bin Laden is one small but significant step in hastening the arrival of that day. As one prominent Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) analyst put it to me recently, the American "spearhead will soon be pointed at Beijing."
China's focus on America is obsessive and omnipresent among its leaders and strategists. In a study of 100 recent articles by leading academics at CASS, comprising the network of official state-backed think-tanks and institutes throughout the country, I found that about four in every five were about the United States -- whether it was seeking to understand the American system and political values, or describing how to limit, circumvent, bind, or otherwise reduce American power and influence. Of these themes, several emerged that help better understand the thinking behind editorials like the one in the Global Times.
One is that Beijing views international politics in broadly neorealist terms. Chinese strategists believe the distribution of power in the world today will determine tomorrow's conflicts. China has long seen building competition between itself and America in particular as the inevitable and defining big-picture strategic play. In Beijing's thinking, tension can be managed, but never resolved, between the established power and the emerging one. Tension is a structural inevitability.
But Chinese experts also view America as a unique superpower that relentlessly seeks not only to build and maintain its power, but also to spread its democratic values. This is of grave concern to the authoritarian Chinese leaders, because they believe that America will have difficulty accepting a greater leadership role for Beijing so long as Communist Party remains exclusively in power. Senator John McCain's "League of Democracies" might never become a formal reality, but Beijing believes that it already exists, at least in Asia, through democracies such as India, Japan, and South Korea.
Moreover, Beijing fears the American democratic process. While Americans view democracy as an advantage since it can offer United States an institutional and bloodless process for leadership and policy renewal, China views American democracy as a source of irrationality and unpredictability. Many in Beijing, pointing to President George W. Bush's rapid decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, believe a new administration might actually increase the chances of uncomfortable shifts in policy that will lead Washington to suddenly focus its competitive and hostile gaze to the east.
Some of Beijing's strategists now even argue that the United States has three advantages over China that will help preserve American strategic primacy in Asia.
First, the United States has built an order based not just on American power but also democratic community. It has not escaped Beijing that few countries in East and Southeast Asia fear India's democratic rise. Whereas India's ascent is seen as natural, predictable, and welcomed, almost every country in Asia is trying to benefit from China's economic success while strategically hedging against Chinese military power by moving even closer to the United States. (Witness the recent speech by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard to Congress in which she reaffirmed the alliance with America as the bedrock of Canberra's security strategy, or Singapore's leader Lee Hsien Loong urging America to remain engaged in Asia.)
Second, unlike China, America does not have land and territorial disputes with other Asian states. For example, China still claims around 80 percent of the South China Sea as its "historic waters" and is in an ongoing dispute with India over the eastern-most Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. In this sense, China's rise is inherently disruptive since a more powerful China is likely to demand a resolution to these issues that is in Beijing's favor.
Third, the United States is not a resident power in that it is not geographically in Asia. China now realizes that this simple fact, once seen as a handicap, instead presents America with a unique advantage. To maintain its military bases in the region and thus remain the pre-eminent strategic power in Asia, the United States requires other key states and regional groupings to acquiesce to its security role and relationships. There is broad-based regional approval of U.S. alliances with Australia, Japan, and South Korea, as well as with partners such as India, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. This interdependent relationship means that America is not so powerful that it can easily ignore the wishes of Asian states.
In contrast, if China were in the dominant strategic position, its pre-eminence would be much harder to challenge or shift. Beijing would not need the same level of regional acquiescence. As a resident power, China would not need the "approval" of other Asian states to maintain its military footholds. As the largest Asian power, it would be easier to dominate regional institutions without an American presence -- yet one more reason why America is trusted to provide the public and security goods in Asian sea lanes while China is not.
All this is why, instead of taking full advantage of America's terrorism obsession, Beijing has watched resentfully as the United States has built a hierarchical democratic order in which Asian states willingly aid in preserving American pre-eminence. In such an order, China remains a strategic loner in Asia, with Myanmar and North Korea as its only true friends.
China is well aware of its relative vulnerabilities. Rather than lament the irretrievable loss of its better days, America should learn to better appreciate its relative strengths.
John Lee is research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He is author of Will China Fail?
U.S.-China Talks: What to Look for (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-china-talks-look/p24923) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
Security and U.S.-Sino Scientific Collaboration (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/02/security-and-us-sino-scientific-collaboration/) By Adam Segal | Council on Foreign Relations
US, China vie for influence among Indonesian riches (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME06Ae02.html) By Sara Schonhardt | Asia Times
As China Invests, U.S. Could Lose (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/business/global/04yuan.html) By DAVID BARBOZA | New York Times
China Invests Overseas (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3171&Itemid=422) Asia Sentinel
Is the Asian century a dream or reality? (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/05/06/is-asian-century-a-dream-or-reality.html) By Haruhiko Kuroda | Jakarta Post
A Future Scenario for Asia (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3177&Itemid=422) By Philip Bowring | Asia Sentinel
Japan, After March 11
The country, resilient as ever, remains Asia’s true power. (http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_2_japan.html)
By Guy Sorman | City Journal
Why Osama bin Laden's death is making Chinese leaders nervous. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/06/china_s_america_obsession)
By JOHN LEE | Foreign Policy
In Thursday's edition of China's Communist Party-owned Global Times newspaper, the lead editorial was headlined, "After Bin Laden, will China become US's foe?" Hoping that economic integration would defuse "right-wing paranoia" about China in the United States, the editorial nevertheless concluded: "The rise of China is certain to cause friction" in America. On Friday, the paper led with an editorial that referenced an interview I had given the Global Times in late April to admit that "China could be the loneliest rising power in world history."
Of course, editorials in state-owned newspapers do not always mirror the Communist Party's thinking or policies. But in this case, these two editorials remind us of two related points about Beijing's worldview. First, China respects and even fears the United States more than the vast majority of Americans probably realize. And second, China's sense of isolation is not an act but acute and real -- and Osama bin Laden's death will only accelerate America's reengagement with its Asian allies and partners at China's expense.
When Washington shifted its focus toward terrorism and the Middle East after the September 11 attacks in 2001, Beijing experienced genuine relief. As China's leaders and strategists came to believe, an America distracted by two wars and a weak economy presented a priceless window of opportunity for China to extend its influence in Asia and beyond. But Beijing realizes that Washington's strategic attention will eventually turn eastwards, and the death of bin Laden is one small but significant step in hastening the arrival of that day. As one prominent Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) analyst put it to me recently, the American "spearhead will soon be pointed at Beijing."
China's focus on America is obsessive and omnipresent among its leaders and strategists. In a study of 100 recent articles by leading academics at CASS, comprising the network of official state-backed think-tanks and institutes throughout the country, I found that about four in every five were about the United States -- whether it was seeking to understand the American system and political values, or describing how to limit, circumvent, bind, or otherwise reduce American power and influence. Of these themes, several emerged that help better understand the thinking behind editorials like the one in the Global Times.
One is that Beijing views international politics in broadly neorealist terms. Chinese strategists believe the distribution of power in the world today will determine tomorrow's conflicts. China has long seen building competition between itself and America in particular as the inevitable and defining big-picture strategic play. In Beijing's thinking, tension can be managed, but never resolved, between the established power and the emerging one. Tension is a structural inevitability.
But Chinese experts also view America as a unique superpower that relentlessly seeks not only to build and maintain its power, but also to spread its democratic values. This is of grave concern to the authoritarian Chinese leaders, because they believe that America will have difficulty accepting a greater leadership role for Beijing so long as Communist Party remains exclusively in power. Senator John McCain's "League of Democracies" might never become a formal reality, but Beijing believes that it already exists, at least in Asia, through democracies such as India, Japan, and South Korea.
Moreover, Beijing fears the American democratic process. While Americans view democracy as an advantage since it can offer United States an institutional and bloodless process for leadership and policy renewal, China views American democracy as a source of irrationality and unpredictability. Many in Beijing, pointing to President George W. Bush's rapid decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, believe a new administration might actually increase the chances of uncomfortable shifts in policy that will lead Washington to suddenly focus its competitive and hostile gaze to the east.
Some of Beijing's strategists now even argue that the United States has three advantages over China that will help preserve American strategic primacy in Asia.
First, the United States has built an order based not just on American power but also democratic community. It has not escaped Beijing that few countries in East and Southeast Asia fear India's democratic rise. Whereas India's ascent is seen as natural, predictable, and welcomed, almost every country in Asia is trying to benefit from China's economic success while strategically hedging against Chinese military power by moving even closer to the United States. (Witness the recent speech by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard to Congress in which she reaffirmed the alliance with America as the bedrock of Canberra's security strategy, or Singapore's leader Lee Hsien Loong urging America to remain engaged in Asia.)
Second, unlike China, America does not have land and territorial disputes with other Asian states. For example, China still claims around 80 percent of the South China Sea as its "historic waters" and is in an ongoing dispute with India over the eastern-most Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. In this sense, China's rise is inherently disruptive since a more powerful China is likely to demand a resolution to these issues that is in Beijing's favor.
Third, the United States is not a resident power in that it is not geographically in Asia. China now realizes that this simple fact, once seen as a handicap, instead presents America with a unique advantage. To maintain its military bases in the region and thus remain the pre-eminent strategic power in Asia, the United States requires other key states and regional groupings to acquiesce to its security role and relationships. There is broad-based regional approval of U.S. alliances with Australia, Japan, and South Korea, as well as with partners such as India, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. This interdependent relationship means that America is not so powerful that it can easily ignore the wishes of Asian states.
In contrast, if China were in the dominant strategic position, its pre-eminence would be much harder to challenge or shift. Beijing would not need the same level of regional acquiescence. As a resident power, China would not need the "approval" of other Asian states to maintain its military footholds. As the largest Asian power, it would be easier to dominate regional institutions without an American presence -- yet one more reason why America is trusted to provide the public and security goods in Asian sea lanes while China is not.
All this is why, instead of taking full advantage of America's terrorism obsession, Beijing has watched resentfully as the United States has built a hierarchical democratic order in which Asian states willingly aid in preserving American pre-eminence. In such an order, China remains a strategic loner in Asia, with Myanmar and North Korea as its only true friends.
China is well aware of its relative vulnerabilities. Rather than lament the irretrievable loss of its better days, America should learn to better appreciate its relative strengths.
John Lee is research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He is author of Will China Fail?
U.S.-China Talks: What to Look for (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-china-talks-look/p24923) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
Security and U.S.-Sino Scientific Collaboration (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/02/security-and-us-sino-scientific-collaboration/) By Adam Segal | Council on Foreign Relations
US, China vie for influence among Indonesian riches (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME06Ae02.html) By Sara Schonhardt | Asia Times
As China Invests, U.S. Could Lose (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/business/global/04yuan.html) By DAVID BARBOZA | New York Times
China Invests Overseas (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3171&Itemid=422) Asia Sentinel
Is the Asian century a dream or reality? (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/05/06/is-asian-century-a-dream-or-reality.html) By Haruhiko Kuroda | Jakarta Post
A Future Scenario for Asia (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3177&Itemid=422) By Philip Bowring | Asia Sentinel
Japan, After March 11
The country, resilient as ever, remains Asia’s true power. (http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_2_japan.html)
By Guy Sorman | City Journal
more...
xyzgc
12-23 01:50 PM
I am sure that once muslim community or for that matter any community prospers the radicalism reduces. Unfortunately the religious muslim leaders dont want the community to get educated, prosper and westernized because than they would loose control..its precisely for this reason that the religious leaders of this community have for centuries scared the followers of the community with gods wrath if they changed. The Muslim religion has to become progressive and moderate.
About the terrorism was thinking what options does India have to fight against this. Yes military action definitely is an option but it does more harm to India than to Pakistan. Attacking Pakistan, India has a lot to loose while Pakistan has nothing loose. It would make Pakistan from a failing state to a failed state, but would put India years behind as far as economy is concerned and create the biggest headache for India for decades to come. A military confrontation and weakening of Pakistan’s military establishment would let Pakistan slip fully into the hands of Religious fanatics and produce million more terrorist who will be a long-term headache for India.
If one back goes back in the history, Pakistan has lost a lot more than India in the last three wars, and that is the only reason why the establishment in Pakistan including the Military has preferred encouraging and sponsoring cross border terrorism which is of very little cost to Pakistan but a constant headache to India. India has lost more from these terrorist attacks including Kargil war than they would if they had gone through a one time direct confrontation. I personally feel that if India does decide to go in for a military confrontation it has to be long term strategy to occupy the country and wipe out terrorism and help to nurture the economy so that prosperity and wealth creation takes a front seat and religion moves low in the peoples priority. In fact if Pakistan can ever have a strong economy and strong democracy, I am sure the country will move towards a moderate religious society. Lets face it, man is a very selfish being, it will never put its personal prosperity at stake for a larger cause even it that happens to be religion. An example of this is the Middle East Kingdom where the monarchs including the common folk is very possessive about personal wealth and will go to any extent to preserve it.
The only way this can ever happen is by a willing global coalition, which is ready to be there for a long haul and not by India alone. If India did do a quick military action and left the country, Pakistan would move to become another Afghanistan creating the biggest headache for India for decades and decades to come and effectively dragging Indian economy and prosperity.
Its sad that India let this headache linger on for so long, had it taken remedial action by taking control of complete kashmir and installing a pro Indian govt in 1971 we would not be confronting an nuclear dragon with very little option to fight it.
Very good post. The main intent behind terrorist acts is to disrupt the Indian economy.
Like some one has so consistently maintained - our leaders have committed several mistakes in the past.
1. Our leaders easily conceded to the demand for a separate country of Pakistan. This has only alienated Hindus and Muslims but has potentially put nuclear arsenal in the hands of the terrorists.
2. Ok, there was a separation but was the separation clean? The terrorists have just mixed in with the Mumbai crowd. Do they even need to leave Mumbai for Karachi? There are enemies internal and external. 154 millions muslims. Are they all terrorists? Absolutely not.
But even if there is 1% who have to do anything with terrorism - its trouble and lots of it.
3. When we had multiple chances to occupy the country, we backed off and retreated.Instead if we had marched all the way to Islamabad, taken out the military dictators and set the country on a path of democracy and economic progress - you would have Pakistani economy flourishing and not living off the IMF, the American and the Asian Bank's doles. We would have seen TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Satyam counterparts in Pakistan.Anything wrong with that? Its finally the same race and the people....
4. The congress party created vote banks by appeasing muslims. Instead of this kind of appeasement (very similar to appeasements to backward class), if we had created uniform laws, the entire community would havebeen absorbed into the mainstream. Instead, we are ourselves responsible for pampering and alienating them. Its the most unfortunate.
About the terrorism was thinking what options does India have to fight against this. Yes military action definitely is an option but it does more harm to India than to Pakistan. Attacking Pakistan, India has a lot to loose while Pakistan has nothing loose. It would make Pakistan from a failing state to a failed state, but would put India years behind as far as economy is concerned and create the biggest headache for India for decades to come. A military confrontation and weakening of Pakistan’s military establishment would let Pakistan slip fully into the hands of Religious fanatics and produce million more terrorist who will be a long-term headache for India.
If one back goes back in the history, Pakistan has lost a lot more than India in the last three wars, and that is the only reason why the establishment in Pakistan including the Military has preferred encouraging and sponsoring cross border terrorism which is of very little cost to Pakistan but a constant headache to India. India has lost more from these terrorist attacks including Kargil war than they would if they had gone through a one time direct confrontation. I personally feel that if India does decide to go in for a military confrontation it has to be long term strategy to occupy the country and wipe out terrorism and help to nurture the economy so that prosperity and wealth creation takes a front seat and religion moves low in the peoples priority. In fact if Pakistan can ever have a strong economy and strong democracy, I am sure the country will move towards a moderate religious society. Lets face it, man is a very selfish being, it will never put its personal prosperity at stake for a larger cause even it that happens to be religion. An example of this is the Middle East Kingdom where the monarchs including the common folk is very possessive about personal wealth and will go to any extent to preserve it.
The only way this can ever happen is by a willing global coalition, which is ready to be there for a long haul and not by India alone. If India did do a quick military action and left the country, Pakistan would move to become another Afghanistan creating the biggest headache for India for decades and decades to come and effectively dragging Indian economy and prosperity.
Its sad that India let this headache linger on for so long, had it taken remedial action by taking control of complete kashmir and installing a pro Indian govt in 1971 we would not be confronting an nuclear dragon with very little option to fight it.
Very good post. The main intent behind terrorist acts is to disrupt the Indian economy.
Like some one has so consistently maintained - our leaders have committed several mistakes in the past.
1. Our leaders easily conceded to the demand for a separate country of Pakistan. This has only alienated Hindus and Muslims but has potentially put nuclear arsenal in the hands of the terrorists.
2. Ok, there was a separation but was the separation clean? The terrorists have just mixed in with the Mumbai crowd. Do they even need to leave Mumbai for Karachi? There are enemies internal and external. 154 millions muslims. Are they all terrorists? Absolutely not.
But even if there is 1% who have to do anything with terrorism - its trouble and lots of it.
3. When we had multiple chances to occupy the country, we backed off and retreated.Instead if we had marched all the way to Islamabad, taken out the military dictators and set the country on a path of democracy and economic progress - you would have Pakistani economy flourishing and not living off the IMF, the American and the Asian Bank's doles. We would have seen TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Satyam counterparts in Pakistan.Anything wrong with that? Its finally the same race and the people....
4. The congress party created vote banks by appeasing muslims. Instead of this kind of appeasement (very similar to appeasements to backward class), if we had created uniform laws, the entire community would havebeen absorbed into the mainstream. Instead, we are ourselves responsible for pampering and alienating them. Its the most unfortunate.
hot Lindsay Lohan and Nicole
gcbikari
08-06 01:36 PM
Bihar Driving License...
DRIVING LICENSE APPLIKASON PHOROM
------------------------------------------ -----------------------
NOTE: Please do not soot the person at the applikason kounter.
He will give you the licen.
For phurthar instructions, see bottom applikason.
1. Last name:
(_) Yadav (_) Sinha (_) Pandey (_) Misra (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
2. First name:
(_) Ramprasad (_) Lakhan (_) Sivprasad (_) Jamnaprasad (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
3. Age:
(_) Less than phipty (_) Greater than phipty (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
4. Sex: ____ M _____ P(F) _____ not sure _____not applicable
5. Chappal Size: ____ Lepht ____ Right
6.Occupason:
(_) Politison (_) Doodhwala (_) Pehelwaan (_) House wife (_) Un-employed
(Check karet box)
7. Number of children libing in the household: ___
8. Number that are yours: ___
9. Mather name: _______________________
10. Phather Name: ____________________ (If not no,leave blank)
11. Ejjucason: 1 2 3 4 (Circle highest grade completed)
12. Dental rekard:
(_) Ellow (_) Berownish-ellow (_) Berown (_) Belack (_) Other -__________
Give egjhakt color
(Check karet box)
13.Your thumb imparesson :
____________________________
(If you are copying from another applikason pharom, please do not copy
thumb impression also. Please
provide your own thumb impression.)
PELEASE DO NOT USE PHINGERS OF YOUR LEGS
Use thumb on y our lepht hand only. If you dont have le pht hand, use your
thumb on right hand. If you do not have right hand, use thumb on lepht
hand.
NOTE: IF YOU DONT HAVE BOTH HANDS, YOU CANNOT DRIVE.
WE ARE VARY ISTRICT ABOUT THIS .
DRIVING LICENSE APPLIKASON PHOROM
------------------------------------------ -----------------------
NOTE: Please do not soot the person at the applikason kounter.
He will give you the licen.
For phurthar instructions, see bottom applikason.
1. Last name:
(_) Yadav (_) Sinha (_) Pandey (_) Misra (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
2. First name:
(_) Ramprasad (_) Lakhan (_) Sivprasad (_) Jamnaprasad (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
3. Age:
(_) Less than phipty (_) Greater than phipty (_) Dot no
(Check karet box)
4. Sex: ____ M _____ P(F) _____ not sure _____not applicable
5. Chappal Size: ____ Lepht ____ Right
6.Occupason:
(_) Politison (_) Doodhwala (_) Pehelwaan (_) House wife (_) Un-employed
(Check karet box)
7. Number of children libing in the household: ___
8. Number that are yours: ___
9. Mather name: _______________________
10. Phather Name: ____________________ (If not no,leave blank)
11. Ejjucason: 1 2 3 4 (Circle highest grade completed)
12. Dental rekard:
(_) Ellow (_) Berownish-ellow (_) Berown (_) Belack (_) Other -__________
Give egjhakt color
(Check karet box)
13.Your thumb imparesson :
____________________________
(If you are copying from another applikason pharom, please do not copy
thumb impression also. Please
provide your own thumb impression.)
PELEASE DO NOT USE PHINGERS OF YOUR LEGS
Use thumb on y our lepht hand only. If you dont have le pht hand, use your
thumb on right hand. If you do not have right hand, use thumb on lepht
hand.
NOTE: IF YOU DONT HAVE BOTH HANDS, YOU CANNOT DRIVE.
WE ARE VARY ISTRICT ABOUT THIS .
more...
house Tags: Nicole Richie
gaz
01-10 06:48 AM
Killing of innocents is always terrible. Even more so when it is children.
Hamas has been holding Palestinians hostage - and now Israel, the cop, doesn't care if the hostage is affected in the fight.
Israel is fully justified in defending its people, but should at least spare shooting independent parties like the Red Cross etc who are
helping the wounded in Gaza.
"when Elephants fight, its the grass that suffers."
I am not sure why Islamic Fanatics become victims when they are attacked. Israel is 101% right in defending their territory from Palestine terror attacks. My home country is gonig through the same problem but my government won't do anything.
Similar example of Pakistan becoming a victim of terror when actually it is a factory of terror and 100% of it s population supports terror in one form or another.
Don't fire rockets if u fear trouble. Civilized world ( US,UK.Israel,India) need to come together and get a gameplan to weed out this trouble.
When those terrorists kill innocents, Islamic fanatics go silent. They only wake up when their terrorist brothers are killed.
So collateral is always in play.
:D
Hamas has been holding Palestinians hostage - and now Israel, the cop, doesn't care if the hostage is affected in the fight.
Israel is fully justified in defending its people, but should at least spare shooting independent parties like the Red Cross etc who are
helping the wounded in Gaza.
"when Elephants fight, its the grass that suffers."
I am not sure why Islamic Fanatics become victims when they are attacked. Israel is 101% right in defending their territory from Palestine terror attacks. My home country is gonig through the same problem but my government won't do anything.
Similar example of Pakistan becoming a victim of terror when actually it is a factory of terror and 100% of it s population supports terror in one form or another.
Don't fire rockets if u fear trouble. Civilized world ( US,UK.Israel,India) need to come together and get a gameplan to weed out this trouble.
When those terrorists kill innocents, Islamic fanatics go silent. They only wake up when their terrorist brothers are killed.
So collateral is always in play.
:D
tattoo skinny as Nicole Richie),
thatwillbeit
10-03 12:36 PM
Excellent post dtekkedil
You reiterate exactly what I have in my mind
You reiterate exactly what I have in my mind
more...
pictures Nicole+richie+lindsay+
punjabi
08-08 06:41 PM
Oh, I loved this joke!!!!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
HERE COMES THE BEST JOKE OF THIS THREAD
I got a RED dot for this post.
Comment - "Racist Joke".
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
HERE COMES THE BEST JOKE OF THIS THREAD
I got a RED dot for this post.
Comment - "Racist Joke".
dresses Nicole Richie and Lindsay
coopheal
01-08 01:12 PM
Anyway, i'll sign off and i won't post any more message in this thread again.
Please respect your own post and stop posting on this topic.
Please respect your own post and stop posting on this topic.
more...
makeup Here are Nicole Richie
irock
07-14 02:17 PM
couldn't say it better.
About same time last year we had different "schism" on these forums: July 2007 filers with approved labor who could file their 485s Vs those with older PDs but unfortunately stuck in BECs. Most of Eb3s who are outraged today are July 2007 filers. Any guesses how many of them requested BEC victims back then "to be happy" for others and not rock the boat?
The unfortunate fact is that although everyone here is convinced of their moral high ground it is nothing more than self-preservation at the end. If it was just that it would still be fine (human nature) but still more unfortunate is the fact that we as a group never get this riled up - except few notable and respected exceptions - as long as everyone is equally miserable. Only if we had so much participation in all action items (admin fixes, house bills, funding drive etc.)...
About same time last year we had different "schism" on these forums: July 2007 filers with approved labor who could file their 485s Vs those with older PDs but unfortunately stuck in BECs. Most of Eb3s who are outraged today are July 2007 filers. Any guesses how many of them requested BEC victims back then "to be happy" for others and not rock the boat?
The unfortunate fact is that although everyone here is convinced of their moral high ground it is nothing more than self-preservation at the end. If it was just that it would still be fine (human nature) but still more unfortunate is the fact that we as a group never get this riled up - except few notable and respected exceptions - as long as everyone is equally miserable. Only if we had so much participation in all action items (admin fixes, house bills, funding drive etc.)...
girlfriend I guess she was really skinny
unitednations
03-24 12:44 PM
can you kindly enlighten me on what you exactly mean by "suspicious" original poster?
Yeah..even I went to local office..without attorney..they didnt ask me to sign a statement..just sworn
USCIS adjudicators follow a manual and very specific set of procedures as laid out by their headquarters. Sometimes in the gray areas or areas of interpretation they are given wide latitude in how to interpret those rules.
However; document list and procedure for getting them is very prescribed. When person posts of their experience with USCIS and it is very different then what their policies, procedures are then it makes it very suspicious...
Everything you have posted falls in line with department of labor audit and not local uscis office interviews or requests for information from local office interviews.
If what you are saying is accurate then you and your company should have consulted with your attornies and specifically asked for this in a request for evidence and assessed the legality of this request and pulled the officer back and sent in only what was required by law.
California service center back in 2004/2005 was denying 140's due to "temporary job" issue. Lawyer stupidly in replying to ability to pay part of rfe sent in contracts like you do in H-1b and put it in front of uscis that the contracts were temporary. USCIS had no choice but to deny the 140's and this was one of those issues (one of the people actually had their approved 140 reopened and denied for this issue). That particular company had 35 straight denials over this issue.
Yeah..even I went to local office..without attorney..they didnt ask me to sign a statement..just sworn
USCIS adjudicators follow a manual and very specific set of procedures as laid out by their headquarters. Sometimes in the gray areas or areas of interpretation they are given wide latitude in how to interpret those rules.
However; document list and procedure for getting them is very prescribed. When person posts of their experience with USCIS and it is very different then what their policies, procedures are then it makes it very suspicious...
Everything you have posted falls in line with department of labor audit and not local uscis office interviews or requests for information from local office interviews.
If what you are saying is accurate then you and your company should have consulted with your attornies and specifically asked for this in a request for evidence and assessed the legality of this request and pulled the officer back and sent in only what was required by law.
California service center back in 2004/2005 was denying 140's due to "temporary job" issue. Lawyer stupidly in replying to ability to pay part of rfe sent in contracts like you do in H-1b and put it in front of uscis that the contracts were temporary. USCIS had no choice but to deny the 140's and this was one of those issues (one of the people actually had their approved 140 reopened and denied for this issue). That particular company had 35 straight denials over this issue.
hairstyles likes of Nicole Richie,
xyzgc
12-27 01:29 AM
great posts by alisa, gcisadawg and abcdgc. I don't agree with alisa but the posts are decent.
Macaca
03-19 01:23 PM
Lobbying in a Web World (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801138.html)
Speaking of doing better on the Hill, sign up now for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's April 3 lobbying workshop: "Getting Heard on Capitol Hill." It's part of a four-workshop series, "Winning in a Web World; Online Strategies for Grass-Roots Advocacy." (If you don't yet have grass roots, you can find out how to create them. )
The three panels on April 3 include one about using the Internet and another on "activating the grass roots." There's also a Q&A session on how lobbying reforms and new Federal Election Commission laws might affect your online efforts.
This being the Chamber of Commerce, the panelists are weighted toward the conservative end: former Bush aide Tucker Eskew, who had the spectacular title of White House director of global communications, and Stephen Hoersting, former general counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But there's also Winnie Stachelberg, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign who's now at the Center for American Progress, and some media folks and academics.
Speaking of doing better on the Hill, sign up now for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's April 3 lobbying workshop: "Getting Heard on Capitol Hill." It's part of a four-workshop series, "Winning in a Web World; Online Strategies for Grass-Roots Advocacy." (If you don't yet have grass roots, you can find out how to create them. )
The three panels on April 3 include one about using the Internet and another on "activating the grass roots." There's also a Q&A session on how lobbying reforms and new Federal Election Commission laws might affect your online efforts.
This being the Chamber of Commerce, the panelists are weighted toward the conservative end: former Bush aide Tucker Eskew, who had the spectacular title of White House director of global communications, and Stephen Hoersting, former general counsel at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But there's also Winnie Stachelberg, former political director of the Human Rights Campaign who's now at the Center for American Progress, and some media folks and academics.
NKR
08-05 08:28 AM
What i mean is: Porting should not be an option based on the LENGTH OF WAITING TIME in EB3 status. That is what it is most commonly used for, thus causing a serious disadvantage to EB2 filers (who did not port).
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
I am EB2 and I do not support this idea. Just imagine, someone could have applied in EB3 though he was qualified for EB2 because he was ill advised by his lawyers or employers. Why should he be punished TWICE for no fault of his?.
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
I am EB2 and I do not support this idea. Just imagine, someone could have applied in EB3 though he was qualified for EB2 because he was ill advised by his lawyers or employers. Why should he be punished TWICE for no fault of his?.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий