Marphad
12-17 03:31 PM
People:
I went back and read some of posts from Marphad. "Marphad" hold very Extremist Communal Views not appropriate for this forum. He has given so called "RATIONAL" explanation in SUPPORT of TERRORISTS involved in Gujarat massacres. I think he is holds some rational views and I try to see if I dig his personnel information and inform relevant authorities. He is crying out to be spanked
I will provide you whatever the information you want ;). I never had one sided communical views. Yes I hate people who directly or indirectly support terrorism. That includes people like Antulay (you are not in that list FYI :)).
I went back and read some of posts from Marphad. "Marphad" hold very Extremist Communal Views not appropriate for this forum. He has given so called "RATIONAL" explanation in SUPPORT of TERRORISTS involved in Gujarat massacres. I think he is holds some rational views and I try to see if I dig his personnel information and inform relevant authorities. He is crying out to be spanked
I will provide you whatever the information you want ;). I never had one sided communical views. Yes I hate people who directly or indirectly support terrorism. That includes people like Antulay (you are not in that list FYI :)).
wallpaper 15:GTA San Andreas Extreme
unitednations
03-26 08:35 PM
That whenever a company now applies for an H1 ( not that many companies are going to do in this climate) they have to put in as many locations/states as possible? By your suggestions if USCIS is deeming most h1b companies as 'Staffing' companies(and if it allows them to exist) then almost all H1 LCA should contain 4-5 states in which the H1B could work? How would prevailing wage calculation be done in that case? Or for that matter if each time an H1B candidate goes to work in a different location and the employer(staffing) company files 'Amend petition for location' does the prevailing wage factor come in to picture?
your advise in this could help some people who are in consulting so that they can insist with their employers to file for 'amend' in case they are working elsewhere.
- cheers
kris
First; it is very easy for me or anyone else to say "amend" and re-file the h-1b. It costs a lot of money to do so and USCIS can give rfe and deny any one of the amendments.
If you look at the new i-129 petition instructions they have added a part of requesting an itinerary of definitive employment if you are an agent. You are supposed to give an itinerar of where you are going to work for the entire duration that you are requesting. You are supposed to give lca's for different locations for wherever you have the client letters.
California service center is only approving h-1b's up until the end date of the purchse order you are submitting. If you have a purchase order for four months even if it says extension is possible; then are only approving it for four months.
With regards to prevailing wage; On the h-1b petition you would always have to put the highest number of all the lca's that you are submitting.
for example in the lca; if you are putting two locations; one is where your h-1b company is and second one is where your client locatin is where you are actually going to work; the lca won' be certified unless you put the offered wage to be the higher of the two.
btw; I get too many PM's and I'd rather just post on the forums where I think people need some help or where I don't see people giving right or full picture advice.
your advise in this could help some people who are in consulting so that they can insist with their employers to file for 'amend' in case they are working elsewhere.
- cheers
kris
First; it is very easy for me or anyone else to say "amend" and re-file the h-1b. It costs a lot of money to do so and USCIS can give rfe and deny any one of the amendments.
If you look at the new i-129 petition instructions they have added a part of requesting an itinerary of definitive employment if you are an agent. You are supposed to give an itinerar of where you are going to work for the entire duration that you are requesting. You are supposed to give lca's for different locations for wherever you have the client letters.
California service center is only approving h-1b's up until the end date of the purchse order you are submitting. If you have a purchase order for four months even if it says extension is possible; then are only approving it for four months.
With regards to prevailing wage; On the h-1b petition you would always have to put the highest number of all the lca's that you are submitting.
for example in the lca; if you are putting two locations; one is where your h-1b company is and second one is where your client locatin is where you are actually going to work; the lca won' be certified unless you put the offered wage to be the higher of the two.
btw; I get too many PM's and I'd rather just post on the forums where I think people need some help or where I don't see people giving right or full picture advice.
panky72
08-09 02:00 AM
Just ignore those useless weeds (who don�t know what �joke� means), not only in this thread, even in real life also.
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
:)Thanks nogc_noproblem. BTW where do you find so many funny jokes:D
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
:)Thanks nogc_noproblem. BTW where do you find so many funny jokes:D
2011 Tags: san andreas,cars,boats
Macaca
12-30 06:47 PM
China Respects European Unity (http://csis.org/files/publication/pac1062.pdf) By Jonas Parello-Plesner | Center for Strategic and Int'l Studies
The European Union can work together � at least when it is pushed together. China�s heavy-handed effort to get European nations to skip the Nobel peace prize ceremony in Oslo earlier this month did the trick. Not only did member states show up, but Serbia and Ukraine, countries with EU ambitions, were encouraged to attend as well. Yet this was atypical of a relationship in which China, with newfound power, has found it easy to divide and rule the EU.
While the European Council focused on the euro crisis last week, away from the limelight, EU leaders were adopting a new China policy. Discussion began four months ago when EU leaders took up Europe-China relations. Then the issue was overshadowed by the internal EU topic of the day: Romas. Dealing with China was relegated to short talks and coffee breaks.
This reveals a lot about the EU�s strategic outreach. The EU looks inward and seems destined to be an enlarged Switzerland rather than the missing link between the US and Asia in shaping global affairs. China has recognized this, and increasingly sees Europe as an investment opportunity rather than as a global partner.
On a recent trip to Beijing, I met a range of prominent Chinese officials and academics. Not one asked me how Europe intended to influence US strategy toward Afghanistan or about European views on the upcoming referendum in Sudan. To Beijing, Europe is not so much post-modern as post-global.
How can the EU�s strategic shrinkage be reversed? EU Council President van Rompuy�s comment in September on the need for �reciprocity� � giving to China only when the EU gets something back � was a good start. In line with this, the draft for the new EU trade policy looks at the possibility of closing off the European public procurement market if China does not give the EU reciprocal access to its market. This tough EU language has not gone unnoticed in Beijing. I was repeatedly asked about it by Chinese interlocutors. China understands a clear but consistent message.
By itself this new approach will not be enough. The EU must pursue a set of commonly agreed aims. Europe needs to set urgent, coherent strategic priorities, setting aside strategic patience and trust, the key words of the new approach.
The process of setting new trade policy priorities needs to be extended to the political realm. Member states must select a few priorities on which they really want to engage with China. Non-proliferation, climate change, good governance and human rights are good candidates.
The big players in Europe have been bypassed economically in the last decade by China. They still have traction individually but much less than their national egos afford � this is true even for Germany, which currently is on its own fast track with large scale exports to China.
The Wikileaks exposed how the US looks at the political dwarfs of Europe. The Middle Kingdom has a similar take. The feud over Dalai Lama visits in 2007 and 2008 showed that China was capable of hanging out to dry even Germany and France. The old days � the 1990s � when the EU could levy sanctions on China and enforce a change in behavior are gone. The last vestige of this era is the arms embargo. A new era has begun in which China can levy smart sanctions on European countries.
Resisting the bilateral inclination is difficult. Bilateral visits like David Cameron�s recent tour to China and the Chinese president�s visit to Paris are locked in the logic of bilateral trade promotion. But seeing links to China mainly as a bilateral issue rather than a European-wide concern means accepting a weak position vis-a-vis Beijing. China deals with Europe as it is, not how we dream it is. When European states pursue their own agendas, China will get free traders in the Northern countries to block moves that it sees as too strong, while ensuring that indifferent Southerners dilute policies on human rights.
A purely bilateral vocabulary seems increasingly anachronistic when an Airbus is assembled with subcomponents from all over Europe. Member countries must acknowledge that signing up to the EU is a binding commitment. A high-level EU official conceded that the just adopted internal strategy paper was kept relatively bland because of suspicion that it would be leaked to China. As a result, it couldn�t contain a more detailed game plan for how to secure EU interests through trade-offs and linkages.
The EU�s bilateral instinct can be overcome. The internal pressure for multilateral compliance should be stronger once the External Action Service is up and running. But the EAS is no deus ex machina. Member states must be continuously engaged to pursue reciprocal engagement with China. The European Parliament, with its new say over foreign policy, could play an important role by naming and shaming member states that subvert the EU�s strategic priorities in exchange for bilateral advantages.
A joined-up China policy is urgently needed. Events tend to overtake the EU while it ponders policy and its strategic approach. This year, it was Chinese investments in Europe, particularly in government bonds from Greece to Spain. China�s investment in Europe is a natural diversification from a dollar verdose. Chinese investment should be welcome, but the EU should be an intermediary so that this process is not framed as a bilateral favor that creates political dependency between China and member states. Eurobonds, which have been widely discussed as a solution in the euro crisis, could be a useful tool in this.
For EU foreign policy �czar� Catherine Ashton and her team, fleshing out the elements of a common EU China policy and being able to apply it in time means anticipating events and providing guidance for how individual actions and bilateral visits play to (or undermine) Europe�s strength. For example, the EU needs a code of conduct for dealing with Liu Xiaobo after the Nobel debacle. Such a code of conduct could be minimal. The important point is that it is adhered to.
Member states must make strategic choices that do not favor short-term national rewards at the expense of Europe�s strength. The member-states need to move China up the policy agenda and act in unison if they want to reap the benefits of stronger ties to China and avoid being divided and ultimately ruled.
The European Union can work together � at least when it is pushed together. China�s heavy-handed effort to get European nations to skip the Nobel peace prize ceremony in Oslo earlier this month did the trick. Not only did member states show up, but Serbia and Ukraine, countries with EU ambitions, were encouraged to attend as well. Yet this was atypical of a relationship in which China, with newfound power, has found it easy to divide and rule the EU.
While the European Council focused on the euro crisis last week, away from the limelight, EU leaders were adopting a new China policy. Discussion began four months ago when EU leaders took up Europe-China relations. Then the issue was overshadowed by the internal EU topic of the day: Romas. Dealing with China was relegated to short talks and coffee breaks.
This reveals a lot about the EU�s strategic outreach. The EU looks inward and seems destined to be an enlarged Switzerland rather than the missing link between the US and Asia in shaping global affairs. China has recognized this, and increasingly sees Europe as an investment opportunity rather than as a global partner.
On a recent trip to Beijing, I met a range of prominent Chinese officials and academics. Not one asked me how Europe intended to influence US strategy toward Afghanistan or about European views on the upcoming referendum in Sudan. To Beijing, Europe is not so much post-modern as post-global.
How can the EU�s strategic shrinkage be reversed? EU Council President van Rompuy�s comment in September on the need for �reciprocity� � giving to China only when the EU gets something back � was a good start. In line with this, the draft for the new EU trade policy looks at the possibility of closing off the European public procurement market if China does not give the EU reciprocal access to its market. This tough EU language has not gone unnoticed in Beijing. I was repeatedly asked about it by Chinese interlocutors. China understands a clear but consistent message.
By itself this new approach will not be enough. The EU must pursue a set of commonly agreed aims. Europe needs to set urgent, coherent strategic priorities, setting aside strategic patience and trust, the key words of the new approach.
The process of setting new trade policy priorities needs to be extended to the political realm. Member states must select a few priorities on which they really want to engage with China. Non-proliferation, climate change, good governance and human rights are good candidates.
The big players in Europe have been bypassed economically in the last decade by China. They still have traction individually but much less than their national egos afford � this is true even for Germany, which currently is on its own fast track with large scale exports to China.
The Wikileaks exposed how the US looks at the political dwarfs of Europe. The Middle Kingdom has a similar take. The feud over Dalai Lama visits in 2007 and 2008 showed that China was capable of hanging out to dry even Germany and France. The old days � the 1990s � when the EU could levy sanctions on China and enforce a change in behavior are gone. The last vestige of this era is the arms embargo. A new era has begun in which China can levy smart sanctions on European countries.
Resisting the bilateral inclination is difficult. Bilateral visits like David Cameron�s recent tour to China and the Chinese president�s visit to Paris are locked in the logic of bilateral trade promotion. But seeing links to China mainly as a bilateral issue rather than a European-wide concern means accepting a weak position vis-a-vis Beijing. China deals with Europe as it is, not how we dream it is. When European states pursue their own agendas, China will get free traders in the Northern countries to block moves that it sees as too strong, while ensuring that indifferent Southerners dilute policies on human rights.
A purely bilateral vocabulary seems increasingly anachronistic when an Airbus is assembled with subcomponents from all over Europe. Member countries must acknowledge that signing up to the EU is a binding commitment. A high-level EU official conceded that the just adopted internal strategy paper was kept relatively bland because of suspicion that it would be leaked to China. As a result, it couldn�t contain a more detailed game plan for how to secure EU interests through trade-offs and linkages.
The EU�s bilateral instinct can be overcome. The internal pressure for multilateral compliance should be stronger once the External Action Service is up and running. But the EAS is no deus ex machina. Member states must be continuously engaged to pursue reciprocal engagement with China. The European Parliament, with its new say over foreign policy, could play an important role by naming and shaming member states that subvert the EU�s strategic priorities in exchange for bilateral advantages.
A joined-up China policy is urgently needed. Events tend to overtake the EU while it ponders policy and its strategic approach. This year, it was Chinese investments in Europe, particularly in government bonds from Greece to Spain. China�s investment in Europe is a natural diversification from a dollar verdose. Chinese investment should be welcome, but the EU should be an intermediary so that this process is not framed as a bilateral favor that creates political dependency between China and member states. Eurobonds, which have been widely discussed as a solution in the euro crisis, could be a useful tool in this.
For EU foreign policy �czar� Catherine Ashton and her team, fleshing out the elements of a common EU China policy and being able to apply it in time means anticipating events and providing guidance for how individual actions and bilateral visits play to (or undermine) Europe�s strength. For example, the EU needs a code of conduct for dealing with Liu Xiaobo after the Nobel debacle. Such a code of conduct could be minimal. The important point is that it is adhered to.
Member states must make strategic choices that do not favor short-term national rewards at the expense of Europe�s strength. The member-states need to move China up the policy agenda and act in unison if they want to reap the benefits of stronger ties to China and avoid being divided and ultimately ruled.
more...
dontcareanymore
08-05 01:37 PM
And Sir dontcareanymore, who are you to show people out.
Please calm down, its ok if someone has ideas that donot match 100% to your ideas; your decency is in letting people speak and hear them still.
friend.....Donot get angry, please.
what a pity, we donot let anyone talk, speak unless they agree with us and we call ourselves educated, democratic....voice of immigration....
may i dare say ...."we are not even close"..
lets not fight, please. I am not blaming you sir, but the action. so please
donot blast me, i know you are a wonderful person; i am blaming the action not you.
You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
How about comparing the actual job duties of all EB2s and EB3s ? Not just what their lawyer says.
Rules are made with good intentions and it is people that misuse them. But for the desi sweat shops selling labors , even the labor substitution has some merits in some cases (Again Not all).
Again , I don't really care what happens with this law suite (even if that happens). Just wanted to impress that there are very good number of legitimate cases where the PD porting makes sense and it is required.
Please calm down, its ok if someone has ideas that donot match 100% to your ideas; your decency is in letting people speak and hear them still.
friend.....Donot get angry, please.
what a pity, we donot let anyone talk, speak unless they agree with us and we call ourselves educated, democratic....voice of immigration....
may i dare say ...."we are not even close"..
lets not fight, please. I am not blaming you sir, but the action. so please
donot blast me, i know you are a wonderful person; i am blaming the action not you.
You can't generalize everything. Do you care to show how this is as bad as labor substitution ?
How about comparing the actual job duties of all EB2s and EB3s ? Not just what their lawyer says.
Rules are made with good intentions and it is people that misuse them. But for the desi sweat shops selling labors , even the labor substitution has some merits in some cases (Again Not all).
Again , I don't really care what happens with this law suite (even if that happens). Just wanted to impress that there are very good number of legitimate cases where the PD porting makes sense and it is required.
oliTwist
12-24 02:05 PM
How old is the technique of discrediting my links to win the argument. Of course, if I tell you of all the atrocities of Indian army in Kashmir, or punjab, or assam, to you I am a muslim, and my default I hate India. Of course, it wouldn't matter if good old amnesty internationl would raise a red flag against india...
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/thousands-lost-kashmir-mass-graves
wait they have raised a red flag a million times, anybody paying attention, or just shaking head in disbelief?
or you do not want to loose your right to dance on murder of muslims had it not been a country like India where Modis, advanis, uma bhartis can roam freely....
...oh wait, but India also denies any trials against in military in Kashmir, so they can do what they want, and never be challenged in court of law, and amnesty's report goes to garbage, because this is Hindu india, and minorities like Sikhs, Bodos, muslims, dalits, dravidians will have to put up with their hegemony...
... and yes, if somebody losses his mind because his home has been bulldozed by indian army, or women raped and murdered ... he will be branded terrorist and shot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6074994.stm
... but of course this is a rambling of muslim, and all muslims are terrorists, and all hindus are protector of bharat mata, so when a hindu kills a muslim, he kills a terrorist, but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality, he is a terrorist.... it's a fair game!
I know you must have left the forums by now. But I find it interesting how you are being misled by the so called leaders in India itself. Check this column by Tarun Vijay http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_Thou_shalt_rise_again/articleshow/3882599.cms Check out the differences between Shabana and other muslim leaders on the forum. Interesting!
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/thousands-lost-kashmir-mass-graves
wait they have raised a red flag a million times, anybody paying attention, or just shaking head in disbelief?
or you do not want to loose your right to dance on murder of muslims had it not been a country like India where Modis, advanis, uma bhartis can roam freely....
...oh wait, but India also denies any trials against in military in Kashmir, so they can do what they want, and never be challenged in court of law, and amnesty's report goes to garbage, because this is Hindu india, and minorities like Sikhs, Bodos, muslims, dalits, dravidians will have to put up with their hegemony...
... and yes, if somebody losses his mind because his home has been bulldozed by indian army, or women raped and murdered ... he will be branded terrorist and shot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6074994.stm
... but of course this is a rambling of muslim, and all muslims are terrorists, and all hindus are protector of bharat mata, so when a hindu kills a muslim, he kills a terrorist, but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality, he is a terrorist.... it's a fair game!
I know you must have left the forums by now. But I find it interesting how you are being misled by the so called leaders in India itself. Check this column by Tarun Vijay http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_Thou_shalt_rise_again/articleshow/3882599.cms Check out the differences between Shabana and other muslim leaders on the forum. Interesting!
more...
xyzgc
12-17 04:24 PM
Now you may go and dig out my previous postings too!
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Want to discuss which airlines to boycott?:D...
There is an IV thread for you!
Ah! all these red dots are showered on me by you kinda folks for questioning this type of nonsense!
Bring it on more (red dots) LOL
Want to discuss which airlines to boycott?:D...
There is an IV thread for you!
2010 Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
walking_dude
09-29 02:36 PM
Full disclousre - I consider myself a fiscal conservative. But after watching the debate I believe Obama is a better candidate for Presidency than John McCain and here's why -
1) There is a third dimension to the economic debate besides tax cuts and tax raises - National Debt - which has run into uncountable trillions of Dollars. Obama gets it. McCain doesn't.
2) Both candidates want to cut Defense expenditure. McCain thinks making Defense contracts fixed cost will cut expenditure substantially. How does he plan to do that without affecting quality? Are we to see more of the guns that don't fire in Iraq? Obama has a better solution - end the Iraq War in a timely fashion and save trillions of dollars spent every month.
3) McCain wishes to continue the practice of cutting billions of dollars check anually to Pakistan, most of which goes to buy ammunition from US weapons manufacturers. In other words, a subsidy/corporate welfare in the name of 'War on Terror'. Obama plans to hold them accountable for the money they receive and wishes to see the money go to rooting out Al-queda rather than weapons that threaten India into an arms race. Obama plans to hunt down and eliminate Al-queda in Afghanistan. McCain has no such immediate plans! He wishes to fight the war in Iraq for 4-8 more years and pass on the responsibility to his successor.
4) McCains solution to energy crisis is to destroy the North Pole and burden thousands of generations to come with nuclear waste which will literally take a millenia to clean-up. Obama has placed is bet on replenishable ,greener and less expensive alternatives.
5) Both candidates plans require 'Borrow and Spend' in the short term due to proposed tax cuts. I would rather have Obama spend it on Energy Research than let McCain blow it up in I-rack. At least with Obama plan, America has a chance that reduced dependency on foreign oil may let US government divert the money currently spent on Foreign Oil in paying off debt, rather than pass it on to the future generation.
6) Obama has proposed a medical insurance to help veterans. McCains answer -' I know veterans. I will take care of them'. What kind of answer is that?
7) Obama's stated position is that American companies can bring in more skilled foreign workers as long as there is a need. We are of course concerned about his buddy Sen. Durbin's views which are diametrically opposite of Obama's stated position. On the other hand, McCain doesn't consider EB immigration to be important enough to have a position. In John McCains world - we simply don't exist!
I think it's a good effort by Chandu to educate EB immigrants on the political realities so that we get ready in the days to come to face any eventuality. Also it will aid those of us who get Green Cards in the mean time to make wise decisions while contributing to future election campaigns.
1) There is a third dimension to the economic debate besides tax cuts and tax raises - National Debt - which has run into uncountable trillions of Dollars. Obama gets it. McCain doesn't.
2) Both candidates want to cut Defense expenditure. McCain thinks making Defense contracts fixed cost will cut expenditure substantially. How does he plan to do that without affecting quality? Are we to see more of the guns that don't fire in Iraq? Obama has a better solution - end the Iraq War in a timely fashion and save trillions of dollars spent every month.
3) McCain wishes to continue the practice of cutting billions of dollars check anually to Pakistan, most of which goes to buy ammunition from US weapons manufacturers. In other words, a subsidy/corporate welfare in the name of 'War on Terror'. Obama plans to hold them accountable for the money they receive and wishes to see the money go to rooting out Al-queda rather than weapons that threaten India into an arms race. Obama plans to hunt down and eliminate Al-queda in Afghanistan. McCain has no such immediate plans! He wishes to fight the war in Iraq for 4-8 more years and pass on the responsibility to his successor.
4) McCains solution to energy crisis is to destroy the North Pole and burden thousands of generations to come with nuclear waste which will literally take a millenia to clean-up. Obama has placed is bet on replenishable ,greener and less expensive alternatives.
5) Both candidates plans require 'Borrow and Spend' in the short term due to proposed tax cuts. I would rather have Obama spend it on Energy Research than let McCain blow it up in I-rack. At least with Obama plan, America has a chance that reduced dependency on foreign oil may let US government divert the money currently spent on Foreign Oil in paying off debt, rather than pass it on to the future generation.
6) Obama has proposed a medical insurance to help veterans. McCains answer -' I know veterans. I will take care of them'. What kind of answer is that?
7) Obama's stated position is that American companies can bring in more skilled foreign workers as long as there is a need. We are of course concerned about his buddy Sen. Durbin's views which are diametrically opposite of Obama's stated position. On the other hand, McCain doesn't consider EB immigration to be important enough to have a position. In John McCains world - we simply don't exist!
I think it's a good effort by Chandu to educate EB immigrants on the political realities so that we get ready in the days to come to face any eventuality. Also it will aid those of us who get Green Cards in the mean time to make wise decisions while contributing to future election campaigns.
more...
.jpg "My cars in GTA San Andreas")
kaisersose
04-15 02:51 PM
We are mixing too many different aspects of home buying and creating confusion.
We buy homes, when we have clearly done our home work and know we can afford what we are buying and our incomes are expected to be reasonably stable. Everyone knows this and no one is arguing against the above logic.
The points of contention were home life vs. apt life, and home as a home vs. home as an investment. I got into this thread to point out how some people are so obsessed about resale value that to them a home is nothing more than a piece of investment which should appreciate with time and be sold off.
But these topics appear to be rubbing some people the wrong way as they are hurt to discover that there exist people who do not think the way they do. For that reason, I will lay off this topic.
We buy homes, when we have clearly done our home work and know we can afford what we are buying and our incomes are expected to be reasonably stable. Everyone knows this and no one is arguing against the above logic.
The points of contention were home life vs. apt life, and home as a home vs. home as an investment. I got into this thread to point out how some people are so obsessed about resale value that to them a home is nothing more than a piece of investment which should appreciate with time and be sold off.
But these topics appear to be rubbing some people the wrong way as they are hurt to discover that there exist people who do not think the way they do. For that reason, I will lay off this topic.
hair GTA San Andreas Vehicle Mods
abhisam
07-27 01:59 PM
UN, can you please reply? Thanks!
more...
gc28262
03-24 04:01 PM
Ofcourse I am unbias.
I can't even begin to think how many people I know; cases I know from people who are from india.
I'd say that it is less then 3% from people with other countries.
As another poster rightly said that many of the issues happening is mainly to India because it takes so long to get the greencard and eventually everyone gets into these issues.
Non indians don't face many issues because they get the greencard so fast; and hence they go through very little issues (generally). If other countires had to wait so long then everyone would also have similar types of issues.
Since most of the forums are related to IT and Indians then if I ever broach on something a little negative or give different perspective then people look at my profile and see I was born in Pakistan and think there is some bias there.
btw; I left when I was five years old and hardly knew any pakistanis/indians when I was growing up and for what it is worth my wife is Hindu.
Thanks.
I guess you are right. The long wait times for Indians should be one of the reason.
The other one I think is, you typically deal with problematic cases. Simple ones will just pass through without much intervention from lawyers/experts like you.
Also one has to take into account the number of H1B applicants from India. As majority of IT folks come from India there is higher probability that there will be more problematic cases from this larger sample.
I can't even begin to think how many people I know; cases I know from people who are from india.
I'd say that it is less then 3% from people with other countries.
As another poster rightly said that many of the issues happening is mainly to India because it takes so long to get the greencard and eventually everyone gets into these issues.
Non indians don't face many issues because they get the greencard so fast; and hence they go through very little issues (generally). If other countires had to wait so long then everyone would also have similar types of issues.
Since most of the forums are related to IT and Indians then if I ever broach on something a little negative or give different perspective then people look at my profile and see I was born in Pakistan and think there is some bias there.
btw; I left when I was five years old and hardly knew any pakistanis/indians when I was growing up and for what it is worth my wife is Hindu.
Thanks.
I guess you are right. The long wait times for Indians should be one of the reason.
The other one I think is, you typically deal with problematic cases. Simple ones will just pass through without much intervention from lawyers/experts like you.
Also one has to take into account the number of H1B applicants from India. As majority of IT folks come from India there is higher probability that there will be more problematic cases from this larger sample.
hot If you destroy your vehicle or
thomachan72
07-08 09:00 AM
Having said that, dont forget to chose a lawyer who is noted to fight cases that are tough. Contact many lawyers including the murthy, rajeeve khanna etc etc. Evaluate what each of them say. Some will offer advice only after an initial siging of legal contract and paying the consultation fee, there are others who do the initial evaluation free of cost. Hope somebody in this forum with experience gives out the names of good lawyers for you in time.
more...
house GTA san andreas screens
jthomas
06-05 02:05 PM
Appartment :-
1. I lived in a appartment for last 7 years. I was able to change jobs whenever i wish as well as i was able to get 15-20% raise everytime i changed jobs.
2. If i get a RFE for any reason or have to go back to india its very easy to pack and move rather than get stressed on selling the house at any price and going back.
3. I completely agree with the above calculation of onwing a house v/s a apartment and its a lousy investment.
4. Big personal savings+ good interest rate, can move anywhere anytime. Good interest rate, Can go out for a vacation for every quarter.
House
1. A place to live and show off.
2. Plumbing + electrician + taking care of the lawn + paying tickets for taking care of the house + association fees + mortage + fire insurance(CA) + earthquake insurance (CA) + property tax + keeping up with the status != peace of mind.
3. Personal savings = very little.
If only good if one knows when to buy and when to sell and should be lucky most of the time. (+++), saw few people doing so but lost money after 8 years now. $280K went down to $65K.
1. I lived in a appartment for last 7 years. I was able to change jobs whenever i wish as well as i was able to get 15-20% raise everytime i changed jobs.
2. If i get a RFE for any reason or have to go back to india its very easy to pack and move rather than get stressed on selling the house at any price and going back.
3. I completely agree with the above calculation of onwing a house v/s a apartment and its a lousy investment.
4. Big personal savings+ good interest rate, can move anywhere anytime. Good interest rate, Can go out for a vacation for every quarter.
House
1. A place to live and show off.
2. Plumbing + electrician + taking care of the lawn + paying tickets for taking care of the house + association fees + mortage + fire insurance(CA) + earthquake insurance (CA) + property tax + keeping up with the status != peace of mind.
3. Personal savings = very little.
If only good if one knows when to buy and when to sell and should be lucky most of the time. (+++), saw few people doing so but lost money after 8 years now. $280K went down to $65K.
tattoo GTA San Andreas. Beta Car
Macaca
03-13 08:29 PM
Some paras from New Math on Hill, Scramble on K Street (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201579.html) -- The House's pledge of fiscal restraint could threaten tax breaks across many industries. Businesses and the lobbyists who represent them are on high alert.
Lobbyists are scrambling all over Capitol Hill to prevent any of their clients from becoming a "pay-for."
The Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen means that lawmakers who want to spend more on one program have to either cut another or raise taxes to pay for it. Similarly, if they want to cut taxes, they must fund the cut by trimming programs or raising other taxes to make up the difference.
Those budgetary offsets are called pay-fors -- a new Washington buzzword striking fear in the hearts of special interests.
Lobbyists are scrambling all over Capitol Hill to prevent any of their clients from becoming a "pay-for."
The Democrats' new pay-as-you-go budget regimen means that lawmakers who want to spend more on one program have to either cut another or raise taxes to pay for it. Similarly, if they want to cut taxes, they must fund the cut by trimming programs or raising other taxes to make up the difference.
Those budgetary offsets are called pay-fors -- a new Washington buzzword striking fear in the hearts of special interests.
more...
pictures Tags: guns,san andreas,cars
pappu
07-15 06:55 AM
Why do you write 'I know this mess is depressing for EB3 folks' ?
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
Answering some of the posts:
Decisions taken by an employer to file in EB3 or advice by the lawyer to file in EB3 instead of EB2 (even if you disagree with the lawyer) cannot be the basis for administration to change the rules. It is an 'employment based' system and employer files the petition for the employee. You cannot write in the letter to DOS that your employer filed for EB3 even though you qualify for EB2 and thus you are entitled for xyz. Administration can only work within the legal limits. They cannot create more visas. If you are going to ask for more visas, they will tell you it will be done via a bill so that the law is changed and EB3 gets more visas. And thus we have to go for bills like recapture, STEM exemption and country caps. We already ran the admin fix campaign precisely for that reason to get things that we can get without changing the law. Recapture was added after much thought even though we knew it is a long shot. If we want more visas, then it has to be done legislatively. If we plan to do something via administration, then our list of items must be thoroughly researched they must offer solutions within the current law. It should merely be a regulation that provides guidance on the current law. Each item in the admin fix campaign did that.
And please stop taking out your anger on IV or each other. Take it out on the system that has caused problems for all of us and help each other fix this system. IV is everyone and we need to work together to fix it.
Is IV not with Eb3 folks? Or are they not important.
Let me clear somethings.
Earning in higher 70Ks in the year 2003 and with over 5+ years of progressive experience, they still went ahead a filed my app under EB3. Was that a mistake? Not mine. My employer knew that Eb3 would be slower.
What happened? cases like mine were eye openers and learning experiences for comrades who were going to file and they filed under EB2, I asked friends and relatives and classmates of mine to file under Eb2.
Am i happy for them? No, I hate them. Of course, I am happy for them. Very very much.
So, why would you not fight for us?
If people like me and filers before me had not filed under EB3, and not shared our experiences, how would we have progressed?
Suddenly, 'You Eb3 folks are depressed' from 'We folks are depressed'. lol for chauvinism.
Answering some of the posts:
Decisions taken by an employer to file in EB3 or advice by the lawyer to file in EB3 instead of EB2 (even if you disagree with the lawyer) cannot be the basis for administration to change the rules. It is an 'employment based' system and employer files the petition for the employee. You cannot write in the letter to DOS that your employer filed for EB3 even though you qualify for EB2 and thus you are entitled for xyz. Administration can only work within the legal limits. They cannot create more visas. If you are going to ask for more visas, they will tell you it will be done via a bill so that the law is changed and EB3 gets more visas. And thus we have to go for bills like recapture, STEM exemption and country caps. We already ran the admin fix campaign precisely for that reason to get things that we can get without changing the law. Recapture was added after much thought even though we knew it is a long shot. If we want more visas, then it has to be done legislatively. If we plan to do something via administration, then our list of items must be thoroughly researched they must offer solutions within the current law. It should merely be a regulation that provides guidance on the current law. Each item in the admin fix campaign did that.
And please stop taking out your anger on IV or each other. Take it out on the system that has caused problems for all of us and help each other fix this system. IV is everyone and we need to work together to fix it.
dresses GTA San Andreas Pack of Cars -
engineer
01-03 12:31 AM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
more...
makeup My cars in GTA San Andreas
gomirage
06-07 01:05 PM
I don't know where you can find 5% interest p.a. investment today but for the sake of argument that I found one, I think I can't get the $60k at the end of 10th yr.
The are plenty of no load mutual funds returning consistently above 5% annually return. If you want a zero risk investment you can get at least 3% (sometimes more than 5%) with ING direct, HSBC direct, and many more direct saving accounts. Last year HSBC offered 6% to compete with ING's 5%, while on the other side house prices were nose diving.
So my point is even at 3%, zero risk it's a good deal compared with gambling on a house that may never come back to original purchase price, in our life time.
Remember, this is not a one time event. This crisis has changed the world for ever. There will never ever be banks giving loans for more than 3 or 4 times income. So for prices to come back again, you are really banking on disposal income levels going up, which is not a safe bet, with the Indias and Chinas of the world proving very competitive offshore services.
This whole chaos was created in the first place by inflating the economy to find a solution to the dot com bust.
Again, we are not recommending against buying a house, which everyone should do at a point in our lives, but it's unsafe to bank on it, as a sound investment.
The are plenty of no load mutual funds returning consistently above 5% annually return. If you want a zero risk investment you can get at least 3% (sometimes more than 5%) with ING direct, HSBC direct, and many more direct saving accounts. Last year HSBC offered 6% to compete with ING's 5%, while on the other side house prices were nose diving.
So my point is even at 3%, zero risk it's a good deal compared with gambling on a house that may never come back to original purchase price, in our life time.
Remember, this is not a one time event. This crisis has changed the world for ever. There will never ever be banks giving loans for more than 3 or 4 times income. So for prices to come back again, you are really banking on disposal income levels going up, which is not a safe bet, with the Indias and Chinas of the world proving very competitive offshore services.
This whole chaos was created in the first place by inflating the economy to find a solution to the dot com bust.
Again, we are not recommending against buying a house, which everyone should do at a point in our lives, but it's unsafe to bank on it, as a sound investment.
girlfriend San Andreas story
senthil1
04-07 12:05 PM
Will 115k enough by seeing 133k applications in one day? If 115k is reached we will ask unlimited. So there should be some system to see whether those115k H1b is used properly. Employers should not wait till october and they should get people when they require. If most of the H1b quota is used by bodyshoppers where will top US companies get?
How do you find H1 quota to be "unlimited"? And how is this bill going to prevent "unlimited numbers" that did not exist in the first place? I thought S.2611 and HR1645 propose to increase H1 quota to 115K, from the existing 65K H1b/yr. Does this increase make H1 quota "unlimited". I am ignorant about it, could you please help me understand.
How do you find H1 quota to be "unlimited"? And how is this bill going to prevent "unlimited numbers" that did not exist in the first place? I thought S.2611 and HR1645 propose to increase H1 quota to 115K, from the existing 65K H1b/yr. Does this increase make H1 quota "unlimited". I am ignorant about it, could you please help me understand.
hairstyles made for GTA San Andreas,
axp817
03-26 05:50 PM
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
So when they started picking on these other things, do you know what eventually ended up happening - denial/approval?
I tried looking on immigration.com, a lot of hits came up when i searched for "baltimore AC21" but none of them were this particular case.
Aren't there many consulting scenarios where the labor is filed in a certain state but the employee (although worked for the same employer) worked in another location on H-1B (with due LCA amendments of course). Is that not acceptable from a GC perspective?
sorry, I don't mean to drag this topic on forever.
thanks,
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
So when they started picking on these other things, do you know what eventually ended up happening - denial/approval?
I tried looking on immigration.com, a lot of hits came up when i searched for "baltimore AC21" but none of them were this particular case.
Aren't there many consulting scenarios where the labor is filed in a certain state but the employee (although worked for the same employer) worked in another location on H-1B (with due LCA amendments of course). Is that not acceptable from a GC perspective?
sorry, I don't mean to drag this topic on forever.
thanks,
Macaca
02-29 07:21 AM
In Defense of Lobbying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803232.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Charles Krauthammer | WP, Feb 29
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
rockstart
07-14 10:43 AM
Did you mentiopn like Phani_6 that your lawyer filed Eb3 on advice from DOL inspite of you qualifying for Eb2?
I already mailed the Letter to Visa Section, DOS with a request to allocate some Visa Number to EB-3(India) to help to reduce the wait time. Did not mention about EB-2 or any other thing. Just a Request for EB-3 (India).
I already mailed the Letter to Visa Section, DOS with a request to allocate some Visa Number to EB-3(India) to help to reduce the wait time. Did not mention about EB-2 or any other thing. Just a Request for EB-3 (India).
No comments:
Post a Comment