swarnapuri
02-21 02:41 PM
Guys don't click the link or read the article(IT IS FULL OF BS). It will only make his article to move to the most popular article list.
wallpaper the Kabul River in eastern
Macaca
05-12 05:53 PM
A Right of All Citizens
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic
The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.
The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�
Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.
Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�
Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.
The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�
The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.
In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.
Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.
Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)
What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial
riva2005
04-09 11:57 AM
Thx for saying that. My boss who is a professor in a research university at least thinks that way, and also believes that I am a leader (FYI riva2005). Frankly, if you are not displacing an American, and there is legal proof of that, there is no reason to worry. Also, mjrajatish: yes, it will be difficult to move in 2 weeks. Same holds for me too because they have to prove that Iam not displacing another American in the new workplace. I see nothing wrong in that.
Great. Maybe you should put out an ad in the newspaper. Or maybe you should say in your EB1 petition "My boss believes that I am a leader". That ought to do it. I am sure USCIS will approve your EB1 right away when they see that your boss believes that you are a leader.
My boss too believes many things. He believes that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Maybe I should tell my parents about what my Boss believes. That would make them proud.
Seriously rimzhim, you are thinking that only you and a handful of others with Ph.Ds are providing service to this country and others like "Consultants" are just getting a free ride. I am not a consultant myself, but I do see really smart and capable professionals doing consulting. You need to get out of your lab more. There are plenty of consultants in IBM, Accenture etc. who are some of the best brains in IT and management and who are either on H1B or used to be on H1B.
Quite contrary, the best brains actually prefer consulting beacuse there is more money to be made in it. Many H1Bs doing fulltime jobs start consulting when they get greencards because consulting pays more.
If you are really a scientist, you should be doing something good with your time rather than trolling the posts of EB3 losers like myself.
Go shake some test-tubes or something. Or go to your boss's office and he will tell you how great you are.
Great. Maybe you should put out an ad in the newspaper. Or maybe you should say in your EB1 petition "My boss believes that I am a leader". That ought to do it. I am sure USCIS will approve your EB1 right away when they see that your boss believes that you are a leader.
My boss too believes many things. He believes that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Maybe I should tell my parents about what my Boss believes. That would make them proud.
Seriously rimzhim, you are thinking that only you and a handful of others with Ph.Ds are providing service to this country and others like "Consultants" are just getting a free ride. I am not a consultant myself, but I do see really smart and capable professionals doing consulting. You need to get out of your lab more. There are plenty of consultants in IBM, Accenture etc. who are some of the best brains in IT and management and who are either on H1B or used to be on H1B.
Quite contrary, the best brains actually prefer consulting beacuse there is more money to be made in it. Many H1Bs doing fulltime jobs start consulting when they get greencards because consulting pays more.
If you are really a scientist, you should be doing something good with your time rather than trolling the posts of EB3 losers like myself.
Go shake some test-tubes or something. Or go to your boss's office and he will tell you how great you are.
2011 usually placid Kabul River
unitednations
03-25 01:11 PM
UN I think you are hyping up the current situation too much.
Yes there are raids and arrests,
But it is not so bad. You are saying as if everyone in consulting is getting denied. If it was so bad, all immigration forums would have been filled up with denial posts and cries for help. Maybe you have encountered people who only faced denials and not the entire spectrum. Thus your judgement may be influenced.
I'm not one of those alarmists because many "people can't sleep" when they have immigration issues.
Howeve; I very rarely give very specific examples, or post the RFE;s, denials because USCIS/DOL do go around and peruse the internet looking for information.
Within IV there is a number of postings of h-1b denials.
You will see plenty more. If a company responds to the rfe with a middle man purchase order; denial will come quickly; if purchase order is in different location of LCA (LCA has to be certified covering the work location prior to filing of h-1b) then verry quick denial.
However; in most other cases it is taking vermont service center long tim to send rfe and then long time to deny after response to rfe.
Check out greg siskind blog; where he reported another lawyer got internal memo of how to scrutiinize h-1b's for staffing compoanies; check matthew oh blog from last year when he reported massive rfe's coming fom vermont service center.
I don't take things lightly. I'm pretty plugged in as to what is going on. I started discussing this last year and told peopl with extensions that they better file it early just to preserve more options if something should go wrong.
check around with your companies, friends, etc.
Yes there are raids and arrests,
But it is not so bad. You are saying as if everyone in consulting is getting denied. If it was so bad, all immigration forums would have been filled up with denial posts and cries for help. Maybe you have encountered people who only faced denials and not the entire spectrum. Thus your judgement may be influenced.
I'm not one of those alarmists because many "people can't sleep" when they have immigration issues.
Howeve; I very rarely give very specific examples, or post the RFE;s, denials because USCIS/DOL do go around and peruse the internet looking for information.
Within IV there is a number of postings of h-1b denials.
You will see plenty more. If a company responds to the rfe with a middle man purchase order; denial will come quickly; if purchase order is in different location of LCA (LCA has to be certified covering the work location prior to filing of h-1b) then verry quick denial.
However; in most other cases it is taking vermont service center long tim to send rfe and then long time to deny after response to rfe.
Check out greg siskind blog; where he reported another lawyer got internal memo of how to scrutiinize h-1b's for staffing compoanies; check matthew oh blog from last year when he reported massive rfe's coming fom vermont service center.
I don't take things lightly. I'm pretty plugged in as to what is going on. I started discussing this last year and told peopl with extensions that they better file it early just to preserve more options if something should go wrong.
check around with your companies, friends, etc.
more...
inspectorfox
03-23 03:23 AM
Immigration uncertainties should not be a reason for not buying a house in the US. In my opinion it�s always best to buy a house considering it as a long term investment � You will eventually build equity even though the present US housing market is in doldrums.
I played the housing game differently to minimize the risks associated with my present immigration scenario (I am on 8th year H1B with I140 pending since Oct 2006)...
1) I did not buy an expensive place even though I could easily qualify for $500K mortgage.
2) I put only 3% down payment on my mortgage instead of conventional 20%. It was a difficult decision to make due to PMI but I feel more secure with cash liquidity.
I am an optimistic person but here is my realistic backup strategy if anything falls apart due to immigration (Worse case scenario) -
1) Sell the house and move out of the US (Housing market conditions could be a determining factor)
2) Rent the house (I don't think this should be a problem... LOCATION is the key)
3) Go into Foreclosure (Highly unlikely but you are destined to be screwed anyways)
Does anyone have a better backup plan? Please share here :)
I played the housing game differently to minimize the risks associated with my present immigration scenario (I am on 8th year H1B with I140 pending since Oct 2006)...
1) I did not buy an expensive place even though I could easily qualify for $500K mortgage.
2) I put only 3% down payment on my mortgage instead of conventional 20%. It was a difficult decision to make due to PMI but I feel more secure with cash liquidity.
I am an optimistic person but here is my realistic backup strategy if anything falls apart due to immigration (Worse case scenario) -
1) Sell the house and move out of the US (Housing market conditions could be a determining factor)
2) Rent the house (I don't think this should be a problem... LOCATION is the key)
3) Go into Foreclosure (Highly unlikely but you are destined to be screwed anyways)
Does anyone have a better backup plan? Please share here :)
yibornindia
08-05 12:11 PM
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
Hey Bro! Think of you this way.
You are no different than those trying to move from EB3 to EB2. They are doing this to get GC faster then others.
You are stopping others from entering in your line, to get GC faster. :p
Ultimately you both are the same.
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
Hey Bro! Think of you this way.
You are no different than those trying to move from EB3 to EB2. They are doing this to get GC faster then others.
You are stopping others from entering in your line, to get GC faster. :p
Ultimately you both are the same.
more...
niklshah
07-14 08:49 AM
send the damn letter, nothing happens, and then come back here and vent your frustration again. as you said, buddy, HARD LUCK indeed !!
I cannot believe the nerve that you EB-3 India guys have. You are begging for a GC based on your length of wait!!! laughable at best...........go wait a decade or so more, then come back here and start this useless BS again.
one good thing happens for the EB-2 folks, and the EB-3 community cannot stomach it. pure freaking jealousy.
guys this rolling flood guy does not look like any of us in queue of green card..he is just here to put some oil in stupid fire started here...Beware of him.....
I cannot believe the nerve that you EB-3 India guys have. You are begging for a GC based on your length of wait!!! laughable at best...........go wait a decade or so more, then come back here and start this useless BS again.
one good thing happens for the EB-2 folks, and the EB-3 community cannot stomach it. pure freaking jealousy.
guys this rolling flood guy does not look like any of us in queue of green card..he is just here to put some oil in stupid fire started here...Beware of him.....
2010 Kabul River
zCool
03-24 04:18 PM
This is total BS.
Bashing Illegal immigrants for housing market crash and accusing entire race of being theives is nothing new among right wing anti-immigrant "Hatriots"
But there really isn't co-relation between illegal migration and housing crash.. if anything, migrants are also first time buyers and they support prices towards to lower end market and stop entire lower-middle class neighbourhoods from becoming what Detroit or Youngstown have become..
So no need to parrot hateful propoganda here.. lets stick to the point..
Bashing Illegal immigrants for housing market crash and accusing entire race of being theives is nothing new among right wing anti-immigrant "Hatriots"
But there really isn't co-relation between illegal migration and housing crash.. if anything, migrants are also first time buyers and they support prices towards to lower end market and stop entire lower-middle class neighbourhoods from becoming what Detroit or Youngstown have become..
So no need to parrot hateful propoganda here.. lets stick to the point..
more...
reddymjm
08-05 10:42 AM
I object to your insinuation and gross generalization. It is not your job to ask this question. It upto the law of the land to figure that out and root out dishonesty and deceit.
I don't know about rolling flood Just FYI I have an MBA from the US ( a top ) university and have been working with various fortune 100 companies. Currently on EAD.
May be 1% of EB2. Good to know that.
I don't know about rolling flood Just FYI I have an MBA from the US ( a top ) university and have been working with various fortune 100 companies. Currently on EAD.
May be 1% of EB2. Good to know that.
hair Boating in Kabul River,Warsak,
Macaca
08-14 11:37 AM
Congressman, It's (Still) on Us: The Ethics Law's Many Loopholes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300980.html?hpid=topnews) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum | Washington Post, August 14, 2007
Activists on the reform side of the lobbying debate have been celebrating that Congress finally got around to passing an ethics bill. The question is: Should voters celebrate as well?
Paul A. Miller, a former president of the American League of Lobbyists, thinks the hoorahs should be muted, and he has a point. The legislation bars lobbyists from providing meals and gifts to lawmakers, a provision long sought by the advocates of change as a way to keep well-heeled interests from buying their way into the hearts of decision-makers.
But Miller and others point out that the ban is full of loopholes. The largest of the gaps, Miller said, could end up worsening the public's perception that lawmakers are for sale.
If lobbyists are prevented from buying meals for lawmakers for lobbying purposes, he noted, lobbyists will almost certainly make up for the loss by boosting the number of meals they buy lawmakers as part of campaign fundraising events.
And believe it or not, they will be perfectly able to do so. Lobbying laws are separate from campaign finance laws, and the new ban on meals and gifts applies only to lobbying laws. That means the legislation does not rein in fundraising events, so lobbyists and their clients will still be able to buy food and entertainment for lawmakers at those events.
Hence the following perversity: Lobbyists will not be able to pick up the check for members of Congress unless they also hand the lawmakers a check to help their reelections.
"Lobbyists will move lunches and dinners to the campaign side of things," Miller predicts. "They will increasingly get members of Congress for an hour or so to give them a campaign check; that's a better deal for the lobbyists and will also make it more likely for corruption to happen."
Jan W. Baran, the campaign finance expert at the law firm Wiley Rein, finds it hard to imagine that lawmakers can schedule more fundraisers than they already do. But he does think there will continue to be plenty of lobbyist-financed partying thanks to the nearly two dozen exceptions to the meal-and-gift ban.
Baran said that members of Congress will be able to accept invitations from lobbyists to events that are widely attended, including receptions and charity golf tournaments. Lobbyists will also still be allowed to underwrite visits by lawmakers if they have some official or ceremonial role. Members of Congress generally cannot accept tickets to sporting events from lobbyists. But they can be comped to a baseball game if they throw out the first pitch, to a football game if they toss the opening coin or to a NASCAR race if they wave the checkered flag. That's nice work if you can get it, and you can bet there'll be a lot more of it available soon.
Interest groups are also expressing concern about another feature of the legislation. The provision would require more disclosure by organizations about who is paying for and actively participating in the lobbying activities of coalitions and trade groups. At the moment, most of that information is proprietary and protected by Supreme Court decisions that shield the members of many kinds of groups. Organizations are worried that they might, for the first time, have to disclose who their top members are.
But they probably need not worry. Ways are always found to get around laws like this one. "The balloon will be pressed, and the air will come out another way," said Kenneth A. Gross, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
Activists on the reform side of the lobbying debate have been celebrating that Congress finally got around to passing an ethics bill. The question is: Should voters celebrate as well?
Paul A. Miller, a former president of the American League of Lobbyists, thinks the hoorahs should be muted, and he has a point. The legislation bars lobbyists from providing meals and gifts to lawmakers, a provision long sought by the advocates of change as a way to keep well-heeled interests from buying their way into the hearts of decision-makers.
But Miller and others point out that the ban is full of loopholes. The largest of the gaps, Miller said, could end up worsening the public's perception that lawmakers are for sale.
If lobbyists are prevented from buying meals for lawmakers for lobbying purposes, he noted, lobbyists will almost certainly make up for the loss by boosting the number of meals they buy lawmakers as part of campaign fundraising events.
And believe it or not, they will be perfectly able to do so. Lobbying laws are separate from campaign finance laws, and the new ban on meals and gifts applies only to lobbying laws. That means the legislation does not rein in fundraising events, so lobbyists and their clients will still be able to buy food and entertainment for lawmakers at those events.
Hence the following perversity: Lobbyists will not be able to pick up the check for members of Congress unless they also hand the lawmakers a check to help their reelections.
"Lobbyists will move lunches and dinners to the campaign side of things," Miller predicts. "They will increasingly get members of Congress for an hour or so to give them a campaign check; that's a better deal for the lobbyists and will also make it more likely for corruption to happen."
Jan W. Baran, the campaign finance expert at the law firm Wiley Rein, finds it hard to imagine that lawmakers can schedule more fundraisers than they already do. But he does think there will continue to be plenty of lobbyist-financed partying thanks to the nearly two dozen exceptions to the meal-and-gift ban.
Baran said that members of Congress will be able to accept invitations from lobbyists to events that are widely attended, including receptions and charity golf tournaments. Lobbyists will also still be allowed to underwrite visits by lawmakers if they have some official or ceremonial role. Members of Congress generally cannot accept tickets to sporting events from lobbyists. But they can be comped to a baseball game if they throw out the first pitch, to a football game if they toss the opening coin or to a NASCAR race if they wave the checkered flag. That's nice work if you can get it, and you can bet there'll be a lot more of it available soon.
Interest groups are also expressing concern about another feature of the legislation. The provision would require more disclosure by organizations about who is paying for and actively participating in the lobbying activities of coalitions and trade groups. At the moment, most of that information is proprietary and protected by Supreme Court decisions that shield the members of many kinds of groups. Organizations are worried that they might, for the first time, have to disclose who their top members are.
But they probably need not worry. Ways are always found to get around laws like this one. "The balloon will be pressed, and the air will come out another way," said Kenneth A. Gross, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
more...
nojoke
01-01 12:23 PM
Do you think Indian strikes on Pakistan, or a war between India and Pakistan, is going to weaken these guys, or strengthen them?
What would be dumb now?
Suppose there are theives from Bihar that come and rob you in West Bengal.
You can either send your West Bengal police into Bihar, and turn it into a rivalry between two police departments. And a rivalry between two provinces.
Or you have the two police departments work together to reduce crime rate in the future.
You are delusional. Your example is no way related to what is happening. I don't know if I should explain the difference. 'You can wake up a sleeping man, but you cannot wake up a man pretending sleeping'. I have a feeling that you are simply trolling here.
The attack on pakistan terrorist camps is not to defeat terrorist, but to send a message to pakistan government to get serious. Either take action on these terrorist or we will do it. (It is more like humilating pakistan that we can do this and world is on our side and you better do something about this problem). We ask Azad Masood now because, if we get one guy out of pakistan, all other terrorists would realize that they cannot have a safe haven in pakistan. At least they won't be preaching openly in the public to go and bomb India.
So stop trolling:D
What would be dumb now?
Suppose there are theives from Bihar that come and rob you in West Bengal.
You can either send your West Bengal police into Bihar, and turn it into a rivalry between two police departments. And a rivalry between two provinces.
Or you have the two police departments work together to reduce crime rate in the future.
You are delusional. Your example is no way related to what is happening. I don't know if I should explain the difference. 'You can wake up a sleeping man, but you cannot wake up a man pretending sleeping'. I have a feeling that you are simply trolling here.
The attack on pakistan terrorist camps is not to defeat terrorist, but to send a message to pakistan government to get serious. Either take action on these terrorist or we will do it. (It is more like humilating pakistan that we can do this and world is on our side and you better do something about this problem). We ask Azad Masood now because, if we get one guy out of pakistan, all other terrorists would realize that they cannot have a safe haven in pakistan. At least they won't be preaching openly in the public to go and bomb India.
So stop trolling:D
hot Embankment Work on Kabul River
seattleGC
05-16 05:18 PM
That's called pandering. To unions like IEEE and hispanic vote base. These ppl don't have any interest in America's competitiveness or interests of people at large rather work in the interests of their party and their re-election.
But I am suprised at the attitudes of some forums members who want to screw the ppl behind us.
Anyway I agree, we should be worried about delays to i-485 processing if 11 million ppl are added to USCIS queue.
I know where Senator Durbin stands on illegal immigration issue , he is totally for amnesty/legalization of illegal/undocumented people in the country. According to him its ok if someone is totally undocumented and stays here but its not ok if someone does consulting and documented and pays taxes while working and waiting for the green card to be approved. Isn't it height of hypocrosy?
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
But I am suprised at the attitudes of some forums members who want to screw the ppl behind us.
Anyway I agree, we should be worried about delays to i-485 processing if 11 million ppl are added to USCIS queue.
I know where Senator Durbin stands on illegal immigration issue , he is totally for amnesty/legalization of illegal/undocumented people in the country. According to him its ok if someone is totally undocumented and stays here but its not ok if someone does consulting and documented and pays taxes while working and waiting for the green card to be approved. Isn't it height of hypocrosy?
Where do people like mbdriver and senthil stand on the issue of legalization/amnesty for illegal/undocumented people in the country? If the legalization were to happen these are the kind of people who complain saying illegal aliens have slowed down our green card petetions. If legalization were to happen processing of every petetion at USCIS will slow down considerably. I will not surprised if 485 takes 4.85 years or 48.5 years or 485 years ...:)
Which one is a bigger problem 12 to 15 million people totally undocumented or perceived misuse of visa petetions by few bad apples.
more...
house bighead press kabul uno map
sanju
05-17 01:50 PM
Of course I don't work for a consulting company. And if I did I wouldn't be here UNLESS I WAS EMPLOYED 100% FROM DAY ONE.
What people look like doesn't matter in regards to the H-1B. You are implying that I am doing something wrong in encouraging people TO OBEY THE LAW. That says a lot more of you and your standards than anything else. People are not committing crimes by being consultants. SOME people are comitting crimes by being here illegally because they don't meet the requirements for the H-1B they hold, because they went through a body shop. You can defend it all you want, IT'S ILLEGAL.
To start with, you are not the only one with a full time job in America. Just so that you know I do FULL-TIME job. But I take no pride in bashing people who are not exactly the same as I am. I think you are doing that well and one fool is more than many.
BTW, each consultant is also full time employee with some company. And stop calling "ILLEGAL" just becuase you can. Apply some logic to your agruments. Is Accenture, KPMG, D&T, Oracle consulting, IBm consulting body shops??? Just want to understand your defination of body shops
UNLESS I WAS EMPLOYED 100% FROM DAY ONE.
H-1B is also allowed for part times.
SOME people are comitting crimes by being here illegally because they don't meet the requirements for the H-1B they hold, because they went through a body shop. You can defend it all you want, IT'S ILLEGAL.
Also, some people are killing others by causing accidents when driving cars. Do we ban ALL cars? Likewise, some people are not following the law completely, should all H-1Bs be banned??? Also, Breaking a law doesn't necessarily means CRIME. Speeding is breaking the law, but it is NOT a crime.
What people look like doesn't matter in regards to the H-1B. You are implying that I am doing something wrong in encouraging people TO OBEY THE LAW. That says a lot more of you and your standards than anything else. People are not committing crimes by being consultants. SOME people are comitting crimes by being here illegally because they don't meet the requirements for the H-1B they hold, because they went through a body shop. You can defend it all you want, IT'S ILLEGAL.
To start with, you are not the only one with a full time job in America. Just so that you know I do FULL-TIME job. But I take no pride in bashing people who are not exactly the same as I am. I think you are doing that well and one fool is more than many.
BTW, each consultant is also full time employee with some company. And stop calling "ILLEGAL" just becuase you can. Apply some logic to your agruments. Is Accenture, KPMG, D&T, Oracle consulting, IBm consulting body shops??? Just want to understand your defination of body shops
UNLESS I WAS EMPLOYED 100% FROM DAY ONE.
H-1B is also allowed for part times.
SOME people are comitting crimes by being here illegally because they don't meet the requirements for the H-1B they hold, because they went through a body shop. You can defend it all you want, IT'S ILLEGAL.
Also, some people are killing others by causing accidents when driving cars. Do we ban ALL cars? Likewise, some people are not following the law completely, should all H-1Bs be banned??? Also, Breaking a law doesn't necessarily means CRIME. Speeding is breaking the law, but it is NOT a crime.
tattoo Kabul River,Warsak,N.W.F.P,Pakistan. Shot By : K.A.Y (Kamran Ayub Yousafzai)
senthil1
12-17 02:27 PM
It is true that 99.99% of Muslims are not terrorists. But 99.99% of World's hardcore terrorists are Muslims.
What has this to do with immigration ??? Does Antulay support EB2/EB3 reforms ? Do he mention anything about wasted visa numbers.
This is not a place to post/preach religious, spiritual believes unless it gets you the Green Card. If many Indians visit this forum, it does not become hosting agent for your thoughts. Now don't waste your time and server hard disk space posting something back on this thread.
What has this to do with immigration ??? Does Antulay support EB2/EB3 reforms ? Do he mention anything about wasted visa numbers.
This is not a place to post/preach religious, spiritual believes unless it gets you the Green Card. If many Indians visit this forum, it does not become hosting agent for your thoughts. Now don't waste your time and server hard disk space posting something back on this thread.
more...
pictures Kabul River, Attock
reedandbamboo
06-07 12:23 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.
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
dresses Kabul River «
rsdang
08-11 04:53 PM
:DH E A D A C H E S
Joe was moderately successful in his career, but as he got older he was increasingly hampered by incredible headaches. When his personal hygiene and love life started to suffer, he sought medical help.
After being referred from one specialist to another, he finally came across a doctor who solved the problem.
"The good news is I can cure your headaches... The bad news is that it will require castration. You have a very rare condition which causes your testicles to press up against the base of your spine. The pressure creates one hell of a headache. The only way to relieve the pressure is to remove the testicles."
Joe was shocked and depressed. He wondered if he has anything to live for. He couldn't concentrate long enough to answer, but decided he had no choice but to go under the knife.
When he left the hospital, his mind was clear, but he felt like he was missing an important part of himself. As he walked down the street, he realized that he felt like a different person. He could make a new beginning and live a new life. He walked past a men's clothing store and thought, "That's what I need:
a new suit." He entered the shop and told the salesman, "I'd like a new suit."
The salesman eyed him briefly and said, "Let's see... size 44 long." Joe laughed, "That's right, how did you know?" "It's my job." Joe tried on the suit. It fit perfectly.
As Joe admired himself in the mirror, the salesman asked, "How about a new shirt?" Joe thought for a moment and then said, "Sure..." The salesman eyed Joe and said, "Let's see... 34 sleeve and... 16 and a half neck" Joe was surprised, "That's right, how did you know?" "It's my job."
Joe tried on the shirt, and it fit perfectly. As Joe adjusted the collar in the mirror, the salesman asked, "How about new shoes?" Joe was on a roll and said, "Sure ..." The salesman eyed Joe's feet and said, "Let's see... 9-1/2...
E." Joe was astonished, "That's right, how did you know?" "It's my job."
Joe tried on the shoes and they fit perfectly. Joe walked comfortably around the shop and the salesman asked, "How about a new hat?" Without hesitating, Joe said, "Sure..." The salesman eyed Joe's head and said, "Let's see...
7-5/8." Joe was incredulous, "That's right, how did you know?" "It's my job."
The hat fit perfectly. Joe was feeling great, when the salesman asked, "How about some new underwear?" Joe thought for a second and said, "Sure..." The salesman stepped back, eyed Joe's waist and said, "Let's see... size 36."
Joe laughed, "No, I've worn size 34 since I was 18 years old."
The salesman shook his head, "You can't wear a size 34. It would press your testicles up against the base of your spine and give you one hell of a headache."
Joe was moderately successful in his career, but as he got older he was increasingly hampered by incredible headaches. When his personal hygiene and love life started to suffer, he sought medical help.
After being referred from one specialist to another, he finally came across a doctor who solved the problem.
"The good news is I can cure your headaches... The bad news is that it will require castration. You have a very rare condition which causes your testicles to press up against the base of your spine. The pressure creates one hell of a headache. The only way to relieve the pressure is to remove the testicles."
Joe was shocked and depressed. He wondered if he has anything to live for. He couldn't concentrate long enough to answer, but decided he had no choice but to go under the knife.
When he left the hospital, his mind was clear, but he felt like he was missing an important part of himself. As he walked down the street, he realized that he felt like a different person. He could make a new beginning and live a new life. He walked past a men's clothing store and thought, "That's what I need:
a new suit." He entered the shop and told the salesman, "I'd like a new suit."
The salesman eyed him briefly and said, "Let's see... size 44 long." Joe laughed, "That's right, how did you know?" "It's my job." Joe tried on the suit. It fit perfectly.
As Joe admired himself in the mirror, the salesman asked, "How about a new shirt?" Joe thought for a moment and then said, "Sure..." The salesman eyed Joe and said, "Let's see... 34 sleeve and... 16 and a half neck" Joe was surprised, "That's right, how did you know?" "It's my job."
Joe tried on the shirt, and it fit perfectly. As Joe adjusted the collar in the mirror, the salesman asked, "How about new shoes?" Joe was on a roll and said, "Sure ..." The salesman eyed Joe's feet and said, "Let's see... 9-1/2...
E." Joe was astonished, "That's right, how did you know?" "It's my job."
Joe tried on the shoes and they fit perfectly. Joe walked comfortably around the shop and the salesman asked, "How about a new hat?" Without hesitating, Joe said, "Sure..." The salesman eyed Joe's head and said, "Let's see...
7-5/8." Joe was incredulous, "That's right, how did you know?" "It's my job."
The hat fit perfectly. Joe was feeling great, when the salesman asked, "How about some new underwear?" Joe thought for a second and said, "Sure..." The salesman stepped back, eyed Joe's waist and said, "Let's see... size 36."
Joe laughed, "No, I've worn size 34 since I was 18 years old."
The salesman shook his head, "You can't wear a size 34. It would press your testicles up against the base of your spine and give you one hell of a headache."
more...
makeup Embankment Work on Kabul River
shanti
08-11 01:59 PM
http://www.h1b.info/lca_job_list.php?name=CNN+AMERICA+INC&company=cnn&city=&state=&year=ALL
Nice to send to Lou :)
Nice to send to Lou :)
girlfriend over the Kabul River
Macaca
12-28 07:12 PM
Blending the Rules as We Go Along (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/world/asia/28iht-currents28.html) By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS | New York Times
I wanted it to be right after breakfast when I asked Priya to marry me. The other elements were still forming, but that one felt important: a proposal to know together a thousand moments as simple and whole as this moment on a quiet Sunday morning.
I gave a prologue, then asked. She cried, then answered. A ring was worn. And, in less time than it takes to mow a lawn, we had rewritten our fates � our fate � forever. Done deal.
Or so we thought.
In the coming days, we were reminded of what it means to belong to a tribe of people that straddles multiple cultures and multiple degrees of technological involvement � and, as a consequence, holds a rich variety of opinions about an engagement. We received an education in the nuances of doing a very old thing in these new globalized, digitized times.
The first hint of engagement Babel came in a phone call to Priya�s grandparents in New Delhi, minutes after the proposal. Joy filled their voices when they heard our news; blessings poured forth, punctuated by the colonial remnant �all the best, all the best.�
Her Nana, though, could not let the conversation end without asking a question:
�But, Priya, how exactly does one get engaged?�
The bride-to-be said something about a question being asked and a ring being given, and that was that. What we didn�t appreciate then was that, in India, it doesn�t count as an engagement when two impressionable young people make a decision all by themselves.
Calling India to say that you have gotten engaged, but without any family present, without any rites having occurred, is like claiming to have clapped with one hand.
Thanksgiving time soon came, and the two of us went to Washington, where our six parents live. Two celebrations of our engagement were planned: a dinner at Priya�s mother and stepfather�s home, the other a tea at my parents� place.
Our new family traces its roots to cow worshipers in Benares and cow slaughterers in South Dakota, to Chennai in south India, to a piece of the Punjab that is now in Pakistan, to Iowa, to New Jersey and to a hamlet called Blaxall in Britain. We count among us those who worship the multitudinous Hindu deities, the lone Christian one and no divinity at all. We are speakers of English, Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil, French and Spanish. Many of us bear the passport of a country in which we were not born.
All of which is wonderful until you have to choose an engagement ritual.
After some debate and soul-searching, we decided to invent our own rites. We lit candles. We held hands. We told stories. We traded gifts. We laughed. We ate.
But, back in India, there was still some confusion. Priya�s grandparents, 10 and a half time zones ahead of us, were aching to hear our voices on the night of that first Washington celebration. My grandparents phoned several times during the tea at my parents� home four days later. The way they saw it, this was the engagement � this coming together of families at the home of a certified adult. The earlier thing, as they saw it, was more like a sweet gesture.
So, two weeks after we got engaged by our own definition, my grandparents congratulated me for getting engaged. Priya�s Indian cousins BlackBerry-messaged her they were delighted to be able, at long last, to congratulate her � now that it was �official.� Other relatives wrote seeking pictures of our �engagement ceremony.� We tried to explain that we hadn�t had one. But in this definitional spat, we were clearly outnumbered.
When, today, is an engagement valid in the eyes of the world? Is it, according to the Western contractual idea, when two people declare their commitment to each other in private? Or when love mingles with economics in the giving of a ring, the first step in a gradual entangling of fortunes? Is it when two families gather and drink and toast? Or when a certain traditional ritual is done � or, in our case, a new ritual?
Or is it when you change your Facebook relationship status?
We had been so consumed with family, and with the intricacies of the Indian and American rules of engagement, that we ignored our virtual tribe. We had called some friends on the phone immediately after it happened, and e-mailed some others. But then the celebrations of the nonvirtual world took off, and we were absorbed into that love and tumult, and our engagement went unrecorded by the digital sphere.
Just when we thought we had satisfied every possible definition of engagement, marking it in ways suitable to ourselves, our parents and our extended clans, Priya�s stepsister brought up Facebook. Why hadn�t we updated our relationship status to proclaim the engagement? It was peculiar, this omission: The absence of a Facebook update could be read as the presence of something amiss. What were we trying to hide?
Relationship statuses, like ideas, have derived their authority from different sources over the millenniums: A relationship could be valid if properly certified by the ancient rituals; or valid if faithful to the words of the holy texts; or valid if codified in a contract recognized by the correct governmental agency; and now, in 2010, valid if etched into one�s �Info� tab on Facebook.
We promptly made things right. As it turns out, we were Facebook-engaged around the time that the site�s creator, Mark Zuckerberg, was named Time magazine�s Person of the Year. We made it �official� for the third time, our union ordained by this new minister of the universe.
At last, the engagement is properly established before our American, Indian and virtual tribes � and, now, before the readers of this newspaper. The wedding looms, and with it another inevitable contest of definitions.
I can already hear the question forming: �But how exactly does one get married?�
I wanted it to be right after breakfast when I asked Priya to marry me. The other elements were still forming, but that one felt important: a proposal to know together a thousand moments as simple and whole as this moment on a quiet Sunday morning.
I gave a prologue, then asked. She cried, then answered. A ring was worn. And, in less time than it takes to mow a lawn, we had rewritten our fates � our fate � forever. Done deal.
Or so we thought.
In the coming days, we were reminded of what it means to belong to a tribe of people that straddles multiple cultures and multiple degrees of technological involvement � and, as a consequence, holds a rich variety of opinions about an engagement. We received an education in the nuances of doing a very old thing in these new globalized, digitized times.
The first hint of engagement Babel came in a phone call to Priya�s grandparents in New Delhi, minutes after the proposal. Joy filled their voices when they heard our news; blessings poured forth, punctuated by the colonial remnant �all the best, all the best.�
Her Nana, though, could not let the conversation end without asking a question:
�But, Priya, how exactly does one get engaged?�
The bride-to-be said something about a question being asked and a ring being given, and that was that. What we didn�t appreciate then was that, in India, it doesn�t count as an engagement when two impressionable young people make a decision all by themselves.
Calling India to say that you have gotten engaged, but without any family present, without any rites having occurred, is like claiming to have clapped with one hand.
Thanksgiving time soon came, and the two of us went to Washington, where our six parents live. Two celebrations of our engagement were planned: a dinner at Priya�s mother and stepfather�s home, the other a tea at my parents� place.
Our new family traces its roots to cow worshipers in Benares and cow slaughterers in South Dakota, to Chennai in south India, to a piece of the Punjab that is now in Pakistan, to Iowa, to New Jersey and to a hamlet called Blaxall in Britain. We count among us those who worship the multitudinous Hindu deities, the lone Christian one and no divinity at all. We are speakers of English, Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil, French and Spanish. Many of us bear the passport of a country in which we were not born.
All of which is wonderful until you have to choose an engagement ritual.
After some debate and soul-searching, we decided to invent our own rites. We lit candles. We held hands. We told stories. We traded gifts. We laughed. We ate.
But, back in India, there was still some confusion. Priya�s grandparents, 10 and a half time zones ahead of us, were aching to hear our voices on the night of that first Washington celebration. My grandparents phoned several times during the tea at my parents� home four days later. The way they saw it, this was the engagement � this coming together of families at the home of a certified adult. The earlier thing, as they saw it, was more like a sweet gesture.
So, two weeks after we got engaged by our own definition, my grandparents congratulated me for getting engaged. Priya�s Indian cousins BlackBerry-messaged her they were delighted to be able, at long last, to congratulate her � now that it was �official.� Other relatives wrote seeking pictures of our �engagement ceremony.� We tried to explain that we hadn�t had one. But in this definitional spat, we were clearly outnumbered.
When, today, is an engagement valid in the eyes of the world? Is it, according to the Western contractual idea, when two people declare their commitment to each other in private? Or when love mingles with economics in the giving of a ring, the first step in a gradual entangling of fortunes? Is it when two families gather and drink and toast? Or when a certain traditional ritual is done � or, in our case, a new ritual?
Or is it when you change your Facebook relationship status?
We had been so consumed with family, and with the intricacies of the Indian and American rules of engagement, that we ignored our virtual tribe. We had called some friends on the phone immediately after it happened, and e-mailed some others. But then the celebrations of the nonvirtual world took off, and we were absorbed into that love and tumult, and our engagement went unrecorded by the digital sphere.
Just when we thought we had satisfied every possible definition of engagement, marking it in ways suitable to ourselves, our parents and our extended clans, Priya�s stepsister brought up Facebook. Why hadn�t we updated our relationship status to proclaim the engagement? It was peculiar, this omission: The absence of a Facebook update could be read as the presence of something amiss. What were we trying to hide?
Relationship statuses, like ideas, have derived their authority from different sources over the millenniums: A relationship could be valid if properly certified by the ancient rituals; or valid if faithful to the words of the holy texts; or valid if codified in a contract recognized by the correct governmental agency; and now, in 2010, valid if etched into one�s �Info� tab on Facebook.
We promptly made things right. As it turns out, we were Facebook-engaged around the time that the site�s creator, Mark Zuckerberg, was named Time magazine�s Person of the Year. We made it �official� for the third time, our union ordained by this new minister of the universe.
At last, the engagement is properly established before our American, Indian and virtual tribes � and, now, before the readers of this newspaper. The wedding looms, and with it another inevitable contest of definitions.
I can already hear the question forming: �But how exactly does one get married?�
hairstyles Uploaded on May 26, 2007 | Map
Macaca
11-29 08:39 PM
Trade groups question new lobbying law (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/trade-groups-question-new-lobbying-law-2007-11-28.html) By Jim Snyder | The Hill, November 28, 2007
Trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say a new lobbying law could require the release of their member lists, violating freedom of association protections granted by the Constitution.
The Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Society of Association Executives wrote Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson and House Clerk Lorraine Miller on Wednesday asking for clarification in how the new law will be applied.
The potential problem relates to a section in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 that would impose new lobbying disclosure rules.
The trade groups said Congress wrote the section of the law to shine light on so-called �stealth coalitions� that often use innocuous-sounding names to anonymously represent specific industries.
But the imprecision of lobbying definitions in the law could mean disclosure requirements would fall on a variety of trade groups, the groups said in the letter.
Groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobbying activities now will face criminal penalties, the letter also notes.
�The price for being wrong is extremely high,� said Steven Law, senior vice president and chief legal officer for the Chamber.
The letter was signed by Law; Jim Clarke, senior vice president of public policy for the American Society of Association Executives; and Jan Amundson, senior vice president and general counsel at NAM.
The lobbying law, passed in response to scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff and ex-Rep. Randy �Duke� Cunningham (R-Calif.), would require disclosure of any organization or entity that �actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control� in lobbying activities and contributes more than $5,000 per quarter for those efforts.
The �breadth and vagueness of the provision� require further clarification in how the new law will be applied, the letter stated.
The groups noted Supreme Court rulings that they say prohibit the government from forcing groups to disclose their membership without a compelling government interest in doing so.
�We take seriously the constitutional rights of our members to associate freely without government looking over our shoulders,� Law said.
Brett Kappel, a campaign finance and government ethics lawyer, said Congress wrote the provision to target ad-hoc associations that are formed to lobby on a particular issue.
�These typically spring up when there is legislation that would have a major economic impact on a small number of companies from a specific segment of the economy. That�s when they form the Coalition for Apple Pie and Motherhood and lobby against it,� said Kappel, who practices at the firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.
The new law �wasn�t designed to get at trade associations,� he said.
Law said the lobbying law gives the clerk and the secretary broad powers in implementing the new requirements. He said he expected further guidance from those offices by Dec. 10.
Trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say a new lobbying law could require the release of their member lists, violating freedom of association protections granted by the Constitution.
The Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Society of Association Executives wrote Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson and House Clerk Lorraine Miller on Wednesday asking for clarification in how the new law will be applied.
The potential problem relates to a section in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 that would impose new lobbying disclosure rules.
The trade groups said Congress wrote the section of the law to shine light on so-called �stealth coalitions� that often use innocuous-sounding names to anonymously represent specific industries.
But the imprecision of lobbying definitions in the law could mean disclosure requirements would fall on a variety of trade groups, the groups said in the letter.
Groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobbying activities now will face criminal penalties, the letter also notes.
�The price for being wrong is extremely high,� said Steven Law, senior vice president and chief legal officer for the Chamber.
The letter was signed by Law; Jim Clarke, senior vice president of public policy for the American Society of Association Executives; and Jan Amundson, senior vice president and general counsel at NAM.
The lobbying law, passed in response to scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff and ex-Rep. Randy �Duke� Cunningham (R-Calif.), would require disclosure of any organization or entity that �actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control� in lobbying activities and contributes more than $5,000 per quarter for those efforts.
The �breadth and vagueness of the provision� require further clarification in how the new law will be applied, the letter stated.
The groups noted Supreme Court rulings that they say prohibit the government from forcing groups to disclose their membership without a compelling government interest in doing so.
�We take seriously the constitutional rights of our members to associate freely without government looking over our shoulders,� Law said.
Brett Kappel, a campaign finance and government ethics lawyer, said Congress wrote the provision to target ad-hoc associations that are formed to lobby on a particular issue.
�These typically spring up when there is legislation that would have a major economic impact on a small number of companies from a specific segment of the economy. That�s when they form the Coalition for Apple Pie and Motherhood and lobby against it,� said Kappel, who practices at the firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.
The new law �wasn�t designed to get at trade associations,� he said.
Law said the lobbying law gives the clerk and the secretary broad powers in implementing the new requirements. He said he expected further guidance from those offices by Dec. 10.
CreatedToday
01-06 04:21 PM
:confused:You don't believe this, but you believed when mullahs said, it was Israel and Jews behind 9/11! LOL
If its true, why media is not showing how Hamas is hiding behind schools and mosques? Its a big lie and this is what they say in order to justify the killing. Also what rockets you are talking about? Those 7000 rockets that killed 4 people? I agree Hamas must stop their mindless and useless rocket attack.
If its true, why media is not showing how Hamas is hiding behind schools and mosques? Its a big lie and this is what they say in order to justify the killing. Also what rockets you are talking about? Those 7000 rockets that killed 4 people? I agree Hamas must stop their mindless and useless rocket attack.
khelanphelan
05-24 12:11 PM
Did the brownback amendment pass with the CIR?
No comments:
Post a Comment