nojoke
04-08 05:35 PM
Apart from location, area, school district and population etc,
If you think the price of a house that you are looking to buy has come down to 2002 or 2003 price range, then i think you can buy. If not then one should wait.
What do you guys think?
The price may be right if it goes to 2002 level. But the way the economy is heading, I will wait for things to become more clear...
It is not just happening in US. The housing crash started in Europe(UK in particular). It is going to be a mess and blood bath for a year or 2.
If you think the price of a house that you are looking to buy has come down to 2002 or 2003 price range, then i think you can buy. If not then one should wait.
What do you guys think?
The price may be right if it goes to 2002 level. But the way the economy is heading, I will wait for things to become more clear...
It is not just happening in US. The housing crash started in Europe(UK in particular). It is going to be a mess and blood bath for a year or 2.
wallpaper Quiksilver didnt pay us we
Macaca
02-20 10:20 AM
Some paras from A Few Degrees of Separation From Hillary Clinton's Top Adviser (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900972.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Please send e-mail tokstreet@washpost.com
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Enough connections for you?
Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.
"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.
Mark J. Penn is a man who wears many hats: high-paid political and corporate pollster, chief executive of an international communications and lobbying company, and chief strategist to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Enough connections for you?
Well, there are more. Penn's firm, Burson-Marsteller Worldwide -- with 2,000 employees and $300 million a year in revenue -- owns BKSH & Associates, the major lobbying firm chaired by Charles R. Black Jr. That's right, Black, counselor to Republican presidents, reports to Clinton's top strategist.
The connections get even more entangled. Burson-Marsteller is a subsidiary of WPP Group, a London-based advertising and PR giant that owns many of the biggest names on K Street. These include Quinn Gillespie & Associates, Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, Timmons & Co., Ogilvy Government Relations Worldwide (formerly the Federalist Group), Public Strategies Inc., Dewey Square Group and Hill & Knowlton.
To be more precise, Penn's parent company employs as lobbyists and advisers an ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee (Edward W. Gillespie), a former House GOP leader (Robert S. Walker), a top GOP fundraiser (Wayne L. Berman), and the former media adviser to President Bush (Mark McKinnon).
WPP's Democrats are just as well known. They include an ex-aide to President Jimmy Carter (Anne Wexler), an ex-aide to President Bill Clinton (Jack Quinn), an ex-Cabinet officer for Clinton and Bush (Norman Y. Mineta), and a former top presidential campaign adviser for Al Gore and John Kerry (Michael J. Whouley).
The range of interests represented by these people is a staggering list of corporate America's who's who, with Penn himself a longtime adviser to Microsoft.
"This is a classic example of how big money has inextricably intertwined the campaign advising and lobbying worlds of modern-day Washington with potential conflicts of interest all over the place," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
2011 Quiksilver in the Pit Shirt
gondalguru
07-08 07:10 PM
I agree with you. I am also of the opinion that July Fiasco has actually helped India and China (oversubscribed countries). USCIS might have approved tons of EB2 and EB3 (India and China) applications to use those 60,000 visa numbers. So, India and China might have got a big pie of the 140,000 EB visas.
With that said I also felt the pain as other members did due to the July bulletin fiasco.
Good to hear that as I am EB2 India with PD 09/2004. Where will EB2 India be in October 07?
Diversity is preferred over Skills and hence there is per country limit at 7%. Many of my colleagues have got their GC being ROW EB2 (from srilanka, nepal, pakistan) and I am very happy for them but at the same time I feel frustrated and disappointed at the system as it discriminates you using your nationality. Nobody can control where they are born then why should they be discriminated based on that factor????
With that said I also felt the pain as other members did due to the July bulletin fiasco.
Good to hear that as I am EB2 India with PD 09/2004. Where will EB2 India be in October 07?
Diversity is preferred over Skills and hence there is per country limit at 7%. Many of my colleagues have got their GC being ROW EB2 (from srilanka, nepal, pakistan) and I am very happy for them but at the same time I feel frustrated and disappointed at the system as it discriminates you using your nationality. Nobody can control where they are born then why should they be discriminated based on that factor????
more...
waitnwatch
10-01 05:35 PM
I think retrogression will improve in the future. Here is why I think so.
Durbin is basically interested in changing the rules for H1-B. So one thing is assured, no more increase in the H1-B quota if Obama wins. Even if McCain wins I am doubtful there will be an H1-B quota increase in a Democratic majority house and senate.
On the other hand none of the candidates, senators or congressmen/women care too much to bet their political career on changing legal immigration. So the current EB system is just not going to change that easily. But with fewer people joining the line (the recession will reduce new immigration even further) I would assume that EB-2 will go current at some point in the next year. This will ultimately start reducing the backlogs in EB3.
Now don't start throwing numbers at me. I understand that it may still be some wait. But generally even in the worst case scenario things will not become worse as some folks predict.
Durbin is basically interested in changing the rules for H1-B. So one thing is assured, no more increase in the H1-B quota if Obama wins. Even if McCain wins I am doubtful there will be an H1-B quota increase in a Democratic majority house and senate.
On the other hand none of the candidates, senators or congressmen/women care too much to bet their political career on changing legal immigration. So the current EB system is just not going to change that easily. But with fewer people joining the line (the recession will reduce new immigration even further) I would assume that EB-2 will go current at some point in the next year. This will ultimately start reducing the backlogs in EB3.
Now don't start throwing numbers at me. I understand that it may still be some wait. But generally even in the worst case scenario things will not become worse as some folks predict.
greenguru
04-08 02:17 AM
I was discussing the same with a friend of mine...
what will be done next is ...
Have 49 employees and start a sister concern ( New firm ) after that ..
what will be done next is ...
Have 49 employees and start a sister concern ( New firm ) after that ..
more...
pappu
08-06 11:10 AM
PS.: When there is flood in Gangaji then it is not revered, only when it is within its banks it is revered and does good for society
Wow. That was deep. :D
Wow. That was deep. :D
2010 surfing wallpaper quiksilver.
Macaca
02-13 09:42 AM
Lobbying and Legislation: Enacting Better Laws (http://www.policylink.org/AdvocatingForChange/Lobbying/Legislators.html) (courtesy krishna.ahd)
After you lay the foundation for your legislative efforts and assess the political landscape, your goal is to convince legislators to accept your position. Some activities, such as proposing legislation or amendments, meeting with legislators and their staff, and testifying at hearings, occur inside the halls of the legislature; other actions, such as letter writing, public demonstrations, and working with the media, are initiated outside the legislature to build public pressure and urge legislators to come over to your side. Always coordinate your actions inside and outside of the legislature to make sure you are consistent and achieve maximum effect.
Write letters, send faxes and e-mails, and phone legislators. Letters are definitely worth the time. Legislators know that each letter they receive represents several additional constituents who feel the same way but have not taken the time to write. That�s why, in addition to writing your own letter, you should get your partners and allies to write letters as well.
Be clear and concise. Keep your letter to one page, at most two, and address only one issue per letter, if possible. Clearly identify the bill you are writing about and the position you are urging (vote yes or no). Make two or three of your strongest arguments for or against the proposed legislation. Remember: Legislators receive many letters on many different issues; your letter should be easy to read and understand if you want any chance of grabbing their attention.
Identify yourself and your constituency. Say something about who you are and whom you represent; you want the legislator to understand that you are someone she or he should listen to. Give an example of a personal story�preferably from the legislator�s district�that shows how the bill affects real people and that the problem is not just an isolated incident. Legislators hear about what�s good and bad policy all the time; real-life experiences grab their attention.
Avoid using form letters whenever possible. Avoid them altogether if you cannot deliver extraordinary volume. Personal individually signed letters are far more effective. When you are soliciting letters from partners and allies, provide a sample with a request that they use it as a guide to writing a letter in their own words.
While letters tend to be most effective, you can also fax, phone, and e-mail your legislators. Usually, you use e-mails, faxes and phone calls right before a bill is coming up for a vote to remind legislators of the importance of their vote to you. If you are planning to organize a fax, phone, or e-mail chain, in which your partners and allies ask their constituents and supporters to take action, be sure to provide the contact information for the appropriate representative because the most effective contacts are those that come from legislators� own constituents. For more on e-mail advocacy see the Internet Advocacy section.
Meet with legislators. Face-to-face contact with legislators is key to humanizing the problem, demonstrating a commitment to solving it, and developing relationships for the long haul.
Organize a small, diverse group of participants, perhaps three to five people. Make sure at least some of them reside in the legislator�s district.
Select your best spokespersons and message. Choose someone who will appeal to the legislators you are trying to persuade.
Decide ahead of time how you will conduct the meeting. Who will introduce the participants? Lead the meeting? Close the meeting? What materials will you take to leave with the legislator at the end of the meeting?
Get to know legislators� staff. Legislators often rely heavily on the advice of key staff members. It is important to establish a good relationship with these staff members, make sure they have adequate information about your legislation, and try to learn from them any concerns you may need to address to keep your legislation moving forward. The staff will be your main point of contact if a legislator is unavailable or inaccessible.
For more tips on meeting with legislators, such as scheduling, preparing for, conducting, and following up after the meeting, see Tips on Meeting with Your Elected Officials (http://archive.aclu.org/action/lobby.html), and �Six Practical Tips on How to Lobby Your Legislator or Elected Official (http://www.democracyctr.org/resources/lobbying.html)� in Lobbying�the Basics.
Testify at hearings. This is not one of those times when you can wing it! Always be prepared before you give testimony on pending legislation.
Get a rough vote count of how legislators are likely to vote before you attend the hearing and try to find out about outstanding issues and concerns. Having this information will help you choose the best witnesses, know what points you need to emphasize in your testimony, and consider amendments you may need to offer or agree to.
Choose witnesses who will be credible and effective. Put together a combination of people directly affected by the legislation, experts, and individuals and organizations that represent legislators� constituents.
Write out your testimony in advance so that it is clear, concise, and persuasive. Include personal stories whenever possible to show how the issue affects real people. Prepare a summary of your testimony for distribution at the hearing to legislators, the media, and other attendees. Anticipate questions legislators might ask and plan how to respond.
Pack the legislative chambers with supporters and call the media. Wear buttons, T-shirts, or other identifying items to show legislators and the media the strength and presence of your support in the hearing room.
Have legislators who support your cause ask your opponents tough questions and make supportive statements on your behalf. You could offer to draft a list of questions or key points that you would like them to cover. Discuss in advance amendments that may be offered and the bottom line for any compromises.
Staging public protests or other public events. Consider organizing an event that energizes and mobilizes large numbers of supporters and captures legislators��and media�attention.
Public protests can sometimes turn up the heat on lawmakers to vote your way or at least think twice about siding with the opposition.
Holding a Lobby Day is an opportunity to mobilize large numbers of people to meet with multiple legislators in one day to show your legislative power and gain media attention. The day usually begins with training in lobbying skills and a teach-in on your issues, followed perhaps by a rally and news interviews, a couple of hours of meetings with legislators, and an end-of-day debriefing session for supporters.
Ignite Public Scrutiny. Elected officials care about their public image. They want to be portrayed favorably in the news. Develop a media strategy around your legislation that includes news conferences, letters to the editor, writing opinion editorials, or other media strategies that will put your issue in the public eye, maintain public scrutiny throughout the legislative process, provide a vehicle for keeping pressure on elected officials, turn up the heat on those who are against you, and applaud those who stick with you. For more tips on developing a media strategy see the Media Advocacy section.
Be persistent. Lobbying campaigns rarely come to a definitive end.
If your proposed legislation is defeated, there is frequently another opportunity to reintroduce it. Don�t be discouraged. Often it takes several tries to pass a measure, especially one that seeks to bring about an important change.
If you win, do not get complacent. Monitor implementation and make sure your legislation is fully funded. Look out for opposition attempts to undo or diminish your victory by trying to repeal your legislation, filing litigation to overturn it, or seeking regulations to significantly weaken its implementation.
After you lay the foundation for your legislative efforts and assess the political landscape, your goal is to convince legislators to accept your position. Some activities, such as proposing legislation or amendments, meeting with legislators and their staff, and testifying at hearings, occur inside the halls of the legislature; other actions, such as letter writing, public demonstrations, and working with the media, are initiated outside the legislature to build public pressure and urge legislators to come over to your side. Always coordinate your actions inside and outside of the legislature to make sure you are consistent and achieve maximum effect.
Write letters, send faxes and e-mails, and phone legislators. Letters are definitely worth the time. Legislators know that each letter they receive represents several additional constituents who feel the same way but have not taken the time to write. That�s why, in addition to writing your own letter, you should get your partners and allies to write letters as well.
Be clear and concise. Keep your letter to one page, at most two, and address only one issue per letter, if possible. Clearly identify the bill you are writing about and the position you are urging (vote yes or no). Make two or three of your strongest arguments for or against the proposed legislation. Remember: Legislators receive many letters on many different issues; your letter should be easy to read and understand if you want any chance of grabbing their attention.
Identify yourself and your constituency. Say something about who you are and whom you represent; you want the legislator to understand that you are someone she or he should listen to. Give an example of a personal story�preferably from the legislator�s district�that shows how the bill affects real people and that the problem is not just an isolated incident. Legislators hear about what�s good and bad policy all the time; real-life experiences grab their attention.
Avoid using form letters whenever possible. Avoid them altogether if you cannot deliver extraordinary volume. Personal individually signed letters are far more effective. When you are soliciting letters from partners and allies, provide a sample with a request that they use it as a guide to writing a letter in their own words.
While letters tend to be most effective, you can also fax, phone, and e-mail your legislators. Usually, you use e-mails, faxes and phone calls right before a bill is coming up for a vote to remind legislators of the importance of their vote to you. If you are planning to organize a fax, phone, or e-mail chain, in which your partners and allies ask their constituents and supporters to take action, be sure to provide the contact information for the appropriate representative because the most effective contacts are those that come from legislators� own constituents. For more on e-mail advocacy see the Internet Advocacy section.
Meet with legislators. Face-to-face contact with legislators is key to humanizing the problem, demonstrating a commitment to solving it, and developing relationships for the long haul.
Organize a small, diverse group of participants, perhaps three to five people. Make sure at least some of them reside in the legislator�s district.
Select your best spokespersons and message. Choose someone who will appeal to the legislators you are trying to persuade.
Decide ahead of time how you will conduct the meeting. Who will introduce the participants? Lead the meeting? Close the meeting? What materials will you take to leave with the legislator at the end of the meeting?
Get to know legislators� staff. Legislators often rely heavily on the advice of key staff members. It is important to establish a good relationship with these staff members, make sure they have adequate information about your legislation, and try to learn from them any concerns you may need to address to keep your legislation moving forward. The staff will be your main point of contact if a legislator is unavailable or inaccessible.
For more tips on meeting with legislators, such as scheduling, preparing for, conducting, and following up after the meeting, see Tips on Meeting with Your Elected Officials (http://archive.aclu.org/action/lobby.html), and �Six Practical Tips on How to Lobby Your Legislator or Elected Official (http://www.democracyctr.org/resources/lobbying.html)� in Lobbying�the Basics.
Testify at hearings. This is not one of those times when you can wing it! Always be prepared before you give testimony on pending legislation.
Get a rough vote count of how legislators are likely to vote before you attend the hearing and try to find out about outstanding issues and concerns. Having this information will help you choose the best witnesses, know what points you need to emphasize in your testimony, and consider amendments you may need to offer or agree to.
Choose witnesses who will be credible and effective. Put together a combination of people directly affected by the legislation, experts, and individuals and organizations that represent legislators� constituents.
Write out your testimony in advance so that it is clear, concise, and persuasive. Include personal stories whenever possible to show how the issue affects real people. Prepare a summary of your testimony for distribution at the hearing to legislators, the media, and other attendees. Anticipate questions legislators might ask and plan how to respond.
Pack the legislative chambers with supporters and call the media. Wear buttons, T-shirts, or other identifying items to show legislators and the media the strength and presence of your support in the hearing room.
Have legislators who support your cause ask your opponents tough questions and make supportive statements on your behalf. You could offer to draft a list of questions or key points that you would like them to cover. Discuss in advance amendments that may be offered and the bottom line for any compromises.
Staging public protests or other public events. Consider organizing an event that energizes and mobilizes large numbers of supporters and captures legislators��and media�attention.
Public protests can sometimes turn up the heat on lawmakers to vote your way or at least think twice about siding with the opposition.
Holding a Lobby Day is an opportunity to mobilize large numbers of people to meet with multiple legislators in one day to show your legislative power and gain media attention. The day usually begins with training in lobbying skills and a teach-in on your issues, followed perhaps by a rally and news interviews, a couple of hours of meetings with legislators, and an end-of-day debriefing session for supporters.
Ignite Public Scrutiny. Elected officials care about their public image. They want to be portrayed favorably in the news. Develop a media strategy around your legislation that includes news conferences, letters to the editor, writing opinion editorials, or other media strategies that will put your issue in the public eye, maintain public scrutiny throughout the legislative process, provide a vehicle for keeping pressure on elected officials, turn up the heat on those who are against you, and applaud those who stick with you. For more tips on developing a media strategy see the Media Advocacy section.
Be persistent. Lobbying campaigns rarely come to a definitive end.
If your proposed legislation is defeated, there is frequently another opportunity to reintroduce it. Don�t be discouraged. Often it takes several tries to pass a measure, especially one that seeks to bring about an important change.
If you win, do not get complacent. Monitor implementation and make sure your legislation is fully funded. Look out for opposition attempts to undo or diminish your victory by trying to repeal your legislation, filing litigation to overturn it, or seeking regulations to significantly weaken its implementation.
more...
maddipati1
03-23 03:08 PM
Did you send Seinfeld a royalty? :D
-a
cheers
-a
cheers
hair Quiksilver iPhone 4 Wallpaper
araj_98
05-25 12:45 PM
retrogression is there was no unified voice to atleast speak out, when the serious problems that the legal immigrants are facing was anticipated, write about these issues. Now we have one in IV.
The only problem in what you advocate is this: while each of us is free to speak as we like, that dilutes our focus and produces a gaggle of voices. This results in lack of attention and gradual erosion of the effort. We don't have a full time paid director / administrators to brings things to order. All work here is at IV is voluntary. That's why we need to stop people from promoting Lou Dobbs. Remember, one swallow doen't make a summer.
Also remember: these channels have (or may have) an hidden agenda. Rather than pure news and opinion disseminating channels, they are jockeying to be a opinion influencing channel. That's where they fail; when they can't convince people (how can you, in a few minutes of news coverage), they confuse poeple.
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/709/yls_article.htm
February 23, 2006
Watch Video of Author Tom Friedman's Lecture
Please note: You will need Quicktime 7 to view this video.
BTW People who support Lou and his view are as ignorant and xenophobic as he is.
Communique - Your posts dont suggest that you are an immigrant or even pro-immigrant.
The only problem in what you advocate is this: while each of us is free to speak as we like, that dilutes our focus and produces a gaggle of voices. This results in lack of attention and gradual erosion of the effort. We don't have a full time paid director / administrators to brings things to order. All work here is at IV is voluntary. That's why we need to stop people from promoting Lou Dobbs. Remember, one swallow doen't make a summer.
Also remember: these channels have (or may have) an hidden agenda. Rather than pure news and opinion disseminating channels, they are jockeying to be a opinion influencing channel. That's where they fail; when they can't convince people (how can you, in a few minutes of news coverage), they confuse poeple.
http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/709/yls_article.htm
February 23, 2006
Watch Video of Author Tom Friedman's Lecture
Please note: You will need Quicktime 7 to view this video.
BTW People who support Lou and his view are as ignorant and xenophobic as he is.
Communique - Your posts dont suggest that you are an immigrant or even pro-immigrant.
more...
niklshah
07-13 09:00 PM
I dont agree at all!!!!!!!
How can you give consideration to people already in line at the expense of other people from a higher preference category also waiting patiently in line. Regardless of the duration of the wait EB3 is a lower prefrence category and will remain so under any interpretation. Remember that even under the 'old' interpretation EB3-I only got visa numbers after passing through the EB3 ROW and the EB2-I gate.
Notwithstanding the 'new' interpretation, an argument can always be made that the 'old' interpretation was not only wrong but blatantly wrong where EB3ROW was given preference over an EB2 retro country.
The only fix for this is elimination of country cap and/or increase in number of visas. The means to acheive that goal may be legislative or administrative. I'll defer to the experts on that!
\
relax buddy,
dont jump too much, i can see u are EB2 and trust me this date can go back anywhere without u getting ur golden card...i am EB3 and i am a pharmacist and i dont know why we are in EB3, we have much more demand than the computer people who all are in EB2. so buddy good luck if u get ur card in few months.... just pray for us....thank u...
How can you give consideration to people already in line at the expense of other people from a higher preference category also waiting patiently in line. Regardless of the duration of the wait EB3 is a lower prefrence category and will remain so under any interpretation. Remember that even under the 'old' interpretation EB3-I only got visa numbers after passing through the EB3 ROW and the EB2-I gate.
Notwithstanding the 'new' interpretation, an argument can always be made that the 'old' interpretation was not only wrong but blatantly wrong where EB3ROW was given preference over an EB2 retro country.
The only fix for this is elimination of country cap and/or increase in number of visas. The means to acheive that goal may be legislative or administrative. I'll defer to the experts on that!
\
relax buddy,
dont jump too much, i can see u are EB2 and trust me this date can go back anywhere without u getting ur golden card...i am EB3 and i am a pharmacist and i dont know why we are in EB3, we have much more demand than the computer people who all are in EB2. so buddy good luck if u get ur card in few months.... just pray for us....thank u...
hot Quiksilver Wetsuits.
Refugee_New
01-06 12:38 PM
Israeli shelling kills more than 40 at UN school in Gaza.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-death-un
More killing while the world watches silently.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-death-un
More killing while the world watches silently.
more...
house quiksilver wallpaper.
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.
tattoo wallpaper quiksilver.
unitednations
03-24 12:34 PM
face it as long as the economy is tanking this is going to be an ongoing debate. Everything goes thorugh stages of high and low and we are now expereincing the lows of having the h1b's.
Sledge While your points are valid, remember folks do not choose consulting (nor do students) as a first choice but I have friends who were employed without any issues directly with client companies who in the midst of recession decide to fire everyone. What are you options if your GC is denied because the company declared bankruptcy? How do you justify to yourself staying with the employer when they files you under Eb3 category when you a master's degree holder from one of the 10 best universities in the US? What are the employee choices here, just pack up and leave? leave houses, friends and people you stayed with many years.
You think they haven't searched for full time positions with other companies only to be turned back? or worse case restart the entire GC process and forgo the 6+ years?
And the experiences I am relating are from the 2001 recession. I have already seen history repeat itself now but my more fear is that tomorrow USCIS will unfortunately hit the person who followed all the rules After all how is the USCIS knowing which are the good companies and which are bad? These very things are happening and very much can happen to you as well. Do not sit on a high perch and think it will not trickle down to me
That is one thing I have noticed of this divide between non consulting and consulting jobs.
Reality is that people either came on f-1 or they came on h-1 through staffing company.
Permanent jobs are the least safe from immigration point of view. As soon as there is a downturn; they will cut your job unmercilessly; doesn't matter which stage of the greencard you are in. You have absolutely no flexibility whatsoever (eb2 versus eb3); when or if they are going to start the greencard process. In fact companies such as these are the ones who generally won't give you any details of labor or 140.
Many of the peple who are in 8 or 9 year h-1b painfully learned this lesson. They generally started at staffing company; got enticed by permanent job; got stuck in labor processing; got laid off; jumped back to staffing company; chased labor substitution; got 140 denied; jumped to another company and started again.
Many of the people I discussed with who have been here for a long time on h-1b were continually re-starting their greencard for all these issues.
I remember seeing a posting by another member that stated people from india were more susceptible to being out of status or having applications denied because of the long wait to get the greencard. The longer it goes; the bigger chane of something going wrong.
People from other countries don't have such issues. I know one person from Uzbekistan who was on OPT and filed h-1b quota case in April 2007; at the same time company filed labor for him. He got greencard approved before the h-1b even got adjudicated.
One of the issues of stafffing companies is that it is usually run by another person who was a non immigrant at one point themselves so they did not revoke h-1b's and were very flexible with their employees (that flexibility made them skirt h-1b rules). However, now that flexibility is gone as USCIS has gone through zero tolerance.
The way USCIS/DOL/CONSULATES are behaving is making it very difficult for even the traditional companies to pursue or even keep non immigrants. Right now with the layoffs, many people from the traditional companies are approaching the staffing companies to do h-1b's. However, the staffing companies are not doing them because they are starting to follow the rules as close as they can. If they don't have a job for you then they are not going to file (no more speculative employment).
Sledge While your points are valid, remember folks do not choose consulting (nor do students) as a first choice but I have friends who were employed without any issues directly with client companies who in the midst of recession decide to fire everyone. What are you options if your GC is denied because the company declared bankruptcy? How do you justify to yourself staying with the employer when they files you under Eb3 category when you a master's degree holder from one of the 10 best universities in the US? What are the employee choices here, just pack up and leave? leave houses, friends and people you stayed with many years.
You think they haven't searched for full time positions with other companies only to be turned back? or worse case restart the entire GC process and forgo the 6+ years?
And the experiences I am relating are from the 2001 recession. I have already seen history repeat itself now but my more fear is that tomorrow USCIS will unfortunately hit the person who followed all the rules After all how is the USCIS knowing which are the good companies and which are bad? These very things are happening and very much can happen to you as well. Do not sit on a high perch and think it will not trickle down to me
That is one thing I have noticed of this divide between non consulting and consulting jobs.
Reality is that people either came on f-1 or they came on h-1 through staffing company.
Permanent jobs are the least safe from immigration point of view. As soon as there is a downturn; they will cut your job unmercilessly; doesn't matter which stage of the greencard you are in. You have absolutely no flexibility whatsoever (eb2 versus eb3); when or if they are going to start the greencard process. In fact companies such as these are the ones who generally won't give you any details of labor or 140.
Many of the peple who are in 8 or 9 year h-1b painfully learned this lesson. They generally started at staffing company; got enticed by permanent job; got stuck in labor processing; got laid off; jumped back to staffing company; chased labor substitution; got 140 denied; jumped to another company and started again.
Many of the people I discussed with who have been here for a long time on h-1b were continually re-starting their greencard for all these issues.
I remember seeing a posting by another member that stated people from india were more susceptible to being out of status or having applications denied because of the long wait to get the greencard. The longer it goes; the bigger chane of something going wrong.
People from other countries don't have such issues. I know one person from Uzbekistan who was on OPT and filed h-1b quota case in April 2007; at the same time company filed labor for him. He got greencard approved before the h-1b even got adjudicated.
One of the issues of stafffing companies is that it is usually run by another person who was a non immigrant at one point themselves so they did not revoke h-1b's and were very flexible with their employees (that flexibility made them skirt h-1b rules). However, now that flexibility is gone as USCIS has gone through zero tolerance.
The way USCIS/DOL/CONSULATES are behaving is making it very difficult for even the traditional companies to pursue or even keep non immigrants. Right now with the layoffs, many people from the traditional companies are approaching the staffing companies to do h-1b's. However, the staffing companies are not doing them because they are starting to follow the rules as close as they can. If they don't have a job for you then they are not going to file (no more speculative employment).
more...
pictures quiksilver wallpapers.
sanju
12-17 04:05 PM
Since everyone is posting what they want, I guess I can also just post anything here....
GAWilA_mkoQ
.
GAWilA_mkoQ
.
dresses Quiksilver Cabana 2 Straw Hat
Macaca
12-27 06:43 PM
Climate change leaves Assam tea growers in hot water
Rising temperatures reducing yields and altering distinctive flavour of India's most popular drink (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/26/climate-change-assam-tea)
By Amarjyoti Borah | The Guardian
Climate change is affecting the cultivation of Assam tea, with rising temperatures reducing yields and altering the distinctive flavour of India's most popular drink, researchers say.
High hills and abundant rainfall make the north-eastern state of Assam an ideal place to grow tea, with 850 gardens over 320,000 hectares (593,000 acres) producing the majority of the country's harvest. But in the last 60 years, rainfall has fallen by more than a fifth and minimum temperature has risen by a degree to 19.5C.
"This is clearly climate change, and it is bound to have major impact on the tea industry," said Debakanta Handique, a climate scientist in Assam.
The Tea Board of India said it had recorded a steady decline in tea production in recent years. In 2007, Assam produced 512,000 tonnes of tea. By 2008 this had declined to 487,000 tonnes, with estimated production in 2009 down again to 445,000. A further decrease is expected this year.
Mridul Hazarika, director of Tocklai Tea Research, the oldest tea research station in the world, said rainfall and minimum temperature were two of the most important factors affecting both quality and quantity of harvests.
"The decline has been taking place although there has been an increase in the area of tea cultivation as new gardens have come up, and many gardens have added new areas for tea plantation. This is an indication of the seriousness of the threat," said Hazarika. Efficient rainwater harvesting and new breeds of tea plants were needed to reverse the trend.
"Changes have already been observed in the flavour, but it is not possible to blame only climate change for this," he said. "Other factors like the fertilisers used and cultivation methods might also be partly responsible."
The changing taste of Assam tea is a serious concern for growers. Sudipta Nayan Goswami, an Assam-based planter, said subtle changes had already been observed: "The flavour has changed from what it was before. The creamy and strong flavour is no more."
"There is a huge demand for Assam tea abroad, and this is due to its strong, bright flavour. The changes will sharply hamper the demand for this variety of tea abroad."
Rising temperatures reducing yields and altering distinctive flavour of India's most popular drink (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/26/climate-change-assam-tea)
By Amarjyoti Borah | The Guardian
Climate change is affecting the cultivation of Assam tea, with rising temperatures reducing yields and altering the distinctive flavour of India's most popular drink, researchers say.
High hills and abundant rainfall make the north-eastern state of Assam an ideal place to grow tea, with 850 gardens over 320,000 hectares (593,000 acres) producing the majority of the country's harvest. But in the last 60 years, rainfall has fallen by more than a fifth and minimum temperature has risen by a degree to 19.5C.
"This is clearly climate change, and it is bound to have major impact on the tea industry," said Debakanta Handique, a climate scientist in Assam.
The Tea Board of India said it had recorded a steady decline in tea production in recent years. In 2007, Assam produced 512,000 tonnes of tea. By 2008 this had declined to 487,000 tonnes, with estimated production in 2009 down again to 445,000. A further decrease is expected this year.
Mridul Hazarika, director of Tocklai Tea Research, the oldest tea research station in the world, said rainfall and minimum temperature were two of the most important factors affecting both quality and quantity of harvests.
"The decline has been taking place although there has been an increase in the area of tea cultivation as new gardens have come up, and many gardens have added new areas for tea plantation. This is an indication of the seriousness of the threat," said Hazarika. Efficient rainwater harvesting and new breeds of tea plants were needed to reverse the trend.
"Changes have already been observed in the flavour, but it is not possible to blame only climate change for this," he said. "Other factors like the fertilisers used and cultivation methods might also be partly responsible."
The changing taste of Assam tea is a serious concern for growers. Sudipta Nayan Goswami, an Assam-based planter, said subtle changes had already been observed: "The flavour has changed from what it was before. The creamy and strong flavour is no more."
"There is a huge demand for Assam tea abroad, and this is due to its strong, bright flavour. The changes will sharply hamper the demand for this variety of tea abroad."
more...
makeup custom icons, wallpaper,
desi3933
07-08 10:20 AM
1. When you filed I-485, you should file under 245(K) immediately - I believe someone already mentioned that below. For derivative applications, the derivative applicant may be "out of status" for any length without any issues for AOS approval.
2. For the 6 mos period he was without pay check, does he have any proof of employment and correspondingly any letter showing that he was on vacation/leave of absense. I had a 15 day period between 2 jobs where I took time off but had no vacation, hence leave without pay but I have leave letter from my manager in letter-head (I know a lot of people do that as taking vacation between jobs gives them a fresh start).
3. Did the period length where he did not have a pay check exceed 180 days at a stretch?
Bottomline, it seems an overzealous USCIS officer is trying to find ways to deny your application - you should involve a good lawyer and get immediate rebuttal for Notice of Denial.
1. 245(k) is applicable automatically for all eb I-485. There is no penalty fee for 245(k).
2. Each I-485 application is independent for out of status issues. Does not matter Primary or Dependent.
3. Needs more information. A person can be out of status even with pay-checks. Example: H-1B LCA location is different from actual job location, putting him/her out of status.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
2. For the 6 mos period he was without pay check, does he have any proof of employment and correspondingly any letter showing that he was on vacation/leave of absense. I had a 15 day period between 2 jobs where I took time off but had no vacation, hence leave without pay but I have leave letter from my manager in letter-head (I know a lot of people do that as taking vacation between jobs gives them a fresh start).
3. Did the period length where he did not have a pay check exceed 180 days at a stretch?
Bottomline, it seems an overzealous USCIS officer is trying to find ways to deny your application - you should involve a good lawyer and get immediate rebuttal for Notice of Denial.
1. 245(k) is applicable automatically for all eb I-485. There is no penalty fee for 245(k).
2. Each I-485 application is independent for out of status issues. Does not matter Primary or Dependent.
3. Needs more information. A person can be out of status even with pay-checks. Example: H-1B LCA location is different from actual job location, putting him/her out of status.
_____________________
Not a legal advice.
girlfriend Logo Quiksilver Graphics Code
sayantan76
01-11 03:48 PM
I don�t agree with your argument. Who is holing up the innocents..? Hamas using the kids and civilians as human shield. I also don�t consider the civilians as innocent there. They are whole heartedly support and elected Hamas -the terror organization. They are the one poisoning the kids with hatred. But I feel very sorry for the kids and the developments are very much disturbing.
The Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria � the devil�s club will never achieve their goal � wipe out ISREAL from the map. ISREAL is IS REAL and this mullahs needs to understand that.
we should be careful here - there is a thin line between terrorism and legitimate freedom struggle....also - the classification may very well vary based on which prism are you looking through.....for example - Bhagat Singh and the likes were considered terrorists by occupying British colonial power but were considered revolutionaries and freedom fighters by the Indian masses.....how can we say that the Indian Freedom Struggle was any more just and legitimate than the Palestinian desire for self governance...
Another example - were the Mughal rulers in medieval India an occupying invader or were they populist rules loved by the masses? Based on how you answer this question - Chatrapati Shivaji either becomes a glorious Maratha freedom fighter or a terrorist leader....
On the current situation - Hamas fighters live in a densely populated area....so of course - there are civilians there - what do you expect - Hamas would say - Israel is coming to fight us - lets find some sort of Panipat (check battles of panipat on wikipedia for those who dont know) or Kurukshetra (check Mahabharata on wikipedia) where we can fight Israelies in a vast unpopulated area - Israel is the invading army here - they have chosen to fight in densely populated areas - Hamas is merely responding....
One of the newspapers today suggested that Hamas has booby trapped Gaza and thats causing problems for Israeli army and somehow Hamas is wrong in doing so - guys what do you expect - Israelis would be welcomed with garlands in Gaza? If some armed enemies were attacking your home and you knew you did not have the might to directly face them - wont you try every underhand tactic in the book to cause as much damage to the enemy as possible?
While I am no supporter of Hamas or religious extremism - i think its important to study the Palestinian/Israel issue as an ethnic problem as opposed to a religious issue.... - holocaust was a terrible thing to happen but just because of the collective Western guilt conscience (of having done nothing to prevent Holocaust)- the Palestinian/ Israeli dispute has never been judged objectively and one side has always been given a long rope while the other has gotten the short end of the stick.
The Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria � the devil�s club will never achieve their goal � wipe out ISREAL from the map. ISREAL is IS REAL and this mullahs needs to understand that.
we should be careful here - there is a thin line between terrorism and legitimate freedom struggle....also - the classification may very well vary based on which prism are you looking through.....for example - Bhagat Singh and the likes were considered terrorists by occupying British colonial power but were considered revolutionaries and freedom fighters by the Indian masses.....how can we say that the Indian Freedom Struggle was any more just and legitimate than the Palestinian desire for self governance...
Another example - were the Mughal rulers in medieval India an occupying invader or were they populist rules loved by the masses? Based on how you answer this question - Chatrapati Shivaji either becomes a glorious Maratha freedom fighter or a terrorist leader....
On the current situation - Hamas fighters live in a densely populated area....so of course - there are civilians there - what do you expect - Hamas would say - Israel is coming to fight us - lets find some sort of Panipat (check battles of panipat on wikipedia for those who dont know) or Kurukshetra (check Mahabharata on wikipedia) where we can fight Israelies in a vast unpopulated area - Israel is the invading army here - they have chosen to fight in densely populated areas - Hamas is merely responding....
One of the newspapers today suggested that Hamas has booby trapped Gaza and thats causing problems for Israeli army and somehow Hamas is wrong in doing so - guys what do you expect - Israelis would be welcomed with garlands in Gaza? If some armed enemies were attacking your home and you knew you did not have the might to directly face them - wont you try every underhand tactic in the book to cause as much damage to the enemy as possible?
While I am no supporter of Hamas or religious extremism - i think its important to study the Palestinian/Israel issue as an ethnic problem as opposed to a religious issue.... - holocaust was a terrible thing to happen but just because of the collective Western guilt conscience (of having done nothing to prevent Holocaust)- the Palestinian/ Israeli dispute has never been judged objectively and one side has always been given a long rope while the other has gotten the short end of the stick.
hairstyles quiksilver wallpaper. Quiksilver Apocolypse Fedora
gc28262
09-26 09:41 AM
For me Obama and Mccain are equally good candidates. I would prefer Hillary Clinton over both of them.
McCain is a great guy, but he is with the wrong party. A party that aligns itself with anti-immigrants.
Now that we don't have much hopes for HR-5882, we should start targeting the CIR right now. Maybe we can talk to the Hispanic and other groups which will have an influence over CIR and have our provisions taken care of.
It will definitely be easier to tie-up with Hispanic caucus and other groups than anti-immigrants.
McCain is a great guy, but he is with the wrong party. A party that aligns itself with anti-immigrants.
Now that we don't have much hopes for HR-5882, we should start targeting the CIR right now. Maybe we can talk to the Hispanic and other groups which will have an influence over CIR and have our provisions taken care of.
It will definitely be easier to tie-up with Hispanic caucus and other groups than anti-immigrants.
Macaca
07-08 06:54 PM
In approving another h-4 visa; they askd h-1b person why they didn't get paid for three month when they entered USA. Company president along with h-1b beneficiary said that he had to climitize himself and then it took a while to get the social security number. Once he got it then he got paid. Visa officer laughed at the explanation and gave the h-4 visa. Six months later; company gets a DOL audit request for possible h-1b violations. DOL officer said that consulate sent them notification that there was h-1b violations.
Must an H-1B alien be working at all times? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Must an H-1B alien be working at all times? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Macaca
11-20 11:02 AM
A Call to Advocacy for Nonprofits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111901333.html) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum | Washington Post, November 20, 2007
Charities are sweet things, but Gary D. Bass wants them to get rough and tumble when it comes to dealing with government.
In his new book, "Seen But Not Heard: Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy," Bass and three co-authors argue that charities need to lobby more often and more effectively. "Democracy would be better off," said Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a nonprofit group that pushes for government accountability.
Most people -- and, clearly, most charities -- think of lobbyists as corporate frontmen trying to grab taxpayer largesse for themselves. They also consider lobbying kind of dirty, given the criminality of infamous lobbyists such as the now-imprisoned Jack Abramoff.
But lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes, including the charitable sort. Bass's book, which is part of a larger effort called the Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy Project, or SNAP, is a useful reminder of that.
Bass has been trying to convince charities for years that they should not be afraid to lobby. He and others, including the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, have even devised ways to ease -- or at least simplify -- the limitations now imposed on charities so they can press their causes more aggressively.
That's right, they are lobbying to be allowed to lobby more.
Conservative lawmakers and a few campaign-finance scholars don't like the idea. They worry that, among other things, the ability of charities to keep their donors anonymous could lead to huge and largely untraceable infusions of cash into elections, all under the guise of lobbying.
And please, call it advocacy. Charities don't like to use the "L" word. Only a third of nonprofits polled recently owned up to "lobbying" two or more times a month. But when asked if they "advocate," closer to half admitted to that.
Many nonprofits also are unsure how much lobbying the law permits them to do. Only 72 percent even knew that they could support or oppose federal legislation. (They can, up to a point.)
Bass's biggest problem is convincing charities that they not only can make their case to government, but that they really ought to do so . In effect, he needs to convince his fellow do-gooders that lobbying is not so bad.
"Nonprofit lobbyists have been involved in nearly every major public policy accomplishment in this country -- from civil rights to environmental protection to health care," Bass said in an e-mail. "Tens of thousands of lives have been saved by passing laws that improve car safety and reduce drunk driving."
"In other words, nonprofit lobbying is an honorable tradition," he added, "and not just the ugly Abramoff side" of the profession.
Convincing charities of that, however, will not be a snap.
Charities are sweet things, but Gary D. Bass wants them to get rough and tumble when it comes to dealing with government.
In his new book, "Seen But Not Heard: Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy," Bass and three co-authors argue that charities need to lobby more often and more effectively. "Democracy would be better off," said Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a nonprofit group that pushes for government accountability.
Most people -- and, clearly, most charities -- think of lobbyists as corporate frontmen trying to grab taxpayer largesse for themselves. They also consider lobbying kind of dirty, given the criminality of infamous lobbyists such as the now-imprisoned Jack Abramoff.
But lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes, including the charitable sort. Bass's book, which is part of a larger effort called the Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy Project, or SNAP, is a useful reminder of that.
Bass has been trying to convince charities for years that they should not be afraid to lobby. He and others, including the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest, have even devised ways to ease -- or at least simplify -- the limitations now imposed on charities so they can press their causes more aggressively.
That's right, they are lobbying to be allowed to lobby more.
Conservative lawmakers and a few campaign-finance scholars don't like the idea. They worry that, among other things, the ability of charities to keep their donors anonymous could lead to huge and largely untraceable infusions of cash into elections, all under the guise of lobbying.
And please, call it advocacy. Charities don't like to use the "L" word. Only a third of nonprofits polled recently owned up to "lobbying" two or more times a month. But when asked if they "advocate," closer to half admitted to that.
Many nonprofits also are unsure how much lobbying the law permits them to do. Only 72 percent even knew that they could support or oppose federal legislation. (They can, up to a point.)
Bass's biggest problem is convincing charities that they not only can make their case to government, but that they really ought to do so . In effect, he needs to convince his fellow do-gooders that lobbying is not so bad.
"Nonprofit lobbyists have been involved in nearly every major public policy accomplishment in this country -- from civil rights to environmental protection to health care," Bass said in an e-mail. "Tens of thousands of lives have been saved by passing laws that improve car safety and reduce drunk driving."
"In other words, nonprofit lobbying is an honorable tradition," he added, "and not just the ugly Abramoff side" of the profession.
Convincing charities of that, however, will not be a snap.
No comments:
Post a Comment