bondgoli007
01-06 04:03 PM
Another muslim hater who justify organized crime and killing and support the killing of innocent school kids and civilians.
Hiding behind civilians and schools and mosques???? Don't you hear the same lie again and again year over year? If Hamas is using school kids as thier shield, then how do you think Palestenian people have elected the same people who cause their kids death rule their country?
Don't you think?
Refugee Now,
I believe the thinking needs to be done by the moderate muslims like yourself all over the world. Do you agree that Hamas is a terrorist outfit? Do you agree that no good can come with them as the decision makers in Palestine? Do you agree that by NOT re electing Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah party, the people gave mandate to a outfit (Hamas) that was seeking the end of the ceasefire with Israel?
How comel you stand quite when the terrorists all over the world most of them who cite Islam or the defense of Islam as a reason to cause havoc and terror? It is clear you can have a strong voice when protesting the tragedies like in Gaza, how come the same voice is missing when the perpetrators are Islamic like in the case of Mumbai?
I whole heartedly join you in bemoaning the human loss in this conflict and pray for peace.
Hiding behind civilians and schools and mosques???? Don't you hear the same lie again and again year over year? If Hamas is using school kids as thier shield, then how do you think Palestenian people have elected the same people who cause their kids death rule their country?
Don't you think?
Refugee Now,
I believe the thinking needs to be done by the moderate muslims like yourself all over the world. Do you agree that Hamas is a terrorist outfit? Do you agree that no good can come with them as the decision makers in Palestine? Do you agree that by NOT re electing Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah party, the people gave mandate to a outfit (Hamas) that was seeking the end of the ceasefire with Israel?
How comel you stand quite when the terrorists all over the world most of them who cite Islam or the defense of Islam as a reason to cause havoc and terror? It is clear you can have a strong voice when protesting the tragedies like in Gaza, how come the same voice is missing when the perpetrators are Islamic like in the case of Mumbai?
I whole heartedly join you in bemoaning the human loss in this conflict and pray for peace.
wallpaper tattoo 2) mission impossible 2
unitednations
03-24 11:39 AM
UN - I don't think people who indulge in fraud or use wrong route, go to Senators or Congressmen - rather they want to stay unnoticed. Most people who lobby - lobby for a better system.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
I had little knowledge of immigration and of the type of people on h-1b and the type of companies who sponsor greencards when I first started perusing immigration boards. I thought many people were like me.
Back in 2002 and 2003 when USCIS hardly approved any EB greencards; people were pretty emotional on immigration.com.
Rajiv Khanna did a class action lawsuit against USCIS to start approving cases. He wanted some plaintiffs. Now; people on immigration.com were so emotional about their approvals and cursing USCIS all over the place. Of the thousands of people who would post; there was only something like 13 people who actually signed up to be plaintiffs. I volunteered myself to be a plaintiff but my case had only been pending for about six months at that time so I didn't think I would be a good candidate. However; only 13 people signed up compared to the thousands who were bellyaching about it. I didn't understand at that time why there was so little people who were willing to step u.
In 2007 AILF specifically wanted people to join the lawsuit but were very clear that they wanted "clean" cases. I thought it odd that they had to specifically mention this.
Murthy didn't want to file lawsuit because they thought it would have negative repurcussions against their existing clients in future cases.
USCIS is pretty much the toughest agency to deal with and people who deal with them regularly know this. Time is on their side. They can deny cases and it takes years to get through the system and people have to have a legal way to stay in the country while this goes on. Because of this hardly anybody challenges them.
I concluded that not many people have clean cases. Many people faked things on their f-1 applications; had bench time; worked in different locations then where h-1b was approved for, etc., etc.
If you look at the different positions people take on these immigration boards; it is usually based on their own situation or people they know of and that leads them to post in a certain way.
eb3 versus eb2
permanent jobs versus consulting
country quota, etc.
The lawyers are the ones who see thousands of cases and what USCIS does and generally do not want to challenge them because it will spell bigger problems.
btw; I am still a little suspicious of the OP. Local offices mainly do family base cases and not employment base cases. Their requests for information are pretty standard and follow the lines of family base information. They do not regularly do employment base interviews. If what the OP is saying is true then this would be a directive coming from headquarters. If that is the case then asking for "contracts" is going to be very problematic as they are going after the temporary versus permanent job.
Texas service center has been known to call candidates/companies but it is usually for very simple information (ie., company tax return, asking verbally whether person is still in same job or verifying current address). They don't call and ask verbally for complex information like OP has stated.
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
No one is taking on or poking at USCIS.
On another note - what is permanent job? There is absolutely no such thing called future job - ie job that will come into place after 5 or 10 years. A permanent job is a job which is permanent at the time of employment.
When we talk about good faith employment - it is the relationship that exists during the terms of employment.
While your analysis makes sense - we really never know what is happening behind the scenes.
I had little knowledge of immigration and of the type of people on h-1b and the type of companies who sponsor greencards when I first started perusing immigration boards. I thought many people were like me.
Back in 2002 and 2003 when USCIS hardly approved any EB greencards; people were pretty emotional on immigration.com.
Rajiv Khanna did a class action lawsuit against USCIS to start approving cases. He wanted some plaintiffs. Now; people on immigration.com were so emotional about their approvals and cursing USCIS all over the place. Of the thousands of people who would post; there was only something like 13 people who actually signed up to be plaintiffs. I volunteered myself to be a plaintiff but my case had only been pending for about six months at that time so I didn't think I would be a good candidate. However; only 13 people signed up compared to the thousands who were bellyaching about it. I didn't understand at that time why there was so little people who were willing to step u.
In 2007 AILF specifically wanted people to join the lawsuit but were very clear that they wanted "clean" cases. I thought it odd that they had to specifically mention this.
Murthy didn't want to file lawsuit because they thought it would have negative repurcussions against their existing clients in future cases.
USCIS is pretty much the toughest agency to deal with and people who deal with them regularly know this. Time is on their side. They can deny cases and it takes years to get through the system and people have to have a legal way to stay in the country while this goes on. Because of this hardly anybody challenges them.
I concluded that not many people have clean cases. Many people faked things on their f-1 applications; had bench time; worked in different locations then where h-1b was approved for, etc., etc.
If you look at the different positions people take on these immigration boards; it is usually based on their own situation or people they know of and that leads them to post in a certain way.
eb3 versus eb2
permanent jobs versus consulting
country quota, etc.
The lawyers are the ones who see thousands of cases and what USCIS does and generally do not want to challenge them because it will spell bigger problems.
btw; I am still a little suspicious of the OP. Local offices mainly do family base cases and not employment base cases. Their requests for information are pretty standard and follow the lines of family base information. They do not regularly do employment base interviews. If what the OP is saying is true then this would be a directive coming from headquarters. If that is the case then asking for "contracts" is going to be very problematic as they are going after the temporary versus permanent job.
Texas service center has been known to call candidates/companies but it is usually for very simple information (ie., company tax return, asking verbally whether person is still in same job or verifying current address). They don't call and ask verbally for complex information like OP has stated.
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
Macaca
05-11 05:28 PM
The 'Education' Mantra (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/10/the_education_mantra_109799.html) By Thomas Sowell | Investor's Business Daily
One of the sad and dangerous signs of our times is how many people are enthralled by words, without bothering to look at the realities behind those words.
One of those words that many people seldom look behind is "education." But education can cover anything from courses on nuclear physics to courses on baton twirling.
Unfortunately, an increasing proportion of American education, whether in the schools or in the colleges and universities, is closer to the baton twirling end of the spectrum than toward the nuclear physics end. Even reputable colleges are increasingly teaching things that students should have learned in high school.
We don't have a backlog of serious students trying to take serious courses. If you look at the fields in which American students specialize in colleges and universities, those fields are heavily weighted toward the soft end of the spectrum.
When it comes to postgraduate study in tough fields like math and science, you often find foreign students at American universities receiving more of such degrees than do Americans.
A recent headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education said: "Master's in English: Will Mow Lawns." It featured a man with that degree who has gone into the landscaping business because there is no great demand for people with Master's degrees in English.
Too many of the people coming out of even our most prestigious academic institutions graduate with neither the skills to be economically productive nor the intellectual development to make them discerning citizens and voters.
Students can graduate from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country, without ever learning anything about science, mathematics, economics or anything else that would make them either a productive contributor to the economy or an informed voter who can see through political rhetoric.
On the contrary, people with such "education" are often more susceptible to demagoguery than the population at large. Nor is this a situation peculiar to America. In countries around the world, people with degrees in soft subjects have been sources of political unrest, instability and even mass violence.
Nor is this a new phenomenon. A scholarly history of 19th century Prague referred to "the well-educated but underemployed" Czech young men who promoted ethnic polarization there-- a polarization that not only continued, but escalated, in the 20th century to produce bitter tragedies for both Czechs and Germans.
In other central European countries, between the two World Wars a rising class of newly educated young people bitterly resented having to compete with better qualified Jews in the universities and with Jews already established in business and the professions. Anti-Semitic policies and violence were the result.
It was much the same story in Asia, where successful minorities like the Chinese in Malaysia were resented by newly educated Malays without either the educational or business skills to compete with them. These Malaysians demanded-- and got-- heavily discriminatory laws and policies against the Chinese.
Similar situations developed at various times in Nigeria, Romania, Sri Lanka, Hungary and India, among other places.
Many Third World countries have turned out so many people with diplomas, but without meaningful skills, that "the educated unemployed" became a cliche among people who study such countries. This has not only become a personal problem for those individuals who have been educated, or half-educated, without acquiring any ability to fulfill their rising expectations, it has become a major economic and political problem for these countries.
Such people have proven to be ideal targets for demagogues promoting polarization and strife. We in the United States are still in the early stages of that process. But you need only visit campuses where whole departments feature soft courses preaching a sense of victimhood and resentment, and see the consequences in racial and ethnic polarization on campus.
There are too many other soft courses that allow students to spend years in college without becoming educated in any real sense.
We don't need more government "investment" to produce more of such "education." Lofty words like "investment" should not blind us to the ugly reality of political porkbarrel spending.
Tiger Mom: Here's how to reshape U.S. education (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-10-Reshape-US-education_n.htm) By Amy Chua | USA Today
The American Idea: An Open Letter To College Graduates (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/09/american-idea-college-graduates.html) By Carl Schramm | Forbes
The Myth of American Exceptionalism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/10/taking_exceptionalism_109795.html) By Richard Cohen | Washington Post
The Role of Economics in an Imperfect World (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/the-role-of-economics-in-an-imperfect-world/) By EDWARD L. GLAESER | New York Times
Where the Jobs Were Lost (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/where-the-jobs-were-lost/) By CASEY B. MULLIGAN | New York Times
No, We Are Not a Nation of Hamburger Flippers (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/09/nation-hamburger-flippers/) By Elizabeth MacDonald | Fox Business
Multinationals Dump U.S. Workers for Foreign Labor (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/05/09/Multinationals-Dump-US-Workers-for-Foreign-Labor.aspx) By JAMES C. COOPER | The Fiscal Times
California Economy Gets a Jolt From Tech Hiring (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576311373667322428.html) By JIM CARLTON | Wall Street Journal
One of the sad and dangerous signs of our times is how many people are enthralled by words, without bothering to look at the realities behind those words.
One of those words that many people seldom look behind is "education." But education can cover anything from courses on nuclear physics to courses on baton twirling.
Unfortunately, an increasing proportion of American education, whether in the schools or in the colleges and universities, is closer to the baton twirling end of the spectrum than toward the nuclear physics end. Even reputable colleges are increasingly teaching things that students should have learned in high school.
We don't have a backlog of serious students trying to take serious courses. If you look at the fields in which American students specialize in colleges and universities, those fields are heavily weighted toward the soft end of the spectrum.
When it comes to postgraduate study in tough fields like math and science, you often find foreign students at American universities receiving more of such degrees than do Americans.
A recent headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education said: "Master's in English: Will Mow Lawns." It featured a man with that degree who has gone into the landscaping business because there is no great demand for people with Master's degrees in English.
Too many of the people coming out of even our most prestigious academic institutions graduate with neither the skills to be economically productive nor the intellectual development to make them discerning citizens and voters.
Students can graduate from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country, without ever learning anything about science, mathematics, economics or anything else that would make them either a productive contributor to the economy or an informed voter who can see through political rhetoric.
On the contrary, people with such "education" are often more susceptible to demagoguery than the population at large. Nor is this a situation peculiar to America. In countries around the world, people with degrees in soft subjects have been sources of political unrest, instability and even mass violence.
Nor is this a new phenomenon. A scholarly history of 19th century Prague referred to "the well-educated but underemployed" Czech young men who promoted ethnic polarization there-- a polarization that not only continued, but escalated, in the 20th century to produce bitter tragedies for both Czechs and Germans.
In other central European countries, between the two World Wars a rising class of newly educated young people bitterly resented having to compete with better qualified Jews in the universities and with Jews already established in business and the professions. Anti-Semitic policies and violence were the result.
It was much the same story in Asia, where successful minorities like the Chinese in Malaysia were resented by newly educated Malays without either the educational or business skills to compete with them. These Malaysians demanded-- and got-- heavily discriminatory laws and policies against the Chinese.
Similar situations developed at various times in Nigeria, Romania, Sri Lanka, Hungary and India, among other places.
Many Third World countries have turned out so many people with diplomas, but without meaningful skills, that "the educated unemployed" became a cliche among people who study such countries. This has not only become a personal problem for those individuals who have been educated, or half-educated, without acquiring any ability to fulfill their rising expectations, it has become a major economic and political problem for these countries.
Such people have proven to be ideal targets for demagogues promoting polarization and strife. We in the United States are still in the early stages of that process. But you need only visit campuses where whole departments feature soft courses preaching a sense of victimhood and resentment, and see the consequences in racial and ethnic polarization on campus.
There are too many other soft courses that allow students to spend years in college without becoming educated in any real sense.
We don't need more government "investment" to produce more of such "education." Lofty words like "investment" should not blind us to the ugly reality of political porkbarrel spending.
Tiger Mom: Here's how to reshape U.S. education (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-10-Reshape-US-education_n.htm) By Amy Chua | USA Today
The American Idea: An Open Letter To College Graduates (http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/09/american-idea-college-graduates.html) By Carl Schramm | Forbes
The Myth of American Exceptionalism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/10/taking_exceptionalism_109795.html) By Richard Cohen | Washington Post
The Role of Economics in an Imperfect World (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/the-role-of-economics-in-an-imperfect-world/) By EDWARD L. GLAESER | New York Times
Where the Jobs Were Lost (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/where-the-jobs-were-lost/) By CASEY B. MULLIGAN | New York Times
No, We Are Not a Nation of Hamburger Flippers (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/09/nation-hamburger-flippers/) By Elizabeth MacDonald | Fox Business
Multinationals Dump U.S. Workers for Foreign Labor (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/05/09/Multinationals-Dump-US-Workers-for-Foreign-Labor.aspx) By JAMES C. COOPER | The Fiscal Times
California Economy Gets a Jolt From Tech Hiring (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576311373667322428.html) By JIM CARLTON | Wall Street Journal
2011 (Thandie Newton) and
Macaca
12-27 07:15 PM
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
more...
Macaca
12-14 11:33 AM
The Delta House Congress (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010993) The politics of futile gestures, Dec 14, 2007
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
ssa
07-13 10:59 PM
I agree. It would be 100 times easier to re-file under EB2 and port your PD individually than to get USCIS/DOL to change their rules (howsoever they choose to interpret it). Just see what % of our previous campaigns were successful in the past in spite of all our efforts...
On a related note, after reading this long thread I couldn't help but wish all other IV campaigns (admin fixes, fund raising, house bills) could arouse such passion and involvement from IV members. Now, I'm NOT saying any particular category (EB2 vs Eb3) volunteers more than the other - its just matter of individual initiative, period - but it seems somehow our collective psyche is at ease as long as we all are stuck in the rut as a whole. Efforts to get ALL of us out of this mess do not fire up this much passion..
On a related note, after reading this long thread I couldn't help but wish all other IV campaigns (admin fixes, fund raising, house bills) could arouse such passion and involvement from IV members. Now, I'm NOT saying any particular category (EB2 vs Eb3) volunteers more than the other - its just matter of individual initiative, period - but it seems somehow our collective psyche is at ease as long as we all are stuck in the rut as a whole. Efforts to get ALL of us out of this mess do not fire up this much passion..
more...
Macaca
12-16 09:22 PM
Democrats Assess Hill Damage, Leadership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121600306.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 16, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
2010 Thandie Newton made her film
NKR
03-28 04:48 PM
how is owning a house a simple pleasure ?? it is a complex pleasure when yr residential status itself is not guranteed.
you can give more pleasure to yr family when you rent.
the bubble that we saw and are seeing is once in a life time event - it will never happen in USA for a long long time (in most places). it will happen more in places like bombay (2 bubbles in last 2 decade).
you just have to read financial websites to see the enormity of the problem. some are super worst scenarios and some are bad scenarios ..so I guess most likely outcome is somewhere in between(in terms of recession ) and RE market -- i.e. drop of 10 to 25 %. for 300K house that would be 30 thousand minimum.
when u rent it gives you tons of mobility ..which people don't understand (especially house wives). being able to rent near my job and again move when my company sends me somewhere (or other similar situations) ..that std of living - I can never get by owning a million dollar house. and renting is not throwing money esp in these times (say $250 is prop tax, 200 extra due to commutes / yardwork / utilities, 200 more in HOA, insurance etc + maintenance etc etc)
when you add couple $100 to the above you get a place to rent --without worrying much as to what yr kids draw on the walls. plus if u invest the diff in diversified funds ..you would get more peace of mind.
In the end though it depends on personal situation ... but rushing to buy now on EAD is bad idea ..it is never good idea to catch a falling knife.
ofcourse if you have tons and tons of money and don't mind taking a loss then sure ..Buy. not just here maybe buy another house in India / Bahamas etc ...
Let me just ask you one question. Assume that the house prices start to rise again, everything comes back to normal and it is the right time to buy a house. Would you then buy a house if you still do not have a GC and you are on EAD.
you can give more pleasure to yr family when you rent.
the bubble that we saw and are seeing is once in a life time event - it will never happen in USA for a long long time (in most places). it will happen more in places like bombay (2 bubbles in last 2 decade).
you just have to read financial websites to see the enormity of the problem. some are super worst scenarios and some are bad scenarios ..so I guess most likely outcome is somewhere in between(in terms of recession ) and RE market -- i.e. drop of 10 to 25 %. for 300K house that would be 30 thousand minimum.
when u rent it gives you tons of mobility ..which people don't understand (especially house wives). being able to rent near my job and again move when my company sends me somewhere (or other similar situations) ..that std of living - I can never get by owning a million dollar house. and renting is not throwing money esp in these times (say $250 is prop tax, 200 extra due to commutes / yardwork / utilities, 200 more in HOA, insurance etc + maintenance etc etc)
when you add couple $100 to the above you get a place to rent --without worrying much as to what yr kids draw on the walls. plus if u invest the diff in diversified funds ..you would get more peace of mind.
In the end though it depends on personal situation ... but rushing to buy now on EAD is bad idea ..it is never good idea to catch a falling knife.
ofcourse if you have tons and tons of money and don't mind taking a loss then sure ..Buy. not just here maybe buy another house in India / Bahamas etc ...
Let me just ask you one question. Assume that the house prices start to rise again, everything comes back to normal and it is the right time to buy a house. Would you then buy a house if you still do not have a GC and you are on EAD.
more...
pthoko
07-11 05:27 PM
Putting more pressure on the UN
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
Hi UN,
First of all my sincere gratitude to you for your patience and the time you put in to give a detailed reply to all cases.
Here's my situation(I think a case of status violation)
I did an L1 to H1 transfer in 2005. My L1 was valid till APRIL 2006. So my intention was to work with L1 employer till April 2006 and then switch to H1 employer.
H1 employer also applied for a change of status, which I was not aware of that time. I asked the H1 company's lawyer whether I could continue with my L1 employer after getting the H1 and she said it's fine.
So I got the H1B approval in Oct 2005, but still continued with L1 employer till APRIL 2006, then switched to H1.
Recently I came to know that this could be an issue. When I was filling the G-325A form, I wondered if I specify that I worked with the L1 employer till APRIL 2006, would they catch this?? Even if they catch , how big an issue would this be??
If I put the dates to reflect the dates to show that I quit my L1 employer in Oct 2005 itself, would this be an issue?? I guess in this case, if by any chance they ask for any further evidence like pay stubs or W2 in that period of time, I would be in trouble.
From what I have read from the forum, A lawful re-entry should clear the violation in my case right?? I haven't filed the I-485 yet. My I-140 is pending.
Do they catch this during I-140 stage??
ALSO CAN THEY DENY H1B DUE TO PREVIUOS VIOLATION OF STATUS, WHILE I RE-ENTER?? This is my biggest fear now!!!
Can I go to Canada/Mexico for stamping? where would I get an appointment at the earliest??
Thanks.
hair Thandie Newton thandie newton
mariner5555
03-26 04:19 PM
Good points. If I recall correctly baby boomers started retiring 2-3 years ago. With economy going south, I wonder how many of them are in financial trouble. Also, they are growing older and some of them dying. You have to believe this will add to the supply. you bet - This is from Jubak at MSN money ..
---
That initial hole was largely demographic. The number of Americans 65 and older is projected to increase to 69.4 million in 2030 from 35.5 million in 2000, the Census Bureau says. That's not entirely bad news -- much of the increase comes from Americans living longer -- but it is a problem if you're trying to figure out how to pay for all those people to retire.
Because the baby-boom generation is so much bigger than succeeding generations, the ratio of people in the retirement years, 65 and older, to those in the working years, 20 to 64, will rise from 20.6% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2030, according to the Census Bureau.
For most people, the house they live in is their biggest retirement asset. In retirement, people cash in on the value of their homes by selling and then buying less expensive houses, renting or moving in with the kids. More people are also using reverse mortgages to extract equity from their homes in retirement.
In a Feb. 28 conference call, mortgage buyer Fannie Mae (FNMN, news, msgs) said it expected the real-estate market to bottom in 2009 after a total drop of 15% to 20%. That would produce a loss of roughly $3 trillion to $4 trillion.
---
That initial hole was largely demographic. The number of Americans 65 and older is projected to increase to 69.4 million in 2030 from 35.5 million in 2000, the Census Bureau says. That's not entirely bad news -- much of the increase comes from Americans living longer -- but it is a problem if you're trying to figure out how to pay for all those people to retire.
Because the baby-boom generation is so much bigger than succeeding generations, the ratio of people in the retirement years, 65 and older, to those in the working years, 20 to 64, will rise from 20.6% in 2005 to 35.5% in 2030, according to the Census Bureau.
For most people, the house they live in is their biggest retirement asset. In retirement, people cash in on the value of their homes by selling and then buying less expensive houses, renting or moving in with the kids. More people are also using reverse mortgages to extract equity from their homes in retirement.
In a Feb. 28 conference call, mortgage buyer Fannie Mae (FNMN, news, msgs) said it expected the real-estate market to bottom in 2009 after a total drop of 15% to 20%. That would produce a loss of roughly $3 trillion to $4 trillion.
more...
mariner5555
04-14 03:09 PM
You will never learn. Anyways, if you read my earlier posts you would know that I have said that people who most people who live in apartments would be having valid reasons. I have also said that if I were in CA. I would be living in an apartment too. I am never against renting or living in an apartment, but I am against renting when it makes perfect sense to buy and when the time is right (which of course is NOT NOW).
My counter arguments are for people who were scaring people into not buying a house when things are conducive for them. Note, when I say conducive it means all things considered as in the time is right, they have a good job, have found a very good deal in a location having a very good school and they have found something which has an extra room when their elderly parents visit them.
I can say the same about you. let me clarify too ..and let me stop this since I (and I guess you) have better things to do
my arguments were for people who are being pressurised to buy as if in 3 months prices will go sky high. or for those who are saying that owning a (big)house = better life ..(both are incorrect from a different angle ..so look for your own angle ..for eg you need space ..(u get space but maintenance is more).
if you have atleast a GC, good savings / or super pay, find a good deal (good location with less commute time) and you need the space ..then buy a house.
there is an excess of supply and v.low demand (compared to past) ..so if you can wait for some time to get a correct place then wait (and maybe keep looking / doing research etc) ..the worst thing you can do on a EAD (and in uncertain times) is rush and buy just because somebody told you to do that. the bottom line is ..this was a massive massive bubble ..something that has never occured on this scale ..and housing will be down for a long long time ..so it makes sense to wait for a GC atleast.
My counter arguments are for people who were scaring people into not buying a house when things are conducive for them. Note, when I say conducive it means all things considered as in the time is right, they have a good job, have found a very good deal in a location having a very good school and they have found something which has an extra room when their elderly parents visit them.
I can say the same about you. let me clarify too ..and let me stop this since I (and I guess you) have better things to do
my arguments were for people who are being pressurised to buy as if in 3 months prices will go sky high. or for those who are saying that owning a (big)house = better life ..(both are incorrect from a different angle ..so look for your own angle ..for eg you need space ..(u get space but maintenance is more).
if you have atleast a GC, good savings / or super pay, find a good deal (good location with less commute time) and you need the space ..then buy a house.
there is an excess of supply and v.low demand (compared to past) ..so if you can wait for some time to get a correct place then wait (and maybe keep looking / doing research etc) ..the worst thing you can do on a EAD (and in uncertain times) is rush and buy just because somebody told you to do that. the bottom line is ..this was a massive massive bubble ..something that has never occured on this scale ..and housing will be down for a long long time ..so it makes sense to wait for a GC atleast.
hot Thandie Newton (1972- ) is a
vivid_bharti
06-23 03:47 PM
I'm surprised nobody is even considering the other aspect i.e. the pleasure to live in your own house. We people are living in US in a small sized appt. while we bought houses in India, which is on rent. You will never know the pleasure of living in your own space...
more...
house Um Nyahs (Thandie Newton)
GC08
02-01 09:00 PM
It is time for IV to do its job by letting the truth out. The claim that H1Bs do not pay any taxes are outrageous. They should know that H1Bs pay all the tax but do not enjoy the benefits, e.g., when they get laid off, they have to leave the coutry right away without getting a penny of unemployment benefits. They will not get the social socurity benefits if they do not work in the U.S. for at least 10 years while their visas only allow them to work 6 years in a row. Such unfairness can go on and on...:mad:
tattoo Thandie Newton
mariner5555
04-15 02:19 PM
Agreed, but then you have no way of knowing if you would have been less happier growing up in a bigger home. For all you know, you may have been more happier.
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
this maybe your view .. but I can find some faults with it.
yes ..more money is equal to better lifestyle but a bigger house is not necessarily a better lifestyle for everyone. for many tech workers, following this line of reasoning will cause them more problems.
I don't know about you ..but I came here to US for money and for better quality of life (I didnot come here to buy a big house !!). a big house would mean that I have less money as more money goes for property tax / maintenance etc etc
now ..since I save money by renting ..I can afford to put my son in better dayschool, fund his college fund , take him for more freq vacations etc etc.
now this maybe different for some people ..maybe those earning more than 125 K or with double income.
also ..do you mean people should pay more for a house than it is worth ??
I agree with yr last points ...that not everyone has to run ..and thats what I am saying.
once you get GC and have a stable job and get a good offer on a house ...buy ..else wait. In other words ..as you are implying ..if you can afford a big house without making heavy sacrifices ..then go for it.
(but many people that I know ..buy big houses ..then try to save money on air conditioning, restaurants etc).
the other main problem with H1/ EAD is that you become immobile ..esp if you have to move for various reasons (since you have to worry about your legal status too ..).
btw ..if all americans stayed in rental (or smaller homes ) and drove japanese fuel eff cars ..then the world would have been a better place with lower gas prices :)
That is the general line of thinking everyone has including all the people who are posting on this forum. If more money does not equate to a better life, then why are all these people taking the trouble to desert their home land and live in a foreign country? If more money => better lifestyle, then it follows a home can provide a relatively better environment to a child than an apartment.
If all Americans live in rented apartments, drive only used Japanese cars (resale value), furnished their homes with scant used furniture and were focussed on investing their money than spending it, then the American economy will go down to the level of a third world country in less than 10 years.
This does not mean everyone has to run out and buy a home. The point as I said earlier is to see a home as a home and not as an investment.
this maybe your view .. but I can find some faults with it.
yes ..more money is equal to better lifestyle but a bigger house is not necessarily a better lifestyle for everyone. for many tech workers, following this line of reasoning will cause them more problems.
I don't know about you ..but I came here to US for money and for better quality of life (I didnot come here to buy a big house !!). a big house would mean that I have less money as more money goes for property tax / maintenance etc etc
now ..since I save money by renting ..I can afford to put my son in better dayschool, fund his college fund , take him for more freq vacations etc etc.
now this maybe different for some people ..maybe those earning more than 125 K or with double income.
also ..do you mean people should pay more for a house than it is worth ??
I agree with yr last points ...that not everyone has to run ..and thats what I am saying.
once you get GC and have a stable job and get a good offer on a house ...buy ..else wait. In other words ..as you are implying ..if you can afford a big house without making heavy sacrifices ..then go for it.
(but many people that I know ..buy big houses ..then try to save money on air conditioning, restaurants etc).
the other main problem with H1/ EAD is that you become immobile ..esp if you have to move for various reasons (since you have to worry about your legal status too ..).
btw ..if all americans stayed in rental (or smaller homes ) and drove japanese fuel eff cars ..then the world would have been a better place with lower gas prices :)
more...
pictures Thandie Newton
unitednations
08-03 08:50 PM
Do you really think they would send the G-325a to the consulate? Do the consulates keep all the records? For how long? I heard from immigrationportal, somebody said they only send G-325a to the consulate if one applied a visa within one year prior to AOS application. Can anyone confirm this?
If they send everyone's G-325a form to the consulates, would that result in another backlog? Thanks.
How come the concern???
USCIS forms ask questions for a reason right? They ask for the visa number, consulate issued, etc. There are a lot of inter-agency checks. When people are stuck in background check; it is a whole host of things that they check. Most of what they check is confidential and isn't even public; they are more investigative techniques.
If they send everyone's G-325a form to the consulates, would that result in another backlog? Thanks.
How come the concern???
USCIS forms ask questions for a reason right? They ask for the visa number, consulate issued, etc. There are a lot of inter-agency checks. When people are stuck in background check; it is a whole host of things that they check. Most of what they check is confidential and isn't even public; they are more investigative techniques.
dresses tom cruise thandie newton
nogc_noproblem
08-06 01:32 PM
Two nuns were ordered to paint a room in the convent . . .
. . . and the last instruction from the Mother Superior was that they not get a drop of paint on their habits. After conferring about this for a while, the nuns decided to lock the door of the room, strip off their habits, and paint in the nude. In the middle of the project, there came a knock at the door.
"Who is it?," called one of the nuns.
"The blind man," replied a voice from the other side of the door.
The two nuns looked at each other and shrugged. Deciding that no harm could come from letting a blind man into the room, they opened the door.
"Nice butt, sister," said the man, "where do you want these blinds?"
. . . and the last instruction from the Mother Superior was that they not get a drop of paint on their habits. After conferring about this for a while, the nuns decided to lock the door of the room, strip off their habits, and paint in the nude. In the middle of the project, there came a knock at the door.
"Who is it?," called one of the nuns.
"The blind man," replied a voice from the other side of the door.
The two nuns looked at each other and shrugged. Deciding that no harm could come from letting a blind man into the room, they opened the door.
"Nice butt, sister," said the man, "where do you want these blinds?"
more...
makeup Thandie Newton and Tom Cruise.
a_yaja
05-16 09:46 AM
I do grasp the concept of consultancy, thanks. You know as well as I that we are not dealing with a 'narrow group' of people misusing the current H-1B system to enter the United States as 'consultants'. The concept of consultancy businesses is great. Most of the consultant companies in the U.S. in general are well respected companies. They can even be great companies when H-1B status employees are involved. That is, WHEN THE H-1B VISA HOLDERS ARE EMPLOYED FULL-TIME, RECEIVING A FULL PAYCHECK FOR A JOB THEY APPLIED FOR WITH THE COMPANY BEFORE FILING THE H-1B APPLICATION. If a consultancy firm is not able to do that, they shouldn't plan on hiring people on H-1Bs. Likewise, people shouldn't (mis-)use H-1Bs as a means of access to the U.S. using body shops, resulting in multiple law violations such as bench time and accepting below average wages.
In your examples you suggest that I say consultancy in general is not a good thing. Of course it is a good thing. But consultants should be EMPLOYED ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO ADHER WITH H-1B VISA REGULATIONS.
I think the H-1B visa program is a great one! It is simply sad to see it abused to the point it is today. What congress is doing is closing a very exploited loophole. Kudos to congress for seeing the real issue instead of, say, shutting the H-1B program down entirely!
I am not sure what your point here is. On the one hand you say that consulting is OK as long as it is on a "full-time" basis. On the other hand, you are supporting this bill which bans all forms of outsourcing and consulting. Does not matter if you are a "full-time" consultant or a "permanent employee consultant". If you are going to perform work for someother company (all the cases I mentioned in my previous posting - although case 2 and 3 are directly related to people on H1B) through the company that hired you - you will not be eligible for H1B renewal. This applies to all companies - Microsoft, Oracle, EDS, small and big engineering firms that perform safety audits, etc.
In your examples you suggest that I say consultancy in general is not a good thing. Of course it is a good thing. But consultants should be EMPLOYED ON A FULL-TIME BASIS TO ADHER WITH H-1B VISA REGULATIONS.
I think the H-1B visa program is a great one! It is simply sad to see it abused to the point it is today. What congress is doing is closing a very exploited loophole. Kudos to congress for seeing the real issue instead of, say, shutting the H-1B program down entirely!
I am not sure what your point here is. On the one hand you say that consulting is OK as long as it is on a "full-time" basis. On the other hand, you are supporting this bill which bans all forms of outsourcing and consulting. Does not matter if you are a "full-time" consultant or a "permanent employee consultant". If you are going to perform work for someother company (all the cases I mentioned in my previous posting - although case 2 and 3 are directly related to people on H1B) through the company that hired you - you will not be eligible for H1B renewal. This applies to all companies - Microsoft, Oracle, EDS, small and big engineering firms that perform safety audits, etc.
girlfriend Mission: Impossible II.
alterego
12-27 11:23 AM
Ofcourse its Pakistan's responsibility since we created them. But the question is, where do you go from here?
There is about twenty to twenty five years worth of infrastructure and intellectual capital built in the unofficial 'non-state' militant/jihadi circles.
So, its going to take time for this infrastructure to go away.
The challenge for Pakistan is to dismantle this infrastructure. A hostile or unfriendly India doesn't help. Ironically, it makes reliance upon this infrastructure attractive.
I think much of India understands this perspective. India is generally a very secular and tolerant country. However this is something that has been going on for many years now. The worlds patience is wearing thin. Terrorism should invoke a ZERO TOLERANCE response from all states towards "non-state actors" acting within their territories. More promises, seldom achieve anything tangible is unacceptable. Given the past track record of Pakistan on such issues, India and the world has decided to keep up the pressure this time, and not a moment too soon. Innocents get killed and harmed and unnecessary harm is inflicted on a nations psyche and internal diverse harmony with such events.
Zardari has no real power in Pakistan. The military has a mind of its own there and are not there to serve the civilian adminstration. That is the problem.
The world cannot be expected to wait for 15-20 yrs and suffer through these sorts of attacks, while Pakistan decides if they want to "dismantle their jihadi infrastructure".
The pressure will continue on Pakistan and they will have to demonstrate more action to the world. Of course war will not be good for either country, arguably worse for Pakistan, however even absent war Pakistan could end up losing if they fail to act. The country will not thrive under this pressure and economic uncertainty and isolation, the economy already on the brink will collapse and the people will face unnecessary hardships, ala North Korea. The choice is up to Pakistan. We all hope Pakistan chooses rationally.
We would all love to see a thriving, prosperous and terrorism free Pakistan, rather than one controlled by a military strong man(ala Zia Ul Haq) and begging/manipulating the sugar daddy of the day be it the USA or China at the time.
Pakistanis need to figure out what they want for their future.
There is about twenty to twenty five years worth of infrastructure and intellectual capital built in the unofficial 'non-state' militant/jihadi circles.
So, its going to take time for this infrastructure to go away.
The challenge for Pakistan is to dismantle this infrastructure. A hostile or unfriendly India doesn't help. Ironically, it makes reliance upon this infrastructure attractive.
I think much of India understands this perspective. India is generally a very secular and tolerant country. However this is something that has been going on for many years now. The worlds patience is wearing thin. Terrorism should invoke a ZERO TOLERANCE response from all states towards "non-state actors" acting within their territories. More promises, seldom achieve anything tangible is unacceptable. Given the past track record of Pakistan on such issues, India and the world has decided to keep up the pressure this time, and not a moment too soon. Innocents get killed and harmed and unnecessary harm is inflicted on a nations psyche and internal diverse harmony with such events.
Zardari has no real power in Pakistan. The military has a mind of its own there and are not there to serve the civilian adminstration. That is the problem.
The world cannot be expected to wait for 15-20 yrs and suffer through these sorts of attacks, while Pakistan decides if they want to "dismantle their jihadi infrastructure".
The pressure will continue on Pakistan and they will have to demonstrate more action to the world. Of course war will not be good for either country, arguably worse for Pakistan, however even absent war Pakistan could end up losing if they fail to act. The country will not thrive under this pressure and economic uncertainty and isolation, the economy already on the brink will collapse and the people will face unnecessary hardships, ala North Korea. The choice is up to Pakistan. We all hope Pakistan chooses rationally.
We would all love to see a thriving, prosperous and terrorism free Pakistan, rather than one controlled by a military strong man(ala Zia Ul Haq) and begging/manipulating the sugar daddy of the day be it the USA or China at the time.
Pakistanis need to figure out what they want for their future.
hairstyles You#39;ll know Newton from her
gc_lover
07-10 08:16 AM
According to Lou Dobbs, all the problems faced by America today are purely a creation of immigration and immigrants.
The global warming, Hurrican Katrina, Rising gas prices, inflation, rising interest rates, slowing economy, deficits...everything is something that is purely a product of immigrants.
According to him had it not been for immigrants, everyone would have 2-3 mansions to live in, 10-20 high paying job offers, 4-5 luxury european cars. But immigrants took all that away by stealing the jobs of Americans. If the immigrants had not been sucking out the welfare from this country, the social security trust fund and the US treasury would be overflowing with money.
Goddammit these immigrants who stole the jobs of thousands of hard working lettuce pickers and meat packers and farm workers, who, had it not been for these job-stealing, flag waving, non-english speaking, country invading, sovereignty ruining, wage-depressing immigrant intrudor-invader-thief would have been millionaires by now.
When will the politicians listen to Lou Dobbs who is the only smart person left in the United States now?
:D :D :D
The global warming, Hurrican Katrina, Rising gas prices, inflation, rising interest rates, slowing economy, deficits...everything is something that is purely a product of immigrants.
According to him had it not been for immigrants, everyone would have 2-3 mansions to live in, 10-20 high paying job offers, 4-5 luxury european cars. But immigrants took all that away by stealing the jobs of Americans. If the immigrants had not been sucking out the welfare from this country, the social security trust fund and the US treasury would be overflowing with money.
Goddammit these immigrants who stole the jobs of thousands of hard working lettuce pickers and meat packers and farm workers, who, had it not been for these job-stealing, flag waving, non-english speaking, country invading, sovereignty ruining, wage-depressing immigrant intrudor-invader-thief would have been millionaires by now.
When will the politicians listen to Lou Dobbs who is the only smart person left in the United States now?
:D :D :D
alisa
01-01 10:34 AM
alisa,
It looks very funny when I heard word " Non-state actor" by President Zardari.
When world is asking Pakistan government about Mumbai terror attack with a solid proof that terrorist were came from Pakistan, trained in Pakistan, and plot was masterminded in Pakistan, Mr Zardari says they are non-state actors!!!
When Indian government ask Pakistan to hand over all culprits (so called non-state actor as per Zardari), Pakistan government reply is " We can not hand over Pakistani citizens to other country. They will be bring to justice per Pakistani law"
I am not sure what the confusion is.
The Bombay gunmen were non-state actors because they were not sent by the government of Pakistan.
And I understand that Pakistan is not handing over anyone because it says that India gave it a list of the 'usual suspects'. Besides, I am not sure what kind of extradition treaty is there between India and Pakistan.
See this too:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123068308893944123.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
See where it says:
In recent years, Lashkar and other groups have turned to waging global violence against largely civilian targets, putting Pakistan under rising pressure from its allies and complicating peace negotiations with India. The groups also are striking targets within Pakistan. They have become, said the ISI official, "a monster we've created that we can't put back in the box."
If they are non-state actors, why Pakistan government is not handing over them to India?
Whole world is convinced but Pakistan government is still want proofs!!! Pakistan is exposed to the world for continuously keep on denying and lying. Pakistan government is not at all serious to act on terror culprits. Azar Masood was released by Indian government at the time of Indian Airlines plane hijack in 1999. If Pakistan is even 1% serious, they would have taken action against him. He is openly moving across Pakistan and hundred time he address public gathering.
I think the world has changed since 1999. Pakistan has changed since then. There were activities that were undertaken in the past, and in those activities Masood Azhars were involved. India is asking for Masood Azhars after Bombay.
Personally I think that all the Masood Azhars should be rounded up and made to disappear from the planet. There is no good that can come out of them.
The real looser are small intelligent and rational educated group of Pakistan. World is detaching Pakistan and whole Muslim community. The days are not far that Pakistan is going to declare "Terrorist Sponsoring State" by the world. Alisa, you image, how much damage would be in this case!!
I know.
That is the major battle in Pakistan right now. Between the dinosaurs that live in the past, and the intelligent life that wants to move forward. Tensions between India and Pakistan only help the dinos.
It looks very funny when I heard word " Non-state actor" by President Zardari.
When world is asking Pakistan government about Mumbai terror attack with a solid proof that terrorist were came from Pakistan, trained in Pakistan, and plot was masterminded in Pakistan, Mr Zardari says they are non-state actors!!!
When Indian government ask Pakistan to hand over all culprits (so called non-state actor as per Zardari), Pakistan government reply is " We can not hand over Pakistani citizens to other country. They will be bring to justice per Pakistani law"
I am not sure what the confusion is.
The Bombay gunmen were non-state actors because they were not sent by the government of Pakistan.
And I understand that Pakistan is not handing over anyone because it says that India gave it a list of the 'usual suspects'. Besides, I am not sure what kind of extradition treaty is there between India and Pakistan.
See this too:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123068308893944123.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
See where it says:
In recent years, Lashkar and other groups have turned to waging global violence against largely civilian targets, putting Pakistan under rising pressure from its allies and complicating peace negotiations with India. The groups also are striking targets within Pakistan. They have become, said the ISI official, "a monster we've created that we can't put back in the box."
If they are non-state actors, why Pakistan government is not handing over them to India?
Whole world is convinced but Pakistan government is still want proofs!!! Pakistan is exposed to the world for continuously keep on denying and lying. Pakistan government is not at all serious to act on terror culprits. Azar Masood was released by Indian government at the time of Indian Airlines plane hijack in 1999. If Pakistan is even 1% serious, they would have taken action against him. He is openly moving across Pakistan and hundred time he address public gathering.
I think the world has changed since 1999. Pakistan has changed since then. There were activities that were undertaken in the past, and in those activities Masood Azhars were involved. India is asking for Masood Azhars after Bombay.
Personally I think that all the Masood Azhars should be rounded up and made to disappear from the planet. There is no good that can come out of them.
The real looser are small intelligent and rational educated group of Pakistan. World is detaching Pakistan and whole Muslim community. The days are not far that Pakistan is going to declare "Terrorist Sponsoring State" by the world. Alisa, you image, how much damage would be in this case!!
I know.
That is the major battle in Pakistan right now. Between the dinosaurs that live in the past, and the intelligent life that wants to move forward. Tensions between India and Pakistan only help the dinos.
nogc_noproblem
08-06 06:44 PM
A man was sitting reading his papers when his wife hit him round the head with a frying pan.
'What was that for?' the man asked.
The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.
The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'
The wife apologized and went on with the housework.
Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.
Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'
'What was that for?' the man asked.
The wife replied 'That was for the piece of paper with the name Jenny on it that I found in your pants pocket'.
The man then said 'When I was at the races last week Jenny was the name of the horse I bet on'
The wife apologized and went on with the housework.
Three days later the man is watching TV when his wife bashes him on the head with an even bigger frying pan, knocking him unconscious.
Upon re-gaining consciousness the man asked why she had hit again. Wife replied. 'Your horse phoned'
No comments:
Post a Comment