desi3933
08-05 04:33 PM
Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
.....
.....
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
Are you Rolling_Flood?
Law is what it is. It is not what you believe is correct.
I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...
.....
.....
Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.
Are you Rolling_Flood?
Law is what it is. It is not what you believe is correct.
wallpaper Amanda Seyfried#39;s New Movie
Macaca
05-27 05:56 PM
U.S. Must Adapt to China's New Patterns of Growth ( | World Politics Review) By IAIN MILLS | World Politics Review
The global financial crisis catapulted China into a position of international economic leadership a decade earlier than Beijing's strategists had intended. That significantly increased the urgency of rebalancing the Chinese economy away from the low-quality, export model toward higher-value, domestically driven growth.
One consequence has been new and accelerated patterns of Chinese trade and investment abroad. For the United States, China's largest economic partner, the implications of this new multidirectionalism are significant. But with recent figures showing that bilateral investment between the two countries is contracting, the U.S. must adapt its approach to this issue to ensure it benefits from the forthcoming chapter in China's domestic growth story.
American investment and consumption were the two key drivers of China's economy in its early reform years. By the time the global financial crisis struck, China had amassed $2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, and it has added another trillion since. The U.S. economy benefitted from cheap, inflation-suppressing Chinese goods, while China's absorption of American debt was a key facilitator of the pre-2008 credit bubble.
Beijing seemed content to watch the coffers swell, while largely ignoring the need to rebalance the Chinese economy and devise strategies for making use of its mounting foreign exchange reserves. But the post-crisis collapse of investment and demand from developed economies has forced China to mobilize newly acquired national wealth to maintain economic momentum.
China's overseas investment strategy was originally aimed at securing key natural resources. Recently, there has been a growing focus on importing advanced technology and machinery, particularly in "strategic sectors" identified in the 12th Five-Year Plan. International expansion is being led by increasingly cash-rich state-owned enterprises and their affiliates, with sovereign wealth vehicles such as China Investment Corporation and China Development Bank also adopting more active investment strategies.
But early indicators suggest the U.S. is missing out on the first wave of new Chinese overseas spending. As one recent report on the subject notes, "the main event in 2010 was a flood of [Chinese] money into the Western Hemisphere outside the U.S., led by Brazil but also featuring Canada, Argentina and Ecuador." Last year, China's total nonfinancial outbound direct investment (ODI) jumped 38 percent, to $60 billion, even as Chinese ODI to the U.S. contracted slightly, to just less than $6 billion. Inversely, April's foreign direct investment (FDI) into China was up by more than 15 percent on the year, but American FDI dropped 28 percent.
For China, the benefits of reducing asymmetric interdependence with the U.S. economy are clear, but it is less apparent whether the U.S. can currently afford to miss out on the huge opportunities presented by China's continued domestic growth and rapidly increasing overseas spending. Therefore, while the yuan remains a critical issue in bilateral relations, reaching consensus on the scale and scope of bilateral nonfinancial investment is an equally significant emerging topic. And although a series of diplomatic disputes in 2010 may have been partly to blame for depressed Chinese investment, the institutional arrangements of U.S.-China relations have generally failed to keep pace with China's rapid economic ascent.
Nowhere is this clearer than in bilateral investment agreements.
China is keen to expand its investments in the U.S. agricultural, natural resource, advanced manufacturing and financial sectors. But political resistance in the U.S. is high, and sources in Beijing claim that Washington is giving mixed signals over how welcome Chinese investment is. Chinese officials are seeking a list of acceptable investment areas from Washington and seem frustrated by the complex institutional arrangements of the U.S. political economy. Meanwhile, American officials have expressed concern about the security implications of Chinese capital, and a general lack of transparency on the Chinese side continues to exacerbate these fears.
Clearly, resolving these issues requires action from both sides. Washington must accept Chinese overseas investment as an economic reality going forward and design a strategy capable of deploying it in support of the national interest. The politicization of the yuan has damaged Washington's credibility in Beijing; avoiding a similar degeneration of legitimate debate on investment parameters must be a strategic priority. Washington should consider mechanisms for targeting Chinese capital in areas where it is needed most, such as urban real estate development and manufacturing. These need not amount to a centrally imposed directory, as produced annually by Beijing, but rather a semi-formal consensus that provides some kind of consistent framework for prospective Chinese investors.
Washington could also learn from the European Union's approach, which tends to maintain a greater distinction between ideological and economic policy differences with Beijing. Although the EU has the luxury of leaving political criticism to national governments, Brussels has been more low-key and consistent in discussions with Beijing on potentially inflammatory economic issues such as the yuan and China's "market economy" status. As a result, financial and nonfinancial economic integration between the two has increased substantially since 2008.
For its part, China must accept that poor standards of domestic corporate governance remain a major barrier to future economic development at home and abroad. The credibility of Chinese companies is undermined by opaque ownership structures and a general lack of transparency regarding strategic and commercial intentions. Notably, over the past five years, there has been a direct correlation between total Chinese investment in a given country and the volume of failed deals, regardless of the developmental level of the host nation. Moreover, foreign investment in China remains heavily regulated. Beijing must accept greater liberalization at home before it can push the issue too far with international partners.
Clearly, China has the responsibility to improve its domestic culture of openness and accountability. Greater and more symmetrical engagement with experienced capitalist nations can hasten this process while providing much-needed capital injections to the latters' ailing economies.
For the U.S., the central challenge is to formulate more consistent and strategically constructive responses to China's economic rise. That would entail initiating a paradigm shift in Washington -- one that focuses less on "the China threat" and more on how to benefit from new opportunities presented by China's rise.
GOP sees red over China (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55559.html) By Alexander Burns | Politico
America And China: Finding Cooperation, Avoiding Conflict? (http://blogs.forbes.com/dougbandow/2011/05/23/america-and-china-finding-cooperation-avoiding-conflict/) By Doug Bandow | Forbes
Henry Kissinger on China. Or Not.
Statesman Henry Kissinger takes a cautious view of Beijing's reaction to the Arab Spring, and U.S. relations with the world's rising power. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576321393783531506.html)
By BRET STEPHENS | Wall Street Journal
Kissinger and China (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/09/kissinger-and-china/) By Jonathan D. Spence | The New York Review of Books
Henry Kissinger’s On China (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/26/henry-kissinger%E2%80%99s-on-china/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
General Chen’s Assurance Not Entirely Reassuring (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/general-chen%E2%80%99s-assurance-not-entirely-reassuring-5351) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Skeptics
Go to China, young scientist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/go-to-china-young-scientist/2011/05/19/AFCY227G_story.html) By Matthew Stremlau | The Washington Post
No go
The Western politician who understands China best tries to explain it—but doesn’t quite succeed (http://www.economist.com/node/18709581)
The Economist
Europe Frets Over Trade Deficits With China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/economy/21charts.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | New York Times
China’s Interest in Farmland Makes Brazil Uneasy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/world/americas/27brazil.html) By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times
The global financial crisis catapulted China into a position of international economic leadership a decade earlier than Beijing's strategists had intended. That significantly increased the urgency of rebalancing the Chinese economy away from the low-quality, export model toward higher-value, domestically driven growth.
One consequence has been new and accelerated patterns of Chinese trade and investment abroad. For the United States, China's largest economic partner, the implications of this new multidirectionalism are significant. But with recent figures showing that bilateral investment between the two countries is contracting, the U.S. must adapt its approach to this issue to ensure it benefits from the forthcoming chapter in China's domestic growth story.
American investment and consumption were the two key drivers of China's economy in its early reform years. By the time the global financial crisis struck, China had amassed $2 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, and it has added another trillion since. The U.S. economy benefitted from cheap, inflation-suppressing Chinese goods, while China's absorption of American debt was a key facilitator of the pre-2008 credit bubble.
Beijing seemed content to watch the coffers swell, while largely ignoring the need to rebalance the Chinese economy and devise strategies for making use of its mounting foreign exchange reserves. But the post-crisis collapse of investment and demand from developed economies has forced China to mobilize newly acquired national wealth to maintain economic momentum.
China's overseas investment strategy was originally aimed at securing key natural resources. Recently, there has been a growing focus on importing advanced technology and machinery, particularly in "strategic sectors" identified in the 12th Five-Year Plan. International expansion is being led by increasingly cash-rich state-owned enterprises and their affiliates, with sovereign wealth vehicles such as China Investment Corporation and China Development Bank also adopting more active investment strategies.
But early indicators suggest the U.S. is missing out on the first wave of new Chinese overseas spending. As one recent report on the subject notes, "the main event in 2010 was a flood of [Chinese] money into the Western Hemisphere outside the U.S., led by Brazil but also featuring Canada, Argentina and Ecuador." Last year, China's total nonfinancial outbound direct investment (ODI) jumped 38 percent, to $60 billion, even as Chinese ODI to the U.S. contracted slightly, to just less than $6 billion. Inversely, April's foreign direct investment (FDI) into China was up by more than 15 percent on the year, but American FDI dropped 28 percent.
For China, the benefits of reducing asymmetric interdependence with the U.S. economy are clear, but it is less apparent whether the U.S. can currently afford to miss out on the huge opportunities presented by China's continued domestic growth and rapidly increasing overseas spending. Therefore, while the yuan remains a critical issue in bilateral relations, reaching consensus on the scale and scope of bilateral nonfinancial investment is an equally significant emerging topic. And although a series of diplomatic disputes in 2010 may have been partly to blame for depressed Chinese investment, the institutional arrangements of U.S.-China relations have generally failed to keep pace with China's rapid economic ascent.
Nowhere is this clearer than in bilateral investment agreements.
China is keen to expand its investments in the U.S. agricultural, natural resource, advanced manufacturing and financial sectors. But political resistance in the U.S. is high, and sources in Beijing claim that Washington is giving mixed signals over how welcome Chinese investment is. Chinese officials are seeking a list of acceptable investment areas from Washington and seem frustrated by the complex institutional arrangements of the U.S. political economy. Meanwhile, American officials have expressed concern about the security implications of Chinese capital, and a general lack of transparency on the Chinese side continues to exacerbate these fears.
Clearly, resolving these issues requires action from both sides. Washington must accept Chinese overseas investment as an economic reality going forward and design a strategy capable of deploying it in support of the national interest. The politicization of the yuan has damaged Washington's credibility in Beijing; avoiding a similar degeneration of legitimate debate on investment parameters must be a strategic priority. Washington should consider mechanisms for targeting Chinese capital in areas where it is needed most, such as urban real estate development and manufacturing. These need not amount to a centrally imposed directory, as produced annually by Beijing, but rather a semi-formal consensus that provides some kind of consistent framework for prospective Chinese investors.
Washington could also learn from the European Union's approach, which tends to maintain a greater distinction between ideological and economic policy differences with Beijing. Although the EU has the luxury of leaving political criticism to national governments, Brussels has been more low-key and consistent in discussions with Beijing on potentially inflammatory economic issues such as the yuan and China's "market economy" status. As a result, financial and nonfinancial economic integration between the two has increased substantially since 2008.
For its part, China must accept that poor standards of domestic corporate governance remain a major barrier to future economic development at home and abroad. The credibility of Chinese companies is undermined by opaque ownership structures and a general lack of transparency regarding strategic and commercial intentions. Notably, over the past five years, there has been a direct correlation between total Chinese investment in a given country and the volume of failed deals, regardless of the developmental level of the host nation. Moreover, foreign investment in China remains heavily regulated. Beijing must accept greater liberalization at home before it can push the issue too far with international partners.
Clearly, China has the responsibility to improve its domestic culture of openness and accountability. Greater and more symmetrical engagement with experienced capitalist nations can hasten this process while providing much-needed capital injections to the latters' ailing economies.
For the U.S., the central challenge is to formulate more consistent and strategically constructive responses to China's economic rise. That would entail initiating a paradigm shift in Washington -- one that focuses less on "the China threat" and more on how to benefit from new opportunities presented by China's rise.
GOP sees red over China (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55559.html) By Alexander Burns | Politico
America And China: Finding Cooperation, Avoiding Conflict? (http://blogs.forbes.com/dougbandow/2011/05/23/america-and-china-finding-cooperation-avoiding-conflict/) By Doug Bandow | Forbes
Henry Kissinger on China. Or Not.
Statesman Henry Kissinger takes a cautious view of Beijing's reaction to the Arab Spring, and U.S. relations with the world's rising power. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576321393783531506.html)
By BRET STEPHENS | Wall Street Journal
Kissinger and China (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/09/kissinger-and-china/) By Jonathan D. Spence | The New York Review of Books
Henry Kissinger’s On China (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/26/henry-kissinger%E2%80%99s-on-china/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
General Chen’s Assurance Not Entirely Reassuring (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/general-chen%E2%80%99s-assurance-not-entirely-reassuring-5351) By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Skeptics
Go to China, young scientist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/go-to-china-young-scientist/2011/05/19/AFCY227G_story.html) By Matthew Stremlau | The Washington Post
No go
The Western politician who understands China best tries to explain it—but doesn’t quite succeed (http://www.economist.com/node/18709581)
The Economist
Europe Frets Over Trade Deficits With China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/economy/21charts.html) By FLOYD NORRIS | New York Times
China’s Interest in Farmland Makes Brazil Uneasy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/world/americas/27brazil.html) By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | The New York Times
nogc_noproblem
08-07 01:05 PM
If you can figure out what these words have in common...
...., you are a lot smarter than I am. And no, it isn't 6 letters in each word; you need a little more moxey than that.
Banana
Dresser
Grammar
Potato
Revive
Uneven
Assess
Are you peeking or have you already given up? Give it another try.... You'll kick yourself when you discover the answer.
Go back and look at them again; think hard. OK... Here you go. Hope you didn't cheat.
Answer: In all of the words listed, if you take the first letter, place it at the end of the word, and then spell the word backwards, it will be the same word.
...., you are a lot smarter than I am. And no, it isn't 6 letters in each word; you need a little more moxey than that.
Banana
Dresser
Grammar
Potato
Revive
Uneven
Assess
Are you peeking or have you already given up? Give it another try.... You'll kick yourself when you discover the answer.
Go back and look at them again; think hard. OK... Here you go. Hope you didn't cheat.
Answer: In all of the words listed, if you take the first letter, place it at the end of the word, and then spell the word backwards, it will be the same word.
2011 for Amanda Seyfried at the
CreatedToday
01-07 03:13 PM
What are they? :D
http://justifythis.blogspot.com/2006/05/pervert-prophet_12.html
Warning : Watching this video may lead some into a state of denial, or even rage. If you are easily offended by creative depictions, then don't watch. For everyone else, enjoy :
I didn't know Narendra Modi is a muslim. I didn't know those are committing genocide in Palestine are muslims. I didn't know those who attacked Iraq and commited war-crime under the pretex of WMD are muslims. I didn't know that these people are muslims.
May be Narendra Modi was born to a Moghul Emperor. Others are born to ottaman emperors. What about you vghc? Are you a product of muslim?
http://justifythis.blogspot.com/2006/05/pervert-prophet_12.html
Warning : Watching this video may lead some into a state of denial, or even rage. If you are easily offended by creative depictions, then don't watch. For everyone else, enjoy :
I didn't know Narendra Modi is a muslim. I didn't know those are committing genocide in Palestine are muslims. I didn't know those who attacked Iraq and commited war-crime under the pretex of WMD are muslims. I didn't know that these people are muslims.
May be Narendra Modi was born to a Moghul Emperor. Others are born to ottaman emperors. What about you vghc? Are you a product of muslim?
more...
alterego
04-07 06:24 PM
I am glad IV is taking a strong stand against this bill. IV should work with Compete America (they have more of a vested interests in this) to make sure this bill doesn't see the light of day.
This bill is introduced by 'Pro-Illegal,pro-union and protectionist' section of Democratic party and 'Anti-immigration at all cost' section of the Republican party. I believe both these groups are fringe elements in both parties. But they could use this bill as a bargain chip for CIR and might get it passed because of it. So we should not take this lightly even if we might not be screwed by this. It will definitely hurt people coming behind us.
Only reform H1b needs is to increase the quota or have no quota. And also to tie the H1b to the worker and not to the employee. And I dont see any in this bill.
Last time I looked Sen. Durbin was not anti immigrant nor was he Republican. He is a co-sponsor of this bill isn't he?
The fact is there is abuse of the H1b program currently and it is need of modification before even fair minded people agree on an expansion (Which also I feel is needed).
In the end we are likely to see both these things happen together, whenever it does happen, ie a fix to the program as well as an expansion of it.
This bill is introduced by 'Pro-Illegal,pro-union and protectionist' section of Democratic party and 'Anti-immigration at all cost' section of the Republican party. I believe both these groups are fringe elements in both parties. But they could use this bill as a bargain chip for CIR and might get it passed because of it. So we should not take this lightly even if we might not be screwed by this. It will definitely hurt people coming behind us.
Only reform H1b needs is to increase the quota or have no quota. And also to tie the H1b to the worker and not to the employee. And I dont see any in this bill.
Last time I looked Sen. Durbin was not anti immigrant nor was he Republican. He is a co-sponsor of this bill isn't he?
The fact is there is abuse of the H1b program currently and it is need of modification before even fair minded people agree on an expansion (Which also I feel is needed).
In the end we are likely to see both these things happen together, whenever it does happen, ie a fix to the program as well as an expansion of it.
SunnySurya
08-05 03:17 PM
Don't remember exactly, I can look into the wording of the law but I think
post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 is a law and not Memo.
Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?
post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 is a law and not Memo.
Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?
more...
ZeroComplexity
08-05 03:07 PM
Nothing great ever happens by trying to undermine each other. Laws are laws, some fair and some unfair, just deal with it and focus on remedying the whole broken system.
2010 star Amanda Seyfried says
soni7007
08-06 02:42 PM
yes, ofcourse it makes a difference for lot of people, i was just stating my case.
Yes, EB3 person (e.g-A) can acquire skills over a period of time and so does a person who went for higher education and is EB2 (e.g-B). They both should be equal, but what porting does is makes "A" ahead in line of "B" which i think is unfair.
If there was no porting, A has a PD of 2002 (in EB3) and B has a PD of 2005 (in EB2), then they are almost in the same position, which i think is fair.
My situation is different because i haven't applied for labor, so i am not undermining my education. If i was to apply anytime, i would apply for EB1 or EB2.
But as i said, i personally do not see any value in getting the GC a few years earlier or later.
But for some getting a GC earlier makes a huge difference in their lives. Ask someone whose kid might just be a few months before he/she becomes 21 (A colleague in my team is in that situation). Ask someone who is dire need for extra money and wish to become permanent.
I had told in an earlier post, it all depends on individual situation, some people cite an extreme case to put forth their point and some other counters that by citing an extreme case on the opposite end.
So you mean to say that an EB3 cannot acquire superior skills over a period of time?.
Seriously you should, otherwise you would undermine the value of your education. It runs counter to your argument that EB2 Masters has more value and deserves not to be clubbed with EB3 while you are willing to stick on to an EB3 PD. Something doesn�t sound right here�
Yes, EB3 person (e.g-A) can acquire skills over a period of time and so does a person who went for higher education and is EB2 (e.g-B). They both should be equal, but what porting does is makes "A" ahead in line of "B" which i think is unfair.
If there was no porting, A has a PD of 2002 (in EB3) and B has a PD of 2005 (in EB2), then they are almost in the same position, which i think is fair.
My situation is different because i haven't applied for labor, so i am not undermining my education. If i was to apply anytime, i would apply for EB1 or EB2.
But as i said, i personally do not see any value in getting the GC a few years earlier or later.
But for some getting a GC earlier makes a huge difference in their lives. Ask someone whose kid might just be a few months before he/she becomes 21 (A colleague in my team is in that situation). Ask someone who is dire need for extra money and wish to become permanent.
I had told in an earlier post, it all depends on individual situation, some people cite an extreme case to put forth their point and some other counters that by citing an extreme case on the opposite end.
So you mean to say that an EB3 cannot acquire superior skills over a period of time?.
Seriously you should, otherwise you would undermine the value of your education. It runs counter to your argument that EB2 Masters has more value and deserves not to be clubbed with EB3 while you are willing to stick on to an EB3 PD. Something doesn�t sound right here�
more...
Amma
01-07 07:21 PM
to call all of these people as highly skilled . Don't know the decency and decorum of the forum.Fighting in the name of religion.
When you people are going to change ?
People with no skill is better than so called highly skilled but no brain .
When you people are going to change ?
People with no skill is better than so called highly skilled but no brain .
hair Amanda Seyfried#39;s smile has a
chintu25
08-06 12:59 PM
Other than the July 07 USCIS debacle reversal thread, this is the best thread in IV so far.
This is the chill pill for all of us ....................
This is the chill pill for all of us ....................
more...
tinamatthew
07-20 07:15 PM
245k will protect you; as they can only look at your status from the date of last entry until filing 485, as long as you didn't overstay i-94 card by more then six months.
as you can see from the original poster; uscis was trying to go after her husband in a different way by saying that he listed employment for whom he never worked for. They are trying to override 245k by going after fraud.
It is pretty weak what the adjudicator is doing but still it is giving anxious moments to the original poster.
UN
You need to open an immigration advice center. Believe it or not you already have hundreds of clients that would readily leave their so called "lawyers" and move to you!! Think about it and remember to hire me when you are RICH :-)
as you can see from the original poster; uscis was trying to go after her husband in a different way by saying that he listed employment for whom he never worked for. They are trying to override 245k by going after fraud.
It is pretty weak what the adjudicator is doing but still it is giving anxious moments to the original poster.
UN
You need to open an immigration advice center. Believe it or not you already have hundreds of clients that would readily leave their so called "lawyers" and move to you!! Think about it and remember to hire me when you are RICH :-)
hot Amanda Seyfried
nogc_noproblem
08-22 02:59 PM
A university committee was selecting a new dean.
They had narrowed the candidates down to a mathematician, an economist and a lawyer.
Each was asked this question during their interview: "How much is two plus two?"
The mathematician answered immediately, "Four."
The economist thought for several minutes and finally answered, "Four, plus or minus one."
Finally the lawyer stood up, peered around the room and motioned silently for the committee members to gather close to him. In a hushed, conspiratorial tone, he replied, "How much do you want it to be?"
They had narrowed the candidates down to a mathematician, an economist and a lawyer.
Each was asked this question during their interview: "How much is two plus two?"
The mathematician answered immediately, "Four."
The economist thought for several minutes and finally answered, "Four, plus or minus one."
Finally the lawyer stood up, peered around the room and motioned silently for the committee members to gather close to him. In a hushed, conspiratorial tone, he replied, "How much do you want it to be?"
more...
house (SS3568656) Amanda Seyfried Movie Photo
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
tattoo Amanda Seyfried, Dear John
conchshell
08-06 10:09 AM
All monkeys also interfiled and became lions.
This is too funny ... monkeys interfiling and becoming Lions :D:D
This is too funny ... monkeys interfiling and becoming Lions :D:D
more...
pictures Amanda Seyfried covers Allure
sledge_hammer
06-26 04:06 PM
Have you accounted for the increase in rent (not rent controlled) every year? Mortgage on the other hand is fixed for 30 years!
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
dresses Amanda Seyfried on location
engineer
01-03 12:31 AM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan�s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government�s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India�s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a �limited war�.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of �limited war�. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian�s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the �poison pill� defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country�s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan�s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that �could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.� More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
more...
makeup Amanda Seyfried the 2010 MTV
dartkid31
05-24 11:18 AM
He is just using this to play illegals vs legals. If you watch his lousy program, he is constantly ranting that this CIR bill will increase immigration by 100 million plus in the next few years. Some time back he also said that the CIR is a covert operation to increase H1Bs and legal immigration, not just about illegal immigrants. You can tune out what Lou says, he's doing what he can to improve his ratings.
Very true. And if anyone is still not convinced, check out this doozy:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/36625/
All Lou Dobbs does is promote the agenda of Tom Tancredo, Jeff Sessions, FAIR, NumbersUsa, John Tanton, and our other good friends. And we know where they stand.
Very true. And if anyone is still not convinced, check out this doozy:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/36625/
All Lou Dobbs does is promote the agenda of Tom Tancredo, Jeff Sessions, FAIR, NumbersUsa, John Tanton, and our other good friends. And we know where they stand.
girlfriend Even two excited Amanda
unitednations
07-19 04:14 PM
UN,
This is a question to you. I was one of those guys who sent you a PM. Sorry again !
What if a person who has been in the country for a while(say from 2000) has a few pay stubs missing and period/s of unemployment(2002 and 2003) and therefore his w2's for say 2003,2004,2005 have like 15-30 k figures on them. This is for a software engineer who is on eb3 with a employment letter that states pay should be abut 50 k or so (minimum). Now lets suppose the said person went out of the country and came back in Jan 2006.
So Does means according to the 245i rule the previous period of unemployment etc get wiped off and they have to look at whether he has violated the 180 day rule only since Jan 2006 ? In this case will they look at his all his old w2's as well? Will this constitute some sort of violation ?
Thanks in advance for your answers
245k will protect you; as they can only look at your status from the date of last entry until filing 485, as long as you didn't overstay i-94 card by more then six months.
as you can see from the original poster; uscis was trying to go after her husband in a different way by saying that he listed employment for whom he never worked for. They are trying to override 245k by going after fraud.
It is pretty weak what the adjudicator is doing but still it is giving anxious moments to the original poster.
This is a question to you. I was one of those guys who sent you a PM. Sorry again !
What if a person who has been in the country for a while(say from 2000) has a few pay stubs missing and period/s of unemployment(2002 and 2003) and therefore his w2's for say 2003,2004,2005 have like 15-30 k figures on them. This is for a software engineer who is on eb3 with a employment letter that states pay should be abut 50 k or so (minimum). Now lets suppose the said person went out of the country and came back in Jan 2006.
So Does means according to the 245i rule the previous period of unemployment etc get wiped off and they have to look at whether he has violated the 180 day rule only since Jan 2006 ? In this case will they look at his all his old w2's as well? Will this constitute some sort of violation ?
Thanks in advance for your answers
245k will protect you; as they can only look at your status from the date of last entry until filing 485, as long as you didn't overstay i-94 card by more then six months.
as you can see from the original poster; uscis was trying to go after her husband in a different way by saying that he listed employment for whom he never worked for. They are trying to override 245k by going after fraud.
It is pretty weak what the adjudicator is doing but still it is giving anxious moments to the original poster.
hairstyles Amanda Seyfried#39;s Sexy
Tito_ortiz
01-03 03:06 PM
Listen to this, The US attacked Iraq and that accomplished exactly what the terrorists want. Terrorists want to see chaos and disruption. I believe the US is losing the war on terror and the results from the failed Iraq invasion can get worse, since that may have generated one dozen Jihad style attackers to be unveiled in 5-20 years from now.
India should not attack Pak and spend tons of money like the US did. Instead, invest all that money in secret services and let them penetrate the enemy line. Let the secret service perform a detailed investigation of sources, then apply snipers or other ways to take perpetrators down.
The last thing we need now with this dreadful economy is another war. Palestinians are already starting the whole fire again. We do not need one more war.
India should not attack Pak and spend tons of money like the US did. Instead, invest all that money in secret services and let them penetrate the enemy line. Let the secret service perform a detailed investigation of sources, then apply snipers or other ways to take perpetrators down.
The last thing we need now with this dreadful economy is another war. Palestinians are already starting the whole fire again. We do not need one more war.
validIV
06-05 11:43 AM
Sorry but no matter how you spin it, owning a home is better than renting. Renting is not smart. period. your money is gone every month. You are not getting that money back.
When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.
30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.
here is a good point about long term housing prospects. I for one am glad that GC delay saved me from buying a house.
this is from an article
------------------------------------
Why do I think housing is in the tank for the long term?
First, I listen to people smarter than I am - a key to success from investing to recreation league baseball. When my rec team had its first losing season - after twelve consecutive great seasons (two per year) I did the logical and hired a professional coach. They were winners the next season. Ditto for analyzing stuff - and I follow Ivy Zelman and Whitney Tilson. They have been dead on about the mortgage meltdown - and see a larger one coming.
Listening to them, reading data and being objective has led me to see the key to a rebound in housing is clearing inventory - too much supply and too little demand, and since lower than five percent interest rates have not spurred buying, supply is the issue. Supply comes from the sale of existing homes, the sale of new homes, and the sale of foreclosed homes.
* Typically ten to fifteen percent of Americans sell or want to sell their home in a given year. Recent survey data shows the number is now 30%. Keep that in mind.
* New home sales are incredibly low. Market wisdom said home building stocks would rise once the new housing start rate hit a million and inventory became tight. New home starts are roughly half of that and there ain't no rebound. As the poet said, times, they be a changing.
* People are not selling, and builders are not building, not just because people are not buying - it is because prices are low and going lower and the driver here is foreclosures. Data can be found here, there and everywhere but the salient data points are a) banks are accelerating foreclosures, b) the next wave of resets of mortgages, the cause of most foreclosures, does not peak until the summer of 2011, c) banks are already sitting on more than half a million homes they have not listed for sale, and the whopper is d) the New York Times has reported that there are nineteen million empty housing units and only six million are listed for sale.
This last point, when combined with another couple of million foreclosed homes, then with desire for people wanting to sell their home as soon as they can, means excess inventory for as far as the eye can see. I originally projected housing prices would, nationally, bottom at the end of 2011 and prices would begin to pick up in mid 2012. I may have been premature. With resets peaking in mid defaults will probably peak in early Q4 2011; this means foreclosure listings will peak in mid-summer 2012, after the peak selling season, not good for managing down inventory. Assuming demand picks up - a near heroic assumption at this time as interest rates will be higher and unemployment could be the same or higher at that time - you will start to see inventory declining in a meaningful way until 2013 at the earliest.
I have focused on supply - was I too cavalier about demand? Well, that is more problematic - resets, defaults and foreclosures are fourth grade math and although the only thing I knew about housing was my own mortgage before this mess started, I can do fourth grade math and every forecast I have made about foreclosures and inventory has been right within a 30-45 day period.
Using fourth grade math as our primary tool does have value in estimating demand. Roughly 40% of demand in the peak year - 2006 - was sub-prime or near sub-prime - and these buyers are out of the market for a considerable period of time. And a very large percentage - some analysts estimate as high as a third - of all sales were for investment and second homes. Most of this demand is gone for the foreseeable future. Add tightening credit standards, recession ravaged incomes and personal balance sheets, and a new frugality and it is hard to see demand in 2013 or 2014 climbing past 50% of demand in 2006. Even if the FHA does not go bust - which it will, requiring another Treasury bailout.
When you own a home, the money goes towards a mortgage, and although most of it goes to interest at first, all interest paid is tax deductible which is a huge chunk of change every year. I get more money back as an owner than a renter and in the long run I save more AND own the home.
30 year renter vs 30 year home owner? That is not rocket science.
here is a good point about long term housing prospects. I for one am glad that GC delay saved me from buying a house.
this is from an article
------------------------------------
Why do I think housing is in the tank for the long term?
First, I listen to people smarter than I am - a key to success from investing to recreation league baseball. When my rec team had its first losing season - after twelve consecutive great seasons (two per year) I did the logical and hired a professional coach. They were winners the next season. Ditto for analyzing stuff - and I follow Ivy Zelman and Whitney Tilson. They have been dead on about the mortgage meltdown - and see a larger one coming.
Listening to them, reading data and being objective has led me to see the key to a rebound in housing is clearing inventory - too much supply and too little demand, and since lower than five percent interest rates have not spurred buying, supply is the issue. Supply comes from the sale of existing homes, the sale of new homes, and the sale of foreclosed homes.
* Typically ten to fifteen percent of Americans sell or want to sell their home in a given year. Recent survey data shows the number is now 30%. Keep that in mind.
* New home sales are incredibly low. Market wisdom said home building stocks would rise once the new housing start rate hit a million and inventory became tight. New home starts are roughly half of that and there ain't no rebound. As the poet said, times, they be a changing.
* People are not selling, and builders are not building, not just because people are not buying - it is because prices are low and going lower and the driver here is foreclosures. Data can be found here, there and everywhere but the salient data points are a) banks are accelerating foreclosures, b) the next wave of resets of mortgages, the cause of most foreclosures, does not peak until the summer of 2011, c) banks are already sitting on more than half a million homes they have not listed for sale, and the whopper is d) the New York Times has reported that there are nineteen million empty housing units and only six million are listed for sale.
This last point, when combined with another couple of million foreclosed homes, then with desire for people wanting to sell their home as soon as they can, means excess inventory for as far as the eye can see. I originally projected housing prices would, nationally, bottom at the end of 2011 and prices would begin to pick up in mid 2012. I may have been premature. With resets peaking in mid defaults will probably peak in early Q4 2011; this means foreclosure listings will peak in mid-summer 2012, after the peak selling season, not good for managing down inventory. Assuming demand picks up - a near heroic assumption at this time as interest rates will be higher and unemployment could be the same or higher at that time - you will start to see inventory declining in a meaningful way until 2013 at the earliest.
I have focused on supply - was I too cavalier about demand? Well, that is more problematic - resets, defaults and foreclosures are fourth grade math and although the only thing I knew about housing was my own mortgage before this mess started, I can do fourth grade math and every forecast I have made about foreclosures and inventory has been right within a 30-45 day period.
Using fourth grade math as our primary tool does have value in estimating demand. Roughly 40% of demand in the peak year - 2006 - was sub-prime or near sub-prime - and these buyers are out of the market for a considerable period of time. And a very large percentage - some analysts estimate as high as a third - of all sales were for investment and second homes. Most of this demand is gone for the foreseeable future. Add tightening credit standards, recession ravaged incomes and personal balance sheets, and a new frugality and it is hard to see demand in 2013 or 2014 climbing past 50% of demand in 2006. Even if the FHA does not go bust - which it will, requiring another Treasury bailout.
senthil1
05-15 09:11 PM
No this is not correct. If consultancy companies are not there we could find a permanent job. I do not think if H1b is banned for consulting H1b numbers will be reduced so much. H1b rotation will be reduced. But still TCS, Infosys will survive as they have lot of other options like L1 and B1.But US persons will make more money in consulting as there is no restriction for them. So impact is minimal for US companies and also H1B persons. impact will be severe for bodyshoppers. Also current H1b people will not be impacted as most of them will file I 485 as Skil bill be passed. But H1b abuse will be minimised.
If consultant companies are not suppose to body shop most of us will be jobless. Please look back how you came to this country in the past.
Body shopping in not a new concept for H1-B, don't know why they are concered now.
If consultant companies are not suppose to body shop most of us will be jobless. Please look back how you came to this country in the past.
Body shopping in not a new concept for H1-B, don't know why they are concered now.
No comments:
Post a Comment