logiclife
04-07 12:30 AM
Guys,
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
There is going to be no difference whether you
1. Renew your H1 at the same company by filing an extension,
2. Transfer your H1 to another company by filing a transfer or
3. File a brand-new cap-subject H1 for someone who has never been on H1.
ALL OF THE 3 WILL BE AFFECTED.
For all 3, you have to file the same form I-129 and you get the same 2 forms in return from USCIS : I-797 (and I-94 too unless its an H1 for someone outside USA).
The first 2 ways are cap exempt, and the last one (brand new) H1 is cap subject.
But the process is the same. Paperwork is the same. You have to file LCA that shows the address/location of work, nature of work, title, salary etc. So even if you are working at same company, when you file for extension, you have to file a new LCA, that has all information and all that information will DISQUALIFY you if the new law passed and those rules of "consulting is illegal, outplacement at client site is illegal" apply.
So take this seriously and do not underestimate this.
And if you work perm-fulltime it will indirectly affect you. Projects are not done in isolation. Most projects have a mix of full-time employees and consultants who are sourced from vendors and H1B recruitors. Projects falter and fail when abruptly some consultants go back to their home countries because their H1s couldnt get extended. And that affects everyone. Job security depends on success of IT or other projects and if you are a part of failed project that was lost half way due to lack of skilled employees, then your job security also diminishes. If you are laid off, then the H1 transfer to a new company would be subject to the new rules under this law.
wallpaper Lindsay-Lohan-Machete-
Macaca
12-30 06:47 PM
China Respects European Unity (http://csis.org/files/publication/pac1062.pdf) By Jonas Parello-Plesner | Center for Strategic and Int'l Studies
The European Union can work together � at least when it is pushed together. China�s heavy-handed effort to get European nations to skip the Nobel peace prize ceremony in Oslo earlier this month did the trick. Not only did member states show up, but Serbia and Ukraine, countries with EU ambitions, were encouraged to attend as well. Yet this was atypical of a relationship in which China, with newfound power, has found it easy to divide and rule the EU.
While the European Council focused on the euro crisis last week, away from the limelight, EU leaders were adopting a new China policy. Discussion began four months ago when EU leaders took up Europe-China relations. Then the issue was overshadowed by the internal EU topic of the day: Romas. Dealing with China was relegated to short talks and coffee breaks.
This reveals a lot about the EU�s strategic outreach. The EU looks inward and seems destined to be an enlarged Switzerland rather than the missing link between the US and Asia in shaping global affairs. China has recognized this, and increasingly sees Europe as an investment opportunity rather than as a global partner.
On a recent trip to Beijing, I met a range of prominent Chinese officials and academics. Not one asked me how Europe intended to influence US strategy toward Afghanistan or about European views on the upcoming referendum in Sudan. To Beijing, Europe is not so much post-modern as post-global.
How can the EU�s strategic shrinkage be reversed? EU Council President van Rompuy�s comment in September on the need for �reciprocity� � giving to China only when the EU gets something back � was a good start. In line with this, the draft for the new EU trade policy looks at the possibility of closing off the European public procurement market if China does not give the EU reciprocal access to its market. This tough EU language has not gone unnoticed in Beijing. I was repeatedly asked about it by Chinese interlocutors. China understands a clear but consistent message.
By itself this new approach will not be enough. The EU must pursue a set of commonly agreed aims. Europe needs to set urgent, coherent strategic priorities, setting aside strategic patience and trust, the key words of the new approach.
The process of setting new trade policy priorities needs to be extended to the political realm. Member states must select a few priorities on which they really want to engage with China. Non-proliferation, climate change, good governance and human rights are good candidates.
The big players in Europe have been bypassed economically in the last decade by China. They still have traction individually but much less than their national egos afford � this is true even for Germany, which currently is on its own fast track with large scale exports to China.
The Wikileaks exposed how the US looks at the political dwarfs of Europe. The Middle Kingdom has a similar take. The feud over Dalai Lama visits in 2007 and 2008 showed that China was capable of hanging out to dry even Germany and France. The old days � the 1990s � when the EU could levy sanctions on China and enforce a change in behavior are gone. The last vestige of this era is the arms embargo. A new era has begun in which China can levy smart sanctions on European countries.
Resisting the bilateral inclination is difficult. Bilateral visits like David Cameron�s recent tour to China and the Chinese president�s visit to Paris are locked in the logic of bilateral trade promotion. But seeing links to China mainly as a bilateral issue rather than a European-wide concern means accepting a weak position vis-a-vis Beijing. China deals with Europe as it is, not how we dream it is. When European states pursue their own agendas, China will get free traders in the Northern countries to block moves that it sees as too strong, while ensuring that indifferent Southerners dilute policies on human rights.
A purely bilateral vocabulary seems increasingly anachronistic when an Airbus is assembled with subcomponents from all over Europe. Member countries must acknowledge that signing up to the EU is a binding commitment. A high-level EU official conceded that the just adopted internal strategy paper was kept relatively bland because of suspicion that it would be leaked to China. As a result, it couldn�t contain a more detailed game plan for how to secure EU interests through trade-offs and linkages.
The EU�s bilateral instinct can be overcome. The internal pressure for multilateral compliance should be stronger once the External Action Service is up and running. But the EAS is no deus ex machina. Member states must be continuously engaged to pursue reciprocal engagement with China. The European Parliament, with its new say over foreign policy, could play an important role by naming and shaming member states that subvert the EU�s strategic priorities in exchange for bilateral advantages.
A joined-up China policy is urgently needed. Events tend to overtake the EU while it ponders policy and its strategic approach. This year, it was Chinese investments in Europe, particularly in government bonds from Greece to Spain. China�s investment in Europe is a natural diversification from a dollar verdose. Chinese investment should be welcome, but the EU should be an intermediary so that this process is not framed as a bilateral favor that creates political dependency between China and member states. Eurobonds, which have been widely discussed as a solution in the euro crisis, could be a useful tool in this.
For EU foreign policy �czar� Catherine Ashton and her team, fleshing out the elements of a common EU China policy and being able to apply it in time means anticipating events and providing guidance for how individual actions and bilateral visits play to (or undermine) Europe�s strength. For example, the EU needs a code of conduct for dealing with Liu Xiaobo after the Nobel debacle. Such a code of conduct could be minimal. The important point is that it is adhered to.
Member states must make strategic choices that do not favor short-term national rewards at the expense of Europe�s strength. The member-states need to move China up the policy agenda and act in unison if they want to reap the benefits of stronger ties to China and avoid being divided and ultimately ruled.
The European Union can work together � at least when it is pushed together. China�s heavy-handed effort to get European nations to skip the Nobel peace prize ceremony in Oslo earlier this month did the trick. Not only did member states show up, but Serbia and Ukraine, countries with EU ambitions, were encouraged to attend as well. Yet this was atypical of a relationship in which China, with newfound power, has found it easy to divide and rule the EU.
While the European Council focused on the euro crisis last week, away from the limelight, EU leaders were adopting a new China policy. Discussion began four months ago when EU leaders took up Europe-China relations. Then the issue was overshadowed by the internal EU topic of the day: Romas. Dealing with China was relegated to short talks and coffee breaks.
This reveals a lot about the EU�s strategic outreach. The EU looks inward and seems destined to be an enlarged Switzerland rather than the missing link between the US and Asia in shaping global affairs. China has recognized this, and increasingly sees Europe as an investment opportunity rather than as a global partner.
On a recent trip to Beijing, I met a range of prominent Chinese officials and academics. Not one asked me how Europe intended to influence US strategy toward Afghanistan or about European views on the upcoming referendum in Sudan. To Beijing, Europe is not so much post-modern as post-global.
How can the EU�s strategic shrinkage be reversed? EU Council President van Rompuy�s comment in September on the need for �reciprocity� � giving to China only when the EU gets something back � was a good start. In line with this, the draft for the new EU trade policy looks at the possibility of closing off the European public procurement market if China does not give the EU reciprocal access to its market. This tough EU language has not gone unnoticed in Beijing. I was repeatedly asked about it by Chinese interlocutors. China understands a clear but consistent message.
By itself this new approach will not be enough. The EU must pursue a set of commonly agreed aims. Europe needs to set urgent, coherent strategic priorities, setting aside strategic patience and trust, the key words of the new approach.
The process of setting new trade policy priorities needs to be extended to the political realm. Member states must select a few priorities on which they really want to engage with China. Non-proliferation, climate change, good governance and human rights are good candidates.
The big players in Europe have been bypassed economically in the last decade by China. They still have traction individually but much less than their national egos afford � this is true even for Germany, which currently is on its own fast track with large scale exports to China.
The Wikileaks exposed how the US looks at the political dwarfs of Europe. The Middle Kingdom has a similar take. The feud over Dalai Lama visits in 2007 and 2008 showed that China was capable of hanging out to dry even Germany and France. The old days � the 1990s � when the EU could levy sanctions on China and enforce a change in behavior are gone. The last vestige of this era is the arms embargo. A new era has begun in which China can levy smart sanctions on European countries.
Resisting the bilateral inclination is difficult. Bilateral visits like David Cameron�s recent tour to China and the Chinese president�s visit to Paris are locked in the logic of bilateral trade promotion. But seeing links to China mainly as a bilateral issue rather than a European-wide concern means accepting a weak position vis-a-vis Beijing. China deals with Europe as it is, not how we dream it is. When European states pursue their own agendas, China will get free traders in the Northern countries to block moves that it sees as too strong, while ensuring that indifferent Southerners dilute policies on human rights.
A purely bilateral vocabulary seems increasingly anachronistic when an Airbus is assembled with subcomponents from all over Europe. Member countries must acknowledge that signing up to the EU is a binding commitment. A high-level EU official conceded that the just adopted internal strategy paper was kept relatively bland because of suspicion that it would be leaked to China. As a result, it couldn�t contain a more detailed game plan for how to secure EU interests through trade-offs and linkages.
The EU�s bilateral instinct can be overcome. The internal pressure for multilateral compliance should be stronger once the External Action Service is up and running. But the EAS is no deus ex machina. Member states must be continuously engaged to pursue reciprocal engagement with China. The European Parliament, with its new say over foreign policy, could play an important role by naming and shaming member states that subvert the EU�s strategic priorities in exchange for bilateral advantages.
A joined-up China policy is urgently needed. Events tend to overtake the EU while it ponders policy and its strategic approach. This year, it was Chinese investments in Europe, particularly in government bonds from Greece to Spain. China�s investment in Europe is a natural diversification from a dollar verdose. Chinese investment should be welcome, but the EU should be an intermediary so that this process is not framed as a bilateral favor that creates political dependency between China and member states. Eurobonds, which have been widely discussed as a solution in the euro crisis, could be a useful tool in this.
For EU foreign policy �czar� Catherine Ashton and her team, fleshing out the elements of a common EU China policy and being able to apply it in time means anticipating events and providing guidance for how individual actions and bilateral visits play to (or undermine) Europe�s strength. For example, the EU needs a code of conduct for dealing with Liu Xiaobo after the Nobel debacle. Such a code of conduct could be minimal. The important point is that it is adhered to.
Member states must make strategic choices that do not favor short-term national rewards at the expense of Europe�s strength. The member-states need to move China up the policy agenda and act in unison if they want to reap the benefits of stronger ties to China and avoid being divided and ultimately ruled.
sw33t
12-28 05:12 AM
Do you realize the extent of loss after Mumbai attacks?
The initial rough-and-ready calculations estimate that the business loss on those two days is close to $10 billion and the foreign exchange hit is approximately $20 billion.
A bomb scare in any software park in India (just a scare - no loss of life and property) will generate enough fear factor to shut it down for several weeks! How much loss do you think it entails?
So your justification on spending billions more on what was lost is the right thing???
And what about the loss of civilian lives? The lives of soldiers dying in shelling across India-Pak borders? The loss of morale of Mumbaities!! The feeling of insecurity when you hop on to the daily commuter train? Who will account for all of that?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Mumbai_attacks_may_have_cost_Rs_50k_crore/articleshow/3777430.cms
Going to war to retaliate might give the impression of satisfaction, but the insecurity caused by trauma is still going to live on forever.
Of course, wars are costly! It doesn't mean you should not go on war, it doesn't mean you should zero out your defence budgets, or does it?
Agreed!
Do you drive your car without an insurance?
Exactly. The state, the county, the city and the insurance company make money off of your will to comply! Thousands more will die off of your desire to go to war whereas the arms dealers make money.
The initial rough-and-ready calculations estimate that the business loss on those two days is close to $10 billion and the foreign exchange hit is approximately $20 billion.
A bomb scare in any software park in India (just a scare - no loss of life and property) will generate enough fear factor to shut it down for several weeks! How much loss do you think it entails?
So your justification on spending billions more on what was lost is the right thing???
And what about the loss of civilian lives? The lives of soldiers dying in shelling across India-Pak borders? The loss of morale of Mumbaities!! The feeling of insecurity when you hop on to the daily commuter train? Who will account for all of that?
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Mumbai_attacks_may_have_cost_Rs_50k_crore/articleshow/3777430.cms
Going to war to retaliate might give the impression of satisfaction, but the insecurity caused by trauma is still going to live on forever.
Of course, wars are costly! It doesn't mean you should not go on war, it doesn't mean you should zero out your defence budgets, or does it?
Agreed!
Do you drive your car without an insurance?
Exactly. The state, the county, the city and the insurance company make money off of your will to comply! Thousands more will die off of your desire to go to war whereas the arms dealers make money.
2011 Lindsay Lohan Controversy:
perm2gc
08-11 11:51 AM
The Two Faces of Lou Dobbs
Zachary Roth
In April, John Kerry's campaign released a TV ad attacking President Bush for supporting the export of U.S. jobs overseas. The ad was misleading -- although Gregory Mankiw, the chief White House economist, has said that, "outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," Bush himself has never explicitly said he favors sending jobs abroad. But Kerry's ad highlighted the fact that Democrats see corporate outsourcing -- in which American corporations abandon the U.S. in favor of cheaper sources of foreign labor -- as a potentially damaging issue for the president. During the Democratic primaries, both John Edwards and, to a lesser extent, Kerry attacked the president for policies that, they argued, encouraged job loss in the United States. The issue resonated with voters, especially in states like Ohio and Michigan, which have been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs.
Enter Lou Dobbs. The distinguished-looking host of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" has established a reputation this year as one of the most outspoken opponents of corporate outsourcing. Dobbs has turned his nightly news show into a one-man campaign -- the head of the Business Roundtable called it a "jihad" -- against the practice. Night after night, he roundly attacks government trade policies that he believes encourage American corporations to ship jobs abroad.
But it's not just U.S. policymakers who are the targets of Dobbs's indignation. He makes little attempt to hide his disdain for the companies that are, as he puts it, "exporting America." And Dobbs is watched, so it's fair to say his views sway voters.
Zachary Roth
In April, John Kerry's campaign released a TV ad attacking President Bush for supporting the export of U.S. jobs overseas. The ad was misleading -- although Gregory Mankiw, the chief White House economist, has said that, "outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," Bush himself has never explicitly said he favors sending jobs abroad. But Kerry's ad highlighted the fact that Democrats see corporate outsourcing -- in which American corporations abandon the U.S. in favor of cheaper sources of foreign labor -- as a potentially damaging issue for the president. During the Democratic primaries, both John Edwards and, to a lesser extent, Kerry attacked the president for policies that, they argued, encouraged job loss in the United States. The issue resonated with voters, especially in states like Ohio and Michigan, which have been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs.
Enter Lou Dobbs. The distinguished-looking host of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" has established a reputation this year as one of the most outspoken opponents of corporate outsourcing. Dobbs has turned his nightly news show into a one-man campaign -- the head of the Business Roundtable called it a "jihad" -- against the practice. Night after night, he roundly attacks government trade policies that he believes encourage American corporations to ship jobs abroad.
But it's not just U.S. policymakers who are the targets of Dobbs's indignation. He makes little attempt to hide his disdain for the companies that are, as he puts it, "exporting America." And Dobbs is watched, so it's fair to say his views sway voters.
more...
anurakt
12-26 07:21 PM
when was this news ??
sledge_hammer
06-27 11:52 AM
Right, you pay for what you called "service", which is what your landlord is providing. And you pay him to let you stay in his house, which means YOU my friend are paying more than 80% of HIS mortgage. At the end of his mortgage, all his tenants would have collectively chipped in to pay more than 80% of HIS mortage and he has a house at the end of it all. What do YOU have? Zero, zilch, nada!
Money paid as interest is the "service" cost of the money being loaned to you. You are paying so that you can live in the house you did NOT pay full cash for.
My interest in a year is 2 times more than the standard deduction. I don't have a business yet, but when I start one, I'm going to have more deductions. Do the math!
Its not logical to think of rent as money flushed down the toilet. It is the money you pay for a service aka for a service that provides shelter without any maintanance involved.
Is the money that you are paying as interest for mortgage money flushed down the toilet???:rolleyes:
Taxdeduction is overrated, remember everyone gets a standard deduction, so even if you
dont have mortgage you get a break.
Money paid as interest is the "service" cost of the money being loaned to you. You are paying so that you can live in the house you did NOT pay full cash for.
My interest in a year is 2 times more than the standard deduction. I don't have a business yet, but when I start one, I'm going to have more deductions. Do the math!
Its not logical to think of rent as money flushed down the toilet. It is the money you pay for a service aka for a service that provides shelter without any maintanance involved.
Is the money that you are paying as interest for mortgage money flushed down the toilet???:rolleyes:
Taxdeduction is overrated, remember everyone gets a standard deduction, so even if you
dont have mortgage you get a break.
more...
unitednations
03-26 06:11 PM
Oops, I just saw UN's reply. His answer is more specific than mine, and mine is based on anecdotal evidence so please go with what he says since his is based on personal experience.
UN, Thank you for following up on my question on the Baltimore case.
here is the link.
Becausing of uploading issue: follow this link.
http://www.uscis.gov/uscis-ext-templating/uscis/jspoverride/errFrameset.jsp
from there click on a-1 certification; decisions issued in 2004; click on second decision from the top. If someone can download the pdf and attach then we can discuss.
UN, Thank you for following up on my question on the Baltimore case.
here is the link.
Becausing of uploading issue: follow this link.
http://www.uscis.gov/uscis-ext-templating/uscis/jspoverride/errFrameset.jsp
from there click on a-1 certification; decisions issued in 2004; click on second decision from the top. If someone can download the pdf and attach then we can discuss.
2010 Lindsay Lohan Demands We
GCScrewed
07-13 06:34 PM
Needless to say that the distincation between EB2 and EB3 has become so meaniningless now. How many positions really satisfy the EB2 requirements? From what I heard that most people just try to get around the system to get an EB2. One of the persons who filed EB2 told me that a high school graduate would probably be able to work in that position too.
Just my observation.
If you believe this to be the case. ie that a high school graduate should be able to do that job. Then that person should not get a green card for that job.
People, please think before you post and write letters. It is important to be rational and not put your foot in your mouth.
This is EB immigration and it is hierarchial. That is quite simply a fact not an opinion. The sooner people understand that, the better, and then everyone can channel their frustrations into broader fixes. Unless that can be done we will see these less than well planned, less than well coordinated, fitful efforts, and an internecine warfare that will make us a laughing stock and undermine the heroic efforts of IV core.[/QUOTE]
I am just stating the fact. The position was not my position. So I can't speak too much about it. But that was the person who worked there told me. The most important point is that a lot of EB2s do not deserve it at all. This is especially true for smaller companies including those body shops, where a lot of wiggle room exist on how you describe the job requirements. In large companies, they tend to have more strigent requirments on what category to file. A lot of people filed under EB3 before the retrogression starting in late 2004 and 2005 because they did not pay too much attention on this issue (that's their bad - lessons learned).
Although I don't see the data yet, I bet if you compare the proportion of EB2 applicants (or EB3 applicants), you will see a great difference before and after late 2004. Why? Because that's when the EB3 retrogression started and people began to move onto EB2. Are there so much more EB2 positions after 2004 than before? I doubt.
I think that's what really make people upset, esp. those got stuck in every stage, from BEC, I140, from name check and 485. All these simply because they changes something without considering those in line already.
Just my observation.
If you believe this to be the case. ie that a high school graduate should be able to do that job. Then that person should not get a green card for that job.
People, please think before you post and write letters. It is important to be rational and not put your foot in your mouth.
This is EB immigration and it is hierarchial. That is quite simply a fact not an opinion. The sooner people understand that, the better, and then everyone can channel their frustrations into broader fixes. Unless that can be done we will see these less than well planned, less than well coordinated, fitful efforts, and an internecine warfare that will make us a laughing stock and undermine the heroic efforts of IV core.[/QUOTE]
I am just stating the fact. The position was not my position. So I can't speak too much about it. But that was the person who worked there told me. The most important point is that a lot of EB2s do not deserve it at all. This is especially true for smaller companies including those body shops, where a lot of wiggle room exist on how you describe the job requirements. In large companies, they tend to have more strigent requirments on what category to file. A lot of people filed under EB3 before the retrogression starting in late 2004 and 2005 because they did not pay too much attention on this issue (that's their bad - lessons learned).
Although I don't see the data yet, I bet if you compare the proportion of EB2 applicants (or EB3 applicants), you will see a great difference before and after late 2004. Why? Because that's when the EB3 retrogression started and people began to move onto EB2. Are there so much more EB2 positions after 2004 than before? I doubt.
I think that's what really make people upset, esp. those got stuck in every stage, from BEC, I140, from name check and 485. All these simply because they changes something without considering those in line already.
more...
meg_z
08-03 01:43 PM
There are many uses for this. If you look at the bottom left hand corner of g-325a there is some annotations to it. One of the g-325a's get sent to the consulate. Now; what does the consulate do with it???? Do they compare it with your original visa application of what your last occupation/address was?
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.
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.
hair Lindsay+lohan+machete+
paskal
07-08 08:46 PM
I have been here 11 years. 4 different employers.
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
more...
Macaca
02-29 07:21 AM
In Defense of Lobbying (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803232.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Charles Krauthammer | WP, Feb 29
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
Everyone knows the First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. How many remember that, in addition, the First Amendment protects a fifth freedom -- to lobby?
Of course it doesn't use the word lobby. It calls it the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Lobbyists are people hired to do that for you, so that you can actually stay home with the kids and remain gainfully employed rather than spend your life in the corridors of Washington.
To hear the candidates in this presidential campaign, you'd think lobbying is just one notch below waterboarding, a black art practiced by the great malefactors of wealth to keep the middle class in a vise and loose upon the nation every manner of scourge: oil dependency, greenhouse gases, unpayable mortgages and those tiny entrees you get at French restaurants.
Lobbying is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean we have to like it all. Let's agree to frown upon bad lobbying, such as getting a tax break for a particular industry. Let's agree to welcome good lobbying -- the actual redress of a legitimate grievance -- such as protecting your home from being turned to dust to make way for some urban development project.
There is a defense of even bad lobbying. It goes like this: You wouldn't need to be seeking advantage if the federal government had not appropriated for itself in the 20th century all kinds of powers, regulations, intrusions and manipulations (often through the tax code) that had never been presumed in the 19th century and certainly were never imagined by the Founders. What appears to be rent-seeking is thus redress of a larger grievance -- insufferable government meddling in what had traditionally been considered an area of free enterprise.
Good lobbying, on the other hand, requires no such larger contextual explanation. It is a cherished First Amendment right -- necessary, like the others, to protect a free people against overbearing and potentially tyrannical government.
What would be an example of petitioning the government for a redress of a legitimate grievance? Let's say you're a media company wishing to acquire a television station in Pittsburgh. Because of the huge federal regulatory structure, you require the approval of a government agency. In this case it's called the Federal Communications Commission.
Now, one of the roles of Congress is to make sure that said bureaucrats are interpreting and enforcing Congress's laws with fairness and dispatch. All members of Congress, no matter how populist, no matter how much they rail against "special interests," zealously protect this right of oversight. Therefore, one of the jobs of the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee is to ensure that the bureaucrats of the FCC are doing their job.
What would constitute not doing their job? A textbook example would be the FCC sitting two full years on a pending application to acquire a Pittsburgh TV station. There could hardly be a better case of a legitimate "petition for a redress" than that of the aforementioned private entity asking the chairman of the appropriate oversight committee to ask the tardy bureaucrats for a ruling. So the chairman does that, writing to the FCC demanding a ruling -- any ruling -- while explicitly stating that he is asking for no particular outcome.
This, of course, is precisely what John McCain did on behalf of Paxson Communications in writing two letters to the FCC in which he asked for a vote on the pending television-station acquisition. These two letters are the only remotely hard pieces of evidence in a 3,000-word front-page New York Times article casting doubt on John McCain's ethics.
Which is why what was intended to be an expos¿ turned into a farce, compounded by the fact that the other breathless revelation turned out to be thrice-removed rumors of an alleged affair nine years ago.
It must be said of McCain that he has invited such astonishingly thin charges against him because he has made a career of ostentatiously questioning the motives and ethics of those who have resisted his campaign finance reform and other measures that he imagines will render Congress influence-free.
Ostentatious self-righteousness may be a sin, but it is not a scandal. Nor is it a crime or a form of corruption. The Times's story is a classic example of sloppy gotcha journalism. But it is also an example of how the demagoguery about lobbying has so penetrated the popular consciousness that the mere mention of it next to a prominent senator is thought to be enough to sustain an otherwise vaporous hit piece.
Free advice to the K Street crowd: Consider a name change. Wynum, Dynum and Bindum: Redress Petitioners.
hot hot lindsay lohan machete pool
h1techSlave
04-07 03:19 PM
In early 2000 when the stock market was going crazy, every pundit worth his salt was proclaiming at the top of their voice to buy stock. And then the whole thing collapsed.
In the same time period, not many experts recommend buying a house. I remember in 2002 a community near my work was selling town homes for around 200,000 and there were no buyers. Today (after correction) those same houses are still selling at around 450,000.
I 100% agree with you that this is a good time to buy. I know many people are saying that the market would crash another 20%. But the fact is that you can negotiate 10-15% from the advertised price. And there are enough homes in the bank-repo and short sale categories where the prices are 20-30% below the price mentioned in zillow.
Having owned a town home for the last 2.5 years, I can very confidently say that the yard work and house cleaning etc. etc. are not such a big deal. Actually we mow our lawn with a manual push mower (may not be practical if you have more than 10 cents to mow) and clean the snow using a $10 snow shovel. Who said a little exercise is bad for you? I have also helped my single family friends in their yard work and never thought working outside is such a bad thing.
But there is a risk. And house is big ticket item, you have move cautiously.
I firmly believe in the Contrarian Theory. When speculators run, its time to get in and BUY. I owned two homes and I am in the process to getting a third one. I would be a good candidate for those TV shows on HGTv/TLC. I buy a home build equity(through appreciation) and flip. This will get me closer to my DREAM home. I cannot see myself in a home for more than 5 years.
The inventory glut in (SF Bay Area) is not desirable, they talk about east contra-costa and south Santa Clara but there are not much available in core bay-area. The inventory is basically non-desirable.
Simple math, just estimate the number of immigrants that will be ready to buy a home in SF Bay. Just look at the inventory in desirable neighborhoods. They dont match.
Stretching (financially) yourself is always uncomfortable but it can reap you huge dividends. If you are not comfortable, then I would say keep aside monthly payments that would cover 6 months and your home should be sold incase you need to get out of it.
No other investment in US(for individuals) is as leveraged as homes/real-estate. You invest 5% and reap the benefits(or losses) of the rest.
In the same time period, not many experts recommend buying a house. I remember in 2002 a community near my work was selling town homes for around 200,000 and there were no buyers. Today (after correction) those same houses are still selling at around 450,000.
I 100% agree with you that this is a good time to buy. I know many people are saying that the market would crash another 20%. But the fact is that you can negotiate 10-15% from the advertised price. And there are enough homes in the bank-repo and short sale categories where the prices are 20-30% below the price mentioned in zillow.
Having owned a town home for the last 2.5 years, I can very confidently say that the yard work and house cleaning etc. etc. are not such a big deal. Actually we mow our lawn with a manual push mower (may not be practical if you have more than 10 cents to mow) and clean the snow using a $10 snow shovel. Who said a little exercise is bad for you? I have also helped my single family friends in their yard work and never thought working outside is such a bad thing.
But there is a risk. And house is big ticket item, you have move cautiously.
I firmly believe in the Contrarian Theory. When speculators run, its time to get in and BUY. I owned two homes and I am in the process to getting a third one. I would be a good candidate for those TV shows on HGTv/TLC. I buy a home build equity(through appreciation) and flip. This will get me closer to my DREAM home. I cannot see myself in a home for more than 5 years.
The inventory glut in (SF Bay Area) is not desirable, they talk about east contra-costa and south Santa Clara but there are not much available in core bay-area. The inventory is basically non-desirable.
Simple math, just estimate the number of immigrants that will be ready to buy a home in SF Bay. Just look at the inventory in desirable neighborhoods. They dont match.
Stretching (financially) yourself is always uncomfortable but it can reap you huge dividends. If you are not comfortable, then I would say keep aside monthly payments that would cover 6 months and your home should be sold incase you need to get out of it.
No other investment in US(for individuals) is as leveraged as homes/real-estate. You invest 5% and reap the benefits(or losses) of the rest.
more...
house SCENE 1: Lindsay Lohan is in
senthil1
12-17 02:27 PM
It is true that 99.99% of Muslims are not terrorists. But 99.99% of World's hardcore terrorists are Muslims.
What has this to do with immigration ??? Does Antulay support EB2/EB3 reforms ? Do he mention anything about wasted visa numbers.
This is not a place to post/preach religious, spiritual believes unless it gets you the Green Card. If many Indians visit this forum, it does not become hosting agent for your thoughts. Now don't waste your time and server hard disk space posting something back on this thread.
What has this to do with immigration ??? Does Antulay support EB2/EB3 reforms ? Do he mention anything about wasted visa numbers.
This is not a place to post/preach religious, spiritual believes unless it gets you the Green Card. If many Indians visit this forum, it does not become hosting agent for your thoughts. Now don't waste your time and server hard disk space posting something back on this thread.
tattoo Lindsay+lohan+machete+
Macaca
05-07 09:13 PM
'The Other K Street' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/06/AR2007050600892.html) In the Concrete Canyon of the Business Lobby, a Pocket of Liberal Activists Settles In, By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, May 7, 2007
more...
pictures lindsay lohan, machete
validIV
06-26 10:20 AM
Renting is not throwing money away..why ? for one - you get a place to stay, flexibility, maintenance / property tax paid by property owner, you can rent closer to your work and move around as per needs etc etc.. housing has its own benefits (but renting has its own too .."it is not as easy as saying renting is throwing money away" ..I have been asked to write about this in detail in the IV wiki ..will post a link here later
ok if its not throwing money away, how do you get the money back you spent on renting? Nothing you said above answers that question.
ok if its not throwing money away, how do you get the money back you spent on renting? Nothing you said above answers that question.
dresses Lindsay Lohan (Machete
Macaca
12-14 11:40 AM
Plan B For Pelosi And Reid (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/congressional_democrats_need_n.html) By E. J. Dionne | Washington Post, December 14, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats need a Plan B.
Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern. Rank-and-filers are furious their leaders can't end the Iraq War. President Bush sits back and vetoes at will.
Worse, Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august "upper" chamber works these days.
If Bush's strategy is to drag Congress down to his low level of public esteem, he is succeeding brilliantly. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released earlier this week found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of his job -- and just 32 percent felt positively about Congress' performance. The only comfort for Democrats: The public dislikes Republicans in Congress (32 percent approval) even more than it dislikes congressional Democrats (40 percent approval).
The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president.
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from ever getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.
And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity. On Wednesday, Bush issued his second veto of a bill to extend coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 10 million kids. Democrats have the high ground on the issue and more than two-thirds support in the Senate, but the bill lacks a veto-proof House majority.
After Bush vetoed the first version of the SCHIP bill, Democrats changed it slightly to make it more attractive to Republicans. And the new version passed both houses too. When Bush vetoed the SCHIP measure again, almost nobody paid attention. The Washington Post ran a three-paragraph story on the corner of page A18; The New York Times ran a longer story -- on page A29.
Democrats can't even get credit for doing the right thing. If Congress and Bush don't act, the alternative minimum tax -- originally designed to affect only Americans with very high incomes -- will raise taxes on about 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class people for whom it was never intended.
Democrats want to protect those taxpayers, but also keep their pay-as-you-go promise to offset new spending or tax cuts with tax increases or program cuts elsewhere. They would finance AMT relief with $50 billion in new taxes on the very wealthiest Americans or corporations. The Republicans say no, just pass the AMT fix.
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to the internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of Thursday's Washington Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they must to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty-reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats need a Plan B.
Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern. Rank-and-filers are furious their leaders can't end the Iraq War. President Bush sits back and vetoes at will.
Worse, Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august "upper" chamber works these days.
If Bush's strategy is to drag Congress down to his low level of public esteem, he is succeeding brilliantly. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released earlier this week found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of his job -- and just 32 percent felt positively about Congress' performance. The only comfort for Democrats: The public dislikes Republicans in Congress (32 percent approval) even more than it dislikes congressional Democrats (40 percent approval).
The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president.
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from ever getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.
And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity. On Wednesday, Bush issued his second veto of a bill to extend coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 10 million kids. Democrats have the high ground on the issue and more than two-thirds support in the Senate, but the bill lacks a veto-proof House majority.
After Bush vetoed the first version of the SCHIP bill, Democrats changed it slightly to make it more attractive to Republicans. And the new version passed both houses too. When Bush vetoed the SCHIP measure again, almost nobody paid attention. The Washington Post ran a three-paragraph story on the corner of page A18; The New York Times ran a longer story -- on page A29.
Democrats can't even get credit for doing the right thing. If Congress and Bush don't act, the alternative minimum tax -- originally designed to affect only Americans with very high incomes -- will raise taxes on about 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class people for whom it was never intended.
Democrats want to protect those taxpayers, but also keep their pay-as-you-go promise to offset new spending or tax cuts with tax increases or program cuts elsewhere. They would finance AMT relief with $50 billion in new taxes on the very wealthiest Americans or corporations. The Republicans say no, just pass the AMT fix.
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to the internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of Thursday's Washington Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they must to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty-reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
more...
makeup Addedlindsay lohan ive added
rockstart
07-14 09:24 AM
A guy who filed his labor in say 2001 and it took 3 years for that labor to approve should he complain that after PERM guys got labor approved in 2-3 months and in some cased even before him. Should we complain USCIS / DOL for improving the system? Guys just because your Lawyers asked you to file EB3 does not make things right. Why did you agree on EB3? if you were so convinced that you qualified for EB2 you could have taken the matters to your boss and upper management in your company? If you did not get juistice then you could have quit that company and joined another organization that was ready to recognize your talents? All phani_6 wants is a cake and eat it too. This is not possible dude this letter in its present draft is a laughing stock. Make it factually correct and this will make entire IV community support it regarless of Eb2 or Eb3.
girlfriend house Photo: Lindsay Lohan
SunnySurya
08-06 12:21 PM
Don't worry there is no solid basis for the lawsuit. Only lawsuit that can be filled , if at all, is BS+5 , which is USCIS ineterpretation of Advance degree equivalent.
Source: A reputed lawyer known to us all on this forum.
Mode of consultation: E-mail
Next course of action: Unknown. But folks with US Masters or higher please PM me...
Lot of our case was exactly like that - i was eligible for EB2 when my Eb3 labor was filed. Employer took advantage of my compromising situation ( H was having 390 days juice left)
If Porting/Interfiling is taken off folks like me will be terribly victimized. I'm here for 9 years - my 1st labor was substituted , 2nd labor ( which should be Eb2 but filed in Eb3) took a round trip from Phily backlog elimination center and now i'm stuck in the Eb3-140 mess at NSC.
My friends who are lucky enough & have filed fresh EB2 labor (based on BS+5, not MS also) have got till 140 approved and applied 485 as well due to EB2 being JUNE 2006 within 2 years of starting GC process.
Porting/Interfiling must be there for genuine cases. If someone files a lawsuit against porting i'll file a counter lawsuit on discrimination grounds.
Source: A reputed lawyer known to us all on this forum.
Mode of consultation: E-mail
Next course of action: Unknown. But folks with US Masters or higher please PM me...
Lot of our case was exactly like that - i was eligible for EB2 when my Eb3 labor was filed. Employer took advantage of my compromising situation ( H was having 390 days juice left)
If Porting/Interfiling is taken off folks like me will be terribly victimized. I'm here for 9 years - my 1st labor was substituted , 2nd labor ( which should be Eb2 but filed in Eb3) took a round trip from Phily backlog elimination center and now i'm stuck in the Eb3-140 mess at NSC.
My friends who are lucky enough & have filed fresh EB2 labor (based on BS+5, not MS also) have got till 140 approved and applied 485 as well due to EB2 being JUNE 2006 within 2 years of starting GC process.
Porting/Interfiling must be there for genuine cases. If someone files a lawsuit against porting i'll file a counter lawsuit on discrimination grounds.
hairstyles Still of Lindsay Lohan in
Macaca
12-28 07:12 PM
Blending the Rules as We Go Along (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/world/asia/28iht-currents28.html) By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS | New York Times
I wanted it to be right after breakfast when I asked Priya to marry me. The other elements were still forming, but that one felt important: a proposal to know together a thousand moments as simple and whole as this moment on a quiet Sunday morning.
I gave a prologue, then asked. She cried, then answered. A ring was worn. And, in less time than it takes to mow a lawn, we had rewritten our fates � our fate � forever. Done deal.
Or so we thought.
In the coming days, we were reminded of what it means to belong to a tribe of people that straddles multiple cultures and multiple degrees of technological involvement � and, as a consequence, holds a rich variety of opinions about an engagement. We received an education in the nuances of doing a very old thing in these new globalized, digitized times.
The first hint of engagement Babel came in a phone call to Priya�s grandparents in New Delhi, minutes after the proposal. Joy filled their voices when they heard our news; blessings poured forth, punctuated by the colonial remnant �all the best, all the best.�
Her Nana, though, could not let the conversation end without asking a question:
�But, Priya, how exactly does one get engaged?�
The bride-to-be said something about a question being asked and a ring being given, and that was that. What we didn�t appreciate then was that, in India, it doesn�t count as an engagement when two impressionable young people make a decision all by themselves.
Calling India to say that you have gotten engaged, but without any family present, without any rites having occurred, is like claiming to have clapped with one hand.
Thanksgiving time soon came, and the two of us went to Washington, where our six parents live. Two celebrations of our engagement were planned: a dinner at Priya�s mother and stepfather�s home, the other a tea at my parents� place.
Our new family traces its roots to cow worshipers in Benares and cow slaughterers in South Dakota, to Chennai in south India, to a piece of the Punjab that is now in Pakistan, to Iowa, to New Jersey and to a hamlet called Blaxall in Britain. We count among us those who worship the multitudinous Hindu deities, the lone Christian one and no divinity at all. We are speakers of English, Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil, French and Spanish. Many of us bear the passport of a country in which we were not born.
All of which is wonderful until you have to choose an engagement ritual.
After some debate and soul-searching, we decided to invent our own rites. We lit candles. We held hands. We told stories. We traded gifts. We laughed. We ate.
But, back in India, there was still some confusion. Priya�s grandparents, 10 and a half time zones ahead of us, were aching to hear our voices on the night of that first Washington celebration. My grandparents phoned several times during the tea at my parents� home four days later. The way they saw it, this was the engagement � this coming together of families at the home of a certified adult. The earlier thing, as they saw it, was more like a sweet gesture.
So, two weeks after we got engaged by our own definition, my grandparents congratulated me for getting engaged. Priya�s Indian cousins BlackBerry-messaged her they were delighted to be able, at long last, to congratulate her � now that it was �official.� Other relatives wrote seeking pictures of our �engagement ceremony.� We tried to explain that we hadn�t had one. But in this definitional spat, we were clearly outnumbered.
When, today, is an engagement valid in the eyes of the world? Is it, according to the Western contractual idea, when two people declare their commitment to each other in private? Or when love mingles with economics in the giving of a ring, the first step in a gradual entangling of fortunes? Is it when two families gather and drink and toast? Or when a certain traditional ritual is done � or, in our case, a new ritual?
Or is it when you change your Facebook relationship status?
We had been so consumed with family, and with the intricacies of the Indian and American rules of engagement, that we ignored our virtual tribe. We had called some friends on the phone immediately after it happened, and e-mailed some others. But then the celebrations of the nonvirtual world took off, and we were absorbed into that love and tumult, and our engagement went unrecorded by the digital sphere.
Just when we thought we had satisfied every possible definition of engagement, marking it in ways suitable to ourselves, our parents and our extended clans, Priya�s stepsister brought up Facebook. Why hadn�t we updated our relationship status to proclaim the engagement? It was peculiar, this omission: The absence of a Facebook update could be read as the presence of something amiss. What were we trying to hide?
Relationship statuses, like ideas, have derived their authority from different sources over the millenniums: A relationship could be valid if properly certified by the ancient rituals; or valid if faithful to the words of the holy texts; or valid if codified in a contract recognized by the correct governmental agency; and now, in 2010, valid if etched into one�s �Info� tab on Facebook.
We promptly made things right. As it turns out, we were Facebook-engaged around the time that the site�s creator, Mark Zuckerberg, was named Time magazine�s Person of the Year. We made it �official� for the third time, our union ordained by this new minister of the universe.
At last, the engagement is properly established before our American, Indian and virtual tribes � and, now, before the readers of this newspaper. The wedding looms, and with it another inevitable contest of definitions.
I can already hear the question forming: �But how exactly does one get married?�
I wanted it to be right after breakfast when I asked Priya to marry me. The other elements were still forming, but that one felt important: a proposal to know together a thousand moments as simple and whole as this moment on a quiet Sunday morning.
I gave a prologue, then asked. She cried, then answered. A ring was worn. And, in less time than it takes to mow a lawn, we had rewritten our fates � our fate � forever. Done deal.
Or so we thought.
In the coming days, we were reminded of what it means to belong to a tribe of people that straddles multiple cultures and multiple degrees of technological involvement � and, as a consequence, holds a rich variety of opinions about an engagement. We received an education in the nuances of doing a very old thing in these new globalized, digitized times.
The first hint of engagement Babel came in a phone call to Priya�s grandparents in New Delhi, minutes after the proposal. Joy filled their voices when they heard our news; blessings poured forth, punctuated by the colonial remnant �all the best, all the best.�
Her Nana, though, could not let the conversation end without asking a question:
�But, Priya, how exactly does one get engaged?�
The bride-to-be said something about a question being asked and a ring being given, and that was that. What we didn�t appreciate then was that, in India, it doesn�t count as an engagement when two impressionable young people make a decision all by themselves.
Calling India to say that you have gotten engaged, but without any family present, without any rites having occurred, is like claiming to have clapped with one hand.
Thanksgiving time soon came, and the two of us went to Washington, where our six parents live. Two celebrations of our engagement were planned: a dinner at Priya�s mother and stepfather�s home, the other a tea at my parents� place.
Our new family traces its roots to cow worshipers in Benares and cow slaughterers in South Dakota, to Chennai in south India, to a piece of the Punjab that is now in Pakistan, to Iowa, to New Jersey and to a hamlet called Blaxall in Britain. We count among us those who worship the multitudinous Hindu deities, the lone Christian one and no divinity at all. We are speakers of English, Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil, French and Spanish. Many of us bear the passport of a country in which we were not born.
All of which is wonderful until you have to choose an engagement ritual.
After some debate and soul-searching, we decided to invent our own rites. We lit candles. We held hands. We told stories. We traded gifts. We laughed. We ate.
But, back in India, there was still some confusion. Priya�s grandparents, 10 and a half time zones ahead of us, were aching to hear our voices on the night of that first Washington celebration. My grandparents phoned several times during the tea at my parents� home four days later. The way they saw it, this was the engagement � this coming together of families at the home of a certified adult. The earlier thing, as they saw it, was more like a sweet gesture.
So, two weeks after we got engaged by our own definition, my grandparents congratulated me for getting engaged. Priya�s Indian cousins BlackBerry-messaged her they were delighted to be able, at long last, to congratulate her � now that it was �official.� Other relatives wrote seeking pictures of our �engagement ceremony.� We tried to explain that we hadn�t had one. But in this definitional spat, we were clearly outnumbered.
When, today, is an engagement valid in the eyes of the world? Is it, according to the Western contractual idea, when two people declare their commitment to each other in private? Or when love mingles with economics in the giving of a ring, the first step in a gradual entangling of fortunes? Is it when two families gather and drink and toast? Or when a certain traditional ritual is done � or, in our case, a new ritual?
Or is it when you change your Facebook relationship status?
We had been so consumed with family, and with the intricacies of the Indian and American rules of engagement, that we ignored our virtual tribe. We had called some friends on the phone immediately after it happened, and e-mailed some others. But then the celebrations of the nonvirtual world took off, and we were absorbed into that love and tumult, and our engagement went unrecorded by the digital sphere.
Just when we thought we had satisfied every possible definition of engagement, marking it in ways suitable to ourselves, our parents and our extended clans, Priya�s stepsister brought up Facebook. Why hadn�t we updated our relationship status to proclaim the engagement? It was peculiar, this omission: The absence of a Facebook update could be read as the presence of something amiss. What were we trying to hide?
Relationship statuses, like ideas, have derived their authority from different sources over the millenniums: A relationship could be valid if properly certified by the ancient rituals; or valid if faithful to the words of the holy texts; or valid if codified in a contract recognized by the correct governmental agency; and now, in 2010, valid if etched into one�s �Info� tab on Facebook.
We promptly made things right. As it turns out, we were Facebook-engaged around the time that the site�s creator, Mark Zuckerberg, was named Time magazine�s Person of the Year. We made it �official� for the third time, our union ordained by this new minister of the universe.
At last, the engagement is properly established before our American, Indian and virtual tribes � and, now, before the readers of this newspaper. The wedding looms, and with it another inevitable contest of definitions.
I can already hear the question forming: �But how exactly does one get married?�
anai
12-24 11:14 AM
.
.
.
.
Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?
If you are talking about Rahul Dravid, I think he already owns a lot of land in various parts of India.
.
.
.
Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?
If you are talking about Rahul Dravid, I think he already owns a lot of land in various parts of India.
Macaca
02-15 05:34 PM
San Francisco's Democrat (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303714722970265.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks) WSJ Editorial, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
