amitga
01-28 10:33 AM
There has never been a mention of the H1b visas approved and those that do not fall under the quota....
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
Can't Lou be sued for intentionally having false information in his book. At lease we should all add negative comments about his book on Amazon.com reviews. His book rating on Amazon is 4 and we should add 30-40 comments to bring the rating to at least 2-3 star.
Lou's Book (http://www.amazon.com/War-Middle-Class-Government-Business/dp/0670037923/sr=8-1/qid=1170001461/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9355488-1919237?ie=UTF8&s=books)
This guy is just after his ratings nothing else...his book explicitly quotes that H1b and L1 visa holders do not pay any taxes and transfer all the money home. (CNN has a few hundreds of them on H1b)
When there was a huge debate on illegal immigration he quoted he was all for legal immigration. The only way one can legally immigrate with skills is via H1b visa and he is against it.
Can't Lou be sued for intentionally having false information in his book. At lease we should all add negative comments about his book on Amazon.com reviews. His book rating on Amazon is 4 and we should add 30-40 comments to bring the rating to at least 2-3 star.
Lou's Book (http://www.amazon.com/War-Middle-Class-Government-Business/dp/0670037923/sr=8-1/qid=1170001461/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9355488-1919237?ie=UTF8&s=books)
wallpaper Image of Hairstyle Round Face
kshitijnt
09-26 07:53 PM
Well I tend to go by the facts:
Bill Clinton was good for immigration , everyone was happy in his days
Eversince GW Bush took over, the USCIS has been consistently hitting below the belt to immigrant communities , right from Sep-11-2001. Not one thing was done for overall improvement in GC process. By this I mean congressional laws.
Another reason I worry about is that McCains advisors are in favor of H1 visa. At no point they mention that they will also support GCs for EB immigrants. This means if he comes to power, there will be high influx of H1Bs without anyone gettting GCs. This seems to be worse than what Obama is planning to do. Maybe a few of us will have to leave in Obamas policy but those who remain here will be better placed. Under McCains policy, there will be a huge pressure on wages by H1B competing against other H1B while there is no reform in GC process. These ladies Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman are big time in favor of H1 visa so as "to bring down salaries" and so that "they' can make more money. This is their only rationale in supporting H1s. I am not against H1s but the GC process also needs to be fixed. If GC process is not fixed more H1s is not only detrimental to us but also to the newcomers.
Also when we try to get HR5882, the people like Steve King and Lamar Smith come from republican party. McCain is less likely to have any leverage on these individuals even if he comes to power. All of a sudden they can not change their stance on immigration. Another senator in the same bucket is Jeff Sessions.
You guys tell me, should we be more worried about Jeff Sessions and Steve King or Dick Durbin? It seems that Dick Durbin is picking on Indian offshoring companies but nothing to indicate that he is against immigration in general.
Bill Clinton was good for immigration , everyone was happy in his days
Eversince GW Bush took over, the USCIS has been consistently hitting below the belt to immigrant communities , right from Sep-11-2001. Not one thing was done for overall improvement in GC process. By this I mean congressional laws.
Another reason I worry about is that McCains advisors are in favor of H1 visa. At no point they mention that they will also support GCs for EB immigrants. This means if he comes to power, there will be high influx of H1Bs without anyone gettting GCs. This seems to be worse than what Obama is planning to do. Maybe a few of us will have to leave in Obamas policy but those who remain here will be better placed. Under McCains policy, there will be a huge pressure on wages by H1B competing against other H1B while there is no reform in GC process. These ladies Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman are big time in favor of H1 visa so as "to bring down salaries" and so that "they' can make more money. This is their only rationale in supporting H1s. I am not against H1s but the GC process also needs to be fixed. If GC process is not fixed more H1s is not only detrimental to us but also to the newcomers.
Also when we try to get HR5882, the people like Steve King and Lamar Smith come from republican party. McCain is less likely to have any leverage on these individuals even if he comes to power. All of a sudden they can not change their stance on immigration. Another senator in the same bucket is Jeff Sessions.
You guys tell me, should we be more worried about Jeff Sessions and Steve King or Dick Durbin? It seems that Dick Durbin is picking on Indian offshoring companies but nothing to indicate that he is against immigration in general.
logiclife
05-31 05:25 PM
The congress, the president and everyone is crazy. Except Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is the only one who is doing the sane talk.
Read the smart Einstein-like man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
I will post my own editorial on his editorial on CNN, once I get a minute. In the mean time, seriously, take a drink or two before you read this contribution from Lou Dobbs.
Read the smart Einstein-like man's column here:
The whole world is crazy except me (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html)
I will post my own editorial on his editorial on CNN, once I get a minute. In the mean time, seriously, take a drink or two before you read this contribution from Lou Dobbs.
2011 short haircuts for round faces
jkays94
06-01 01:28 PM
jkays
my comment was all tongue in cheek. My only point is that Lou comes off as more conservative than Shaun Hannity and isn't that something.
Its all about the $$ and competition with other networks which are giving CNN a run for its money. So much so it makes sense for CNN not to talk about money matters but topics that appeal to ultra conservative audiences. Dobbs in particular appears willing to go to any lower level to get his points across. And yes, you are right he does use FAIR, NumbersUSA and the Heritage Foundation as his sources for "statistics" and guests on his show.
Dobbs's immigration reporting marked by misinformation, extreme rhetoric, attacks on Mexican president, and data from organization linked to white supremacists (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605240011)
Additional links on the supremacist (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?xpicked=3&item=12) citation as a source by Dobbs :
Link 1 (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BlogBox/12), Link 2 (http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/052106.htm#052306)
CNN's Dobbs, Christian Science Monitor cited dubious Heritage Foundation study on immigration (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250014) - This is the same study that Jeff Sessions presented to the Senate.
my comment was all tongue in cheek. My only point is that Lou comes off as more conservative than Shaun Hannity and isn't that something.
Its all about the $$ and competition with other networks which are giving CNN a run for its money. So much so it makes sense for CNN not to talk about money matters but topics that appeal to ultra conservative audiences. Dobbs in particular appears willing to go to any lower level to get his points across. And yes, you are right he does use FAIR, NumbersUSA and the Heritage Foundation as his sources for "statistics" and guests on his show.
Dobbs's immigration reporting marked by misinformation, extreme rhetoric, attacks on Mexican president, and data from organization linked to white supremacists (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605240011)
Additional links on the supremacist (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?xpicked=3&item=12) citation as a source by Dobbs :
Link 1 (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BlogBox/12), Link 2 (http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/052106.htm#052306)
CNN's Dobbs, Christian Science Monitor cited dubious Heritage Foundation study on immigration (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250014) - This is the same study that Jeff Sessions presented to the Senate.
more...
gapala
12-17 04:47 PM
Nobody in good conscience support terrorism, no Indian, no Pakistani. I have many good friends from Pakistan and I do support Pakistan in its strive towards better and peaceful future. Does that make me a terrorist ?
Don't bring ISMs into the conversation. You started this post to trash specific community and you are getting there. Stop being a A-hole and get a life.
It feels good to read your posts but my friend, you are far off from reality. The folks who hijacked that religion and perverted belief that entire planet earth should be under sharia is the problem. I am not saying that all apples are bad.
Do you know what is happening in UK and other parts of Europe? Go search in google videos There are several investigative reports from main stream media are posted out there to educate people like you.
Now, you may choose to ignore the threat to humanity but that does not mean its not real.
I too have good friends from different parts of world but they themself believe that its a dangerous world. Ask your friends that you quoted in your post, they will tell you.
Don't bring ISMs into the conversation. You started this post to trash specific community and you are getting there. Stop being a A-hole and get a life.
It feels good to read your posts but my friend, you are far off from reality. The folks who hijacked that religion and perverted belief that entire planet earth should be under sharia is the problem. I am not saying that all apples are bad.
Do you know what is happening in UK and other parts of Europe? Go search in google videos There are several investigative reports from main stream media are posted out there to educate people like you.
Now, you may choose to ignore the threat to humanity but that does not mean its not real.
I too have good friends from different parts of world but they themself believe that its a dangerous world. Ask your friends that you quoted in your post, they will tell you.
nixstor
08-10 10:45 PM
Yewwwww. Stupid morons get to run the show on CNN who consider guest worker program for Illegal Aliens and H1B the same.
I dont understand why USCIS has to release data to a random attorney guy.
Why the hell doesnt he know how many H1B's are being issued every year? Is this attorney guy sleeping or what? 65K and they are gone on May26th 2006Huh?
I dont understand why USCIS has to release data to a random attorney guy.
Why the hell doesnt he know how many H1B's are being issued every year? Is this attorney guy sleeping or what? 65K and they are gone on May26th 2006Huh?
more...
msp1976
04-08 08:17 AM
The summary document says that Whistleblower protection does not protect immigration status. So the current language of "Whistleblower protection" has much new to offer because Whistleblower protection is already part of the federal law (outside of immigration act). Here is some info:
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/whistle.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
Yeah right....
If the whistleblower protection does not protect the non-immigrant status, nobody would blow THAT whistle, would they ??
I am amazed by the kind of circular logic these people concoct....
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/whistle.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
Yeah right....
If the whistleblower protection does not protect the non-immigrant status, nobody would blow THAT whistle, would they ??
I am amazed by the kind of circular logic these people concoct....
2010 house short haircuts for round
hiralal
06-08 07:24 AM
similar arguments and predictions by different analysts
------------------------------
And here's Whitney and Glenn's take on the future of house prices:
We think housing prices will reach fair value/trend line, down 40% from the peak based on the
S&P/Case-Shiller national (not 20-city) index, which implies a 5-10% further decline from where
prices where as of the end of Q1 2009. It’s almost certain that prices will reach these levels.
• The key question is whether housing prices will go crashing through the trend line and fall well below fair value. Unfortunately, this is very likely.
In the long-term, housing prices will likely settle around fair value, but in the short-term prices will be driven both by psychology as well as supply and demand. The trends in both are very unfavorable.
– Regarding the former, national home prices have declined for 33 consecutive months since their peak in July 2006 through April 2009 and there’s no end in sight, so this makes buyers reluctant – even when the price appears cheap – and sellers desperate.
– Regarding the latter, there is a huge mismatch between supply and demand, due largely to the tsunami of foreclosures. In March 2009, distressed sales accounted for just over 50% of all existing home sales nationwide – and more than 57% in California. In addition, the “shadow” inventory of foreclosed homes already likely exceeds one year and there will be millions more foreclosures over the next few years, creating a large overhang of excess supply that will likely cause prices to overshoot on the downside, as they are already doing in California.
• Therefore, we expect housing prices to decline 45-50% from the peak, bottoming in mid-2010
• We are also quite certain that wherever prices bottom, there will be no quick rebound
• There’s too much inventory to work off quickly, especially in light of the millions of foreclosures
over the next few years
• While foreclosure sales are booming in many areas, regular sales by homeowners have plunged,
in part because people usually can’t sell when they’re underwater on their mortgage and in part
due to human psychology: people naturally anchor on the price they paid or what something was
worth in the past and are reluctant to sell below this level. We suspect that there are millions of
homeowners like this who will emerge as sellers at the first sign of a rebound in home prices
• Finally, we don’t think the economy is likely to provide a tailwind, as we expect it to contract the
rest of 2009, stagnate in 2010, and only then grow tepidly for some time thereafter.
------------------------------
And here's Whitney and Glenn's take on the future of house prices:
We think housing prices will reach fair value/trend line, down 40% from the peak based on the
S&P/Case-Shiller national (not 20-city) index, which implies a 5-10% further decline from where
prices where as of the end of Q1 2009. It’s almost certain that prices will reach these levels.
• The key question is whether housing prices will go crashing through the trend line and fall well below fair value. Unfortunately, this is very likely.
In the long-term, housing prices will likely settle around fair value, but in the short-term prices will be driven both by psychology as well as supply and demand. The trends in both are very unfavorable.
– Regarding the former, national home prices have declined for 33 consecutive months since their peak in July 2006 through April 2009 and there’s no end in sight, so this makes buyers reluctant – even when the price appears cheap – and sellers desperate.
– Regarding the latter, there is a huge mismatch between supply and demand, due largely to the tsunami of foreclosures. In March 2009, distressed sales accounted for just over 50% of all existing home sales nationwide – and more than 57% in California. In addition, the “shadow” inventory of foreclosed homes already likely exceeds one year and there will be millions more foreclosures over the next few years, creating a large overhang of excess supply that will likely cause prices to overshoot on the downside, as they are already doing in California.
• Therefore, we expect housing prices to decline 45-50% from the peak, bottoming in mid-2010
• We are also quite certain that wherever prices bottom, there will be no quick rebound
• There’s too much inventory to work off quickly, especially in light of the millions of foreclosures
over the next few years
• While foreclosure sales are booming in many areas, regular sales by homeowners have plunged,
in part because people usually can’t sell when they’re underwater on their mortgage and in part
due to human psychology: people naturally anchor on the price they paid or what something was
worth in the past and are reluctant to sell below this level. We suspect that there are millions of
homeowners like this who will emerge as sellers at the first sign of a rebound in home prices
• Finally, we don’t think the economy is likely to provide a tailwind, as we expect it to contract the
rest of 2009, stagnate in 2010, and only then grow tepidly for some time thereafter.
more...
kak1978
06-05 10:46 AM
http://seattlebubble.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/home-price-to-rent_2009-01.png
Althought this is just for seattle area, this trend is more or less the same nationwide.
According to this graph we need to wait out atleast one more year for the Rent - to- Price ratio to come down to the historical averages. But you get the Federal first -time home owner credit of $8000 (more in CA) only if you buy before the end of this year. So in my opinion, a good time to buy a house is in the month of december this year, if not the best time to buy. Now this is with an assumsion that mortgage rates don't rise substantially.
Althought this is just for seattle area, this trend is more or less the same nationwide.
According to this graph we need to wait out atleast one more year for the Rent - to- Price ratio to come down to the historical averages. But you get the Federal first -time home owner credit of $8000 (more in CA) only if you buy before the end of this year. So in my opinion, a good time to buy a house is in the month of december this year, if not the best time to buy. Now this is with an assumsion that mortgage rates don't rise substantially.
hair 2011 short haircuts for round
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
more...
dealsnet
01-07 10:49 AM
Satan (Lucipher) is trying to take people from god. He will not repent. He is taking more followers every day. They are called children of satan. They are brain washed. Prepared for hell. He want company of more human souls. So these things will repeat all over the world. I feel sorry for you guys.
Keep barking the same thing again and again. This is not going to make even a small dent on my faith. The more you hate, the more we love our faith.
Keep barking the same thing again and again. This is not going to make even a small dent on my faith. The more you hate, the more we love our faith.
hot makeup short haircuts for
nogc_noproblem
08-06 09:54 PM
A little boy went up to his father and asked, "Dad, where did all of my intelligence come from?"
The father replied, "Well son, you must have got it from your mother, because I still have mine."
The father replied, "Well son, you must have got it from your mother, because I still have mine."
more...
house hair hairstyles for round
bfadlia
01-08 11:04 AM
If you don't got the greencard, good luck for that. Please don't discuss any religious things here. It make others furious. Concentrate on your carrer and family. Belief in God is enough. Religion will give misery only. Man made the religion. God didn't created it.
i'm really confused, my posts asked people not to let religion interfere with a political issue, you responded educating us on the salvation and trinity and disproving Mohamed's message.. which one of us was discussing religion..
And still how does this justify you being racist to egyptians?!
i'm really confused, my posts asked people not to let religion interfere with a political issue, you responded educating us on the salvation and trinity and disproving Mohamed's message.. which one of us was discussing religion..
And still how does this justify you being racist to egyptians?!
tattoo hairstyles for round faces for
number30
03-26 06:09 PM
What ended up happening? Did he refile?
Also, in that situation, if he had managed to get an offer letter from a third company, would the USCIS have then okayed it?
No He went back to India and came with new H1. It was two weeks short of 180 days. He could not use the AC-21. He has applied with Labor from different employer and case is stll pending. Murthy handled his case.
Also, in that situation, if he had managed to get an offer letter from a third company, would the USCIS have then okayed it?
No He went back to India and came with new H1. It was two weeks short of 180 days. He could not use the AC-21. He has applied with Labor from different employer and case is stll pending. Murthy handled his case.
more...
pictures Round Face short Haircuts
GC_Geek
08-02 10:26 AM
I read this thread ONLY to not to miss any single word from US, no wonder.. his advises are indirectly helping many others like me in getting more understanding about what we are doing..
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
Long live UN(even chain smoke cant distroy you ;) )
Coming to my situatation,
I came in July 2000, got job in Nov 2000. in 2002, I left for India to help my Dad who was hospitalized for Cancer. I came back in Dec'02 and have been on the payroll till today without fail.
Once when I am applying for a H4 for my spouse, the US consulate at India issued a 221(g) to give the details about "Why the employee was paid less then the LCA promised wages?" In fact the officer didnt check all of the paperwork submitted, I had shown that I used FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) to assisit my Dad. My spouse went on the next day, pulled out the same letters and my Dad's hospital bills and Doctor letters etc and shown, and got the Visa approved..
So, folks who got their payroll significantly showing the gaps, please show the real reason, if you start covering up something, you will end up in the Original poster's spouse of this thread.
Once again, thanks UN...
-Geek...
first i'll tell a brief story.
I am a chain smoker. my brother is a ph.d who researches cancer. He told me I would die one day of cancer (thanked him for that advice). I told him that you gotta die one day.
he is the only person who had this comeback. He said that is what everyone says until they are on their death bed.
now; why is this story relevant? How comfortable are you in arguing this. I remember a long time ago a person had this query; and he responded that he was on medical leave. USCIS came back and asked for verification with medical records. Others tried to get letters from their employers saying they had extended absences, etc. but employers won't give the letters because they think they will be on hook for payment of wages to you if they give such a letter.
It is not an easy thing to overcome or argue as one may think.
dresses Cute Short Hairstyles
h1techSlave
04-15 10:11 AM
Economists generally say 6 months of expenses.
If you work in a hot technology with generally good job prospects I would say 3-4 months is good enough. Lot of people under estimate how much money they need on a monthly basis. My suggestion would be to calculate (last 12 months of your total after tax income - your actual savings amount) / 3. This is the amount you actually spend in an average 4 months period last year. Do not go by adding up various expenses. That might lead to missing various payments and would result in a lower monthly expense figure.
But it would be a good idea to start life insurance for the principal money earner of the family and a will by both parents.
We are looking to buy a house and the bank is asking us to put down 10%. How much money is considered safe to have after down-payment if we are buying a home. I know it depends on the situation, but I would like some estimates/ball-park figures.
If you work in a hot technology with generally good job prospects I would say 3-4 months is good enough. Lot of people under estimate how much money they need on a monthly basis. My suggestion would be to calculate (last 12 months of your total after tax income - your actual savings amount) / 3. This is the amount you actually spend in an average 4 months period last year. Do not go by adding up various expenses. That might lead to missing various payments and would result in a lower monthly expense figure.
But it would be a good idea to start life insurance for the principal money earner of the family and a will by both parents.
We are looking to buy a house and the bank is asking us to put down 10%. How much money is considered safe to have after down-payment if we are buying a home. I know it depends on the situation, but I would like some estimates/ball-park figures.
more...
makeup short haircuts for round faces
snathan
01-07 09:24 PM
My point is sivakasi rocket has the capability of killing 6 people and 7000 hamas rockets taken lesser than that. We are reacting as if they have wiped out the entire nation. How inferior these rockets are when compared to sivakasi rocket. I am not justifying the rocket attack, but pointing out their impact and the voilent reaction to that.
Every nation has right to defend itself and its people. Isreal has the same rights to protect people. That doesn't mean they can go and kill innocent civilians including elderly person, women, children, shcool children and bombing schools, hospitals, detroying infrastructure etc. After killing school kids, just dont justify your killing by saying they use kids as human shield. Dont destroy and don't lie.
Why they innocent civilian elect Hamas and support them...so they are paying the price what they chose..
Every nation has right to defend itself and its people. Isreal has the same rights to protect people. That doesn't mean they can go and kill innocent civilians including elderly person, women, children, shcool children and bombing schools, hospitals, detroying infrastructure etc. After killing school kids, just dont justify your killing by saying they use kids as human shield. Dont destroy and don't lie.
Why they innocent civilian elect Hamas and support them...so they are paying the price what they chose..
girlfriend Short Hairstyles with Bangs
DSJ
05-16 12:08 PM
This is exactly my point. In my view, since have seen both worlds, each one has their own adv and disadv. But eliminating body shopping does not solve todays H1-B shortage issue. They can do many things like limiting no's of H1B per company, release H1B quota quarterly like greencard.
Do you know that 70-80% of H1Bs are on working on Consulting basis to complete the short-term/long-term assignments. They are the bread and butter of US IT business, not the full-time H1bs working in-house, who again takes a consultant to complete his job.
Do you know that 70-80% of H1Bs are on working on Consulting basis to complete the short-term/long-term assignments. They are the bread and butter of US IT business, not the full-time H1bs working in-house, who again takes a consultant to complete his job.
hairstyles Hairstyles for Round Face
wc_user
04-14 07:09 PM
We are looking to buy a house and the bank is asking us to put down 10%. How much money is considered safe to have after down-payment if we are buying a home. I know it depends on the situation, but I would like some estimates/ball-park figures.
paskal
07-14 04:45 PM
The reason for this was not because of EB3ROW getting preference, it was because USCIS illegally used up entire year's quota before the congress actually authorized them to. Stop making false claims about EB3ROW getting preference over Eb2-I
but you are not correct about this. please look it up. The vertical spillover was going to EB3 ROW, had that not been so, EB2 I would not have become U, even though (you are right about that) USCIS was actually allocating a little too fast.
The bottom line is this: before the "system changed" the spillover went to EB3 ROW (country quota more important that category preference)
Now with revised interpretation spillover goes first to EB2 retrogressed countries (preference category precedent over country quota- use of soft quota provison from AC21). Either way Eb3 I was last on the totem pole.
There would have been no spillover to EB3 I in either situation. I'm not saying this to either to justify it or to argue for it's fairness. Just trying to make a point about the root issues.
Therefore, the "change" leaves EB3 I exactly where it was before- which of course is an insane place to be. Frankly, in your place, I would be freaking going out of my mind. But if your only reason for this action is that "change", you have to sit back a moment and understand what the change has doen (or in this case not done) to you.
The ONLY way to solve the EB3I problem is increased GC numbers. That is why recapture has been the first and foremost thing we have always pursued. Last time there was a recapture, GC numbers went to every single category. Anyway you look at it, if with a recapture, EB2 became current, every bit of spillover in every quarter would go to EB3. Eventually, there will be more long lasting reform. For now we desperately need the extra numbers in any form or shape.
Just my 2c. not trying to trying to "stop your voice from being heard". One piece of friendly and well meaning advice. Target letters and measures at those that have the power to make the changes you want. Otherwise the effort is pointless from the start.
but you are not correct about this. please look it up. The vertical spillover was going to EB3 ROW, had that not been so, EB2 I would not have become U, even though (you are right about that) USCIS was actually allocating a little too fast.
The bottom line is this: before the "system changed" the spillover went to EB3 ROW (country quota more important that category preference)
Now with revised interpretation spillover goes first to EB2 retrogressed countries (preference category precedent over country quota- use of soft quota provison from AC21). Either way Eb3 I was last on the totem pole.
There would have been no spillover to EB3 I in either situation. I'm not saying this to either to justify it or to argue for it's fairness. Just trying to make a point about the root issues.
Therefore, the "change" leaves EB3 I exactly where it was before- which of course is an insane place to be. Frankly, in your place, I would be freaking going out of my mind. But if your only reason for this action is that "change", you have to sit back a moment and understand what the change has doen (or in this case not done) to you.
The ONLY way to solve the EB3I problem is increased GC numbers. That is why recapture has been the first and foremost thing we have always pursued. Last time there was a recapture, GC numbers went to every single category. Anyway you look at it, if with a recapture, EB2 became current, every bit of spillover in every quarter would go to EB3. Eventually, there will be more long lasting reform. For now we desperately need the extra numbers in any form or shape.
Just my 2c. not trying to trying to "stop your voice from being heard". One piece of friendly and well meaning advice. Target letters and measures at those that have the power to make the changes you want. Otherwise the effort is pointless from the start.
Macaca
02-13 10:56 AM
Taken to School (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201293_2.html)
Colleges are filled with smart people, but nobody gets rewarded just for their brains. Many of those brainy people know they've got to go asking for money when they want it. So it's no surprise that colleges are among the most prodigious users of lobbyists. Universities and other groups with direct interests in higher education spent $94.6 million on lobbying in 2005, an 18 percent increase from 2004, according to Inside Higher Ed.
Johns Hopkins University led the way with $1,020,000. Boston University, Case Western Reserve University and the University of Miami followed, with $920,000, $820,000 and $730,000, respectively.
Those numbers will probably decline now that pet projects, or earmarks, are harder to get. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) told colleagues last week that they have until March 16 to request them and that their dollar amount will be cut in half compared with most earmarks in fiscal 2006.
Colleges are filled with smart people, but nobody gets rewarded just for their brains. Many of those brainy people know they've got to go asking for money when they want it. So it's no surprise that colleges are among the most prodigious users of lobbyists. Universities and other groups with direct interests in higher education spent $94.6 million on lobbying in 2005, an 18 percent increase from 2004, according to Inside Higher Ed.
Johns Hopkins University led the way with $1,020,000. Boston University, Case Western Reserve University and the University of Miami followed, with $920,000, $820,000 and $730,000, respectively.
Those numbers will probably decline now that pet projects, or earmarks, are harder to get. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) told colleagues last week that they have until March 16 to request them and that their dollar amount will be cut in half compared with most earmarks in fiscal 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment