Macaca
09-28 10:29 PM
Forget the Israel Lobby. The Hill's Next Big Player Is Made in India (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801350_2.html) By Mira Kamdar (miraukamdar@gmail.com) | Washington Post, September 30, 2007
Mira Kamdar, a fellow at the World Policy Institute and the Asia Society, is the author of "Planet India: How the Fastest-Growing Democracy is Transforming America and the World."
The fall's most controversial book is almost certainly "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," in which political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt warn that Jewish Americans have built a behemoth that has bullied policymakers into putting Israel's interests in the Middle East ahead of America's. To Mearsheimer and Walt, AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying group, is insidious. But to more and more Indian Americans, it's downright inspiring.
With growing numbers, clout and self-confidence, the Indian American community is turning its admiration for the Israel lobby and its respect for high-achieving Jewish Americans into a powerful new force of its own. Following consciously in AIPAC's footsteps, the India lobby is getting results in Washington -- and having a profound impact on U.S. policy, with important consequences for the future of Asia and the world.
"This is huge," enthused Ron Somers, the president of the U.S.-India Business Council, from a posh hotel lobby in Philadelphia. "It's the Berlin Wall coming down. It's Nixon in China."
What has Somers so energized is a landmark nuclear cooperation deal between India and the United States, which would give India access to U.S. nuclear technology and deliver fuel supplies to India's civilian power plants in return for placing them under permanent international safeguards. Under the deal's terms, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- for decades the cornerstone of efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons -- will in effect be waived for India, just nine years after the Clinton administration slapped sanctions on New Delhi for its 1998 nuclear tests. But the Bush administration, eager to check the rise of China by tilting toward its massive neighbor, has sought to forge a new strategic alliance with India, cemented by the civil nuclear deal.
On the U.S. side, the pact awaits nothing more than one final up-or-down vote in Congress. (In India, the situation is far more complicated; India's left-wing parties, sensitive to any whiff of imperialism, have accused Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of surrendering the country's sovereignty -- a broadside that may yet scuttle the deal.) On Capitol Hill, despite deep divisions over Iraq, immigration and the outsourcing of American jobs to India, Democrats and Republicans quickly fell into line on the nuclear deal, voting for it last December by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Even lawmakers who had made nuclear nonproliferation a core issue over their long careers, such as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), quickly came around to President Bush's point of view. Why?
The answer is that the India lobby is now officially a powerful presence on the Hill. The nuclear pact brought together an Indian government that is savvier than ever about playing the Washington game, an Indian American community that is just coming into its own and powerful business interests that see India as perhaps the single biggest money-making opportunity of the 21st century.
The nuclear deal has been pushed aggressively by well-funded groups representing industry in both countries. At the center of the lobbying effort has been Robert D. Blackwill, a former U.S. ambassador to India and deputy national security adviser who's now with a well-connected Republican lobbying firm, Barbour, Griffith & Rogers LLC. The firm's Web site touts Blackwill as a pillar of its "India Practice," along with a more recent hire, Philip D. Zelikow, a former top adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who was also one of the architects of the Bush administration's tilt toward India. The Confederation of Indian Industry paid Blackwill to lobby various U.S. government entities, according to the Boston Globe. And India is also paying a major Beltway law firm, Venable LLP.
The U.S.-India Business Council has lavished big money on lobbyists, too. With India slated to spend perhaps $60 billion over the next few years to boost its military capabilities, major U.S. corporations are hoping that the nuclear agreement will open the door to some extremely lucrative opportunities, including military contracts and deals to help build nuclear power plants. According to a recent MIT study, Lockheed Martin is pushing to land a $4 billion to $9 billion contract for more than 120 fighter planes that India plans to buy. "The bounty is enormous," gushed Somers, the business council's president.
So enormous, in fact, that Bonner & Associates created an India lobbying group last year to make sure that U.S. companies reap a major chunk of it. Dubbed the Indian American Security Leadership Council, the group was underwritten by Ramesh Kapur, a former trustee of the Democratic National Committee, and Krishna Srinivasa, who has been backing GOP causes since his 1984 stint as co-chair of Asian Americans for Reagan-Bush. The council has, oddly, "recruited groups representing thousands of American veterans" to urge Congress to pass the nuclear deal.
The India lobby is also eager to use Indian Americans to put a human face -- not to mention a voter's face and a campaign contributor's face -- on its agenda. "Industry would make its business case," Somers explained, "and Indian Americans would make the emotional case."
There are now some 2.2 million Americans of Indian origin -- a number that's growing rapidly. First-generation immigrants keenly recall the humiliating days when India was dismissed as an overpopulated, socialist haven of poverty and disease. They are thrilled by the new respect India is getting. Meanwhile, a second, American-born generation of Indian Americans who feel comfortable with activism and publicity is just beginning to hit its political stride. As a group, Indian Americans have higher levels of education and income than the national average, making them a natural for political mobilization.
One standout member of the first generation is Sanjay Puri, who founded the U.S. India Political Action Committee in 2002. (Its acronym, USINPAC, even sounds a bit like AIPAC.) He came to the United States in 1985 to get an MBA at George Washington University, staying on to found an information-technology company. A man of modest demeanor who wears a lapel pin that joins the Indian and American flags, Puri grew tired of watching successful Indian Americans pony up money just so they could get their picture taken with a politician. "I thought, 'What are we getting out of this?', " he explains.
In just five years, USINPAC has become the most visible face of Indian American lobbying. Its Web site boasts photos of its leaders with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and presidential candidates from Fred Thompson to Barack Obama. The group pointedly sports a New Hampshire branch. It can also take some credit for ending the Senate career of Virginia Republican George Allen, whose notorious taunt of "macaca" to a young Indian American outraged the community. Less publicly, USINPAC claims to have brought a lot of lawmakers around. "You haven't heard a lot from Dan Burton lately, right?" Puri asked, referring to a Republican congressman from Indiana who has long been perceived as an India basher.
USINPAC is capable of pouncing; witness the incident last June when Obama's campaign issued a memo excoriating Hillary Rodham Clinton for her close ties to wealthy Indian Americans and her alleged support for outsourcing, listing the New York senator's affiliation as "D-Punjab." Puri personally protested in a widely circulated open letter, and Obama quickly issued an apology. "Did you see? That letter was addressed directly to Sanjay," Varun Mehta, a senior at Boston University and USINPAC volunteer, told me with evident admiration. "That's the kind of clout Sanjay has."
Like many politically engaged Indian Americans, Puri has a deep regard for the Israel lobby -- particularly in a country where Jews make up just a small minority of the population. "A lot of Jewish people tell me maybe I was Jewish in my past life," he jokes. The respect runs both ways. The American Jewish Committee, for instance, recently sent letters to members of Congress supporting the U.S.-India nuclear deal.
"We model ourselves on the Jewish people in the United States," explains Mital Gandhi of USINPAC's new offshoot, the U.S.-India Business Alliance. "We're not quite there yet. But we're getting there."
Mira Kamdar, a fellow at the World Policy Institute and the Asia Society, is the author of "Planet India: How the Fastest-Growing Democracy is Transforming America and the World."
The fall's most controversial book is almost certainly "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," in which political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt warn that Jewish Americans have built a behemoth that has bullied policymakers into putting Israel's interests in the Middle East ahead of America's. To Mearsheimer and Walt, AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying group, is insidious. But to more and more Indian Americans, it's downright inspiring.
With growing numbers, clout and self-confidence, the Indian American community is turning its admiration for the Israel lobby and its respect for high-achieving Jewish Americans into a powerful new force of its own. Following consciously in AIPAC's footsteps, the India lobby is getting results in Washington -- and having a profound impact on U.S. policy, with important consequences for the future of Asia and the world.
"This is huge," enthused Ron Somers, the president of the U.S.-India Business Council, from a posh hotel lobby in Philadelphia. "It's the Berlin Wall coming down. It's Nixon in China."
What has Somers so energized is a landmark nuclear cooperation deal between India and the United States, which would give India access to U.S. nuclear technology and deliver fuel supplies to India's civilian power plants in return for placing them under permanent international safeguards. Under the deal's terms, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- for decades the cornerstone of efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons -- will in effect be waived for India, just nine years after the Clinton administration slapped sanctions on New Delhi for its 1998 nuclear tests. But the Bush administration, eager to check the rise of China by tilting toward its massive neighbor, has sought to forge a new strategic alliance with India, cemented by the civil nuclear deal.
On the U.S. side, the pact awaits nothing more than one final up-or-down vote in Congress. (In India, the situation is far more complicated; India's left-wing parties, sensitive to any whiff of imperialism, have accused Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of surrendering the country's sovereignty -- a broadside that may yet scuttle the deal.) On Capitol Hill, despite deep divisions over Iraq, immigration and the outsourcing of American jobs to India, Democrats and Republicans quickly fell into line on the nuclear deal, voting for it last December by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. Even lawmakers who had made nuclear nonproliferation a core issue over their long careers, such as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), quickly came around to President Bush's point of view. Why?
The answer is that the India lobby is now officially a powerful presence on the Hill. The nuclear pact brought together an Indian government that is savvier than ever about playing the Washington game, an Indian American community that is just coming into its own and powerful business interests that see India as perhaps the single biggest money-making opportunity of the 21st century.
The nuclear deal has been pushed aggressively by well-funded groups representing industry in both countries. At the center of the lobbying effort has been Robert D. Blackwill, a former U.S. ambassador to India and deputy national security adviser who's now with a well-connected Republican lobbying firm, Barbour, Griffith & Rogers LLC. The firm's Web site touts Blackwill as a pillar of its "India Practice," along with a more recent hire, Philip D. Zelikow, a former top adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who was also one of the architects of the Bush administration's tilt toward India. The Confederation of Indian Industry paid Blackwill to lobby various U.S. government entities, according to the Boston Globe. And India is also paying a major Beltway law firm, Venable LLP.
The U.S.-India Business Council has lavished big money on lobbyists, too. With India slated to spend perhaps $60 billion over the next few years to boost its military capabilities, major U.S. corporations are hoping that the nuclear agreement will open the door to some extremely lucrative opportunities, including military contracts and deals to help build nuclear power plants. According to a recent MIT study, Lockheed Martin is pushing to land a $4 billion to $9 billion contract for more than 120 fighter planes that India plans to buy. "The bounty is enormous," gushed Somers, the business council's president.
So enormous, in fact, that Bonner & Associates created an India lobbying group last year to make sure that U.S. companies reap a major chunk of it. Dubbed the Indian American Security Leadership Council, the group was underwritten by Ramesh Kapur, a former trustee of the Democratic National Committee, and Krishna Srinivasa, who has been backing GOP causes since his 1984 stint as co-chair of Asian Americans for Reagan-Bush. The council has, oddly, "recruited groups representing thousands of American veterans" to urge Congress to pass the nuclear deal.
The India lobby is also eager to use Indian Americans to put a human face -- not to mention a voter's face and a campaign contributor's face -- on its agenda. "Industry would make its business case," Somers explained, "and Indian Americans would make the emotional case."
There are now some 2.2 million Americans of Indian origin -- a number that's growing rapidly. First-generation immigrants keenly recall the humiliating days when India was dismissed as an overpopulated, socialist haven of poverty and disease. They are thrilled by the new respect India is getting. Meanwhile, a second, American-born generation of Indian Americans who feel comfortable with activism and publicity is just beginning to hit its political stride. As a group, Indian Americans have higher levels of education and income than the national average, making them a natural for political mobilization.
One standout member of the first generation is Sanjay Puri, who founded the U.S. India Political Action Committee in 2002. (Its acronym, USINPAC, even sounds a bit like AIPAC.) He came to the United States in 1985 to get an MBA at George Washington University, staying on to found an information-technology company. A man of modest demeanor who wears a lapel pin that joins the Indian and American flags, Puri grew tired of watching successful Indian Americans pony up money just so they could get their picture taken with a politician. "I thought, 'What are we getting out of this?', " he explains.
In just five years, USINPAC has become the most visible face of Indian American lobbying. Its Web site boasts photos of its leaders with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and presidential candidates from Fred Thompson to Barack Obama. The group pointedly sports a New Hampshire branch. It can also take some credit for ending the Senate career of Virginia Republican George Allen, whose notorious taunt of "macaca" to a young Indian American outraged the community. Less publicly, USINPAC claims to have brought a lot of lawmakers around. "You haven't heard a lot from Dan Burton lately, right?" Puri asked, referring to a Republican congressman from Indiana who has long been perceived as an India basher.
USINPAC is capable of pouncing; witness the incident last June when Obama's campaign issued a memo excoriating Hillary Rodham Clinton for her close ties to wealthy Indian Americans and her alleged support for outsourcing, listing the New York senator's affiliation as "D-Punjab." Puri personally protested in a widely circulated open letter, and Obama quickly issued an apology. "Did you see? That letter was addressed directly to Sanjay," Varun Mehta, a senior at Boston University and USINPAC volunteer, told me with evident admiration. "That's the kind of clout Sanjay has."
Like many politically engaged Indian Americans, Puri has a deep regard for the Israel lobby -- particularly in a country where Jews make up just a small minority of the population. "A lot of Jewish people tell me maybe I was Jewish in my past life," he jokes. The respect runs both ways. The American Jewish Committee, for instance, recently sent letters to members of Congress supporting the U.S.-India nuclear deal.
"We model ourselves on the Jewish people in the United States," explains Mital Gandhi of USINPAC's new offshoot, the U.S.-India Business Alliance. "We're not quite there yet. But we're getting there."
wallpaper Haha, the guy actually died,
texcan
08-05 04:09 PM
ROLLING_FLOOD HAS STARTED THE 'FLOOD' AND HE 'ROLLED' OUT....He is probably laughing his as* off....
Don't worry too much about GC...it would ruin your life if you think a lot about it.
We all (at least most of us) came to this country with 2 big suitcases and a carry-on bag (with lots of pickels and masalas and clothes and many other stuff) and maybe couple of thousand $$.
So, if you look back you all have achieved something more then that for sure...if we don't get GC, then lets pack those 2 suitcases and head home...no big deal !!!! keep a positive attitude and everything would be fine.
just my thoughts :)
good stuff,
thanks
Don't worry too much about GC...it would ruin your life if you think a lot about it.
We all (at least most of us) came to this country with 2 big suitcases and a carry-on bag (with lots of pickels and masalas and clothes and many other stuff) and maybe couple of thousand $$.
So, if you look back you all have achieved something more then that for sure...if we don't get GC, then lets pack those 2 suitcases and head home...no big deal !!!! keep a positive attitude and everything would be fine.
just my thoughts :)
good stuff,
thanks
dohko
04-09 01:46 PM
You're right excellent idea. 50% won't really affect Microsoft, Oracle, IBM
because they actually hire Americans.
Chill out pal, don't exaggerate how much people value academic degrees in real business world. Holding a Ms or PhD degree alone doesn't necessarily mean you're an asset to this country, nor to a particular employer. I have Ms degree from US institution and I don't think it matters much to my employer, everything is based on performance.
I agree that H1-B visa should be granted to people who fill a real business need, not those who are unfortunately treated as unlimited supply for body-shoppers making their fortune selling hours of H1-Bs. In this perspective, the idea of restricting companies with 50+% H1-Bs is brilliant. I wouldn't worry about management consulting firms like BCG or McKinsey, I bet they don't have half of their consultants under H1-b. :-)
because they actually hire Americans.
Chill out pal, don't exaggerate how much people value academic degrees in real business world. Holding a Ms or PhD degree alone doesn't necessarily mean you're an asset to this country, nor to a particular employer. I have Ms degree from US institution and I don't think it matters much to my employer, everything is based on performance.
I agree that H1-B visa should be granted to people who fill a real business need, not those who are unfortunately treated as unlimited supply for body-shoppers making their fortune selling hours of H1-Bs. In this perspective, the idea of restricting companies with 50+% H1-Bs is brilliant. I wouldn't worry about management consulting firms like BCG or McKinsey, I bet they don't have half of their consultants under H1-b. :-)
2011 2010 The Heart Attack Cafe at
Macaca
05-02 05:38 PM
Don't kowtow to China now (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dont-kowtow-to-china-now/story-fn59niix-1226047967727) By Paul Dibb | The Australian
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.
Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.
While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.
None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.
These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.
But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.
The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.
As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.
If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.
In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.
This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.
China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.
China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.
To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.
By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.
This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.
There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.
We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.
There are other geopolitical factors at work.
If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.
While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.
The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.
We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.
The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.
Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel
more...
alterego
04-09 06:04 PM
I have read this thread for the most part, I think everyone seems to agree that the H1b program is in need of some modification. Each person's view seems to be coloured by his or her own circumstances.
In the end it all depends on what you feel are the purposes of the H1b program. If you feel it is meant to plug holes as they arise in the higher end labour market in the USA, then you would be more likely to support regulations tightening it. If you feel it is a stepping stone to your green card, you might feel otherwise.
NOONE can argue that for EB india the main cause of the clutter is the bodyshoppers and their way of using this program. That needs change and almost certainly will be changed. If for no reason but that it puts US corporations at a competitive disadvantage. We are all bystanders in this discussion.
Whatever is done this mess needs to be cleaned up and soon. It is most unfair to everyone in the EB queue(and especially the Eb India queue). I would hasten to say it is unfair to even the H1bs working for bodyshops.
Those not in that group would actually be right to scream "Bloody Injustice!"
In the end it all depends on what you feel are the purposes of the H1b program. If you feel it is meant to plug holes as they arise in the higher end labour market in the USA, then you would be more likely to support regulations tightening it. If you feel it is a stepping stone to your green card, you might feel otherwise.
NOONE can argue that for EB india the main cause of the clutter is the bodyshoppers and their way of using this program. That needs change and almost certainly will be changed. If for no reason but that it puts US corporations at a competitive disadvantage. We are all bystanders in this discussion.
Whatever is done this mess needs to be cleaned up and soon. It is most unfair to everyone in the EB queue(and especially the Eb India queue). I would hasten to say it is unfair to even the H1bs working for bodyshops.
Those not in that group would actually be right to scream "Bloody Injustice!"
chanduv23
02-15 10:58 AM
As we are not voting public and voting public are against us, and employers do little for us, what is the basis in which we can influence politicians buy our cause?
more...
nojoke
06-26 08:27 PM
Thanks for the data. There is one more twist to the story though. The "median home" of 1940 is NOT the same as the median home of 2000. The home sizes have more than doubled in this period (dont have an official source right now - but look at Google Answers: Historic home sizes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928) . A little digging should give us an official source if you want.).... So, if the median home prices have doubled post adjustment for inflaton - that really means that the prices have stayed flat adjusted for inflation.
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Home sizes have lesser impact on the median price now. It is unaffordability that is pushing the prices down. The median is getting back to what the income in the area can support. The builders can build mansions, but someone has to buy...One way the builders survive these days is by bulding smaller homes that people can buy..
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Home sizes have lesser impact on the median price now. It is unaffordability that is pushing the prices down. The median is getting back to what the income in the area can support. The builders can build mansions, but someone has to buy...One way the builders survive these days is by bulding smaller homes that people can buy..
2010 Heart Attack Grill Chandler AZ
smisachu
12-28 09:28 PM
I agree to what you say. But understand that firing a nuke needs more than having one. Our missile shield is pretty good, we have several anti missile defence shields installed all across the border with Pakistan including the Rann of Kutch. Yes they are only tested and not war tested, but so are pakistans wepons. At least our wepons are self produced, paks are purchased chinese crap. I doubt nukes will be used even if there is a conflict.
As you say we have suffered for 60 years due to terrorism and we need to end it. I am not advocating war but killing all terrorists. India has no interest in Pakistan and has no use for it if we occupy it. I was just highlighting the capacity of our Army not advocating marching to Islamabad. All we need to do is get back POK into our control and eliminate the Terrorists there, revoke article 370 and assimilate Kashmir and kashmiris into rest of India and vice versa.
Listen as some one who has lost a cousin in Kargil and an uncle in 71 war and with 3 cousins still serving in the force , I know the pain of war closer than you might think. Thats why I want to end it once and for all. Do you know, a Jawan is killed due to COLD in siachen glazier every week and this is a place we dont have to put our boys on through the winter, but we do just because if we dont Pak will occupy our post come Summer.
We need to kill terrorists and let modren pakistanis to gain control of the country, until this is done this problem will not go away for India or the US or anyone else.
I hope thats your bravado speaking. Otherwise what you have stated is mostly inaccurate. Much as I would like to see Pakistan walloped for supporting the jehadi pigs, what war could potentially escalate into is far scarier than 200 people killed in Mumbai. It could mean the deaths of hundreds (or many times that) people - both Indian and Pakistani. That casualty number is not acceptable given that we've been absorbing thousands of losses in the last 50 years...scratch that - even in the last 20 years. IMHO Kargil was a bigger event than Mumbai than this since they had the b*lls to waltz onto Indian territory.
Strategically, India has no advantage pushing on to Islamabad (which is why we didn't in the wars earlier). Logistics will not support an invasion - primarily because the local population will not support it. And then it means killing thousands of non army personnel to hold on to territory and sustaining the same kind of losses. ('71 push to Dhaka was a contrast because the local population was supportive of India's/ Muktibahini push)
Nukes - for the delivery mechanism it doesn't need to be accurate - it just needs to get close and explode above or around the target. If it explodes in the air there are fewer casualties than if it were to land on the ground - then the massive fallout would be even more catastrophic. Anti-missile shield? Wow - but no way are they going to be effective. 4 minutes of flying time from Pak to India for an aircraft - its hard intercepting aircraft (which are far slower than missiles the last time i checked).. you need to research a little more before speaking up. And none of India's or for that matter Pakistans missiles have been war-proven (remember Murphys law - yes that will creep in here also)
Yes - India can wipe out terror camps; wipe out the PAF/ Pakistan army etc. But what is the strategic advantage? An economic setback of 20 years? No buffer between Afghanistan, and the hardcore mullahs west of Pakistan (most Pakis outside of the ISI are liberal Islamists). Also, the US will be more concerned about the Afghan border and will step up international pressure on India to let Pakistan be - worse - it could take an offensive posture against India as in '71 (like everyone else US cares about its interests first)
Pakistan is that spoilt younger sibling to India that keeps making noise to get whatever it wants. Now the time has come when even they know they've gone too far. And its A**kicking time - but not militarily. A tough stance from India and the rest of from the rest of the world will work also. Tough love, baby!
India's interests are best served by getting ISI branded a terror organization, Pakistan a terror state and by de-linking Kashmir with the whole terror issue since most of the terrorists are non locals anyway (because Pakis want the focus on Kashmir). Repeal article 370 so that Kashmiri Pandits are assisted in returning to Kashmir along with other Indians (whatever religion so wants to). Rebuild Kashmir economically. Help liberal Pakis rebuild their country - and with a better economy, maybe good sense will prevail in that failed state.
Strength is not always an action of force. Strength is sometimes force of action - and India needs to be forceful in its actions - not relenting, not giving up until South Asia is a peaceful place again.
As you say we have suffered for 60 years due to terrorism and we need to end it. I am not advocating war but killing all terrorists. India has no interest in Pakistan and has no use for it if we occupy it. I was just highlighting the capacity of our Army not advocating marching to Islamabad. All we need to do is get back POK into our control and eliminate the Terrorists there, revoke article 370 and assimilate Kashmir and kashmiris into rest of India and vice versa.
Listen as some one who has lost a cousin in Kargil and an uncle in 71 war and with 3 cousins still serving in the force , I know the pain of war closer than you might think. Thats why I want to end it once and for all. Do you know, a Jawan is killed due to COLD in siachen glazier every week and this is a place we dont have to put our boys on through the winter, but we do just because if we dont Pak will occupy our post come Summer.
We need to kill terrorists and let modren pakistanis to gain control of the country, until this is done this problem will not go away for India or the US or anyone else.
I hope thats your bravado speaking. Otherwise what you have stated is mostly inaccurate. Much as I would like to see Pakistan walloped for supporting the jehadi pigs, what war could potentially escalate into is far scarier than 200 people killed in Mumbai. It could mean the deaths of hundreds (or many times that) people - both Indian and Pakistani. That casualty number is not acceptable given that we've been absorbing thousands of losses in the last 50 years...scratch that - even in the last 20 years. IMHO Kargil was a bigger event than Mumbai than this since they had the b*lls to waltz onto Indian territory.
Strategically, India has no advantage pushing on to Islamabad (which is why we didn't in the wars earlier). Logistics will not support an invasion - primarily because the local population will not support it. And then it means killing thousands of non army personnel to hold on to territory and sustaining the same kind of losses. ('71 push to Dhaka was a contrast because the local population was supportive of India's/ Muktibahini push)
Nukes - for the delivery mechanism it doesn't need to be accurate - it just needs to get close and explode above or around the target. If it explodes in the air there are fewer casualties than if it were to land on the ground - then the massive fallout would be even more catastrophic. Anti-missile shield? Wow - but no way are they going to be effective. 4 minutes of flying time from Pak to India for an aircraft - its hard intercepting aircraft (which are far slower than missiles the last time i checked).. you need to research a little more before speaking up. And none of India's or for that matter Pakistans missiles have been war-proven (remember Murphys law - yes that will creep in here also)
Yes - India can wipe out terror camps; wipe out the PAF/ Pakistan army etc. But what is the strategic advantage? An economic setback of 20 years? No buffer between Afghanistan, and the hardcore mullahs west of Pakistan (most Pakis outside of the ISI are liberal Islamists). Also, the US will be more concerned about the Afghan border and will step up international pressure on India to let Pakistan be - worse - it could take an offensive posture against India as in '71 (like everyone else US cares about its interests first)
Pakistan is that spoilt younger sibling to India that keeps making noise to get whatever it wants. Now the time has come when even they know they've gone too far. And its A**kicking time - but not militarily. A tough stance from India and the rest of from the rest of the world will work also. Tough love, baby!
India's interests are best served by getting ISI branded a terror organization, Pakistan a terror state and by de-linking Kashmir with the whole terror issue since most of the terrorists are non locals anyway (because Pakis want the focus on Kashmir). Repeal article 370 so that Kashmiri Pandits are assisted in returning to Kashmir along with other Indians (whatever religion so wants to). Rebuild Kashmir economically. Help liberal Pakis rebuild their country - and with a better economy, maybe good sense will prevail in that failed state.
Strength is not always an action of force. Strength is sometimes force of action - and India needs to be forceful in its actions - not relenting, not giving up until South Asia is a peaceful place again.
more...
xyzgc
12-22 11:35 PM
Muslims have a very proud history (along with issues like most religions/races). Lets hope the people on all sides tone down the rheotric and live and let live
Hindus also have a history and we are proud of it.
Despite all the agressions by the barbaric islamic hordes, Hinduism has not only survived, it has actually flourished.
We are proud of the fact that we didn't attack other countries and pillage other lands.
Hindus also have a history and we are proud of it.
Despite all the agressions by the barbaric islamic hordes, Hinduism has not only survived, it has actually flourished.
We are proud of the fact that we didn't attack other countries and pillage other lands.
hair tattoo heart attack grill menu
file485
07-08 09:24 AM
Please post URL of this file. Thanks!
googled it and found the link..it might be helpful to many folks..
http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
googled it and found the link..it might be helpful to many folks..
http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
more...
spicy_guy
09-19 07:53 PM
hi
they are taking social security, medicare taxes. while we are not getting any benefit out of it. they must stop taking social. they are taking this taxes based on that they will give us permanent status. now they have delayed process near to impossible for EB-3.
Intent of social security and medicare is to support social security benefits, but when they are not granting any of this benefit they should stop taking it from us or should make green card processing faster.
they should clarify this situation since they are taking money from us.
hetal shah
hetalvn@yahoo.com
You will reap the benefits when you retire. Not now
they are taking social security, medicare taxes. while we are not getting any benefit out of it. they must stop taking social. they are taking this taxes based on that they will give us permanent status. now they have delayed process near to impossible for EB-3.
Intent of social security and medicare is to support social security benefits, but when they are not granting any of this benefit they should stop taking it from us or should make green card processing faster.
they should clarify this situation since they are taking money from us.
hetal shah
hetalvn@yahoo.com
You will reap the benefits when you retire. Not now
hot Heart Attack Grill Video
sledge_hammer
06-05 04:49 PM
Your leverage is $270,000 in this investment, and you pay 5% interest on it which is tax deductible. You don't suppose one can borrow 270Gs to invest in, per my example, S&P 500 to get 10% annually? Of course the you are able to borrow that much on a home is because it is considered relatively a safe debt for the lender. That can't be said for stocks.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
EDIT:
Remember, every payment I make, I also include the principal payment, so I am closer to owning more of my home as time passes.
>> But going with the spirit of my original post, in the long run, the equity you build (15K/yr) will far out weigh the yearly savings you get by renting.
You are right in 90% of cases - where people will otherwise spend the money and not save it.
If you have a mortgage - you are "forced" to save because the monthly amortization automatically builds equity. If you are renting - you are not "forced" to save that amount - and hence would probably be spent (in my case) in a gaming machine with I7 processor (which has NO long term value).
However, in the hypothetical 10% scenario (in case of immigrants, specially Indians, my gut feel is that it is significantly more than 10%) - where the amount is saved in some sort of investment vehicle instead of being frittered away - you would come out ahead in the long term.
How/where else will you earn $15,000 (equity) per year by spending $13,500 (interest).
EDIT:
Remember, every payment I make, I also include the principal payment, so I am closer to owning more of my home as time passes.
>> But going with the spirit of my original post, in the long run, the equity you build (15K/yr) will far out weigh the yearly savings you get by renting.
You are right in 90% of cases - where people will otherwise spend the money and not save it.
If you have a mortgage - you are "forced" to save because the monthly amortization automatically builds equity. If you are renting - you are not "forced" to save that amount - and hence would probably be spent (in my case) in a gaming machine with I7 processor (which has NO long term value).
However, in the hypothetical 10% scenario (in case of immigrants, specially Indians, my gut feel is that it is significantly more than 10%) - where the amount is saved in some sort of investment vehicle instead of being frittered away - you would come out ahead in the long term.
more...
house The Heart Attack Grill,
dontcareanymore
08-05 02:16 PM
Good points, but let me put a counter argument. Two people , one is named SunnySurya and the other is named Mr XYZ. Both came to the USA at the same time in 1999. The difference was SunnySurya came here for his masters and the other guy came here through shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
And let me add another twist to the story.
The Guy with Masters degree is working with a desi sweatshop and convinced his masters (No pun) to file for Eb2 even though his job duties were just dish out code like a high school grad can do. On the other hand there was another guy who was in US for a decade , gone though masters degree and got a very good job in a very good company. He was eligible for EB2 but his only mistake was to not force the company to file a EB2 case or even worse his lawyer makes a mistake and files under Eb3 even though the job he was in and he are qualified as Eb2. The company wants to make amends now by filing a EB2 case and first MS guy (sweatshop guy) wants him to start again and wait for another decade.
The kicker : The sweat shop labor guy works in the same company as contractor and reports to the second guy and in the same reporting chain, just two levels below him.
How about another story :
Both guys go to the same engg school back home. One guy passed with distinction and got a job immediately in a respectable company immediately. Other guy takes two additional years to finish the degree , but his dad was rich enough to send him to the US to complete the MS and now he thinks he is smarter than every one else and needs a special place in the queue.
You can come up with 100s of stories if not more. Therefore you can't generalize. Just don't think all those who filed under EB2 first are with MS and smarter than others and all those who are Eb3 are here by shady means.
Mr XYZ was able to file his green card in 2002 in EB3 category based on his shady arrangements with his employer, whereas Mr SunnySurya continued to do right and socially acceptable things i.e. studied, got a job and then after several years this big company filled his green card in EB2 category in 2006.
On the other hand after strugling for several years Mr. XYZ has collected enough years on his resume to be elligible for EB2. Now he want to port his PD
SunnySurya's PD is 2006 and Mr. XYZ PD is 2002. Now if Mr. XYZ want to stand in EB2 line, I wonder what problems SunnySurya can have???:confused:
And let me add another twist to the story.
The Guy with Masters degree is working with a desi sweatshop and convinced his masters (No pun) to file for Eb2 even though his job duties were just dish out code like a high school grad can do. On the other hand there was another guy who was in US for a decade , gone though masters degree and got a very good job in a very good company. He was eligible for EB2 but his only mistake was to not force the company to file a EB2 case or even worse his lawyer makes a mistake and files under Eb3 even though the job he was in and he are qualified as Eb2. The company wants to make amends now by filing a EB2 case and first MS guy (sweatshop guy) wants him to start again and wait for another decade.
The kicker : The sweat shop labor guy works in the same company as contractor and reports to the second guy and in the same reporting chain, just two levels below him.
How about another story :
Both guys go to the same engg school back home. One guy passed with distinction and got a job immediately in a respectable company immediately. Other guy takes two additional years to finish the degree , but his dad was rich enough to send him to the US to complete the MS and now he thinks he is smarter than every one else and needs a special place in the queue.
You can come up with 100s of stories if not more. Therefore you can't generalize. Just don't think all those who filed under EB2 first are with MS and smarter than others and all those who are Eb3 are here by shady means.
tattoo Heart Attack Grill opens in
xlr8r
04-09 08:35 AM
What can we do to deep-six this bill?
Need direction here!
Need direction here!
more...
pictures Heart Attack Grill Menu: Heart
psam
07-13 05:57 PM
I have seen these arguments too many times. I have seen STEM vs non-STEM argue over fairness. Maths vs MBA. Now its EB-3 vs EB-2.
At a high level, we all are for skill based legal immigration. Lets work towards that broader goal.
At a high level, we all are for skill based legal immigration. Lets work towards that broader goal.
dresses The Heart Attack Grill- In
puddonhead
06-26 01:48 PM
If you spend the rest of your life renting, the risk is 100%�you end up with nothing. I will take my chances investing my money in buying a home because its certainly better than losing 100%.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
more...
makeup wallpaper Heart Attack Grill
NKR
03-25 04:11 PM
not as easy as you say.
when you actually sell - you need to get it cleaned - empty and it stays on th block for sometime. about parents - your remark again would be different for different people.
would you be able to care for yr parents more if you are renting or if you own a house with big bills ?? with renting, you can leave at a day or 2 days notice !! with house - not so easy ! . with renting you can probably stay there for a longer time - if u have a house maybe not. This is another big reason I chose to rent even though someone in India is taking care of the elders. GC matters here too - maybe u can take longer vacations if u have GC and a house. but on EAD --renting seems to be the way :-).
as for kids - till the age of 5 - 6, apt and house does not really make much difference for kids ..they just need a place to jump / spoil walls / have friends and play in park / school.
ofcourse the foreclosures and firesale deals may change things - hey if you can get a house for half its cost and if you have the guts / courage to go through the whole thing ..then why not. people need to be careful too ..if people are still staying in the house ...it is a nightmare to remove them...bank repos or thru agents would be safer
Nobody said it is easy mate. If you are paranoid and want to be safe and prepare for the worst case (like getting fired or your 485 getting rejected) then don�t buy a house. It is a long haul and no one knows when his/her PD would become current. By the time one gets GC, the kids would have grown up and missed their childhood. Read my previous 3 posts. My suggestion was for the person who started this thread and for his situation only. I know each and every person�s situation is different. Like I said if I was in CA, probably I would be renting too.
when you actually sell - you need to get it cleaned - empty and it stays on th block for sometime. about parents - your remark again would be different for different people.
would you be able to care for yr parents more if you are renting or if you own a house with big bills ?? with renting, you can leave at a day or 2 days notice !! with house - not so easy ! . with renting you can probably stay there for a longer time - if u have a house maybe not. This is another big reason I chose to rent even though someone in India is taking care of the elders. GC matters here too - maybe u can take longer vacations if u have GC and a house. but on EAD --renting seems to be the way :-).
as for kids - till the age of 5 - 6, apt and house does not really make much difference for kids ..they just need a place to jump / spoil walls / have friends and play in park / school.
ofcourse the foreclosures and firesale deals may change things - hey if you can get a house for half its cost and if you have the guts / courage to go through the whole thing ..then why not. people need to be careful too ..if people are still staying in the house ...it is a nightmare to remove them...bank repos or thru agents would be safer
Nobody said it is easy mate. If you are paranoid and want to be safe and prepare for the worst case (like getting fired or your 485 getting rejected) then don�t buy a house. It is a long haul and no one knows when his/her PD would become current. By the time one gets GC, the kids would have grown up and missed their childhood. Read my previous 3 posts. My suggestion was for the person who started this thread and for his situation only. I know each and every person�s situation is different. Like I said if I was in CA, probably I would be renting too.
girlfriend for the Heart Attack Grill
logiclife
12-26 04:40 PM
What Channel?
hairstyles Heart Attack Grill Menu
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.
aadimanav
07-13 05:17 PM
Aadimanav, mirage and pani_6, do you guys wanna run with this?
Or any other volunteers?
Come up with a draft and then share with rest of us.
I have drafted a Petition (Version 1).
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262309#post262309
Or any other volunteers?
Come up with a draft and then share with rest of us.
I have drafted a Petition (Version 1).
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262309#post262309
kedrex
12-27 04:48 PM
I myself am originally from Mumbai so please dont doubt the deep sense of outrage that I feel. But amid all this talk about going to war, here are a few things to ponder
1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover
2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option
3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........
4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.
5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army
6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees
I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus
Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.
1. Think about how long it takes to construct a single runway of an airport. In the developed countries, it takes about 2-3 years, for India safe to say 5-6 years. One of Paki's first responses would be take out entire airports not just runways. Can you imagine how long it would take us to recover
2. Why should India kill Pak when it is killing itself every day. At this rate, just imagine how long this country will last. Sitting back and being a spectator could just about be the best option
3. If we are outraged by 200 civilians/police/NSG dying, do we really have the stomach to absorb 1000s, lakhs ........
4. Talking of "surgical strikes" - surgical strikes on what? Even the dumbest terrorist knows that its probably not a good idea to be in a terror camp right now.
5. Do we really want to unite all those crazy Punjabis, Balochis, Taliban and the Paki army
6. Ok, what about assassinating Kayani. Wonderful, we have destroyed the last institution in Paki land. Get ready to welcome millions of refugees
I know I know that I am not coming up with any good course of action, just pointing out the flaws in the rest of them. But thats all my layman's strategic vision gives me. Maybe with just 1/100th the cost of war, we can improve our border/maritime security and also our intelligence apparatus
Personally, I think war is going to happen. I just wish people even remotely understand what it is that they are asking for.