nogc_noproblem
08-07 01:05 PM
If you can figure out what these words have in common...
...., you are a lot smarter than I am. And no, it isn't 6 letters in each word; you need a little more moxey than that.
Banana
Dresser
Grammar
Potato
Revive
Uneven
Assess
Are you peeking or have you already given up? Give it another try.... You'll kick yourself when you discover the answer.
Go back and look at them again; think hard. OK... Here you go. Hope you didn't cheat.
Answer: In all of the words listed, if you take the first letter, place it at the end of the word, and then spell the word backwards, it will be the same word.
...., you are a lot smarter than I am. And no, it isn't 6 letters in each word; you need a little more moxey than that.
Banana
Dresser
Grammar
Potato
Revive
Uneven
Assess
Are you peeking or have you already given up? Give it another try.... You'll kick yourself when you discover the answer.
Go back and look at them again; think hard. OK... Here you go. Hope you didn't cheat.
Answer: In all of the words listed, if you take the first letter, place it at the end of the word, and then spell the word backwards, it will be the same word.
wallpaper charlie sheen winning
Macaca
12-20 08:47 AM
Resolve To End Hyper-Partisanship (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/resolve_to_end_hyperpartisansh.html) By Mort Kondracke | Roll Call, December 20, 2007
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
sk2006
06-12 12:11 AM
This is for sharing and suggesting your views, ( :)who are not opposing for buying a home now or in the near future and those who are staying at Bay Area, CA or similar places in US) where the medium home price is still looks like quite unaffordable :
for example, in Bay Area, CA - places which has good school districts and neighbourhoods like Cupertino, Fremont, Redwood shores etc., (please add other good places also...) - the medium home price of a new independant home (anywhere from 1500 to 3000 sq.feet) will be atleast in the price range of $700000 - 2+ Millions.
Other options are :
1) Moving to the outskirts, around 40 or 50+ miles - places like San Ramon, Gilroy etc. (remember commute will be too hectic...). In these places also, the above mentioned homes will cost $450000 and up.
2) Go with an old condo/town home (in Bay Area, usually an old house is 25+ years YOUNG!!!) and after 5+ years look for an old independant home and after another 5+ years, move to your dream home. (I don't know whether we, most of us who are in the GC mess might be in 35 and above age group, have any juice left to do so rather than try to settle down within a couple of years. And one more thing, are these places really worth for spending this much for houses? (I know its a personal choice and lot of factors come in to play...)
3) Move to a more affordable place so that even if there are some hick ups in career or other ups and downs in life, it won't affect the mortage payment (considering ones personal interests and other factors like employment opportunities, climate, diversed community etc etc.) - places like Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, Atlanta etc. (feel free to add other cities also).
Please comment/share your thoughts (I am agreeing there may be slight variation in above price ranges) and really sorry if we discussed this in any other threads....
Thanks,
B+ve
I am in SF Bay area.
I would say WAIT and prices will become affordable here as well.
People who bought these 700K+ houses were not necessarily richer than you and me.
ARMs with low or zero down payments did the trick.
Save for the down payment and wait. You will get a good house at affordable price in 1-2 years.
for example, in Bay Area, CA - places which has good school districts and neighbourhoods like Cupertino, Fremont, Redwood shores etc., (please add other good places also...) - the medium home price of a new independant home (anywhere from 1500 to 3000 sq.feet) will be atleast in the price range of $700000 - 2+ Millions.
Other options are :
1) Moving to the outskirts, around 40 or 50+ miles - places like San Ramon, Gilroy etc. (remember commute will be too hectic...). In these places also, the above mentioned homes will cost $450000 and up.
2) Go with an old condo/town home (in Bay Area, usually an old house is 25+ years YOUNG!!!) and after 5+ years look for an old independant home and after another 5+ years, move to your dream home. (I don't know whether we, most of us who are in the GC mess might be in 35 and above age group, have any juice left to do so rather than try to settle down within a couple of years. And one more thing, are these places really worth for spending this much for houses? (I know its a personal choice and lot of factors come in to play...)
3) Move to a more affordable place so that even if there are some hick ups in career or other ups and downs in life, it won't affect the mortage payment (considering ones personal interests and other factors like employment opportunities, climate, diversed community etc etc.) - places like Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, Atlanta etc. (feel free to add other cities also).
Please comment/share your thoughts (I am agreeing there may be slight variation in above price ranges) and really sorry if we discussed this in any other threads....
Thanks,
B+ve
I am in SF Bay area.
I would say WAIT and prices will become affordable here as well.
People who bought these 700K+ houses were not necessarily richer than you and me.
ARMs with low or zero down payments did the trick.
Save for the down payment and wait. You will get a good house at affordable price in 1-2 years.
2011 Troubled actor, Charlie Sheen,
senthil1
04-07 12:05 PM
Will 115k enough by seeing 133k applications in one day? If 115k is reached we will ask unlimited. So there should be some system to see whether those115k H1b is used properly. Employers should not wait till october and they should get people when they require. If most of the H1b quota is used by bodyshoppers where will top US companies get?
How do you find H1 quota to be "unlimited"? And how is this bill going to prevent "unlimited numbers" that did not exist in the first place? I thought S.2611 and HR1645 propose to increase H1 quota to 115K, from the existing 65K H1b/yr. Does this increase make H1 quota "unlimited". I am ignorant about it, could you please help me understand.
How do you find H1 quota to be "unlimited"? And how is this bill going to prevent "unlimited numbers" that did not exist in the first place? I thought S.2611 and HR1645 propose to increase H1 quota to 115K, from the existing 65K H1b/yr. Does this increase make H1 quota "unlimited". I am ignorant about it, could you please help me understand.
more...
dtekkedil
10-02 10:46 PM
I have always been a supporter of Democrats. Because I believe in their philosophy. If I were a citizen, I probably would have even joined the Democratic party.
However, the past two years have opened my eyes - There is one major difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are bullies and manage to get away with anything because they stand together. Where as Democrats can't even collectively make a decision on what color shoes to wear - every Democrat has a personal agenda that is more important to them than the good of the country or even the party.
I truly believe that George W Bush did not win the first election and he did not win the second one either... the Democrats lost it!
The Republicans may put the wealthy and big corporations ahead of us common folks but they can achieve more than the Democrats and perhaps some of that may trickle down to the rest of us. The Democrats on the other hand will be busy squabbling and nothing will get done.
So, even if Obama wants to fix immigration or be sympathetic to our cause, there will definitely be others like Sen. Durbin who will attempt to stop him. In the end, four years down the line, we will be hoping for the next President to help our cause.
I have been in this country for over 10 years and I am still waiting for a Green Card. I love this country and there is no other place on Earth that I want to settle down. However, there comes a point when I have to ask myself if this wait in limbo is worth it.
Is all this really worth it? Not being able to settle down; not being able to make plans for the future. Worrying everyday if the company that I work for will have a bad quarter and have to let me go? Worrying about when I will have to pack up my things from this country and start fresh in some other place? Will I have to live with all this stress for another five or six years only to be told that my Green Card cannot be approved? Where will I go? Can I go back to India? Will I be able to cope with the culture there anymore? Can it be my HOME anymore?
I am sure the same thoughts have gone through many of your minds.
I have always believed that I should be more than what I am. How can I do that when I can't even be what I am. There are so many things I want to do. I am a man of science and I have ideas that could probably change the world tomorrow. But I can't even do my PhD. It is not because I am not smart enough, it is because I have started my Green card process and I cant go back to being a full time student because I need an F-1 visa... which I am not eligible for because I have started my Green card process!
What I am trying to say is that we are paying too high a price for a Green Card, there is only one life, it is short and you don't get second chances. So, for those who have just started this Green Card process, my advice to you is; Don't let the Green Card carrot steal your life away from you. You still haven't invested many years of your lives, cut your losses and run!
The last time I came back from India, the first and overwhelming thought I had when I stepped out of the airplane was "I'm Home!". That is when I realized that I am not an Indian anymore, I am an American; at least in my mind! But I cannot let my life pass me by while I wait for a Green Card; not anymore! I am in the process of applying for an Australian PR and will also be applying for a Canadian PR. It is not that I do not want to live in the US anymore - it is just that I cant afford to live here much longer in this situation. The emotional and physical cost is far too high. America has become my home but living here is costing me my life.
Sorry for rambling on... but my point is that while my heart wants Obama to win (I truly believe he will make a GREAT president) my head tells me that McCain should win. Because, the chances of our issues being solved or even for the good of this country, it is better to have a Republican President and a Republican congress!
On a side note -
The point of getting a Green Card is so that I can settle here and raise my family here. But really, is there a future here anymore? Social Security will be non-existent by the time I retire, medical insurance is probably the biggest scam ever, and all jobs will be outsourced to other countries soon. So, will the US remain such a great country 40 years down the line?
A country can remain great only if men with vision guide it. Over 50 years ago President Eisenhower and his colleagues had the vision to implement the Interstate system. They saw what things will be like 40 - 50 years down the line and prepared for it. Today, the politicians in Washington just think about the next election and that is where the downfall of America begins. It is not Bin Laden who can destroy America, it is leaders without vision or love for the country; Leaders who worry more about elections than making the tough but correct decisions.
Be it Obama or McCain, this country is unfortunately in a situation where the next President will make or break America. I hope it is the former from the bottom of my heart.
I came to this country because it meant life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But today, I realize that I have given up my life, liberty and happiness in pursuit of a Green Card.
However, the past two years have opened my eyes - There is one major difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are bullies and manage to get away with anything because they stand together. Where as Democrats can't even collectively make a decision on what color shoes to wear - every Democrat has a personal agenda that is more important to them than the good of the country or even the party.
I truly believe that George W Bush did not win the first election and he did not win the second one either... the Democrats lost it!
The Republicans may put the wealthy and big corporations ahead of us common folks but they can achieve more than the Democrats and perhaps some of that may trickle down to the rest of us. The Democrats on the other hand will be busy squabbling and nothing will get done.
So, even if Obama wants to fix immigration or be sympathetic to our cause, there will definitely be others like Sen. Durbin who will attempt to stop him. In the end, four years down the line, we will be hoping for the next President to help our cause.
I have been in this country for over 10 years and I am still waiting for a Green Card. I love this country and there is no other place on Earth that I want to settle down. However, there comes a point when I have to ask myself if this wait in limbo is worth it.
Is all this really worth it? Not being able to settle down; not being able to make plans for the future. Worrying everyday if the company that I work for will have a bad quarter and have to let me go? Worrying about when I will have to pack up my things from this country and start fresh in some other place? Will I have to live with all this stress for another five or six years only to be told that my Green Card cannot be approved? Where will I go? Can I go back to India? Will I be able to cope with the culture there anymore? Can it be my HOME anymore?
I am sure the same thoughts have gone through many of your minds.
I have always believed that I should be more than what I am. How can I do that when I can't even be what I am. There are so many things I want to do. I am a man of science and I have ideas that could probably change the world tomorrow. But I can't even do my PhD. It is not because I am not smart enough, it is because I have started my Green card process and I cant go back to being a full time student because I need an F-1 visa... which I am not eligible for because I have started my Green card process!
What I am trying to say is that we are paying too high a price for a Green Card, there is only one life, it is short and you don't get second chances. So, for those who have just started this Green Card process, my advice to you is; Don't let the Green Card carrot steal your life away from you. You still haven't invested many years of your lives, cut your losses and run!
The last time I came back from India, the first and overwhelming thought I had when I stepped out of the airplane was "I'm Home!". That is when I realized that I am not an Indian anymore, I am an American; at least in my mind! But I cannot let my life pass me by while I wait for a Green Card; not anymore! I am in the process of applying for an Australian PR and will also be applying for a Canadian PR. It is not that I do not want to live in the US anymore - it is just that I cant afford to live here much longer in this situation. The emotional and physical cost is far too high. America has become my home but living here is costing me my life.
Sorry for rambling on... but my point is that while my heart wants Obama to win (I truly believe he will make a GREAT president) my head tells me that McCain should win. Because, the chances of our issues being solved or even for the good of this country, it is better to have a Republican President and a Republican congress!
On a side note -
The point of getting a Green Card is so that I can settle here and raise my family here. But really, is there a future here anymore? Social Security will be non-existent by the time I retire, medical insurance is probably the biggest scam ever, and all jobs will be outsourced to other countries soon. So, will the US remain such a great country 40 years down the line?
A country can remain great only if men with vision guide it. Over 50 years ago President Eisenhower and his colleagues had the vision to implement the Interstate system. They saw what things will be like 40 - 50 years down the line and prepared for it. Today, the politicians in Washington just think about the next election and that is where the downfall of America begins. It is not Bin Laden who can destroy America, it is leaders without vision or love for the country; Leaders who worry more about elections than making the tough but correct decisions.
Be it Obama or McCain, this country is unfortunately in a situation where the next President will make or break America. I hope it is the former from the bottom of my heart.
I came to this country because it meant life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But today, I realize that I have given up my life, liberty and happiness in pursuit of a Green Card.
mpadapa
09-30 04:07 PM
If Obama becomes president can he restore the faith of high-skilled immigrant who play by the books and still have to wait for decades to get their Green Card.
After graduating with a Electrical engg degree from a top school in India, I got a job with a world leading semiconductor company. I first came to USA almost 12 years ago on a business trip as part of a multinational chip design effort for high end Telecommunication market. I was very impressed with the group of professionals I worked with. I felt the work environment stimulated the creativity in me and brought the best out of me. After the short trip I went back to my home country but that visit left a lasting impression on me and I felt USA would be the place I can further my professional abilities. Couple of years later, I came to USA for my Masters to embark on that journey. Even though I graduated when the US economy was in recession (2001), my unique skill set was much sought after and hence I got a job with a R&D startup division of a popular Japanese company. Working with a great group of professionals brought out the creativity in me. I currently have 10 US patents. The sailing was smooth until I started my Green Card process. The outdated immigration system and the long wait in the limbo state has been impacting my professional and personal life. I am starting to doubt that my American dream is slipping away day by day. I hope if Obama becomes the president he would restore some credibility to my faith in the immigration system. But if Sen. Durbin is driving Obama's immigration policy then I fear even more long waits for high-skilled immigrants because of Sen. Durbin's aggressive stance against H1B's. Mean while I have started to look at immigrant friendly countries like Australia and Canada as my possible future destination. Due to too much headaches with immigration process my Director had decided not to hire any more foreign workers, this decision has crippled our divisions expansion as most of the interested candidates require H1's. All the new projects which otherwise would have started in USA has moved to other places all because of the broken immigration process.
Obama has mentioned many times on the campaign trail that "his education" is the reason why he has risen to where he is now. I feel Obama is a person who values higher education and high-skilled professional and I do have great faith in Obama's skills, I hope he takes a strong stance on the need to reform the high-skilled immigration system.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. The companies started by those immigrants employ thousands of Americans and millions in tax revenue. Then why is America so hostile towards the same high-skilled immigration system which in the long run benefits America. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
Here is the link to the NFAP report which I talked about
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
After graduating with a Electrical engg degree from a top school in India, I got a job with a world leading semiconductor company. I first came to USA almost 12 years ago on a business trip as part of a multinational chip design effort for high end Telecommunication market. I was very impressed with the group of professionals I worked with. I felt the work environment stimulated the creativity in me and brought the best out of me. After the short trip I went back to my home country but that visit left a lasting impression on me and I felt USA would be the place I can further my professional abilities. Couple of years later, I came to USA for my Masters to embark on that journey. Even though I graduated when the US economy was in recession (2001), my unique skill set was much sought after and hence I got a job with a R&D startup division of a popular Japanese company. Working with a great group of professionals brought out the creativity in me. I currently have 10 US patents. The sailing was smooth until I started my Green Card process. The outdated immigration system and the long wait in the limbo state has been impacting my professional and personal life. I am starting to doubt that my American dream is slipping away day by day. I hope if Obama becomes the president he would restore some credibility to my faith in the immigration system. But if Sen. Durbin is driving Obama's immigration policy then I fear even more long waits for high-skilled immigrants because of Sen. Durbin's aggressive stance against H1B's. Mean while I have started to look at immigrant friendly countries like Australia and Canada as my possible future destination. Due to too much headaches with immigration process my Director had decided not to hire any more foreign workers, this decision has crippled our divisions expansion as most of the interested candidates require H1's. All the new projects which otherwise would have started in USA has moved to other places all because of the broken immigration process.
Obama has mentioned many times on the campaign trail that "his education" is the reason why he has risen to where he is now. I feel Obama is a person who values higher education and high-skilled professional and I do have great faith in Obama's skills, I hope he takes a strong stance on the need to reform the high-skilled immigration system.
Many have been looking at the high-skilled immigrants through a narrow pin hole, even Sen Durbin has been swayed by such critics. NFAP report shows that almost 50% of the private venture backed companies started between 1995 and 2005 are founded by immigrants. Guess what Sen. Durbin and high-skilled immigrant critics majority of those immigrants would've taken the route of H1 -> GreenCard -> US citizen. The companies started by those immigrants employ thousands of Americans and millions in tax revenue. Then why is America so hostile towards the same high-skilled immigration system which in the long run benefits America. Why are Sen. Durbin so short sighted on the high-skilled immigration system? Hope Obama can look at the high-skilled immigration system with a long term perspective and persuade his colleagues in Congress to enact a legislation to fix this broken system.
Here is the link to the NFAP report which I talked about
http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/immigrant_entreprenuers_professionals_november_200 6.pdf
more...
DSJ
05-17 02:54 PM
That is my point, being an employee you are not fully working for your company growth. Then don't talk about a consultant is illegal when he don't get paid.
If it is really illegal why are they renew H1 when they can know that somebody is not paid for couple of months. All they want is money, you keep paying, you are safe and legal here.
Your point being? If you think what I am saying is wrong, argue your case please... Case and point: The abusers prevent some honest people from getting a chance. We should all be infuriated by that.
If it is really illegal why are they renew H1 when they can know that somebody is not paid for couple of months. All they want is money, you keep paying, you are safe and legal here.
Your point being? If you think what I am saying is wrong, argue your case please... Case and point: The abusers prevent some honest people from getting a chance. We should all be infuriated by that.
2010 Charlie Sheen Winning Tattoo
senthil1
04-06 09:50 PM
But congress needs to find some solution for H1b mess like applying 150k H1b in one day. If no alternative solution is suggested some part/all part of this bill may be considered. US companies will not be impacted as they are not h1b dependent and they are hiring more than 50% US workers so they may not oppose that much. If Microsoft lobby for 200k H1b but still if they could not get any h1b why will they lobby it? American companies will either ask unlimited H1b or restrictions for bodyshopping so that everyone will get fair share of H1b. Lottery is shame as many deserving candidates will be rejected but many lower grade people may enter there is no merrit in selection of H1b. If IV is opposing this they need to give some solution for H1b mess. Otherwise no point. Also the bill was introduced by both Democrat and Republican. So Whether it is passed or not it is going to be considered
Anti-H1B lobby wants to make the system so difficult that it will be impossible to complete all the requirements. Their strategy is, if they cannot eliminate H-1B program, they will make in non-workable. Also, this bill was in the making for more than two years. They are timing their articles in the press with this bill because of a reason. Don't simply reject it by saying that "this is not going to pass". Taking this bill lightly will be a mistake.
Please inform your friends, colleagues and employer about this very serious problem.
Anti-H1B lobby wants to make the system so difficult that it will be impossible to complete all the requirements. Their strategy is, if they cannot eliminate H-1B program, they will make in non-workable. Also, this bill was in the making for more than two years. They are timing their articles in the press with this bill because of a reason. Don't simply reject it by saying that "this is not going to pass". Taking this bill lightly will be a mistake.
Please inform your friends, colleagues and employer about this very serious problem.
more...
GC_Applicant
04-09 01:05 AM
Thanks for the info. Did you enquire about FHA loans., and how hard or easy it is to get.
hair Jimmy Fallon Charlie Sheen
SunnySurya
12-22 11:28 AM
A supporter of terrorism left a red dot with this message:
"if u r so concerned about india and attacks on india,,,what are u doing in US? U should be in politics in india if u think so bad about the indian politicians,,,go get ur hand dirty in it first then blaim the politicians"
My very simple reply to that person.
---
I am in every right to express the concerns for my country of origin. Of course not blindly. It takes for ever to hang Afzal Guru and almost no concrete repsonse to the bombings in Delhi, Gujrat, Karnataka, Hyedrabad etc etc, which directly affect my freinds and family over there. If it is not politics then what it is.
Finally, if Jews can express their concerns for Israel (which I also support full heartedly and unconditionally) so can we, with the same passion.
"if u r so concerned about india and attacks on india,,,what are u doing in US? U should be in politics in india if u think so bad about the indian politicians,,,go get ur hand dirty in it first then blaim the politicians"
My very simple reply to that person.
---
I am in every right to express the concerns for my country of origin. Of course not blindly. It takes for ever to hang Afzal Guru and almost no concrete repsonse to the bombings in Delhi, Gujrat, Karnataka, Hyedrabad etc etc, which directly affect my freinds and family over there. If it is not politics then what it is.
Finally, if Jews can express their concerns for Israel (which I also support full heartedly and unconditionally) so can we, with the same passion.
more...
bugmenot
09-27 07:05 PM
The immigration issue is controlled by the members of the senate and house, the president has little control over it, Bush has been pro immigration but that wasn't enough for him to get what he wanted, he couldn't even increase the h1b's that he kept publicly talking about.
I doubt a democratic president would do any better.
I doubt a democratic president would do any better.
hot Charlie Sheen is winning,
Macaca
12-29 08:07 PM
Watch Out for Russian Wild Card in Asia-Pacific (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/12/29/watch_out_for_russian_wild_card_in_asia-pacific__99333.html) By John Lee | Australian
Just before we were tucking into Christmas turkey and plum pudding, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met his Indian counterpart Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi to reaffirm what the Russian leader called a "privileged partnership" between the two countries.
By contrast, Australia sees little role for Moscow in the future Asian balance of power, where the former superpower was mentioned in passing only twice in the 2009 defence white paper.
But other countries are not making the same mistake.
If India is the "swing state" in Asia's future balance of power, as a prominent CIA 2005 report put it, New Delhi is well aware that Russia remains the wild card in the region.
Medvedev and Singh signed more than 20 agreements ranging from agreements to supply India with natural gas, reaffirming a commitment for a third Indian nuclear power plant to be built by Russian engineers, and the signing of a contract for the joint development of between 250-300 fifth generation fighter aircraft.
Over the next 15 years, it is estimated that every second overseas nuclear reactor built by the Russians will be in India, while New Delhi could be the destination for more than half of all Russian arms exports in the next five years.
It is no surprise that Russia is pulling out all the stops to court India.
After all, its two main exports - energy and arms - are exactly what India needs.
There is a long economic and strategic history of partnership between the two countries that began in the 1950s when the former Soviet Union and India became allies.
But just as Moscow sees new opportunities in a rising India, New Delhi still sees value in a declining Russia.
The problem for Russia is not just the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and a patchy commitment to economic reform after the Boris Yeltsin era, but a declining population.
Russia has experienced periods of dramatic population decline before, from 1917-23, 1933-34 and 1941-46.
Since 1992, and despite the absence of famine or war, Russian deaths have exceeded births by a staggering 13 million.
With 141 million people now, numbers could be as low as 120 million by 2030.
Nevertheless, there are strong reasons to believe that Russia can play the wildcard role in Asia's future balance of power.
First, the common wisdom that Russia is moving closer to China in order to counterbalance America and its European and Asian allies and partners is incorrect, meaning that the Russian wild card is still very much in play.
While Russia is preoccupied with regaining its influence in parts of eastern Europe, Moscow is also warily watching China's unauthorised movements into Siberia and the Far East.
Beijing is about six times closer to the port city of Vladivostok than is Moscow, which has very weak administrative control over its eastern territories.
Already, an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 Chinese nationals have illegally settled in these oil, gas and timber-rich areas.
Beijing is also tempted by Siberia's freshwater supply, given that China already has severe shortages throughout the country.
The Russian Far East is inhabited by only six million people, while the three provinces in northeast China have about 110 million Chinese inhabitants. By 2020, more than 100 million Chinese will live less than 100km to the south of these Russian territories, whose population will then number between five million and 10 million.
As Medvedev recently admitted, if Russia does not secure its presence in the Far East, it could eventually "lose everything" to the Chinese.
The point is that Russia will have as much reason to balance against China's rise as encouraging it. As the godfather of geopolitics, Nicholas Spykman, put it, the key is to control the Rimland (Western, Southern and Eastern) Eurasia.
A small handful of long-sighted strategists in Washington, Tokyo, Moscow and New Delhi see potential for a grand alliance of convenience that can effectively constrain Chinese influence in Central, South and East Asia. How Russia plays its strategic cards in this context will go a long way in shaping Eurasia.
That Russia may choose to tilt the balance against China in the future is also backed by diverging world views of these two countries.
Should China continue its rise, Washington, Tokyo, New Delhi and Moscow will seek a favourable multipolar balance of power in Asia, even if it remains under American leadership.
By contrast, China sees the coming regional and world order as a bipolar one defined by US-China competition, with powers such as the EU countries, Japan, India and Russia relegated to the second tier, something that is very difficult for a proud "Asian" power such as Russia to accept.
Second, a declining Russia retains significant national and institutional strengths. For example, Russia will remain a legitimate nuclear military power with a large and pre-existing nuclear arsenal. It is also a genuine energy superpower and a global leader in advanced weaponry technologies.
These factors all but guarantee Moscow a prominent position in the future strategic-military balance.
Furthermore, Russia will retain its veto as a permanent member of the Security Council.
Given the difficulty of reforming the council, Moscow will continue to exercise a disproportionate influence through the UN, even if it continues to decline as a country.
Finally, Russia has that indefinable quality of seeing itself as a natural great power. This all adds up to Russia remaining a big player in Asia, with significant ability to influence, disrupt and complicate the plans of other great powers, even if it can no longer be dominant.
New Delhi and Beijing believe that Moscow is well position to remain Asia's wild card.
Australia should prepare for this as well.
John Lee is a foreign policy fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC.
Just before we were tucking into Christmas turkey and plum pudding, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met his Indian counterpart Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi to reaffirm what the Russian leader called a "privileged partnership" between the two countries.
By contrast, Australia sees little role for Moscow in the future Asian balance of power, where the former superpower was mentioned in passing only twice in the 2009 defence white paper.
But other countries are not making the same mistake.
If India is the "swing state" in Asia's future balance of power, as a prominent CIA 2005 report put it, New Delhi is well aware that Russia remains the wild card in the region.
Medvedev and Singh signed more than 20 agreements ranging from agreements to supply India with natural gas, reaffirming a commitment for a third Indian nuclear power plant to be built by Russian engineers, and the signing of a contract for the joint development of between 250-300 fifth generation fighter aircraft.
Over the next 15 years, it is estimated that every second overseas nuclear reactor built by the Russians will be in India, while New Delhi could be the destination for more than half of all Russian arms exports in the next five years.
It is no surprise that Russia is pulling out all the stops to court India.
After all, its two main exports - energy and arms - are exactly what India needs.
There is a long economic and strategic history of partnership between the two countries that began in the 1950s when the former Soviet Union and India became allies.
But just as Moscow sees new opportunities in a rising India, New Delhi still sees value in a declining Russia.
The problem for Russia is not just the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and a patchy commitment to economic reform after the Boris Yeltsin era, but a declining population.
Russia has experienced periods of dramatic population decline before, from 1917-23, 1933-34 and 1941-46.
Since 1992, and despite the absence of famine or war, Russian deaths have exceeded births by a staggering 13 million.
With 141 million people now, numbers could be as low as 120 million by 2030.
Nevertheless, there are strong reasons to believe that Russia can play the wildcard role in Asia's future balance of power.
First, the common wisdom that Russia is moving closer to China in order to counterbalance America and its European and Asian allies and partners is incorrect, meaning that the Russian wild card is still very much in play.
While Russia is preoccupied with regaining its influence in parts of eastern Europe, Moscow is also warily watching China's unauthorised movements into Siberia and the Far East.
Beijing is about six times closer to the port city of Vladivostok than is Moscow, which has very weak administrative control over its eastern territories.
Already, an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 Chinese nationals have illegally settled in these oil, gas and timber-rich areas.
Beijing is also tempted by Siberia's freshwater supply, given that China already has severe shortages throughout the country.
The Russian Far East is inhabited by only six million people, while the three provinces in northeast China have about 110 million Chinese inhabitants. By 2020, more than 100 million Chinese will live less than 100km to the south of these Russian territories, whose population will then number between five million and 10 million.
As Medvedev recently admitted, if Russia does not secure its presence in the Far East, it could eventually "lose everything" to the Chinese.
The point is that Russia will have as much reason to balance against China's rise as encouraging it. As the godfather of geopolitics, Nicholas Spykman, put it, the key is to control the Rimland (Western, Southern and Eastern) Eurasia.
A small handful of long-sighted strategists in Washington, Tokyo, Moscow and New Delhi see potential for a grand alliance of convenience that can effectively constrain Chinese influence in Central, South and East Asia. How Russia plays its strategic cards in this context will go a long way in shaping Eurasia.
That Russia may choose to tilt the balance against China in the future is also backed by diverging world views of these two countries.
Should China continue its rise, Washington, Tokyo, New Delhi and Moscow will seek a favourable multipolar balance of power in Asia, even if it remains under American leadership.
By contrast, China sees the coming regional and world order as a bipolar one defined by US-China competition, with powers such as the EU countries, Japan, India and Russia relegated to the second tier, something that is very difficult for a proud "Asian" power such as Russia to accept.
Second, a declining Russia retains significant national and institutional strengths. For example, Russia will remain a legitimate nuclear military power with a large and pre-existing nuclear arsenal. It is also a genuine energy superpower and a global leader in advanced weaponry technologies.
These factors all but guarantee Moscow a prominent position in the future strategic-military balance.
Furthermore, Russia will retain its veto as a permanent member of the Security Council.
Given the difficulty of reforming the council, Moscow will continue to exercise a disproportionate influence through the UN, even if it continues to decline as a country.
Finally, Russia has that indefinable quality of seeing itself as a natural great power. This all adds up to Russia remaining a big player in Asia, with significant ability to influence, disrupt and complicate the plans of other great powers, even if it can no longer be dominant.
New Delhi and Beijing believe that Moscow is well position to remain Asia's wild card.
Australia should prepare for this as well.
John Lee is a foreign policy fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC.
more...
house Charlie Sheen Winning
mrajatish
07-08 10:07 AM
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
1. When you filed I-485, you should file under 245(K) immediately - I believe someone already mentioned that below. For derivative applications, the derivative applicant may be "out of status" for any length without any issues for AOS approval.
2. For the 6 mos period he was without pay check, does he have any proof of employment and correspondingly any letter showing that he was on vacation/leave of absense. I had a 15 day period between 2 jobs where I took time off but had no vacation, hence leave without pay but I have leave letter from my manager in letter-head (I know a lot of people do that as taking vacation between jobs gives them a fresh start).
3. Did the period length where he did not have a pay check exceed 180 days at a stretch?
Bottomline, it seems an overzealous USCIS officer is trying to find ways to deny your application - you should involve a good lawyer and get immediate rebuttal for Notice of Denial.
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
1. When you filed I-485, you should file under 245(K) immediately - I believe someone already mentioned that below. For derivative applications, the derivative applicant may be "out of status" for any length without any issues for AOS approval.
2. For the 6 mos period he was without pay check, does he have any proof of employment and correspondingly any letter showing that he was on vacation/leave of absense. I had a 15 day period between 2 jobs where I took time off but had no vacation, hence leave without pay but I have leave letter from my manager in letter-head (I know a lot of people do that as taking vacation between jobs gives them a fresh start).
3. Did the period length where he did not have a pay check exceed 180 days at a stretch?
Bottomline, it seems an overzealous USCIS officer is trying to find ways to deny your application - you should involve a good lawyer and get immediate rebuttal for Notice of Denial.
tattoo Charlie Sheen - Winning Poster
hpandey
06-26 10:50 AM
LOL. Why dont you throw in Armageddon, Knowing and Deep Impact. Those are also valid points since thats what can happen to the earth tommorow or the day after.
Investment carries risk. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. I have lost money on other investments before, but that is what makes u grow smarter. You fall and you get back up and you know better the next time round.
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%.
:D Good points - ... Mr Hiralal seems to be digging up the worst case scenarios from everywhere in the media and now he has even turned to the movies . I watched Pacific Heights fifteen years back and Hiralal should realize that it was about a psycho and made for entertainment. Not to discourage people to rent .
There are plenty of movies on bigger worst case scenarios like ValidIV mentions above but Hiralal please remember movies are made for entertainment ( except some movies of course ).
Investment carries risk. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. I have lost money on other investments before, but that is what makes u grow smarter. You fall and you get back up and you know better the next time round.
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%.
:D Good points - ... Mr Hiralal seems to be digging up the worst case scenarios from everywhere in the media and now he has even turned to the movies . I watched Pacific Heights fifteen years back and Hiralal should realize that it was about a psycho and made for entertainment. Not to discourage people to rent .
There are plenty of movies on bigger worst case scenarios like ValidIV mentions above but Hiralal please remember movies are made for entertainment ( except some movies of course ).
more...
pictures Charlie Sheen Winning Poster
gimme_GC2006
03-23 02:19 PM
hey buddy are they digging your case just because you worked for the top 5 indian IT and does it start with a "S*****" , just wondering are they digging up all those who worked for them?
well..you hit nail..yes..I initially worked with that company that started with S**..but I changed them after 1 year after coming to US
well..you hit nail..yes..I initially worked with that company that started with S**..but I changed them after 1 year after coming to US
dresses Charlie Sheen Winning
RaviG
07-14 08:42 PM
The way it is working for EB2, it is going to work exactly for EB3.
If this is the case.
Given the high number of ROW EB3 it will never help Indian EB3. so spilling some of EB1 over to EB3 doesn't really help Indian EB3. But this letter could hurt Indian EB2. Now there is hope for lot of Indian EB3 to convert to EB2. That could be lost. I am als one of the converts.
If this is the case.
Given the high number of ROW EB3 it will never help Indian EB3. so spilling some of EB1 over to EB3 doesn't really help Indian EB3. But this letter could hurt Indian EB2. Now there is hope for lot of Indian EB3 to convert to EB2. That could be lost. I am als one of the converts.
more...
makeup Charlie Sheen Winning Ladies T
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
girlfriend Charlie Sheen is hiring an
geesee
06-06 05:01 PM
I agree with above few posts.. I wouldnt recommend buying a house if you are working in technology field.. Most of the companies are sending tech jobs offshore and god forbid if you find yourself in a situation where you dont have a job for couple of months, at least you have an option to pack up and go back to own country... I myself bought a house in 2005, I dont regret the decision, but I would feel much safer otherwise.
hairstyles Charlie Sheen#39;s #39;Winning#39;
Zeb
12-26 11:15 PM
Looks like India is employing a cold start strategy. In the first phase of operations, Indian Air force will strike LeT camps in Muridke and Muzaffarabad and then ask Pakistan to refrain from taking retaliatory action. The onus will be on Pakistan to take the decision regarding further escalation of hostilities.
Interesting to see how Pakistan will respond to such a move.
BUNCH OF IDIOTS WAKE UP. PAKISTAN IS A NUCLEAR STATE.
WAR IS NO SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEM.
Interesting to see how Pakistan will respond to such a move.
BUNCH OF IDIOTS WAKE UP. PAKISTAN IS A NUCLEAR STATE.
WAR IS NO SOLUTION TO ANY PROBLEM.
SunnySurya
08-05 03:00 PM
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Seems to me he started the flood and left....I was going thru this thread, and after couple of pages Rolling_flood seems to have vanished. I think he got what he wanted...a pointless debate. It was funny though to read... :D
Seems to me he started the flood and left....I was going thru this thread, and after couple of pages Rolling_flood seems to have vanished. I think he got what he wanted...a pointless debate. It was funny though to read... :D
jkays94
05-24 02:31 PM
I don't have the time to go one by one, but one of the arguments about "Zogby poll taken by anti-immigration" groups is at minimum comic. How about other polls posted along the years which show the obvious and logic, which is the American people (not employers of course) support lower immigration numbers ? Anyone surprised by that ?
There are over 50 different instances referencing Lou Dobbs. He misleads and misdirects and he will flip flop when he is caught between a rock and a hard place on his wild claims. CNN by extension is fast establishing itself as an anti-immigrant media house for purposes of ratings, on which is it fast loosing ground. Their latest hire Glenn Beck (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605100005) only shows that promoting such an agenda seems to save CNN's ratings from plunging to the bottom :
MON., MAY 22, 2006 VIEWERS
FNC O'REILLY 2,105,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,666,000
FNC GRETA 1,494,000
FNC HUME 1,341,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,215,000
CNN KING 885,000
CNN DOBBS 702,000
CNN BLITZER 592,000
CNN COOPER 590,000
CNN ZAHN 527,000
CNNHN GRACE 487,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 471,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 406,000
There are over 50 different instances referencing Lou Dobbs. He misleads and misdirects and he will flip flop when he is caught between a rock and a hard place on his wild claims. CNN by extension is fast establishing itself as an anti-immigrant media house for purposes of ratings, on which is it fast loosing ground. Their latest hire Glenn Beck (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605100005) only shows that promoting such an agenda seems to save CNN's ratings from plunging to the bottom :
MON., MAY 22, 2006 VIEWERS
FNC O'REILLY 2,105,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,666,000
FNC GRETA 1,494,000
FNC HUME 1,341,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,215,000
CNN KING 885,000
CNN DOBBS 702,000
CNN BLITZER 592,000
CNN COOPER 590,000
CNN ZAHN 527,000
CNNHN GRACE 487,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 471,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 406,000
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário