qasleuth
03-23 05:23 PM
Got it. So, if OP does not provide contracts, sends in his reply and if his 485 app gets denied saying all the docs asked in the 'novel RFE' were not provided, then he can 'apply' under 245(k) ?
Two different things -
Legal Status to be shown from last entry for I-485 approval under 245(k). Actually the out of status days could be as much as 180 calendar days. However, USCIS can ask any information to verify any data on Form G-325a (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-325a.pdf) (Biographic Information). One of the important info is Employment History.
Two different things -
Legal Status to be shown from last entry for I-485 approval under 245(k). Actually the out of status days could be as much as 180 calendar days. However, USCIS can ask any information to verify any data on Form G-325a (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/g-325a.pdf) (Biographic Information). One of the important info is Employment History.
wallpaper emma watson rupert grint
rockstart
07-14 08:28 AM
In the letter Phani mentions DOL asked companies to file EB3 instead of EB2 because of slow economy in 2001-2002. Is there any official communication regarding this? According to my understanding of the process and rules. It is job requirement that drives the labor category (EB2 or EB3). Most jobs require bachelors degree with some experience and hence are classified as EB3. There are other jobs that need more skills ( according to employer and endorsed by DOL) which also demand little more salary. These get qualified as EB2 and then there are speacialist jobs that require very highly qualified people which are EB1. Its employers responsiblity to convince the DOL in labor and I140 stage that he needs a guy for a specialist job (EB2) and that he can afford to pay the candidate. Whether economy is slow or Fast if as an employer I have the money to pay the candidate and I have a need for his skills I can file and definately get my EB2 approved. I think what happened in 2001 was since economy was slow and companies were not doing great financially the lawyers must have cautioned the employers against filing EB2 since DOL could audit it and if comapnies are not doing good they might not be able to justify the Eb2 salaries. That is my guess please correct me if I am wrong. DOL will never advice companies to file EB2 or EB3 their job is to validate the job requirement A2P and Candidates qualifications.
senthil1
07-14 05:36 PM
If you go with any campaign without the support of any organisation or without any legal basis you are going to fail. Not only that if you go without IV support but at the same time use IV forum that will certainly impact the unity of IV and that will may have impact on survival of IV in future. I think Core IV Group is in fix in this issue and whatever they tell someone will be unhappy.
If law tells something and DOS violates that then certainly there is a valid point. If DOS follows law and law is unfair then you need to try changing the law. If you go to DOS simply they will tell we followed the law. If you find viloation of law then you may get some support.
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
If law tells something and DOS violates that then certainly there is a valid point. If DOS follows law and law is unfair then you need to try changing the law. If you go to DOS simply they will tell we followed the law. If you find viloation of law then you may get some support.
I definitely feel that EB3 should go ahead with this campaign. there has to be some fairness ...if we don't speak up then year after year, the same thing will happen and maybe in 2015, EB3 will get spillover visas. those who are writing against EB3 --tell me this, if a person who has come to US in 2007 and he has applied during the july fiasco ..and if he gets preference over a EB3 person who is still stuck with a PD of 2002 ..would you still say that the system is fair ???
my point is let there be a little spillover ...maybe in a ratio of 2 to 1 ..but a little bit atleast ..is that asking for too much ???
2011 Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint
chintu25
08-08 06:54 PM
Boss: Where were you born ?
Santa: Oye Punjab.
Boss: Which part?
Santa: Oye, Kya which part? Whole body born in Punjab.
Santa: Oye Punjab.
Boss: Which part?
Santa: Oye, Kya which part? Whole body born in Punjab.
more...
cinqsit
03-24 07:03 PM
When I first started to get to know consulatants and staffing companies; I thought that this whole bribe system; creating positions at end clients; how consultants got selected, etc., was a big racket.
However; when I did introspection of how things worked in my industry; I pretty much concluded that it was done in same way but at much, much higher levels.
USCIS is just keeping it pretty simple these days; show us that there is a job with an end client that requires a degree. They pretty much know that it is impossible. Even if you can get one; they pick on it pretty good and still deny it.
The system was actually designed for staffing companies when you think about it. When h-1b was first created; no one would have used it if it wasn't for staffing companies. Typical US companies wouldn't have the network to get foreign employees unless they were already here. To get them from a foreign country then the only companies who can really do so are the staffing companies.
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
I always thought that there are people from around the world who want to come here but can't because they are not part of the "system". You can see this in the greencard lottery. Almost 9 million people apploy to get here through this. If they had their own country people looking to get them here then there would be a more equal distribution of visas.
I think people need to step back and think that this is one of the reasons why they have country quotas. No matter what people think that they re being hired for their skills and that employers don't care about their nationality; people need to understand that a "system" has been designed that is benefitting a few nationalities. Once you can get here then you can find your way. However, if you can't get here then you can't find your way.
Its rather ironic that system created for staffing companies was misused so rampantly that they are the ones bearing the brunt of this onslaught.
So according to your experience are they are always denying applications even when the employee is able to furnish a contract with the end client ? This is indeed surprising and alarming. I am just worried this can spill in to everything that USCIS adjudicates.
on the other hand how do you put an end to this misuse ?
Should'nt they establish a set of guidelines for the employers and employees? So both are aware what they are up against. Looks like its pretty arbritary right now and USCIS indeed playing the "hand of god"
However; when I did introspection of how things worked in my industry; I pretty much concluded that it was done in same way but at much, much higher levels.
USCIS is just keeping it pretty simple these days; show us that there is a job with an end client that requires a degree. They pretty much know that it is impossible. Even if you can get one; they pick on it pretty good and still deny it.
The system was actually designed for staffing companies when you think about it. When h-1b was first created; no one would have used it if it wasn't for staffing companies. Typical US companies wouldn't have the network to get foreign employees unless they were already here. To get them from a foreign country then the only companies who can really do so are the staffing companies.
The main reason that I can't get behind lifting of the country quota is exactly this reason. You have a lot of companies run by the same nationality who will only recruit their own people. The staffing companies don't advertise in Indonesia, Germany, Brazil, etc. They only go after their own people. The whole monopolization of visas was used to prevent this type of behaviour.
I always thought that there are people from around the world who want to come here but can't because they are not part of the "system". You can see this in the greencard lottery. Almost 9 million people apploy to get here through this. If they had their own country people looking to get them here then there would be a more equal distribution of visas.
I think people need to step back and think that this is one of the reasons why they have country quotas. No matter what people think that they re being hired for their skills and that employers don't care about their nationality; people need to understand that a "system" has been designed that is benefitting a few nationalities. Once you can get here then you can find your way. However, if you can't get here then you can't find your way.
Its rather ironic that system created for staffing companies was misused so rampantly that they are the ones bearing the brunt of this onslaught.
So according to your experience are they are always denying applications even when the employee is able to furnish a contract with the end client ? This is indeed surprising and alarming. I am just worried this can spill in to everything that USCIS adjudicates.
on the other hand how do you put an end to this misuse ?
Should'nt they establish a set of guidelines for the employers and employees? So both are aware what they are up against. Looks like its pretty arbritary right now and USCIS indeed playing the "hand of god"
baala9
08-06 10:43 AM
Okay lets take your example. A & B are graduates with a Bachelors degree (A is a Mechanical and B is Computer Science). A decides to pursue higher study in Mechanical field and B takes up a Software job. After a year they file for B' EB3 at his work, while A is still at school. A joins a software company (His Masters in Mechanical is worth nothing now). EB2 is filed for A just because he has a Masters, B is also eligible for EB2 by that time. Why can't B get a earlier PD? Atleast B got relevant industry experience. How come A is superior than B?
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
In that case A will be eligible only for a EB3 based on the Job requirement.( Since eligibility is based on the Job requirement and not the person's qualification)
Also why should EB2's get the spillover visas from EB1? Do they have a Ph.D? Why can't they allocate spillover visas from EB1 equally between EB2 and EB3?
In that case A will be eligible only for a EB3 based on the Job requirement.( Since eligibility is based on the Job requirement and not the person's qualification)
more...
reedandbamboo
06-07 12:23 PM
I don't know where you can find 5% interest p.a. investment today but for the sake of argument that I found one, I think I can't get the $60k at the end of 10th yr.
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
2010 Emma Watson Kiss Gif. Rupert
spbpsg
03-25 05:50 PM
is there a website/magazine where i can get list of foreclosed properties?
There is no need to pay website or realtor to find forclosed properties. I have bought forclosed property year ago. Here are tips.
Depending on your location go to any realty websites and search for houses based on your conditions (like price, bd rooms etc). There is always a description for house, if one of following line is part of that description then it is forclosed or bank owned (bank owned means a step before forclosure) :
1) ...addition addendum required...
2) ...subject to third-party approval...
3) ...express finance is provided...
U can do many things without using realtor, use realtor only to see property physically and to do your paperwork. Don't forget to ask 2% commision cash back and never sign commitment doc with realtor, always remember as a buyer u r the king in this market.
There is no need to pay website or realtor to find forclosed properties. I have bought forclosed property year ago. Here are tips.
Depending on your location go to any realty websites and search for houses based on your conditions (like price, bd rooms etc). There is always a description for house, if one of following line is part of that description then it is forclosed or bank owned (bank owned means a step before forclosure) :
1) ...addition addendum required...
2) ...subject to third-party approval...
3) ...express finance is provided...
U can do many things without using realtor, use realtor only to see property physically and to do your paperwork. Don't forget to ask 2% commision cash back and never sign commitment doc with realtor, always remember as a buyer u r the king in this market.
more...
Refugee_New
01-06 04:47 PM
WOW!!!
Can you read how much hate you are spewing in your posts? against jews, against hindus...against anyone who disagrees with the mostly wrong opinion you have. Where do you get your information from by the way? I mean the REAL TRUTH?? Have you been to Gaza?
Read Hamas's charter....it is clearly mentioned in there "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"
I am not spewing venom against anyone or any faithful members of other religion.
When you blamed entire muslims and their faith for the actions of few people, i am just showing how people kill muslims unjustly and how this world watch silently.
Why its ok to say Muslims killed Hindus and NOT OK to say Hindus killed Muslims?
Why its ok to say Muslims killed Jews and NOT OK to say Jews killed Muslims???
Can you read how much hate you are spewing in your posts? against jews, against hindus...against anyone who disagrees with the mostly wrong opinion you have. Where do you get your information from by the way? I mean the REAL TRUTH?? Have you been to Gaza?
Read Hamas's charter....it is clearly mentioned in there "calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"
I am not spewing venom against anyone or any faithful members of other religion.
When you blamed entire muslims and their faith for the actions of few people, i am just showing how people kill muslims unjustly and how this world watch silently.
Why its ok to say Muslims killed Hindus and NOT OK to say Hindus killed Muslims?
Why its ok to say Muslims killed Jews and NOT OK to say Jews killed Muslims???
hair Rupert Grint says kissing Emma
Macaca
07-08 09:29 AM
googled it and found the link..it might be helpful to many folks..
http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
This ia an Aug 2001 report. Hope it is current!
Is it authentic if written by lawyers? Thanks
http://www.ilw.com/seminars/august2002_citation2b.pdf
This ia an Aug 2001 report. Hope it is current!
Is it authentic if written by lawyers? Thanks
more...
surabhi
03-25 10:57 AM
That case was decided in 2000 after the h-1b had been filed; denied; appealed; though on layer of court and then finally decided by this court. This is why it is difficult to challenge USCIS; it takes years and years for it to weave though the system.
USCIS could have used this case many years ago; however, vermont service center didn't apply the principles of this case until 2007. Once; senators/congressmen started putting pressure on them to start getting tough.
Although they think there may be gaming of the system; they have to find a legal way to teach people a lessson. This case is what they can legally do to deny h-1b's.
Thanks for the link. Essentially there are 2 issues here
1. Proving that Employee - Employer relationship exists between H1 beneficiary and employer. The ability to hire, pay, supervise and fire should be demonstrated.
In cases where it is denying, USCIS is of opinion that the employer is in contract, manpower agency and their variants.
This is somewhat analogous to similar test done by IRS to establish emploee-employer relationship in case of independent contractors.
Not sure if it would make much difference, but if the petition letter demonstrates that the employer has control over the employee required matters, provide equipment (laptop etc) and that employer is primarily not in manpower business, it may fly.
2. Second issue is about need to bachelors degree and that computer programming is speciality occupation. I think there are clear precedents on this with guidance memos from USCIS agreeing that computer analyst /programmer is indeed a speciality occupation and that bachelors degree is a minimum requirement.
I am unable to attach actual doc on this message because of size limitations. But here is summary quoting from murthy.com
"In a December 22, 2000 memorandum from INS Nebraska Service Center (NSC) Director Terry Way to NSC Adjudications Officers, NSC acknowledges the specialized and complex nature of most Computer Programming positions. The memo describes both Computer Programmers and Programmer Analysts as occupations in transition, meaning that the entry requirements have evolved as described in the above paragraph.
Therefore, NSC will generally consider the position of Computer Programmer to be a specialty occupation. The memo draws a distinction between a position with actual programming duties (programming and analysis, customized design and/or modification of software, resolution of problems) and one that simply involves entering computer code for a non-computer related business.
The requirements in the OOH have evolved from bachelor's degrees being generally required but 2-year degrees being acceptable; to the current situation with bachelor's degrees again being required, while those with 2-year degrees can qualify only for some lower level jobs."
USCIS could have used this case many years ago; however, vermont service center didn't apply the principles of this case until 2007. Once; senators/congressmen started putting pressure on them to start getting tough.
Although they think there may be gaming of the system; they have to find a legal way to teach people a lessson. This case is what they can legally do to deny h-1b's.
Thanks for the link. Essentially there are 2 issues here
1. Proving that Employee - Employer relationship exists between H1 beneficiary and employer. The ability to hire, pay, supervise and fire should be demonstrated.
In cases where it is denying, USCIS is of opinion that the employer is in contract, manpower agency and their variants.
This is somewhat analogous to similar test done by IRS to establish emploee-employer relationship in case of independent contractors.
Not sure if it would make much difference, but if the petition letter demonstrates that the employer has control over the employee required matters, provide equipment (laptop etc) and that employer is primarily not in manpower business, it may fly.
2. Second issue is about need to bachelors degree and that computer programming is speciality occupation. I think there are clear precedents on this with guidance memos from USCIS agreeing that computer analyst /programmer is indeed a speciality occupation and that bachelors degree is a minimum requirement.
I am unable to attach actual doc on this message because of size limitations. But here is summary quoting from murthy.com
"In a December 22, 2000 memorandum from INS Nebraska Service Center (NSC) Director Terry Way to NSC Adjudications Officers, NSC acknowledges the specialized and complex nature of most Computer Programming positions. The memo describes both Computer Programmers and Programmer Analysts as occupations in transition, meaning that the entry requirements have evolved as described in the above paragraph.
Therefore, NSC will generally consider the position of Computer Programmer to be a specialty occupation. The memo draws a distinction between a position with actual programming duties (programming and analysis, customized design and/or modification of software, resolution of problems) and one that simply involves entering computer code for a non-computer related business.
The requirements in the OOH have evolved from bachelor's degrees being generally required but 2-year degrees being acceptable; to the current situation with bachelor's degrees again being required, while those with 2-year degrees can qualify only for some lower level jobs."
hot Rupert Grint, Emma Watson and
hiralal
06-21 08:19 AM
Hello Hiralal,
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
just thought I would add this as a joke :) ..Personally I have always wanted one house on the Moon and one in Mars ..Earth is too crowded and some countries have big problems in giving us plastic cards which are green in color ;) ..I just want to get away from that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a nightmare !!! unless you are bill gates, Tata, Ambani etc etc ..if u have a relative in US in the same location then maybe you can manage but still it is problematic ..on top of it, how do you earn money in say India to pay mortgage in US ??
if my GC (or say residency in any country) is denied, I would not want any immovable property in that place ....break - ins, mntc problems, maintenance etc ..I know there are some agencies which will take care of the property for you but their fees are high. I would rather have my money in liquid form and take it with me (or have the ability to take it with me).
as someone else said ..maybe an option would be to stay back and sell the house (at a loss I guess) ..and risk going out of status (but re-entry would be problematic).
I had a question though ..if GC is denied and EAD is valid for 2 years ..can you stay till EAD expiration date ? (I know u have option of MTR ..but say that is denied too ) ..in other words, how long can you stay after GC is denied
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
just thought I would add this as a joke :) ..Personally I have always wanted one house on the Moon and one in Mars ..Earth is too crowded and some countries have big problems in giving us plastic cards which are green in color ;) ..I just want to get away from that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a nightmare !!! unless you are bill gates, Tata, Ambani etc etc ..if u have a relative in US in the same location then maybe you can manage but still it is problematic ..on top of it, how do you earn money in say India to pay mortgage in US ??
if my GC (or say residency in any country) is denied, I would not want any immovable property in that place ....break - ins, mntc problems, maintenance etc ..I know there are some agencies which will take care of the property for you but their fees are high. I would rather have my money in liquid form and take it with me (or have the ability to take it with me).
as someone else said ..maybe an option would be to stay back and sell the house (at a loss I guess) ..and risk going out of status (but re-entry would be problematic).
I had a question though ..if GC is denied and EAD is valid for 2 years ..can you stay till EAD expiration date ? (I know u have option of MTR ..but say that is denied too ) ..in other words, how long can you stay after GC is denied
more...
house Emma Watson needed to grit her
rajuram
07-15 01:11 AM
EB3 India guys, please send out the letter. We need to get our concerns out there. May be some one will listen. Please send a copy to Zoe Lofergen also.
Only the squeaking wheel gets the oil. Wake up, please. Otherwise we all will be still waiting while the others are getting their citizenship!!!!
Only the squeaking wheel gets the oil. Wake up, please. Otherwise we all will be still waiting while the others are getting their citizenship!!!!
tattoo emma watson kiss rupert grint.
ZeroComplexity
08-05 03:07 PM
Nothing great ever happens by trying to undermine each other. Laws are laws, some fair and some unfair, just deal with it and focus on remedying the whole broken system.
more...
pictures Emma Watson kisses like an
puddonhead
06-05 07:47 PM
>> US does not produce any consumer goods, its all China..if you don't produce you don't sell and if you don't sell you don't make an income, and if you don't make an income you don't pay taxes...plain and simple. So, what do we do, Borrow and spend.. but remember, the interest obligations will grow to suck the dollars away from goods and services that it purchases. (Folks are in China now )
I believe this is oversimplified. You are completely ignoring the value of knowledge properties and innovation.
Lets take the example of Boeing. 20 years down the line - it may decide that manufacturing may make more sense in China and relocate its factory. However, my belief is that it will be very difficult for Boeing to relocate all of its knowledge workers. The low levels ones are easy to relocate. But the key innovators will continue coming from the US education system. The next generation of ceramic or alloy materials to build components will be invented in US 90% of the time (It may be a bold claim - I will substantiate this in more detail later).
If the key innovators/management are in/from US - a lot of the profit of this corporation would stay in the US - either in the form of taxes or return paid to shareholders. In fact, I would argue that the intellectual properties (that US would "own") will be more valuable than the value addition from the grunt work in China/India. So your comment suggesting that US is no longer adding any real value to the world economy is probably misplaced.
Now to my big assumption/comment about the unassailable lead in innovation.
US is unique in that it allowed the best people from all over the world immigrate and let all ideas mingle to create great ones. No other country allowed this. No other country is even in the horizon to be doing that in the next 100 years. There are so many tech workers in Bangalore and so many manufacturers in China - how many latest innovations did you see coming from there? Unless Bangalore/Shanghai becomes the next hub for people all over the world to come in and synthesize ideas - they will never replace the US. I dont see that happening any time soon.
And what happens if the Lou Dobbs types are successful and US goes down the drain? Well - then all of us are well and truely screwed and the economy, its trends etc become meaningless. The world has many major issues to face in the next 100 years - global worming, over population, depleting natural resources etc. If there is no center of innovation any more (like the current US) - then all the calculations we do about economy and all will probably be irrelevant. When you are fighting for survival then economy does not matter - your next bowl of rice does.
I believe this is oversimplified. You are completely ignoring the value of knowledge properties and innovation.
Lets take the example of Boeing. 20 years down the line - it may decide that manufacturing may make more sense in China and relocate its factory. However, my belief is that it will be very difficult for Boeing to relocate all of its knowledge workers. The low levels ones are easy to relocate. But the key innovators will continue coming from the US education system. The next generation of ceramic or alloy materials to build components will be invented in US 90% of the time (It may be a bold claim - I will substantiate this in more detail later).
If the key innovators/management are in/from US - a lot of the profit of this corporation would stay in the US - either in the form of taxes or return paid to shareholders. In fact, I would argue that the intellectual properties (that US would "own") will be more valuable than the value addition from the grunt work in China/India. So your comment suggesting that US is no longer adding any real value to the world economy is probably misplaced.
Now to my big assumption/comment about the unassailable lead in innovation.
US is unique in that it allowed the best people from all over the world immigrate and let all ideas mingle to create great ones. No other country allowed this. No other country is even in the horizon to be doing that in the next 100 years. There are so many tech workers in Bangalore and so many manufacturers in China - how many latest innovations did you see coming from there? Unless Bangalore/Shanghai becomes the next hub for people all over the world to come in and synthesize ideas - they will never replace the US. I dont see that happening any time soon.
And what happens if the Lou Dobbs types are successful and US goes down the drain? Well - then all of us are well and truely screwed and the economy, its trends etc become meaningless. The world has many major issues to face in the next 100 years - global worming, over population, depleting natural resources etc. If there is no center of innovation any more (like the current US) - then all the calculations we do about economy and all will probably be irrelevant. When you are fighting for survival then economy does not matter - your next bowl of rice does.
dresses house wallpaper Emma Watson,
gcisadawg
12-27 01:02 AM
So, if ISI is behind Bombay, I struggle to understand what it would gain from provoking India.
The 'machinery''s motives I can understand. They are being pursued by Pakistan army and NATO forces, and by provoking India and starting a conflict on the eastern border, they would divert Pakistan army and get some relief. Plus, the more chaos in Pakistan, the better it is for them.
Look at this way...
Obama is planning to increase troops in Afghanistan. US is now doing cross-border attacks in pakistan. When he increases the troop level, it would only increase further hitting the core soverignity of pakistan.
The supercop is completely preoccupied in transition with the messiah of hope taking oath on jan 20th. It would need few weeks for him to settle down.
Pakistan is fractured with ISI's own trained militants causing havoc in Balochistan and NWFP. They are militants from Punjab and POK who are helping the tribes and Taliban. Taliban is hiding for the past 7 years and only the last two year have seen such a tremendous increase in attacks.
Without Punjab militant's expertise (with kashmir on-the-job training) , it is impossible for Taliban to regroup in a way they have re-grouped.
As a result, Military is forced to act on Tribes/taliban/punjab militants to support the war on terror and to satisfy USA.
The Key questions are
a> Who asked Punjab militants to go and create havoc in NWFP/Balochistan/Afghan border? Is it Military or ISI or lying low for a while when taking peace with India ( but using their expertise somewhere else)
It attracted US's attention and just forces Pak Military to do more and more..
With this Mumbai attack, what the ISI supported militants expected is a war between India and Pakistan. Military sees an escape route too.
When a war breaks out,
Tension on the Western border comes down to a nought. Taliban, Tribes, Punjab Militants, ISI and the military are ALL on the same side and India is the enemy. US would be a spectator. It unites the nation of Pakistan like nothing else.
It reduces the pressure on the military. Military can wash from its hands the responsbility of being the ally in 'war on terror'
A weak central govt in India with a totally angry Indian population wanting 'something' need to be done to stop this.
A fuse that can easily go off...A baloon that can easily burst..My point is India can be very easily provoked at this stage.
US took revenge in Afghanistan for 09/11. It initiated a war of choice in Iraq. It allowed Israel to pummel Lebanon while preaching 'war on terror'. US can not prevent India from doing a war if needed.
Dude, we have seen Mumbai, we have seen parliament attack, we have seen Ashkardam all in broad day light in addition
to many hit and run operations. How many more the world want us to tolerate? Buddha and Gandhi may have born in india but does the world expect us to tolerate attacks after attacks after attacks?
I generally dont try to be emotional. But I saw this live on TV while I was waiting in the airport to board my flight
from India to US and it impacted me profoundly. Man, "Enough is enough"...
Peace,
G
The 'machinery''s motives I can understand. They are being pursued by Pakistan army and NATO forces, and by provoking India and starting a conflict on the eastern border, they would divert Pakistan army and get some relief. Plus, the more chaos in Pakistan, the better it is for them.
Look at this way...
Obama is planning to increase troops in Afghanistan. US is now doing cross-border attacks in pakistan. When he increases the troop level, it would only increase further hitting the core soverignity of pakistan.
The supercop is completely preoccupied in transition with the messiah of hope taking oath on jan 20th. It would need few weeks for him to settle down.
Pakistan is fractured with ISI's own trained militants causing havoc in Balochistan and NWFP. They are militants from Punjab and POK who are helping the tribes and Taliban. Taliban is hiding for the past 7 years and only the last two year have seen such a tremendous increase in attacks.
Without Punjab militant's expertise (with kashmir on-the-job training) , it is impossible for Taliban to regroup in a way they have re-grouped.
As a result, Military is forced to act on Tribes/taliban/punjab militants to support the war on terror and to satisfy USA.
The Key questions are
a> Who asked Punjab militants to go and create havoc in NWFP/Balochistan/Afghan border? Is it Military or ISI or lying low for a while when taking peace with India ( but using their expertise somewhere else)
It attracted US's attention and just forces Pak Military to do more and more..
With this Mumbai attack, what the ISI supported militants expected is a war between India and Pakistan. Military sees an escape route too.
When a war breaks out,
Tension on the Western border comes down to a nought. Taliban, Tribes, Punjab Militants, ISI and the military are ALL on the same side and India is the enemy. US would be a spectator. It unites the nation of Pakistan like nothing else.
It reduces the pressure on the military. Military can wash from its hands the responsbility of being the ally in 'war on terror'
A weak central govt in India with a totally angry Indian population wanting 'something' need to be done to stop this.
A fuse that can easily go off...A baloon that can easily burst..My point is India can be very easily provoked at this stage.
US took revenge in Afghanistan for 09/11. It initiated a war of choice in Iraq. It allowed Israel to pummel Lebanon while preaching 'war on terror'. US can not prevent India from doing a war if needed.
Dude, we have seen Mumbai, we have seen parliament attack, we have seen Ashkardam all in broad day light in addition
to many hit and run operations. How many more the world want us to tolerate? Buddha and Gandhi may have born in india but does the world expect us to tolerate attacks after attacks after attacks?
I generally dont try to be emotional. But I saw this live on TV while I was waiting in the airport to board my flight
from India to US and it impacted me profoundly. Man, "Enough is enough"...
Peace,
G
more...
makeup Rupert Grint Is Worried About
chanduv23
04-13 01:40 PM
It is not illegal to work on percentage basis. But if employer-employee relationship is now followed the way it should be followed by law then there are issues. For example, you are not in the same medical plans as employees or your work insurance is not covered (or you are not invited in annual christmas party for employees - just kidding). Specially, labor approval procedure has heavy dependency on prevailing wages and salary offered. In percentage basis there is no salary offered. Think about it.
There is a gray area here. You can believe it is legal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is illegal. The certifying officer may believe that it is illegal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is legal.
From what I understand, employers ready to pay all these benefits if employee decides to be salaried, but will not give employee control over the billing.
In my case, I never take per diem, but I do find projects on my own and control over how much I must get and employer adjusts payroll accordingly because I marketed myself and also work hard at the client and get projects extended due to performance which benefits the employer, I also help employer with inhouse work. My wife has excellent benefits covered so I don't bother to take any benefits from my employer other than the money.
Anyone can be paid a fixed consulting fee, just not h1b. You can find US citizens working for hourly pay because they don't need benefits as they may get through spouse.
As long as you declare income and pay taxes, this is not a grey area.
Once again, anti immigrants can make this also an issue as for them everything with H1b seems to be an issue.
There is a gray area here. You can believe it is legal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is illegal. The certifying officer may believe that it is illegal because it is nowhere mentioned that it is legal.
From what I understand, employers ready to pay all these benefits if employee decides to be salaried, but will not give employee control over the billing.
In my case, I never take per diem, but I do find projects on my own and control over how much I must get and employer adjusts payroll accordingly because I marketed myself and also work hard at the client and get projects extended due to performance which benefits the employer, I also help employer with inhouse work. My wife has excellent benefits covered so I don't bother to take any benefits from my employer other than the money.
Anyone can be paid a fixed consulting fee, just not h1b. You can find US citizens working for hourly pay because they don't need benefits as they may get through spouse.
As long as you declare income and pay taxes, this is not a grey area.
Once again, anti immigrants can make this also an issue as for them everything with H1b seems to be an issue.
girlfriend Emma Watson Announces Break
abracadabra102
12-30 09:48 AM
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
1600 was the time Britishers set foot in US and India. You are right that the actual consolidation of power (in India) started around 1750s in India. At the same time, the actual American revolution started in 1775 and is over effectively by 1781 when George Washington's army defeated Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. (This Cornwallis bloke returned to UK with his tail between his legs and was appointed as Governor General of India and he was very successful there. As usual we made a tiger out of a mouse :-) ). After Sepoy revolt of 1857, we had to whine for a good 90 years for our independence. Americans started it in 1775/76 and is over by 1783, in just 8 years. Before 1775/76, Americans were willing subjects of British crown, but Indians were not.
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
1600 was the time Britishers set foot in US and India. You are right that the actual consolidation of power (in India) started around 1750s in India. At the same time, the actual American revolution started in 1775 and is over effectively by 1781 when George Washington's army defeated Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. (This Cornwallis bloke returned to UK with his tail between his legs and was appointed as Governor General of India and he was very successful there. As usual we made a tiger out of a mouse :-) ). After Sepoy revolt of 1857, we had to whine for a good 90 years for our independence. Americans started it in 1775/76 and is over by 1783, in just 8 years. Before 1775/76, Americans were willing subjects of British crown, but Indians were not.
hairstyles Emma Watson on kissing Rupert
Macaca
06-20 02:11 PM
Learning From Microsoft's Error, Google Builds a Lobbying Engine (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061902058.html) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/) Washington Post Staff Writer, June 20, 2007
When it comes to lobbying, Google does not intend to repeat the mistake that its rival Microsoft made a decade ago.
Microsoft was so disdainful of the federal government back then that it had almost no presence in Washington. Largely because of that neglect, the company was blindsided by a government antitrust lawsuit that cost it dearly.
Mindful of that history, Google is rapidly building a substantial presence in Washington and using that firepower against Microsoft, among others.
Google is reaching beyond Washington, as well. To publicize its policy positions and develop grass-roots support, the company introduced the Google Public Policy Blog (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/) this week.
"We're seeking to do public policy advocacy in a Googley way," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs. "We want our users to be part of the effort."
In its first major policy assault on a competitor, Google's Washington office helped write an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department and other government authorities asserting that Microsoft's new Vista operating system discriminates against Google software. Last night, under a compromise with federal and state regulators, Microsoft agreed to make changes to Vista's operations.
Google credits Microsoft's missteps in the 1990s with helping it see the wisdom of setting up shop in Washington in a big way and using the many tools available in the capital, such as lobbying and lawyering, to get its way on major policy matters.
"The entire tech industry has learned from Microsoft," said Alan B. Davidson, head of Google's Washington office. "Washington and its policy debates are important. We can't ignore them."
Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Davidson, then a 37-year-old former deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was the search-engine company's sole staff lobbyist in Washington. As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress.
To change that, Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here -- more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office -- and is continuing to add people.
Its in-house talent includes such veteran government insiders as communications director Robert Boorstin, a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser in the Clinton White House, and Jamie Brown, a White House lobbyist under President Bush.
Google has also hired some heavyweight outside help to lobby, including the Podesta Group, led by Democrat Anthony T. Podesta, and the law firm King & Spalding, led by former Republican senators Daniel R. Coats (Ind.) and Connie Mack (Fla.). To help steer through regulatory approvals in its proposed acquisition of DoubleClick, an online advertising company, Google recently retained the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
"We've had to grow quickly because our company has grown so fast and the issues that impact the Internet have come into greater focus in recent years," Davidson said.
Google's path is not unlike the one eventually taken by Microsoft, which was essentially represented in Washington for a long time by a single lobbyist. For a couple of embarrassing years in the mid-1990s, Microsoft's primary lobbying presence was "Jack and his Jeep" -- Jack Krumholz, the software giant's lone in-house lobbyist, who drove a Jeep Grand Cherokee to lobbying visits.
But after the Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit in 1998, Microsoft under Krumholz began what was then considered the largest government-affairs makeover in corporate history. The company now has one of the most dominating, multifaceted, and sophisticated influence machines around -- one that spends tens of millions a year. Microsoft has 23 people working out of its government affairs office in Washington; 16 are lobbyists.
Google is not that big. But it is set to move from temporary space on Pennsylvania Avenue NW to new and larger digs on New York Avenue NW. The suite will include a large meeting area where the company plans to hold seminars about the Internet and high-tech issues.
To make friends on Capitol Hill, Google plans to initiate Google 101, a series of tutorials for congressional aides that will teach them how to use Google's search engine better and faster. The aides will learn, for example, how to do simple math by writing numbers in the proper order on Google's search line.
Google has gotten serious about Washington's money game. The company established a political action committee last year and raised $57,220. For the next election, the PAC already has nearly half that amount on hand and company executives expect its political donations to soar.
Google is also attracting attention in the presidential campaign. It is co-sponsoring two candidate debates (one Democratic and one Republican) and has already hosted four presidential contenders at its California headquarters: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Google executives are parading through Washington with some frequency and being well-received, thanks to the advance work of their capital-based staff. In just the past few weeks, Google executives testified to Congress on such issues as immigration (Google wants more highly educated immigrants to work in the United States) and the future of video (Google owns YouTube, the popular video Web site).
The company has peppered the Federal Communications Commission with recommendations on how to handle a major upcoming auction of telecommunications spectrum. Google Washington's Richard S. Whitt, a former head of regulatory affairs at MCI, helped write those suggestions, which the company hopes will enhance people's ability to access the Internet -- and Google.
As for the company's future in Washington, "I expect we will grow in all dimensions," Davidson said. "We're not finished yet."
When it comes to lobbying, Google does not intend to repeat the mistake that its rival Microsoft made a decade ago.
Microsoft was so disdainful of the federal government back then that it had almost no presence in Washington. Largely because of that neglect, the company was blindsided by a government antitrust lawsuit that cost it dearly.
Mindful of that history, Google is rapidly building a substantial presence in Washington and using that firepower against Microsoft, among others.
Google is reaching beyond Washington, as well. To publicize its policy positions and develop grass-roots support, the company introduced the Google Public Policy Blog (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/) this week.
"We're seeking to do public policy advocacy in a Googley way," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs. "We want our users to be part of the effort."
In its first major policy assault on a competitor, Google's Washington office helped write an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department and other government authorities asserting that Microsoft's new Vista operating system discriminates against Google software. Last night, under a compromise with federal and state regulators, Microsoft agreed to make changes to Vista's operations.
Google credits Microsoft's missteps in the 1990s with helping it see the wisdom of setting up shop in Washington in a big way and using the many tools available in the capital, such as lobbying and lawyering, to get its way on major policy matters.
"The entire tech industry has learned from Microsoft," said Alan B. Davidson, head of Google's Washington office. "Washington and its policy debates are important. We can't ignore them."
Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Davidson, then a 37-year-old former deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was the search-engine company's sole staff lobbyist in Washington. As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress.
To change that, Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here -- more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office -- and is continuing to add people.
Its in-house talent includes such veteran government insiders as communications director Robert Boorstin, a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser in the Clinton White House, and Jamie Brown, a White House lobbyist under President Bush.
Google has also hired some heavyweight outside help to lobby, including the Podesta Group, led by Democrat Anthony T. Podesta, and the law firm King & Spalding, led by former Republican senators Daniel R. Coats (Ind.) and Connie Mack (Fla.). To help steer through regulatory approvals in its proposed acquisition of DoubleClick, an online advertising company, Google recently retained the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
"We've had to grow quickly because our company has grown so fast and the issues that impact the Internet have come into greater focus in recent years," Davidson said.
Google's path is not unlike the one eventually taken by Microsoft, which was essentially represented in Washington for a long time by a single lobbyist. For a couple of embarrassing years in the mid-1990s, Microsoft's primary lobbying presence was "Jack and his Jeep" -- Jack Krumholz, the software giant's lone in-house lobbyist, who drove a Jeep Grand Cherokee to lobbying visits.
But after the Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit in 1998, Microsoft under Krumholz began what was then considered the largest government-affairs makeover in corporate history. The company now has one of the most dominating, multifaceted, and sophisticated influence machines around -- one that spends tens of millions a year. Microsoft has 23 people working out of its government affairs office in Washington; 16 are lobbyists.
Google is not that big. But it is set to move from temporary space on Pennsylvania Avenue NW to new and larger digs on New York Avenue NW. The suite will include a large meeting area where the company plans to hold seminars about the Internet and high-tech issues.
To make friends on Capitol Hill, Google plans to initiate Google 101, a series of tutorials for congressional aides that will teach them how to use Google's search engine better and faster. The aides will learn, for example, how to do simple math by writing numbers in the proper order on Google's search line.
Google has gotten serious about Washington's money game. The company established a political action committee last year and raised $57,220. For the next election, the PAC already has nearly half that amount on hand and company executives expect its political donations to soar.
Google is also attracting attention in the presidential campaign. It is co-sponsoring two candidate debates (one Democratic and one Republican) and has already hosted four presidential contenders at its California headquarters: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Google executives are parading through Washington with some frequency and being well-received, thanks to the advance work of their capital-based staff. In just the past few weeks, Google executives testified to Congress on such issues as immigration (Google wants more highly educated immigrants to work in the United States) and the future of video (Google owns YouTube, the popular video Web site).
The company has peppered the Federal Communications Commission with recommendations on how to handle a major upcoming auction of telecommunications spectrum. Google Washington's Richard S. Whitt, a former head of regulatory affairs at MCI, helped write those suggestions, which the company hopes will enhance people's ability to access the Internet -- and Google.
As for the company's future in Washington, "I expect we will grow in all dimensions," Davidson said. "We're not finished yet."
Macaca
05-16 05:52 PM
China�s recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that China�s strategy seems to be working much better than America�s. Washington has made basically no progress in pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitions�like controlling the entire South China Sea�that threaten the interests of America�s allies. For its part, China�s Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as China�s economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to America�s position in Asia.
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals.
China�s rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijing�s buildup has begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in America�s favor, and, in certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijing�s ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washington�s threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called �anti-access� capabilities to deter or defeat American efforts to project power into East Asia. People�s Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the other principal platform for America�s long-range power projection.
If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and then being left alone to face its wrath.
When he first took office, Barack Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited. Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course. Instead of playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on balancing China�s regional power. For example, the president�s November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing.
This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic �happy talk� that has for too long distorted public discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response�developing and deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter China�s anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing�will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one that cannot be ignored or wished away.
To be sure, China�s continuing rise is not inevitable. Unfavorable demographic trends and the costs of environmental degradation are likely to depress the country�s growth curve in the years ahead. And this is to say nothing of the possible disruptive effects of inflation, bursting real-estate bubbles, and a shaky financial system. So it is certainly possible that the challenge posed by China will fizzle on its own.
But if you look at the history of relations between rising and dominant powers, and where they have led, what you find is not reassuring. In one important instance, the United States and Great Britain at the turn of the twentieth century, the nascent rivalry between the two countries was resolved peacefully. But in other cases�Germany and Britain in the run-up to World War I, Japan and the United States in the 1930s, and the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II�rivalry led to arms races and wars, either hot or cold. What saved the United States and Britain from such a clash was in part the similarity of their political systems. What made conflict likely in the latter scenarios were sharp differences in ideology. And so, unless China undergoes a fundamental transformation in the character of its regime, there is good reason to worry about where its rivalry with the United States will lead.
Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University and the author of the forthcoming book A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia
Dr. K�s Rx for China (http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/dr-k-s-rx-for-china.html) By Niall Ferguson | Newsweek
The China Challenge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576315223305697158.html) By Henry Kissinger | Wall Street Journal
Henry Kissinger on China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/books/review/book-review-on-china-by-henry-kissinger.html) By MAX FRANKEL | New York Times
Modest U.S.-China progress (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110514a1.html) The Japan Times Editorial
U.S.-China's Knotty but Necessary Ties (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-chinas-knotty-but-necessary-ties/p24973) By John Pomfret | Council on Foreign Relations
Do Americans hold �simple� ideas about China's economy? (http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/05/12/do-americans-hold-%E2%80%9Csimple%E2%80%9D-ideas-about-china%E2%80%99s-economy/) By Michael Schuman | The Curious Capitalist
Macaca
02-17 02:14 PM
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Lobbying_vrd.htm) establishes criteria for determining when an organization or firm should register their employees as lobbyists. Lobbyists register with the Senate Office of Public Records (SOPR (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/opr.htm)). SOPR receives, processes, and maintains for public inspection records filed with the Secretary of the Senate (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/secretary_of_senate.htm) involving the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the Federal Election Campaign Act (http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.shtml), the Ethics in Government Act, the Mutual Security Act, and the Senate Code of Official Conduct. The office has many other responsibilities in addition to their lobbyist registration duties.
Resources
Lobby Filing Disclosure Program (http://sopr.senate.gov/)
HOW TO USE THE PROGRAM (http://sopr.senate.gov/help.htm)
Example: Find amount paid by IV
Go to Senate Office of Public Records (http://sopr.senate.gov)
Click on Access the US Lobby Report Images for All Years (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=0)
Highlight Client Name and then click on button Go
Type Immigration Voice in client name field and then click on button Go
Click on Immigration Voice Corporation (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&CLI=IMMIGRATION%20VOICE%20CORPORATION&CLIQUAL==)
The 3 links are
QGA registered IV as client (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_gifviewer.exe?/2006/E/000/078/000078315|2)
Mid-Year Report (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_gifviewer.exe?/2006/EH/000/141/000141275|3) (Jan 1- Jun 30)
Year-End Report (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_gifviewer.exe?/2007/E/000/034/000034084|2) (July 1 - Dec 31)
Follow above steps for anti-immigration organizations (FAIR (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&CLI=FEDERATION%20FOR%20AMERICAN%20IMMIGRATION%20RE FORM&CLIQUAL==), NumbersUSA (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3), ...) House (http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/index.html)
Lobbying Spending Database (http://www.crp.org/lobbyists/index.asp)
Resources
Lobby Filing Disclosure Program (http://sopr.senate.gov/)
HOW TO USE THE PROGRAM (http://sopr.senate.gov/help.htm)
Example: Find amount paid by IV
Go to Senate Office of Public Records (http://sopr.senate.gov)
Click on Access the US Lobby Report Images for All Years (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=0)
Highlight Client Name and then click on button Go
Type Immigration Voice in client name field and then click on button Go
Click on Immigration Voice Corporation (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&CLI=IMMIGRATION%20VOICE%20CORPORATION&CLIQUAL==)
The 3 links are
QGA registered IV as client (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_gifviewer.exe?/2006/E/000/078/000078315|2)
Mid-Year Report (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_gifviewer.exe?/2006/EH/000/141/000141275|3) (Jan 1- Jun 30)
Year-End Report (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/opr_gifviewer.exe?/2007/E/000/034/000034084|2) (July 1 - Dec 31)
Follow above steps for anti-immigration organizations (FAIR (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&CLI=FEDERATION%20FOR%20AMERICAN%20IMMIGRATION%20RE FORM&CLIQUAL==), NumbersUSA (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3), ...) House (http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/index.html)
Lobbying Spending Database (http://www.crp.org/lobbyists/index.asp)
No comments:
Post a Comment