panky72
08-06 03:17 PM
A stranger was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when the stranger turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.'
The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the stranger, 'What would you like to talk about?'
'Oh, I don't know,' said the stranger. 'How about nuclear power?' and he smiles.
'OK, ' she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass - . Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?'
The stranger, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, 'Hmmm, I have no idea.'
To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know S-H-I-T?:D
The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the stranger, 'What would you like to talk about?'
'Oh, I don't know,' said the stranger. 'How about nuclear power?' and he smiles.
'OK, ' she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass - . Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?'
The stranger, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, 'Hmmm, I have no idea.'
To which the little girl replies, 'Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know S-H-I-T?:D
wallpaper anime boys
Macaca
04-23 08:32 AM
Lobbyists Profit From Power Shift In Congress As Democrats Get Jobs, Republicans Stay On (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201021.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, April 23, 2007
The Democratic takeover of Congress has not only been good business for Democratic lobbyists, but it has also turned into a bipartisan boon: In the four months since the midterm elections, the number of new lobbyist registrations has nearly doubled to 2,232 from 1,222 in the comparable period a year earlier.
"We're having a huge surge in business right now," said David M. Carmen, president of the Carmen Group, a mid-size lobbying shop that has added both Democratic and Republican lobbyists since the elections. "We are up almost 30 percent compared to last year."
"There's more activity than I've seen in a long time," said Rhod Shaw, president of the Alpine Group, a bipartisan lobbying firm that has grown about 10 percent this year.
The main reason for the surge is the need of interest groups and corporations to get access to -- and understand the thinking of -- a new set of Democratic chairmen in Congress and the constituencies that they listen to, such as labor unions, environmentalists and trial lawyers. Hundreds of Democratic lobbyists have been hired for that purpose.
But those doing the hiring have kept most of their GOP help because Republicans, especially in the closely divided Senate, still have key roles in passing or, more often, blocking legislation that corporations care about. For example, Republican lobbyists are working overtime in the Senate to stop bills to reduce Medicare drug prices and cut oil-and-gas drilling subsidies.
Republican lobbyists remain in demand also because the Bush administration continues to churn out regulations that affect businesses.
"Business is going up for the Democrats in our shop," said J. J. Steven Hart, chief executive of Williams & Jensen, a bipartisan lobbying law firm. "But business is going up for Senate Republican lobbyists and Republicans who work with the administration, too." Hart said his business was up 7 to 10 percent over last year.
The increase has its irony: Democrats won their majority in part by attacking Republicans for getting too cozy with influence peddlers.
Lobbying firms raking in the extra dollars have attracted new clients from almost every industry.
Washington's largest lobbying law firm, Patton Boggs, has nearly tripled -- to 75 from 27 a year ago -- the number of clients who have recently hired the firm or have expanded the work they want it to do. "There's an increase in business across the board," said Edward J. Newberry, Patton Boggs's deputy managing partner.
Smaller firms also are getting more business. Revenue at Venn Strategies, a tax lobbying specialist, has increased about 35 percent in the first quarter, compared with the first quarter last year. "It's a very big increase," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal at the firm.
For lobbying shops that employ only Democrats, there has been a gusher of new business. Steven A. Elmendorf, a former Democratic leadership aide in the House, opened his firm in December with one other lobbyist and 10 clients. Today he has 17 clients. Two lobbyists work with him and he is looking to add more. His new clients include Microsoft, Union Pacific and Home Depot.
Another all-Democratic lobbying shop, Glover Park Group, has grown even faster. "It's fair to say that our lobbying revenue has about doubled since the first of the year," partner Joel P. Johnson said. "And the number of accounts has roughly doubled as well."
All-Republican lobbying firms have not enjoyed the same expansion. A few of the smaller ones have lost business, but the largest have not fallen behind.
Fierce Isakowitz & Blalock, which had $4 million in lobbying income last year, is on the same pace this year. "Our business is stable and probably up a little bit from a year ago," said Mark Isakowitz, the firm's president. Most of the companies that had contracts with his firm have stayed and hired Democratic lobbyists separately.
The capital's largest all-Republican lobbying firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, is having a similar experience. O2Diesel, which makes ethanol-diesel fuel, recently hired the firm. "We're trying to get awareness at all levels of government of our product," said Alan Rae, the company's chief executive. "Some issues are not partisan."
And there is even a new all-Republican lobbying firm -- the partnership of two former Republican aides, one from the House and one from the Senate. Ice Miller Strategies opened last month with two clients, including a drug company, and plans to hire a Democrat soon. "There are plenty of issues that share bipartisan support," said Graham Hill, former staff director of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "You need to have both parties engaged to get them passed."
Corporations and trade associations searching for new leaders have hired mostly Democrats. Former representative David McCurdy (D-Okla.), president of the Electronic Industries Alliance, became president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in February. The failed attempt by Republicans to prevent McCurdy from getting his job with the electronics group a dozen years ago was the start of their K Street Project.
Not all the plum association slots are going to Democrats. Steven C. Anderson, a Republican who led the National Restaurant Association, was named president of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores in February.
"Given the political realities right now, a majority of the trade groups and corporations are looking for individuals who have good relationships on the Democratic side, but it's not a complete reversal," said Nels B. Olson of Korn-Ferry International, an executive search firm.
"People want somebody who can work both sides of the political aisle, and they don't want a political lightning rod," said Leslie Hortum, a headhunter at Spencer Stuart.
In a town that is sometimes run by Republicans, sometimes by Democrats and usually by both, "our clients are looking for people who are well respected by both parties and could care less whether they wear an 'R' or a 'D' on their lapel," said Eric Vautour of the search firm Russell Reynolds Associates.
In the meantime, lobbying firms are busy. "Usually at the beginning of a new Congress there's a drop-off in business as the last year's projects end, and later you bring new businesses in," said Shawn H. Smeallie, managing director of the American Continental Group, a mostly Republican lobbying firm. "But this year, for a change, we've increased."
The Democratic takeover of Congress has not only been good business for Democratic lobbyists, but it has also turned into a bipartisan boon: In the four months since the midterm elections, the number of new lobbyist registrations has nearly doubled to 2,232 from 1,222 in the comparable period a year earlier.
"We're having a huge surge in business right now," said David M. Carmen, president of the Carmen Group, a mid-size lobbying shop that has added both Democratic and Republican lobbyists since the elections. "We are up almost 30 percent compared to last year."
"There's more activity than I've seen in a long time," said Rhod Shaw, president of the Alpine Group, a bipartisan lobbying firm that has grown about 10 percent this year.
The main reason for the surge is the need of interest groups and corporations to get access to -- and understand the thinking of -- a new set of Democratic chairmen in Congress and the constituencies that they listen to, such as labor unions, environmentalists and trial lawyers. Hundreds of Democratic lobbyists have been hired for that purpose.
But those doing the hiring have kept most of their GOP help because Republicans, especially in the closely divided Senate, still have key roles in passing or, more often, blocking legislation that corporations care about. For example, Republican lobbyists are working overtime in the Senate to stop bills to reduce Medicare drug prices and cut oil-and-gas drilling subsidies.
Republican lobbyists remain in demand also because the Bush administration continues to churn out regulations that affect businesses.
"Business is going up for the Democrats in our shop," said J. J. Steven Hart, chief executive of Williams & Jensen, a bipartisan lobbying law firm. "But business is going up for Senate Republican lobbyists and Republicans who work with the administration, too." Hart said his business was up 7 to 10 percent over last year.
The increase has its irony: Democrats won their majority in part by attacking Republicans for getting too cozy with influence peddlers.
Lobbying firms raking in the extra dollars have attracted new clients from almost every industry.
Washington's largest lobbying law firm, Patton Boggs, has nearly tripled -- to 75 from 27 a year ago -- the number of clients who have recently hired the firm or have expanded the work they want it to do. "There's an increase in business across the board," said Edward J. Newberry, Patton Boggs's deputy managing partner.
Smaller firms also are getting more business. Revenue at Venn Strategies, a tax lobbying specialist, has increased about 35 percent in the first quarter, compared with the first quarter last year. "It's a very big increase," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal at the firm.
For lobbying shops that employ only Democrats, there has been a gusher of new business. Steven A. Elmendorf, a former Democratic leadership aide in the House, opened his firm in December with one other lobbyist and 10 clients. Today he has 17 clients. Two lobbyists work with him and he is looking to add more. His new clients include Microsoft, Union Pacific and Home Depot.
Another all-Democratic lobbying shop, Glover Park Group, has grown even faster. "It's fair to say that our lobbying revenue has about doubled since the first of the year," partner Joel P. Johnson said. "And the number of accounts has roughly doubled as well."
All-Republican lobbying firms have not enjoyed the same expansion. A few of the smaller ones have lost business, but the largest have not fallen behind.
Fierce Isakowitz & Blalock, which had $4 million in lobbying income last year, is on the same pace this year. "Our business is stable and probably up a little bit from a year ago," said Mark Isakowitz, the firm's president. Most of the companies that had contracts with his firm have stayed and hired Democratic lobbyists separately.
The capital's largest all-Republican lobbying firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, is having a similar experience. O2Diesel, which makes ethanol-diesel fuel, recently hired the firm. "We're trying to get awareness at all levels of government of our product," said Alan Rae, the company's chief executive. "Some issues are not partisan."
And there is even a new all-Republican lobbying firm -- the partnership of two former Republican aides, one from the House and one from the Senate. Ice Miller Strategies opened last month with two clients, including a drug company, and plans to hire a Democrat soon. "There are plenty of issues that share bipartisan support," said Graham Hill, former staff director of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "You need to have both parties engaged to get them passed."
Corporations and trade associations searching for new leaders have hired mostly Democrats. Former representative David McCurdy (D-Okla.), president of the Electronic Industries Alliance, became president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in February. The failed attempt by Republicans to prevent McCurdy from getting his job with the electronics group a dozen years ago was the start of their K Street Project.
Not all the plum association slots are going to Democrats. Steven C. Anderson, a Republican who led the National Restaurant Association, was named president of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores in February.
"Given the political realities right now, a majority of the trade groups and corporations are looking for individuals who have good relationships on the Democratic side, but it's not a complete reversal," said Nels B. Olson of Korn-Ferry International, an executive search firm.
"People want somebody who can work both sides of the political aisle, and they don't want a political lightning rod," said Leslie Hortum, a headhunter at Spencer Stuart.
In a town that is sometimes run by Republicans, sometimes by Democrats and usually by both, "our clients are looking for people who are well respected by both parties and could care less whether they wear an 'R' or a 'D' on their lapel," said Eric Vautour of the search firm Russell Reynolds Associates.
In the meantime, lobbying firms are busy. "Usually at the beginning of a new Congress there's a drop-off in business as the last year's projects end, and later you bring new businesses in," said Shawn H. Smeallie, managing director of the American Continental Group, a mostly Republican lobbying firm. "But this year, for a change, we've increased."
gc28262
12-22 03:08 PM
See me standing there in the video!
http://www.dailypioneer.com/DisplayContent.aspx?ContentID=145268&URLName=Indian-Americans-ask-UN-to-declare-Pak-a-terrorist-state
and
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/india-free-men.html
****
Indian Americans ask UN to declare Pak a terrorist state
************************
SunnySurya,
Weren't you the one who said India should gift kashmir to pakistan to solve all terrorrist activities and war ?
How come you became a patriot and started caring about india all of a sudden ?
Do you have any consistent opinion ?
http://www.dailypioneer.com/DisplayContent.aspx?ContentID=145268&URLName=Indian-Americans-ask-UN-to-declare-Pak-a-terrorist-state
and
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/india-free-men.html
****
Indian Americans ask UN to declare Pak a terrorist state
************************
SunnySurya,
Weren't you the one who said India should gift kashmir to pakistan to solve all terrorrist activities and war ?
How come you became a patriot and started caring about india all of a sudden ?
Do you have any consistent opinion ?
2011 Cute green hair anime boy
sledge_hammer
01-06 01:32 PM
Let me first say that it saddens me deeply to see innocent civilians dying. I pray that the war ends so peace is restored on both sides.
Now coming to your point - there is a BIG difference between what happened in Mumbai and what's happening now in Gaza! The Mumbai attacks were targeted towards civilians directly. Grenades were thrown and shots were fired at people in railway stations, hospitals and hotels. The situation in Gaza is different because war has been declared. And Israel is NOT targetting civilians on purpose. Sure, innocent citizens have been killed, but not a a result of direct and deliberated attacks against them.
The declaration of war is a very important point to note. If Pakistan had declared war against India, and in the process if Indian civilians are killed in the crossfire, then I would not go about complaining the way you are now. If I didn't want implications of war, I would urge my govt. to accept defeat and thus save the lives of its citizens.
Laws of War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
I think we discuss these kind of news in IV. Don't you know that? In the same forum i have heard people saying Isreal is a peace loving nation and they never commit crime.
Look at what is happening now. Can we justify killing innocent kids? Who would kill kids? How evil one should be in order to kill school kids?
How evil this world is, watching these attrocities silently. While pakistani terrorists committed attrocities in India, whole world blamed the entire Muslim communities.
Now where are those peace loving people have gone while Muslims are brutally murdered and innocent kids are brutally killed by missles?
Now coming to your point - there is a BIG difference between what happened in Mumbai and what's happening now in Gaza! The Mumbai attacks were targeted towards civilians directly. Grenades were thrown and shots were fired at people in railway stations, hospitals and hotels. The situation in Gaza is different because war has been declared. And Israel is NOT targetting civilians on purpose. Sure, innocent citizens have been killed, but not a a result of direct and deliberated attacks against them.
The declaration of war is a very important point to note. If Pakistan had declared war against India, and in the process if Indian civilians are killed in the crossfire, then I would not go about complaining the way you are now. If I didn't want implications of war, I would urge my govt. to accept defeat and thus save the lives of its citizens.
Laws of War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
I think we discuss these kind of news in IV. Don't you know that? In the same forum i have heard people saying Isreal is a peace loving nation and they never commit crime.
Look at what is happening now. Can we justify killing innocent kids? Who would kill kids? How evil one should be in order to kill school kids?
How evil this world is, watching these attrocities silently. While pakistani terrorists committed attrocities in India, whole world blamed the entire Muslim communities.
Now where are those peace loving people have gone while Muslims are brutally murdered and innocent kids are brutally killed by missles?
more...
unitednations
08-02 06:58 PM
this is interesting: If I invoke AC21, and get a letter from a new employer, they can still ask me for a letter from old employer saying they intended to hire me?? The fact that they submitted a future employment letter with my 485 and did not revoke the approved I-140 for 6 months not enough to prove that the intent remained at the end of 6 months?
Did the USCIS officer suspect fraud or something? Is there a specific legal basis for this denial? I thought past 6 months there is no dependency on that old employer (future-employment or otherwise) and all depends on your new employer and his employment letter.
People always read what they want to read.
Read the memo and they always mention "intent", "good faith".
USCIS always leaves significant wiggle room for themselves when they want to deny cases.
Did the USCIS officer suspect fraud or something? Is there a specific legal basis for this denial? I thought past 6 months there is no dependency on that old employer (future-employment or otherwise) and all depends on your new employer and his employment letter.
People always read what they want to read.
Read the memo and they always mention "intent", "good faith".
USCIS always leaves significant wiggle room for themselves when they want to deny cases.
unseenguy
06-24 11:51 PM
Why are be debating 3 - 4 years rent vs own? As the subject indicates "long" term prospects of buying a home..we of all the ppl should know the meaning of the word "long" based on our "long" wait for PD (which I think should be renamed to retrogress date because I see nothing priority about it)..the point being lets debate 10 years rent vs own..as against 3-4...I think over a 10 year timeline the buyers would come out ahead of the renters..maybe not in CA but in other states that's quite likely..
coz, next 3-4 years make it special due to immigration status and special status of the economy and you can plan for 5-7 years but whats going to happen after that is beyond anyone.
coz, next 3-4 years make it special due to immigration status and special status of the economy and you can plan for 5-7 years but whats going to happen after that is beyond anyone.
more...
Macaca
05-18 05:15 PM
How the Middle East’s uprisings affect China’s foreign relations (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/17/how-the-middle-east-s-uprisings-affect-china-s-foreign-relations/) By Shi Yinhong | Renmin University of China
The recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East have important consequences for China’s foreign relations.
With Washington becoming increasingly preoccupied with the Middle East, it will have less opportunity to focus on China. At the same time, the return of a US policy aimed at promoting democratisation could have a destabilising effect on Sino–US relations. China might reassess how it shapes its relations with highly repressive regimes, and it will have to take into account that Western countries are now better positioned to push resolutions aimed at intervening in certain types of countries through the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The uprisings run counter to assumptions that the predominant struggle in Middle Eastern politics is between US-backed authoritarian regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, the recent revolts involve a third force — the ‘urban underdogs.’ These popular movements are largely disorganised, have no leaders and are not based on clearly defined ideas. The uprisings are the outcome of poor economic conditions, the authoritarian suppression of fundamental liberties, and the highly corrupt nature of the ruling elite. Situational factors also play a role: the spill over effect from revolts in one country to the next; the availability of modern forms of communication to enable mobilisation; the use of symbolic places for mass gathering (in the case of Tahrir Square in Cairo); overwhelming attention from the West; and the policy inclinations of the US and European governments.
As the Arab world transforms, becoming more tumultuous along the way, Washington will face new dilemmas, and the fight against terror will no longer be overwhelmingly dominant. ‘Pushing democracy’ has returned as a major foreign policy theme in Washington as the uprisings partially restore the West’s self-confidence, battered from the financial crisis.
All of this has major implications for China’s foreign relations. Washington’s deeper involvement in the Middle East is favourable to Beijing, reducing Washington’s ability to place focused attention and pressure on China. But, conversely, the partial return of the push for democracy is not to the benefit of China or stable Sino–US relations. China may need to reconsider its quite amicable relationships with regimes that are repressive, corrupt and have little popular support. Beijing is insufficiently prepared to deal with dramatic political changes in such countries, clearly shown in the past when China’s relations with Iran (1979), Romania (1989) and Serbia (1999) were severely affected. This happened more recently in Zimbabwe, and now also in Egypt and Sudan. Other countries where similar developments could take place are Burma, North Korea and perhaps also Pakistan.
The Middle Eastern turmoil is also relevant to China’s domestic stability. Some activists in and outside China are hoping for a ‘Chinese jasmine revolution.’ Beijing overreacted somewhat, particularly in the early days, by taking strong domestic security precautions despite no signs of widespread activism in China. This may have been the activists’ immediate purpose: to embarrass the Chinese government and to show its lack of self-confidence to the world and the Chinese public. This in turn could make Beijing more hesitant about deepening economic and political reforms.
The uprisings are also affecting China’s international position with regard to the issue of intervention. Beijing probably believed they had no choice other than to allow the UNSC to adopt Resolution 1973, which gave the international community the authority to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. It was clear that the US, France and the UK were resolutely determined to launch a military strike, and certain Arab and African countries supported and even intended to join the intervention. Had Beijing vetoed the resolution, China’s relations with both the West and the Arab countries involved would have been severely strained — and the West would have still launched their attack anyway. This was a hard decision for China: Resolution 1973 could form a dangerous precedent in international law, as previous norms have been revised in favour of armed intervention in a domestic conflict. In the future, the US and its allies might reapply this, potentially to the detriment of China’s interests.
China’s hope for stable Sino–US relations following the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the US in January 2011, and China’s important relationship with Saudi Arabia, had induced Beijing to abstain from using its veto in the UNSC. Moreover, if a similar case does occur in the foreseeable future, it seems rather unlikely that China or Russia would use their veto in order to protect the principle of non-interference. Consequently, the US and its associates in the UNSC might very well see an opportunity to act resolutely in the coming years, with the aim of effecting intervention in other countries, comparable to Libya, a country first of all not allied with them and far distant from them. This is an opportunity that has likely not escaped Washington’s attention.
Shi Yinhong is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing
Ferguson vs. Kissinger on the future of China, and what it means for the rest of us (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/ferguson_vs_kissinger_on_the_future_of_china_and_w hat_it_means_for_the_rest_of_us) By Thomas E. Ricks | Foreign Policy
Getting China Ready to Go Abroad
Companies need to revamp management structures and customer service before they can compete globally. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576328842793701106.html)
By KEVIN TAYLOR | Wall Street Journal
Chinese Spreading Wealth Make Vancouver Homes Pricier Than NYC (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-16/chinese-spreading-wealth-make-vancouver-homes-pricier-than-nyc.html) By Yu and Donville | Bloomberg
China shafts Philippine mines (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME19Ae01.html) By Joel D Adriano | Asia Times
Is This the China that Can't? (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3200&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China's Bold New Plan for Economic Domination (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/chinas-bold-new-plan-for-economic-domination/239041/) By Abraham & Ludlow | The Atlantic
The recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East have important consequences for China’s foreign relations.
With Washington becoming increasingly preoccupied with the Middle East, it will have less opportunity to focus on China. At the same time, the return of a US policy aimed at promoting democratisation could have a destabilising effect on Sino–US relations. China might reassess how it shapes its relations with highly repressive regimes, and it will have to take into account that Western countries are now better positioned to push resolutions aimed at intervening in certain types of countries through the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The uprisings run counter to assumptions that the predominant struggle in Middle Eastern politics is between US-backed authoritarian regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, the recent revolts involve a third force — the ‘urban underdogs.’ These popular movements are largely disorganised, have no leaders and are not based on clearly defined ideas. The uprisings are the outcome of poor economic conditions, the authoritarian suppression of fundamental liberties, and the highly corrupt nature of the ruling elite. Situational factors also play a role: the spill over effect from revolts in one country to the next; the availability of modern forms of communication to enable mobilisation; the use of symbolic places for mass gathering (in the case of Tahrir Square in Cairo); overwhelming attention from the West; and the policy inclinations of the US and European governments.
As the Arab world transforms, becoming more tumultuous along the way, Washington will face new dilemmas, and the fight against terror will no longer be overwhelmingly dominant. ‘Pushing democracy’ has returned as a major foreign policy theme in Washington as the uprisings partially restore the West’s self-confidence, battered from the financial crisis.
All of this has major implications for China’s foreign relations. Washington’s deeper involvement in the Middle East is favourable to Beijing, reducing Washington’s ability to place focused attention and pressure on China. But, conversely, the partial return of the push for democracy is not to the benefit of China or stable Sino–US relations. China may need to reconsider its quite amicable relationships with regimes that are repressive, corrupt and have little popular support. Beijing is insufficiently prepared to deal with dramatic political changes in such countries, clearly shown in the past when China’s relations with Iran (1979), Romania (1989) and Serbia (1999) were severely affected. This happened more recently in Zimbabwe, and now also in Egypt and Sudan. Other countries where similar developments could take place are Burma, North Korea and perhaps also Pakistan.
The Middle Eastern turmoil is also relevant to China’s domestic stability. Some activists in and outside China are hoping for a ‘Chinese jasmine revolution.’ Beijing overreacted somewhat, particularly in the early days, by taking strong domestic security precautions despite no signs of widespread activism in China. This may have been the activists’ immediate purpose: to embarrass the Chinese government and to show its lack of self-confidence to the world and the Chinese public. This in turn could make Beijing more hesitant about deepening economic and political reforms.
The uprisings are also affecting China’s international position with regard to the issue of intervention. Beijing probably believed they had no choice other than to allow the UNSC to adopt Resolution 1973, which gave the international community the authority to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. It was clear that the US, France and the UK were resolutely determined to launch a military strike, and certain Arab and African countries supported and even intended to join the intervention. Had Beijing vetoed the resolution, China’s relations with both the West and the Arab countries involved would have been severely strained — and the West would have still launched their attack anyway. This was a hard decision for China: Resolution 1973 could form a dangerous precedent in international law, as previous norms have been revised in favour of armed intervention in a domestic conflict. In the future, the US and its allies might reapply this, potentially to the detriment of China’s interests.
China’s hope for stable Sino–US relations following the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the US in January 2011, and China’s important relationship with Saudi Arabia, had induced Beijing to abstain from using its veto in the UNSC. Moreover, if a similar case does occur in the foreseeable future, it seems rather unlikely that China or Russia would use their veto in order to protect the principle of non-interference. Consequently, the US and its associates in the UNSC might very well see an opportunity to act resolutely in the coming years, with the aim of effecting intervention in other countries, comparable to Libya, a country first of all not allied with them and far distant from them. This is an opportunity that has likely not escaped Washington’s attention.
Shi Yinhong is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing
Ferguson vs. Kissinger on the future of China, and what it means for the rest of us (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/ferguson_vs_kissinger_on_the_future_of_china_and_w hat_it_means_for_the_rest_of_us) By Thomas E. Ricks | Foreign Policy
Getting China Ready to Go Abroad
Companies need to revamp management structures and customer service before they can compete globally. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576328842793701106.html)
By KEVIN TAYLOR | Wall Street Journal
Chinese Spreading Wealth Make Vancouver Homes Pricier Than NYC (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-16/chinese-spreading-wealth-make-vancouver-homes-pricier-than-nyc.html) By Yu and Donville | Bloomberg
China shafts Philippine mines (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME19Ae01.html) By Joel D Adriano | Asia Times
Is This the China that Can't? (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3200&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China's Bold New Plan for Economic Domination (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/chinas-bold-new-plan-for-economic-domination/239041/) By Abraham & Ludlow | The Atlantic
2010 Cute Anime Boy by
dartkid31
05-17 07:56 PM
Qualified_trash,
IV core members have only 24 hours a day to do IV work and their full time jobs. As such, we have to channel our resources in the most productive way possible. Lou Dobbs is the media equivalent of FAIR, NumbersUSA, Tom Tancredo and company [Do get on to Lexis-Nexis and find out more about him.] We are civil in our encounters with the representatives of these groups, but it is not a productive use of our time to engage with them more than this.
As for dealing with lawmakers -- there too we spend our time productively. We haven't been hanging out with Jeff Sessions and James Sensenbrenner. We use other more reasonable lawmakers to work out deals with the anti-immigrant wing.
best,
Berkeleybee
I agree 100 percent. Anyone who believes Lou Dobbs is a friend of LEGAL immigrants probably also believes Tom Tancredo and NumbersUsa Sympathize with legal immigrants. It always ticks me off whenever Tancredo is waxing poetic in the press about how legalizing illegals would be "sending the wrong message to those trying to do it the right way"; when he is actively trying to end all legal immigration. What a tool and hypocrite. Lou Dobbs falls in the same boat. Dont believe their tripe for one second.
IV core members have only 24 hours a day to do IV work and their full time jobs. As such, we have to channel our resources in the most productive way possible. Lou Dobbs is the media equivalent of FAIR, NumbersUSA, Tom Tancredo and company [Do get on to Lexis-Nexis and find out more about him.] We are civil in our encounters with the representatives of these groups, but it is not a productive use of our time to engage with them more than this.
As for dealing with lawmakers -- there too we spend our time productively. We haven't been hanging out with Jeff Sessions and James Sensenbrenner. We use other more reasonable lawmakers to work out deals with the anti-immigrant wing.
best,
Berkeleybee
I agree 100 percent. Anyone who believes Lou Dobbs is a friend of LEGAL immigrants probably also believes Tom Tancredo and NumbersUsa Sympathize with legal immigrants. It always ticks me off whenever Tancredo is waxing poetic in the press about how legalizing illegals would be "sending the wrong message to those trying to do it the right way"; when he is actively trying to end all legal immigration. What a tool and hypocrite. Lou Dobbs falls in the same boat. Dont believe their tripe for one second.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-08 11:23 PM
Just ignore those useless weeds (who don�t know what �joke� means), not only in this thread, even in real life also.
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up:rolleyes:
They will neither be happy themselves nor like others having fun as well.
I am giving you green.
I also got a red dot for my joke:confused:. Never used any foul language. Comment left was "This type of "blonde jokes" or "sardar jokes" etc are not really suited for a skilled immigrant community forum." I don't understand why do people give Red dots even for jokes. The title of the theread is Ligthen Up:rolleyes:
hair Anime Boys :: anime boy
SunnySurya
08-05 10:44 AM
May I ask, why you agree with PD porting and not labor substitution... Was it because you were affected in later case?
Let us face it , we all are selfish. And if our self interest match then we are an organization.
here is another point:
i think its a childish and selfish idea...i agree labor substitution was absolute nonsense...but not PD porting!
Let us face it , we all are selfish. And if our self interest match then we are an organization.
here is another point:
i think its a childish and selfish idea...i agree labor substitution was absolute nonsense...but not PD porting!
more...
pthoko
07-11 10:10 AM
pthoko..
wait for UN's reply
but I think it is better to be honest on the G328 form and not lie as it mentions in coconut sized letters that we r mentioning the facts and signing the forms. Later on they will have all the rights to ask proof documents thru RFE for paystubs,w2 etc, after that we cannot lie anymore and might land in further mess. we submit all the H1/L1 approvals at the time of 485 filing..they can just enter the case# and get the whole history of the case...
AFAIK..I don't think yours is a violation of status, you were eligible to work on L1 until 2006 and also eligible to work on H1 since Oct 2005. In a H1 scenario,if I extend my H1 with current employer until next July, meanwhile find another employer and file a H1 with new employer until next July, after 4 months with new employer, you change your mind and want to go back to old employer..you can work with old employer until July as long as the old employer does not cancel your old H1..
* i140 stage,only the companies financial records r checked,you even need not be employed with them when you r filing the i140.
* 1st time stamping in Canada/Mexico for H1b is not possible I think as it has to be done in home country,unless you have a US Masters.
btw...I have a question, does your H1b approval have an i94 attached with it...? hopefully ..yes..
YES my H1B approval had an I-94 attached with it. Same no: as my L1 I-94.
Thanks.
wait for UN's reply
but I think it is better to be honest on the G328 form and not lie as it mentions in coconut sized letters that we r mentioning the facts and signing the forms. Later on they will have all the rights to ask proof documents thru RFE for paystubs,w2 etc, after that we cannot lie anymore and might land in further mess. we submit all the H1/L1 approvals at the time of 485 filing..they can just enter the case# and get the whole history of the case...
AFAIK..I don't think yours is a violation of status, you were eligible to work on L1 until 2006 and also eligible to work on H1 since Oct 2005. In a H1 scenario,if I extend my H1 with current employer until next July, meanwhile find another employer and file a H1 with new employer until next July, after 4 months with new employer, you change your mind and want to go back to old employer..you can work with old employer until July as long as the old employer does not cancel your old H1..
* i140 stage,only the companies financial records r checked,you even need not be employed with them when you r filing the i140.
* 1st time stamping in Canada/Mexico for H1b is not possible I think as it has to be done in home country,unless you have a US Masters.
btw...I have a question, does your H1b approval have an i94 attached with it...? hopefully ..yes..
YES my H1B approval had an I-94 attached with it. Same no: as my L1 I-94.
Thanks.
hot Anime Boy - Anime Boy
unitednations
03-25 02:54 PM
I heard from the grapevine that UNITEDNATIONS will be the next USCIS chief - so folks better behave with him or he wil report ya all :D :D :D :D
My first order is greencards for everyone then next time people will see me would be at my funeral after the anti immigrants knocked me and obama off.:D
My first order is greencards for everyone then next time people will see me would be at my funeral after the anti immigrants knocked me and obama off.:D
more...
house AnimeBoyWater.jpg
chanduv23
03-24 02:48 PM
Unitednations,
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs. You will say to do that law must be changed. But at least go strict on whom you approve once they are selected in the lottery. Are they not bringing lot of criminals, fanatics, unemployed and uneducated poor through DV.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
Well - that is because we have a lot of opposition. Employers want us ONLY for the business, lawyers handle stuff with USCIS and employers and guide them accordingly - for lawyers - this complex web is bread and butter.
It is our visibility and vulnerability that puts focus on us.
Remember - it is not your fault if you get a call from USCIS asking for paperwork like the original poster. It is just that there is so much focus on people like us.
Also remember - nothing is over - as long as the original poster has followed the law and handles it he/she must be fine.
I read your replies and it seems you are ignoring some facts and are forming a one sided opinion.
- Why did USCIS allow labor substitutions? Why did it take them so long to stop it? Why did they wait until after July 07 to stop it. Were they not allowing people to use this back door and lawyers to make money?
- If consulting is a problem, what were they doing in the past few years? What are they doing now? Do you think just a few raids once is enough to stop the problem? Why can't they enforce their own laws so that they punish the companies and not the immigrants.
- Why is USCIS making paperwork difficult. Why can't the system be simple like Canada or Australia so that we can do our own paperwork? Why are lawyers in the picture?
- If they find problem in consulting, why are they not going after Tata, Wipro etc. Don't tell me these companies are clean?
- Why is USCIS so disorganized without good IT. Do you think other agencies are also same? Do you think USCIS does not have enough money?
- Why can't they ban DV lottery? But go after H1Bs. You will say to do that law must be changed. But at least go strict on whom you approve once they are selected in the lottery. Are they not bringing lot of criminals, fanatics, unemployed and uneducated poor through DV.
- Why can't ICE do their job of enforcement and round up illegals. If they were strict we will not have so many illegals or the problem of illegals.
The questions will go on. But you need to step back and think more from the perspective of a applicant waiting for his GC or H1B .
Well - that is because we have a lot of opposition. Employers want us ONLY for the business, lawyers handle stuff with USCIS and employers and guide them accordingly - for lawyers - this complex web is bread and butter.
It is our visibility and vulnerability that puts focus on us.
Remember - it is not your fault if you get a call from USCIS asking for paperwork like the original poster. It is just that there is so much focus on people like us.
Also remember - nothing is over - as long as the original poster has followed the law and handles it he/she must be fine.
tattoo Anime boy and girl in love
Macaca
05-13 05:42 PM
What if you had to buy American? (http://money.msn.com/how-to-budget/what-if-you-had-to-buy-american.aspx) By Katherine Reynolds Lewis | MSN Money
Legions of patriotic Americans look for "made in USA" stickers before buying products, out of a desire to support the country's economy.
But what if we all were restricted to purchasing only those goods that were made in America?
Our homes would be stripped virtually bare of telephones, televisions, toasters and other electronics, and many of our favorite foods and toys would be gone, too. Say goodbye to your coffee or tea, and forget about slicing bananas into your breakfast cereal -- all three would become prohibitively expensive if we relied on only Hawaii to grow tropical crops.
We'd have to trash our beloved Apple products because the iPod, iPad and MacBook aren't made in the U.S. Gasoline would double or triple in price, given that we now import more than 60% of our oil. And you couldn't propose to your true love with a diamond ring: There are no working diamond mines in the U.S.
Moreover, a complete end to imports would actually hurt the U.S. economy, because consumers and domestic companies would lose access to cheap goods. Trade protections, whether through tariffs or quotas, cost the economy roughly $2 for every $1 in additional profit for domestic producers, said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
"If we restricted trade to just the 50 states, what would happen immediately -- and would increase over time -- would be a huge reduction in our standard of living, because we wouldn't have access to the cheap goods we get from other countries," Perry said. "We also wouldn't have any export markets, so companies like Caterpillar and Microsoft would have a huge reduction in sales and workforce."
So what do we make of heartfelt pleas to save U.S. manufacturing by buying American, or the many websites (see one here) that catalog U.S. sources for an array of products? Or the Buy American Act, which curbs government purchases of products that are made overseas?
Do such efforts actually hurt the country they're trying to help?
The argument for buying American
Marc Kruskol, 53, a publicist based in Palmdale, Calif., goes out of his way to purchase products that are made in the U.S. because of his concern over the decline in manufacturing employment.
"I truly believe that we could go a long way towards fixing the economy if we would just put people to work making things in this country that are made in other places," said Kruskol, who spends hours scouring made-in-America websites or visiting brick-and-mortar stores in search of U.S. products.
He recently spent $10 on a pair of salad tongs made in America, which he tracked down in a restaurant supply store, after rejecting 99-cent foreign-made tongs. And he was happy to spend $650 on a domestically produced barbecue grill rather than a $450 imported one, just to support his countrymen.
But financial experts say that it's best for America if you buy the cheapest product you can find without sacrificing quality. Their explanation rests on the concept of efficient manufacturing. An efficient producer creates the most valuable goods with the least possible expense, selling those items at lower prices than competitors who are less efficient. A country benefits when its manufacturers become more efficient.
When you spend more on an equivalent product simply because it's made in the U.S., you're wasting your money -- and supporting an inefficient manufacturer that, by rights, should become more efficient or go out of business. Moreover, the additional $9.01 or $200 that Kruskol had spent on an inefficient U.S. producer could have been spent on something else, helping the economy further. Or it could have stayed in his savings account and been funneled by his bank into the financial system, which in theory allocates capital to the most efficient producers.
"He gave effectively $9 to an inefficient producer to motivate them to keep producing inefficiently," said Ken Fisher, the founder and CEO of Fisher Investments in Woodside, Calif., and the author of "Debunkery." "I understand the well-intentioned view. Doing that would be terrible for America."
The most efficient producers are best-positioned to create more jobs and return profits to their investors, and to the government in the form of tax revenue. "We make the country better by allocating resources towards the ones that can use them best," Fisher said.
The complex manufacturing question
At the heart of the issue are the interconnected global economy and the changes in the manufacturing sector.
There's no question that U.S. manufacturers employ far fewer people now -- about 11.7 million in April -- than when the sector peaked at 19.6 million workers in 1979. But the decline in jobs is largely due to technological advances that have reduced the number of workers needed to run factories, Perry and Fisher pointed out. The average worker today is responsible for $180,000 of manufacturing output, triple the inflation-adjusted $60,000 of 1972, Perry said.
Despite that increase in productivity, a March report by IHS Global Insight put China's manufacturing output ahead of the U.S. for the first time ever, at $2 trillion in 2010, compared with $1.95 trillion for the U.S. That's up from $1.69 trillion for China and $1.733 trillion for the U.S. in 2009, based on U.S. and Chinese government data.
But Perry argued that exchange-rate fluctuations and differences in data sources caused the IHS Global report to skew the comparison between the U.S. and China. Based on U.N. data for 2009, the most recent available, the United States' manufacturing output was 14% ahead of China's, he said.
Moreover, as manufacturing has declined as a share of the U.S. economy while the service sector has grown, most of the world has followed the same trend. The proportion has held steady in China.
"We've left the Machine Age, and we're in a new Information Age. It makes sense that manufacturing would be less important," Perry said, noting that as other countries have taken over clothing and other low-end manufacturing, the U.S. has become more competitive in producing pharmaceuticals, software, aerospace technology, industrial machinery and medical equipment. "We're still world leaders and at the cutting edge of those higher-skilled, higher-valued-added areas."
Not convinced yet? The other conundrum in trying to buy only U.S.-made products lies in what that really means.
Do you accept products that are assembled in America but contain components from all over the globe? For example, U.S. companies in February imported $58 billion worth of industrial supplies, such as petroleum and plastics, and $40 billion in capital goods, from computers to engines and laboratory equipment.
What about products that are assembled in China yet include parts from U.S. suppliers and were designed by American engineers? Every time you purchase such an item, the money will flow back to those American engineers and suppliers.
Cars.com's American-Made Index illustrates U.S. industries' complex trade relationships. The website ranks vehicles built and purchased in the U.S. based on sales, the origin of the cars' parts and whether assembly was in the U.S. The top two cars -- Toyota Camry and Honda Accord -- are produced by Japanese companies through their U.S. subsidiaries.
"On the surface, it seems like it might be plausible to have these 'made in the USA' campaigns," Perry said. "It all gets real tricky in a global economy with parts."
When buying American helps
That's not to say you should ignore the origins of the goods you buy.
When comparing two products of equivalent price and quality, feel free to choose the U.S.-made one out of domestic pride. It may make sense to buy a U.S.-made product if the quality or safety is superior.
Alex Kaplan, 41, the owner of Celebrity Laser Spa in Los Angeles, recently bought a pair of ottomans online for $120, only to find them cracked and cheaply made. After returning the made-in-China set, he found a craftsman through Etsy who made similar ottomans for $160 but allowed customers to choose the fabrics.
"It's much more satisfying," said Kaplan, whose blog chronicles his attempts to find products made in the U.S. "The most important thing when it comes to buying American is being aware and asking yourself, 'Where is this made?'"
Is College a Rotten Investment?
Why student loans are not like subprime mortgages. (http://www.slate.com/id/2293766/)
By Annie Lowrey | Slate
Legions of patriotic Americans look for "made in USA" stickers before buying products, out of a desire to support the country's economy.
But what if we all were restricted to purchasing only those goods that were made in America?
Our homes would be stripped virtually bare of telephones, televisions, toasters and other electronics, and many of our favorite foods and toys would be gone, too. Say goodbye to your coffee or tea, and forget about slicing bananas into your breakfast cereal -- all three would become prohibitively expensive if we relied on only Hawaii to grow tropical crops.
We'd have to trash our beloved Apple products because the iPod, iPad and MacBook aren't made in the U.S. Gasoline would double or triple in price, given that we now import more than 60% of our oil. And you couldn't propose to your true love with a diamond ring: There are no working diamond mines in the U.S.
Moreover, a complete end to imports would actually hurt the U.S. economy, because consumers and domestic companies would lose access to cheap goods. Trade protections, whether through tariffs or quotas, cost the economy roughly $2 for every $1 in additional profit for domestic producers, said Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
"If we restricted trade to just the 50 states, what would happen immediately -- and would increase over time -- would be a huge reduction in our standard of living, because we wouldn't have access to the cheap goods we get from other countries," Perry said. "We also wouldn't have any export markets, so companies like Caterpillar and Microsoft would have a huge reduction in sales and workforce."
So what do we make of heartfelt pleas to save U.S. manufacturing by buying American, or the many websites (see one here) that catalog U.S. sources for an array of products? Or the Buy American Act, which curbs government purchases of products that are made overseas?
Do such efforts actually hurt the country they're trying to help?
The argument for buying American
Marc Kruskol, 53, a publicist based in Palmdale, Calif., goes out of his way to purchase products that are made in the U.S. because of his concern over the decline in manufacturing employment.
"I truly believe that we could go a long way towards fixing the economy if we would just put people to work making things in this country that are made in other places," said Kruskol, who spends hours scouring made-in-America websites or visiting brick-and-mortar stores in search of U.S. products.
He recently spent $10 on a pair of salad tongs made in America, which he tracked down in a restaurant supply store, after rejecting 99-cent foreign-made tongs. And he was happy to spend $650 on a domestically produced barbecue grill rather than a $450 imported one, just to support his countrymen.
But financial experts say that it's best for America if you buy the cheapest product you can find without sacrificing quality. Their explanation rests on the concept of efficient manufacturing. An efficient producer creates the most valuable goods with the least possible expense, selling those items at lower prices than competitors who are less efficient. A country benefits when its manufacturers become more efficient.
When you spend more on an equivalent product simply because it's made in the U.S., you're wasting your money -- and supporting an inefficient manufacturer that, by rights, should become more efficient or go out of business. Moreover, the additional $9.01 or $200 that Kruskol had spent on an inefficient U.S. producer could have been spent on something else, helping the economy further. Or it could have stayed in his savings account and been funneled by his bank into the financial system, which in theory allocates capital to the most efficient producers.
"He gave effectively $9 to an inefficient producer to motivate them to keep producing inefficiently," said Ken Fisher, the founder and CEO of Fisher Investments in Woodside, Calif., and the author of "Debunkery." "I understand the well-intentioned view. Doing that would be terrible for America."
The most efficient producers are best-positioned to create more jobs and return profits to their investors, and to the government in the form of tax revenue. "We make the country better by allocating resources towards the ones that can use them best," Fisher said.
The complex manufacturing question
At the heart of the issue are the interconnected global economy and the changes in the manufacturing sector.
There's no question that U.S. manufacturers employ far fewer people now -- about 11.7 million in April -- than when the sector peaked at 19.6 million workers in 1979. But the decline in jobs is largely due to technological advances that have reduced the number of workers needed to run factories, Perry and Fisher pointed out. The average worker today is responsible for $180,000 of manufacturing output, triple the inflation-adjusted $60,000 of 1972, Perry said.
Despite that increase in productivity, a March report by IHS Global Insight put China's manufacturing output ahead of the U.S. for the first time ever, at $2 trillion in 2010, compared with $1.95 trillion for the U.S. That's up from $1.69 trillion for China and $1.733 trillion for the U.S. in 2009, based on U.S. and Chinese government data.
But Perry argued that exchange-rate fluctuations and differences in data sources caused the IHS Global report to skew the comparison between the U.S. and China. Based on U.N. data for 2009, the most recent available, the United States' manufacturing output was 14% ahead of China's, he said.
Moreover, as manufacturing has declined as a share of the U.S. economy while the service sector has grown, most of the world has followed the same trend. The proportion has held steady in China.
"We've left the Machine Age, and we're in a new Information Age. It makes sense that manufacturing would be less important," Perry said, noting that as other countries have taken over clothing and other low-end manufacturing, the U.S. has become more competitive in producing pharmaceuticals, software, aerospace technology, industrial machinery and medical equipment. "We're still world leaders and at the cutting edge of those higher-skilled, higher-valued-added areas."
Not convinced yet? The other conundrum in trying to buy only U.S.-made products lies in what that really means.
Do you accept products that are assembled in America but contain components from all over the globe? For example, U.S. companies in February imported $58 billion worth of industrial supplies, such as petroleum and plastics, and $40 billion in capital goods, from computers to engines and laboratory equipment.
What about products that are assembled in China yet include parts from U.S. suppliers and were designed by American engineers? Every time you purchase such an item, the money will flow back to those American engineers and suppliers.
Cars.com's American-Made Index illustrates U.S. industries' complex trade relationships. The website ranks vehicles built and purchased in the U.S. based on sales, the origin of the cars' parts and whether assembly was in the U.S. The top two cars -- Toyota Camry and Honda Accord -- are produced by Japanese companies through their U.S. subsidiaries.
"On the surface, it seems like it might be plausible to have these 'made in the USA' campaigns," Perry said. "It all gets real tricky in a global economy with parts."
When buying American helps
That's not to say you should ignore the origins of the goods you buy.
When comparing two products of equivalent price and quality, feel free to choose the U.S.-made one out of domestic pride. It may make sense to buy a U.S.-made product if the quality or safety is superior.
Alex Kaplan, 41, the owner of Celebrity Laser Spa in Los Angeles, recently bought a pair of ottomans online for $120, only to find them cracked and cheaply made. After returning the made-in-China set, he found a craftsman through Etsy who made similar ottomans for $160 but allowed customers to choose the fabrics.
"It's much more satisfying," said Kaplan, whose blog chronicles his attempts to find products made in the U.S. "The most important thing when it comes to buying American is being aware and asking yourself, 'Where is this made?'"
Is College a Rotten Investment?
Why student loans are not like subprime mortgages. (http://www.slate.com/id/2293766/)
By Annie Lowrey | Slate
more...
pictures Anime+oy+hair
rheoretro
11-12 02:28 PM
rheoretro Surely there is a distinction between illegal immigrants and Latinos (though I am not sure how thick is the line) but I did say that we cannot have even a whiff of support for illegal immigration be it from any country, including India.
It is unfortunate that the legal reform package cannot be passed without the CIR and one of the reasons behind that is the tendency of pro-immigration groups to paint both forms of immigration with the same brush.
A few days ago, I received an email from SAALT (South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow), urging me to lend support to stop passing the anti-immigration bill. Their logic was that there are millions of illegal Indian immigrants as well so we should support them. When I countered them saying that essentially you are asking us to support something based on whether they are "our crooks or not" and not on the basis of whether it is right or wrong, their reply essentially was that we know this better than you so just listen to our argument and support us.
Bottom line? Illegal immigration in any form is not acceptable.
English_August: Actually, it is a very thick line between legal and illegal immigration, as far as Latinos are concerned. There has been strong Latino/Hispanic immigration (legal) into the US for several decades now, if not a whole century, which is also possible. There are third and fourth generation people in the US of Latino/Hispanic ancestry. It's just that there was a serious influx of illegal immigrants in the US over the last ten to fifteen years, and the media makes it seem as if they are all illegal. That is not true.
I agree - illegal immigration in any and every form is unacceptable. I am familiar with SAALT, including their executive director, Deepa Iyer. While I admire the community outreach work that they do, I too differ with them over a blanket amnesty. BTW, it was Deepa who corrected my false impression recently. The numbers for illegal immigrants from India are astoundingly high - the estimate is between 300,000 and 400,000. That number compares with the number of people in the legal immigrant EB pipeline from India, probably.
At the end of the day, it, sadly, does come down to numbers. Even in 1986, in Reagan's time when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was passed, amnesty of some form was given to people who had either entered the country illegally or had over-stayed their visas. This time the number of illegal immigrants is much higher, and Congress can't ignore this problem anymore. At least the American people seem to have clearly told Congress to put aside petty partisan squabbling, and get the people's work done on Capitol Hill.
I am simply amazed by this dismal statistic - IV claims that there are about half a million people stuck in immigration backlogs/retrogression. Then why does IV have a membership that merely represents barely 1% of this pool? 6500 members isn't enough. Capitol Hill treats you differently if you say that you have 20,000 or 30,000 members...you get more attention.
It is unfortunate that the legal reform package cannot be passed without the CIR and one of the reasons behind that is the tendency of pro-immigration groups to paint both forms of immigration with the same brush.
A few days ago, I received an email from SAALT (South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow), urging me to lend support to stop passing the anti-immigration bill. Their logic was that there are millions of illegal Indian immigrants as well so we should support them. When I countered them saying that essentially you are asking us to support something based on whether they are "our crooks or not" and not on the basis of whether it is right or wrong, their reply essentially was that we know this better than you so just listen to our argument and support us.
Bottom line? Illegal immigration in any form is not acceptable.
English_August: Actually, it is a very thick line between legal and illegal immigration, as far as Latinos are concerned. There has been strong Latino/Hispanic immigration (legal) into the US for several decades now, if not a whole century, which is also possible. There are third and fourth generation people in the US of Latino/Hispanic ancestry. It's just that there was a serious influx of illegal immigrants in the US over the last ten to fifteen years, and the media makes it seem as if they are all illegal. That is not true.
I agree - illegal immigration in any and every form is unacceptable. I am familiar with SAALT, including their executive director, Deepa Iyer. While I admire the community outreach work that they do, I too differ with them over a blanket amnesty. BTW, it was Deepa who corrected my false impression recently. The numbers for illegal immigrants from India are astoundingly high - the estimate is between 300,000 and 400,000. That number compares with the number of people in the legal immigrant EB pipeline from India, probably.
At the end of the day, it, sadly, does come down to numbers. Even in 1986, in Reagan's time when the Simpson-Mazzoli bill was passed, amnesty of some form was given to people who had either entered the country illegally or had over-stayed their visas. This time the number of illegal immigrants is much higher, and Congress can't ignore this problem anymore. At least the American people seem to have clearly told Congress to put aside petty partisan squabbling, and get the people's work done on Capitol Hill.
I am simply amazed by this dismal statistic - IV claims that there are about half a million people stuck in immigration backlogs/retrogression. Then why does IV have a membership that merely represents barely 1% of this pool? 6500 members isn't enough. Capitol Hill treats you differently if you say that you have 20,000 or 30,000 members...you get more attention.
dresses Comicate cool anime boy KIRYU
akred
04-07 01:35 PM
Research institutes hiring employees for research are already exempt from H1 quota. So are non-profits and universities.
What are you talking about?
I am talking about using a different standard for defining R&D. A standard similar to the one used for determining the R&D tax credit. A whole lot of companies other than pure research institutes are eligible for R&D tax credits. And there appears to be broad support for such a definition of R&D.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=514&DID=512
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/researchcredit.html
What are you talking about?
I am talking about using a different standard for defining R&D. A standard similar to the one used for determining the R&D tax credit. A whole lot of companies other than pure research institutes are eligible for R&D tax credits. And there appears to be broad support for such a definition of R&D.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=514&DID=512
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/researchcredit.html
more...
makeup Anime Boy Hair
akred
04-07 01:35 PM
Research institutes hiring employees for research are already exempt from H1 quota. So are non-profits and universities.
What are you talking about?
I am talking about using a different standard for defining R&D. A standard similar to the one used for determining the R&D tax credit. A whole lot of companies other than pure research institutes are eligible for R&D tax credits. And there appears to be broad support for such a definition of R&D.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=514&DID=512
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/researchcredit.html
What are you talking about?
I am talking about using a different standard for defining R&D. A standard similar to the one used for determining the R&D tax credit. A whole lot of companies other than pure research institutes are eligible for R&D tax credits. And there appears to be broad support for such a definition of R&D.
http://www.nam.org/s_nam/sec.asp?CID=514&DID=512
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/researchcredit.html
girlfriend Sweet-Anime-Boy.jpg school guy
Macaca
05-13 05:35 PM
Give Us Your Huddled Masses of Engineers
Why are we educating the best and the brightest, only to turn them down for visas? (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum89-news-articles-and-reports/1834574-afsheen-irani-the-girl-who-stumped-obama-172.html)
By PETER H. SCHUCK AND JOHN TYLER | Wall Street Journal
President Obama devoted almost all of Tuesday's speech in El Paso to the problems raised by illegal immigration: border and workplace enforcement, the need for a fair legalization process, and, almost apologetically, deportation. Only briefly did he mention our interest in attracting more high-skilled immigrants to work in the upper reaches of our economy.
"Today, we provide students from around the world with visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities. But then our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or a new industry here in the United States," Mr. Obama said. This "makes no sense," he added. The president is right.
The critical question is what to do about it. Finding an answer is urgent because the market for these workers is increasingly competitive�and the U.S. is no longer the only powerful magnet. Indeed, new studies from the American Enterprise Institute and the Kauffman Foundation find that we are losing ground in this competition.
Our current policy is plain stupid. Of the more than one million permanent admissions to the U.S. in 2010, fewer than 15% were admitted specifically for their employment skills. And most of those spots weren't going to the high-skilled immigrants themselves, but to their dependents.
The H-1B program that allows high-skilled immigrants to work here on renewable three-year visas, which can possibly lead to permanent status, is tiny. The current number of available visas is only one-third what it was in 2003. Plus, the program is hemmed in with foolish limitations: Visa-holders can't change jobs, and they must return home while awaiting permanent status.
Thus, many employers find the H-1B program useless. Many high-skilled workers prefer to go to more welcoming countries, like Canada and Australia, or to stay home where their economies are now often growing faster than ours. The U.S. does have a program to attract job-creating investors, but it is more limited than some of our competitors' investor programs. In 2010, we granted fewer than 2,500 such visas, down from the 2009 total although higher than in earlier years.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot. Research shows that high-skilled immigrants, particularly those in the so-called STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields, enrich American society in many ways. These workers are notably innovative at a time when the U.S. is in some danger of losing its competitive edge. Not only do they apply for patents at a disproportionate rate, but the government grants their applications two to three times as often as with comparably educated Americans. Even if we limit the comparison to scientists and engineers, high-skilled immigrants in those fields still receive 20% more patents than their American counterparts.
In addition to being more innovative, high-skilled immigrants tend to be more entrepreneurial. They start and grow the kinds of new firms, such as Google, that account for the bulk of job creation. Research consistently shows that they start at least 25% of the STEM companies, which is double the percentage of all legal and illegal immigrants in the U.S. population.
So what can be done? Even without increasing the total number of permanent visas, we can redress the imbalance between admission categories to increase the proportion of those that are highly skilled. Two existing allotments merit low priority and should be granted instead to high-skilled workers: the 50,000 "diversity" visas granted at random to applicants who need only have a high-school education, and the 65,000 visas given to siblings of U.S. citizens. A lottery for the low-skilled is an absurd way to select future Americans, and sibling relationships today are readily sustainable through tourist visas and Skype.
A second reform would move to a point system for most would-be immigrants except for immediate family members, in which skills, entrepreneurship, English fluency, and other factors would count as well as close family ties. Third, we should grant permanent visas to any foreigner who receives a graduate degree from a qualified U.S. university. Finally, we should liberalize the H-1B program, perhaps moving from the current bureaucratic approach to an auction of the visas to employers who would bid for the skills they need, but also allowing for more job mobility for workers after a certain period.
Attracting more of the world's best talent should be a no-brainer. It should not be held hostage to the much harder problem of illegal migration.
Mr. Schuck, a professor at Yale Law School, is visiting at NYU Law School. Mr. Tyler is general counsel of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
You're getting a US visa! Oh, no, wait a minute (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110513/ap_on_re_us/us_us_visa_lottery) By MATTHEW LEE | Associated Press
Abandoned on the Border (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/opinion/13Dever.html) By LARRY A. DEVER | New York Times
Passport, visa, virginity? A mother's tale of immigration in the 1970s (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/13/virginity-tests-uk-immigrants-1970s) By Huma Qureshi | The Guardian
Obama should get specific on immigration reform (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/obama-should-get-specific-on-immigration-reform/article2020261/) Globe and Mail Editorial
Why are we educating the best and the brightest, only to turn them down for visas? (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum89-news-articles-and-reports/1834574-afsheen-irani-the-girl-who-stumped-obama-172.html)
By PETER H. SCHUCK AND JOHN TYLER | Wall Street Journal
President Obama devoted almost all of Tuesday's speech in El Paso to the problems raised by illegal immigration: border and workplace enforcement, the need for a fair legalization process, and, almost apologetically, deportation. Only briefly did he mention our interest in attracting more high-skilled immigrants to work in the upper reaches of our economy.
"Today, we provide students from around the world with visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities. But then our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or a new industry here in the United States," Mr. Obama said. This "makes no sense," he added. The president is right.
The critical question is what to do about it. Finding an answer is urgent because the market for these workers is increasingly competitive�and the U.S. is no longer the only powerful magnet. Indeed, new studies from the American Enterprise Institute and the Kauffman Foundation find that we are losing ground in this competition.
Our current policy is plain stupid. Of the more than one million permanent admissions to the U.S. in 2010, fewer than 15% were admitted specifically for their employment skills. And most of those spots weren't going to the high-skilled immigrants themselves, but to their dependents.
The H-1B program that allows high-skilled immigrants to work here on renewable three-year visas, which can possibly lead to permanent status, is tiny. The current number of available visas is only one-third what it was in 2003. Plus, the program is hemmed in with foolish limitations: Visa-holders can't change jobs, and they must return home while awaiting permanent status.
Thus, many employers find the H-1B program useless. Many high-skilled workers prefer to go to more welcoming countries, like Canada and Australia, or to stay home where their economies are now often growing faster than ours. The U.S. does have a program to attract job-creating investors, but it is more limited than some of our competitors' investor programs. In 2010, we granted fewer than 2,500 such visas, down from the 2009 total although higher than in earlier years.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot. Research shows that high-skilled immigrants, particularly those in the so-called STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields, enrich American society in many ways. These workers are notably innovative at a time when the U.S. is in some danger of losing its competitive edge. Not only do they apply for patents at a disproportionate rate, but the government grants their applications two to three times as often as with comparably educated Americans. Even if we limit the comparison to scientists and engineers, high-skilled immigrants in those fields still receive 20% more patents than their American counterparts.
In addition to being more innovative, high-skilled immigrants tend to be more entrepreneurial. They start and grow the kinds of new firms, such as Google, that account for the bulk of job creation. Research consistently shows that they start at least 25% of the STEM companies, which is double the percentage of all legal and illegal immigrants in the U.S. population.
So what can be done? Even without increasing the total number of permanent visas, we can redress the imbalance between admission categories to increase the proportion of those that are highly skilled. Two existing allotments merit low priority and should be granted instead to high-skilled workers: the 50,000 "diversity" visas granted at random to applicants who need only have a high-school education, and the 65,000 visas given to siblings of U.S. citizens. A lottery for the low-skilled is an absurd way to select future Americans, and sibling relationships today are readily sustainable through tourist visas and Skype.
A second reform would move to a point system for most would-be immigrants except for immediate family members, in which skills, entrepreneurship, English fluency, and other factors would count as well as close family ties. Third, we should grant permanent visas to any foreigner who receives a graduate degree from a qualified U.S. university. Finally, we should liberalize the H-1B program, perhaps moving from the current bureaucratic approach to an auction of the visas to employers who would bid for the skills they need, but also allowing for more job mobility for workers after a certain period.
Attracting more of the world's best talent should be a no-brainer. It should not be held hostage to the much harder problem of illegal migration.
Mr. Schuck, a professor at Yale Law School, is visiting at NYU Law School. Mr. Tyler is general counsel of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
You're getting a US visa! Oh, no, wait a minute (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110513/ap_on_re_us/us_us_visa_lottery) By MATTHEW LEE | Associated Press
Abandoned on the Border (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/opinion/13Dever.html) By LARRY A. DEVER | New York Times
Passport, visa, virginity? A mother's tale of immigration in the 1970s (http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/may/13/virginity-tests-uk-immigrants-1970s) By Huma Qureshi | The Guardian
Obama should get specific on immigration reform (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/obama-should-get-specific-on-immigration-reform/article2020261/) Globe and Mail Editorial
hairstyles anime-girl-and-oy-1.png
nojoke
06-26 08:27 PM
Thanks for the data. There is one more twist to the story though. The "median home" of 1940 is NOT the same as the median home of 2000. The home sizes have more than doubled in this period (dont have an official source right now - but look at Google Answers: Historic home sizes (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=110928) . A little digging should give us an official source if you want.).... So, if the median home prices have doubled post adjustment for inflaton - that really means that the prices have stayed flat adjusted for inflation.
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Home sizes have lesser impact on the median price now. It is unaffordability that is pushing the prices down. The median is getting back to what the income in the area can support. The builders can build mansions, but someone has to buy...One way the builders survive these days is by bulding smaller homes that people can buy..
Statistics is a bitch :-D
Home sizes have lesser impact on the median price now. It is unaffordability that is pushing the prices down. The median is getting back to what the income in the area can support. The builders can build mansions, but someone has to buy...One way the builders survive these days is by bulding smaller homes that people can buy..
sc3
07-13 04:10 AM
EB3-I..please print the attached word doc and sign and mail it to Department of state..this week
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Thanks!. I was in the process of writing to the Ombudsman about the allotment system change, and the reasons behind it. If I dont hear back, I intend to write to my congresswoman / senator about it.
So while I was thinking what to write, your draft is very helpful in making my final letter. I hope everyone starts writing mails to the ombudsman about the problem.
Moderator could you makes this Sticky please
Thanks!. I was in the process of writing to the Ombudsman about the allotment system change, and the reasons behind it. If I dont hear back, I intend to write to my congresswoman / senator about it.
So while I was thinking what to write, your draft is very helpful in making my final letter. I hope everyone starts writing mails to the ombudsman about the problem.
nk2006
09-30 02:54 PM
Yes, you are right, the recent 485 denials for people using AC-21 have nothing to do with Obama/Durbin immigtaion policy. But I kind of remember there were some harsh provisions for people using AC 21 in CIR 2007 version. I am trying to find out the details about it.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I dont think there were any provisions in 2007 CIR that curtail job movement using AC21 for greencard holders. I think we are over-analyzing this - that Sen.Durbin is against lot of H1B provisions is evident. Also he may not be in favor of visa-recapture for EB immigrants - but I dont think he will single handedly drive immigration rules and make the life of all EB immigrants tough. He may have some support in changing the rules in H1B - but I dont think even he is not that negative regarding GC aspects - even if he is, may not get widespread support for it in congress.
Also Obama has shown his governing style (from the campaign, debate etc) - which is very level headed based on a bunch of things and discussions rather than following "one" ideological path blindly. If at all I think his administration will be more favorable to EB GC reform and somewhat unfavorable H1B reform (and completely pro-undocumented reform just like McCain). This is based on my interpretation of his immigration policies on his site and based on his general campaign.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I dont think there were any provisions in 2007 CIR that curtail job movement using AC21 for greencard holders. I think we are over-analyzing this - that Sen.Durbin is against lot of H1B provisions is evident. Also he may not be in favor of visa-recapture for EB immigrants - but I dont think he will single handedly drive immigration rules and make the life of all EB immigrants tough. He may have some support in changing the rules in H1B - but I dont think even he is not that negative regarding GC aspects - even if he is, may not get widespread support for it in congress.
Also Obama has shown his governing style (from the campaign, debate etc) - which is very level headed based on a bunch of things and discussions rather than following "one" ideological path blindly. If at all I think his administration will be more favorable to EB GC reform and somewhat unfavorable H1B reform (and completely pro-undocumented reform just like McCain). This is based on my interpretation of his immigration policies on his site and based on his general campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment