Macaca
05-09 05:50 PM
China’s America Obsession
Why Osama bin Laden's death is making Chinese leaders nervous. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/06/china_s_america_obsession)
By JOHN LEE | Foreign Policy
In Thursday's edition of China's Communist Party-owned Global Times newspaper, the lead editorial was headlined, "After Bin Laden, will China become US's foe?" Hoping that economic integration would defuse "right-wing paranoia" about China in the United States, the editorial nevertheless concluded: "The rise of China is certain to cause friction" in America. On Friday, the paper led with an editorial that referenced an interview I had given the Global Times in late April to admit that "China could be the loneliest rising power in world history."
Of course, editorials in state-owned newspapers do not always mirror the Communist Party's thinking or policies. But in this case, these two editorials remind us of two related points about Beijing's worldview. First, China respects and even fears the United States more than the vast majority of Americans probably realize. And second, China's sense of isolation is not an act but acute and real -- and Osama bin Laden's death will only accelerate America's reengagement with its Asian allies and partners at China's expense.
When Washington shifted its focus toward terrorism and the Middle East after the September 11 attacks in 2001, Beijing experienced genuine relief. As China's leaders and strategists came to believe, an America distracted by two wars and a weak economy presented a priceless window of opportunity for China to extend its influence in Asia and beyond. But Beijing realizes that Washington's strategic attention will eventually turn eastwards, and the death of bin Laden is one small but significant step in hastening the arrival of that day. As one prominent Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) analyst put it to me recently, the American "spearhead will soon be pointed at Beijing."
China's focus on America is obsessive and omnipresent among its leaders and strategists. In a study of 100 recent articles by leading academics at CASS, comprising the network of official state-backed think-tanks and institutes throughout the country, I found that about four in every five were about the United States -- whether it was seeking to understand the American system and political values, or describing how to limit, circumvent, bind, or otherwise reduce American power and influence. Of these themes, several emerged that help better understand the thinking behind editorials like the one in the Global Times.
One is that Beijing views international politics in broadly neorealist terms. Chinese strategists believe the distribution of power in the world today will determine tomorrow's conflicts. China has long seen building competition between itself and America in particular as the inevitable and defining big-picture strategic play. In Beijing's thinking, tension can be managed, but never resolved, between the established power and the emerging one. Tension is a structural inevitability.
But Chinese experts also view America as a unique superpower that relentlessly seeks not only to build and maintain its power, but also to spread its democratic values. This is of grave concern to the authoritarian Chinese leaders, because they believe that America will have difficulty accepting a greater leadership role for Beijing so long as Communist Party remains exclusively in power. Senator John McCain's "League of Democracies" might never become a formal reality, but Beijing believes that it already exists, at least in Asia, through democracies such as India, Japan, and South Korea.
Moreover, Beijing fears the American democratic process. While Americans view democracy as an advantage since it can offer United States an institutional and bloodless process for leadership and policy renewal, China views American democracy as a source of irrationality and unpredictability. Many in Beijing, pointing to President George W. Bush's rapid decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, believe a new administration might actually increase the chances of uncomfortable shifts in policy that will lead Washington to suddenly focus its competitive and hostile gaze to the east.
Some of Beijing's strategists now even argue that the United States has three advantages over China that will help preserve American strategic primacy in Asia.
First, the United States has built an order based not just on American power but also democratic community. It has not escaped Beijing that few countries in East and Southeast Asia fear India's democratic rise. Whereas India's ascent is seen as natural, predictable, and welcomed, almost every country in Asia is trying to benefit from China's economic success while strategically hedging against Chinese military power by moving even closer to the United States. (Witness the recent speech by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard to Congress in which she reaffirmed the alliance with America as the bedrock of Canberra's security strategy, or Singapore's leader Lee Hsien Loong urging America to remain engaged in Asia.)
Second, unlike China, America does not have land and territorial disputes with other Asian states. For example, China still claims around 80 percent of the South China Sea as its "historic waters" and is in an ongoing dispute with India over the eastern-most Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. In this sense, China's rise is inherently disruptive since a more powerful China is likely to demand a resolution to these issues that is in Beijing's favor.
Third, the United States is not a resident power in that it is not geographically in Asia. China now realizes that this simple fact, once seen as a handicap, instead presents America with a unique advantage. To maintain its military bases in the region and thus remain the pre-eminent strategic power in Asia, the United States requires other key states and regional groupings to acquiesce to its security role and relationships. There is broad-based regional approval of U.S. alliances with Australia, Japan, and South Korea, as well as with partners such as India, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. This interdependent relationship means that America is not so powerful that it can easily ignore the wishes of Asian states.
In contrast, if China were in the dominant strategic position, its pre-eminence would be much harder to challenge or shift. Beijing would not need the same level of regional acquiescence. As a resident power, China would not need the "approval" of other Asian states to maintain its military footholds. As the largest Asian power, it would be easier to dominate regional institutions without an American presence -- yet one more reason why America is trusted to provide the public and security goods in Asian sea lanes while China is not.
All this is why, instead of taking full advantage of America's terrorism obsession, Beijing has watched resentfully as the United States has built a hierarchical democratic order in which Asian states willingly aid in preserving American pre-eminence. In such an order, China remains a strategic loner in Asia, with Myanmar and North Korea as its only true friends.
China is well aware of its relative vulnerabilities. Rather than lament the irretrievable loss of its better days, America should learn to better appreciate its relative strengths.
John Lee is research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He is author of Will China Fail?
U.S.-China Talks: What to Look for (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-china-talks-look/p24923) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
Security and U.S.-Sino Scientific Collaboration (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/02/security-and-us-sino-scientific-collaboration/) By Adam Segal | Council on Foreign Relations
US, China vie for influence among Indonesian riches (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME06Ae02.html) By Sara Schonhardt | Asia Times
As China Invests, U.S. Could Lose (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/business/global/04yuan.html) By DAVID BARBOZA | New York Times
China Invests Overseas (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3171&Itemid=422) Asia Sentinel
Is the Asian century a dream or reality? (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/05/06/is-asian-century-a-dream-or-reality.html) By Haruhiko Kuroda | Jakarta Post
A Future Scenario for Asia (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3177&Itemid=422) By Philip Bowring | Asia Sentinel
Japan, After March 11
The country, resilient as ever, remains Asia’s true power. (http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_2_japan.html)
By Guy Sorman | City Journal
Why Osama bin Laden's death is making Chinese leaders nervous. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/06/china_s_america_obsession)
By JOHN LEE | Foreign Policy
In Thursday's edition of China's Communist Party-owned Global Times newspaper, the lead editorial was headlined, "After Bin Laden, will China become US's foe?" Hoping that economic integration would defuse "right-wing paranoia" about China in the United States, the editorial nevertheless concluded: "The rise of China is certain to cause friction" in America. On Friday, the paper led with an editorial that referenced an interview I had given the Global Times in late April to admit that "China could be the loneliest rising power in world history."
Of course, editorials in state-owned newspapers do not always mirror the Communist Party's thinking or policies. But in this case, these two editorials remind us of two related points about Beijing's worldview. First, China respects and even fears the United States more than the vast majority of Americans probably realize. And second, China's sense of isolation is not an act but acute and real -- and Osama bin Laden's death will only accelerate America's reengagement with its Asian allies and partners at China's expense.
When Washington shifted its focus toward terrorism and the Middle East after the September 11 attacks in 2001, Beijing experienced genuine relief. As China's leaders and strategists came to believe, an America distracted by two wars and a weak economy presented a priceless window of opportunity for China to extend its influence in Asia and beyond. But Beijing realizes that Washington's strategic attention will eventually turn eastwards, and the death of bin Laden is one small but significant step in hastening the arrival of that day. As one prominent Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) analyst put it to me recently, the American "spearhead will soon be pointed at Beijing."
China's focus on America is obsessive and omnipresent among its leaders and strategists. In a study of 100 recent articles by leading academics at CASS, comprising the network of official state-backed think-tanks and institutes throughout the country, I found that about four in every five were about the United States -- whether it was seeking to understand the American system and political values, or describing how to limit, circumvent, bind, or otherwise reduce American power and influence. Of these themes, several emerged that help better understand the thinking behind editorials like the one in the Global Times.
One is that Beijing views international politics in broadly neorealist terms. Chinese strategists believe the distribution of power in the world today will determine tomorrow's conflicts. China has long seen building competition between itself and America in particular as the inevitable and defining big-picture strategic play. In Beijing's thinking, tension can be managed, but never resolved, between the established power and the emerging one. Tension is a structural inevitability.
But Chinese experts also view America as a unique superpower that relentlessly seeks not only to build and maintain its power, but also to spread its democratic values. This is of grave concern to the authoritarian Chinese leaders, because they believe that America will have difficulty accepting a greater leadership role for Beijing so long as Communist Party remains exclusively in power. Senator John McCain's "League of Democracies" might never become a formal reality, but Beijing believes that it already exists, at least in Asia, through democracies such as India, Japan, and South Korea.
Moreover, Beijing fears the American democratic process. While Americans view democracy as an advantage since it can offer United States an institutional and bloodless process for leadership and policy renewal, China views American democracy as a source of irrationality and unpredictability. Many in Beijing, pointing to President George W. Bush's rapid decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, believe a new administration might actually increase the chances of uncomfortable shifts in policy that will lead Washington to suddenly focus its competitive and hostile gaze to the east.
Some of Beijing's strategists now even argue that the United States has three advantages over China that will help preserve American strategic primacy in Asia.
First, the United States has built an order based not just on American power but also democratic community. It has not escaped Beijing that few countries in East and Southeast Asia fear India's democratic rise. Whereas India's ascent is seen as natural, predictable, and welcomed, almost every country in Asia is trying to benefit from China's economic success while strategically hedging against Chinese military power by moving even closer to the United States. (Witness the recent speech by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard to Congress in which she reaffirmed the alliance with America as the bedrock of Canberra's security strategy, or Singapore's leader Lee Hsien Loong urging America to remain engaged in Asia.)
Second, unlike China, America does not have land and territorial disputes with other Asian states. For example, China still claims around 80 percent of the South China Sea as its "historic waters" and is in an ongoing dispute with India over the eastern-most Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. In this sense, China's rise is inherently disruptive since a more powerful China is likely to demand a resolution to these issues that is in Beijing's favor.
Third, the United States is not a resident power in that it is not geographically in Asia. China now realizes that this simple fact, once seen as a handicap, instead presents America with a unique advantage. To maintain its military bases in the region and thus remain the pre-eminent strategic power in Asia, the United States requires other key states and regional groupings to acquiesce to its security role and relationships. There is broad-based regional approval of U.S. alliances with Australia, Japan, and South Korea, as well as with partners such as India, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. This interdependent relationship means that America is not so powerful that it can easily ignore the wishes of Asian states.
In contrast, if China were in the dominant strategic position, its pre-eminence would be much harder to challenge or shift. Beijing would not need the same level of regional acquiescence. As a resident power, China would not need the "approval" of other Asian states to maintain its military footholds. As the largest Asian power, it would be easier to dominate regional institutions without an American presence -- yet one more reason why America is trusted to provide the public and security goods in Asian sea lanes while China is not.
All this is why, instead of taking full advantage of America's terrorism obsession, Beijing has watched resentfully as the United States has built a hierarchical democratic order in which Asian states willingly aid in preserving American pre-eminence. In such an order, China remains a strategic loner in Asia, with Myanmar and North Korea as its only true friends.
China is well aware of its relative vulnerabilities. Rather than lament the irretrievable loss of its better days, America should learn to better appreciate its relative strengths.
John Lee is research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He is author of Will China Fail?
U.S.-China Talks: What to Look for (http://www.cfr.org/china/us-china-talks-look/p24923) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
Security and U.S.-Sino Scientific Collaboration (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/02/security-and-us-sino-scientific-collaboration/) By Adam Segal | Council on Foreign Relations
US, China vie for influence among Indonesian riches (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME06Ae02.html) By Sara Schonhardt | Asia Times
As China Invests, U.S. Could Lose (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/business/global/04yuan.html) By DAVID BARBOZA | New York Times
China Invests Overseas (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3171&Itemid=422) Asia Sentinel
Is the Asian century a dream or reality? (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/05/06/is-asian-century-a-dream-or-reality.html) By Haruhiko Kuroda | Jakarta Post
A Future Scenario for Asia (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3177&Itemid=422) By Philip Bowring | Asia Sentinel
Japan, After March 11
The country, resilient as ever, remains Asia’s true power. (http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_2_japan.html)
By Guy Sorman | City Journal
wallpaper Cat-amp;-Dog Wallpapers. Download
alterego
11-21 05:37 PM
This man is truly delusional and ignorant and a total propaganda machine.
Tonight he is stating that India is going to transfer sensitive nuclear technology that it will get from the USA through the nuclear deal to China.
Does he even realise India got its ass kicked in a border war with China in the past, and that India and China share a border so that it rather than the US faces a more imminent danger from an all conquering and enabled nation.
What a moron. Tonight I realised the extent of his hillbilly journalism. All he is after is ratings, he chats pure S#*&. Harvard ought to be ashamed of him.
Tonight he is stating that India is going to transfer sensitive nuclear technology that it will get from the USA through the nuclear deal to China.
Does he even realise India got its ass kicked in a border war with China in the past, and that India and China share a border so that it rather than the US faces a more imminent danger from an all conquering and enabled nation.
What a moron. Tonight I realised the extent of his hillbilly journalism. All he is after is ratings, he chats pure S#*&. Harvard ought to be ashamed of him.
puddonhead
06-07 05:39 PM
5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.
Reward checking accounts are your friend....
Reward Checking Account Discussion (http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/775437)
They typically have some requirements like you may have to
1. Make 8-12 debit card transactions a month. Automatic payments for small amounts are usually your friend here.
2. Some of them may also need one or two direct deposits per month into the account.
The max balance up to which they will pay this interest rate is usually 25k. If you are rich - simply open up more than one at different financial institutions.
Right now - the rates are in the 4% range - but this is a very unusual time. I have seen rates in 6-7% range most of the time.
And if you are worried about risk - I guess nothing in this world can beat FDIC insurance in terms of risk hedge. I don't mean to say that the US government can never go bankrupt. In fact - the current strategy to spend spend spend out of the recession increases that chance. But there is NOTHING, not even stuffing your money in your mattress (hint: inflation) - which is superior in terms of preserving your capital.
Reward checking accounts are your friend....
Reward Checking Account Discussion (http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/775437)
They typically have some requirements like you may have to
1. Make 8-12 debit card transactions a month. Automatic payments for small amounts are usually your friend here.
2. Some of them may also need one or two direct deposits per month into the account.
The max balance up to which they will pay this interest rate is usually 25k. If you are rich - simply open up more than one at different financial institutions.
Right now - the rates are in the 4% range - but this is a very unusual time. I have seen rates in 6-7% range most of the time.
And if you are worried about risk - I guess nothing in this world can beat FDIC insurance in terms of risk hedge. I don't mean to say that the US government can never go bankrupt. In fact - the current strategy to spend spend spend out of the recession increases that chance. But there is NOTHING, not even stuffing your money in your mattress (hint: inflation) - which is superior in terms of preserving your capital.
2011 Dog Cat Friendship
thakurrajiv
03-26 03:35 PM
So my view is that inflation is a bigger problem that Ben B does not want to tackle in the near future(3-4 months). Well in times of inflation your savings/investment is better in real-estate than anything else. But definitely NOT cash.
So although we might be near the bottom of real estate market, we can never guesstimate the bottom until it has passed. My advice is, negotiate hard(buyers market) and get into a deal now. As a safety net, you can ask for a long escrow(around 180 days). That way you can backout of the deal if things head south. You've only lost the deposit(subject to arbitration at least in California).
Someone pointed out that Visa Status is a smaller issue, the big issue is if you can hold onto your investment for atleast 5 years, you are golden.
-----------
5 years is too less (you have to hold it for around 10 yrs minimum). 2 years the prices may/will fall. 2 years it would be steady and maybe start increasing slowly after that. so if you buy a house (depends on area ....but broadly) ..a 100K investment in RE (And if we take the best case scenario) after 5 years would be worth 80, 000. if you take inflation in to account.
in the end it is supply and demand -- supply is huge. where is the demand going to come from ?? immigration is tight and in the fast moving life -- people have fewer and fewer kids. if u want to be safe - cash is good (atleast principal is safe if you get around 4 percent return) ..it is best to have diversified portfolio. many of my friends have put everything in RE and are worried now
Good points. If I recall correctly baby boomers started retiring 2-3 years ago. With economy going south, I wonder how many of them are in financial trouble. Also, they are growing older and some of them dying. You have to believe this will add to the supply.
So although we might be near the bottom of real estate market, we can never guesstimate the bottom until it has passed. My advice is, negotiate hard(buyers market) and get into a deal now. As a safety net, you can ask for a long escrow(around 180 days). That way you can backout of the deal if things head south. You've only lost the deposit(subject to arbitration at least in California).
Someone pointed out that Visa Status is a smaller issue, the big issue is if you can hold onto your investment for atleast 5 years, you are golden.
-----------
5 years is too less (you have to hold it for around 10 yrs minimum). 2 years the prices may/will fall. 2 years it would be steady and maybe start increasing slowly after that. so if you buy a house (depends on area ....but broadly) ..a 100K investment in RE (And if we take the best case scenario) after 5 years would be worth 80, 000. if you take inflation in to account.
in the end it is supply and demand -- supply is huge. where is the demand going to come from ?? immigration is tight and in the fast moving life -- people have fewer and fewer kids. if u want to be safe - cash is good (atleast principal is safe if you get around 4 percent return) ..it is best to have diversified portfolio. many of my friends have put everything in RE and are worried now
Good points. If I recall correctly baby boomers started retiring 2-3 years ago. With economy going south, I wonder how many of them are in financial trouble. Also, they are growing older and some of them dying. You have to believe this will add to the supply.
more...
rsdang
08-11 05:19 PM
If you don't laugh at the end of reading this then there's something wrong with you... Just imagine sitting in traffic on your way to work
and hearing this. Many Chicago folks DID hear this on the WBAM FM morning show in Chicago. The DJs play a game where they award winners great
prizes. The game is called "Mate Match." The DJs call someone at work and ask if they are married or seriously involved with someone. If the
contestant answers "yes," he or she is then asked 3 random yet highly personal questions. The person is also asked to divulge the name of
their partner (with phone number) for verification. If their partner answers those same three questions correctly, they both win the prize. One
particular game, however, several months ago made the Windy City drop to its knees with laughter and is possibly the funniest thing I've heard
yet. Anyway, here's how it all went down:
DJ: Hey! This is Edgar on WBAM. Have you ever heard of Mate Match?
Contestant: (laughing) Yes, I have.
DJ: Great! Then you know we're giving away a trip to Orlando, Florida if you win. What is your name? First only please.
Contestant: Brian.
DJ: Brian, are you married or what?
Brian: Yes.
DJ: Yes? Does that mean you're married or you're what?
Brian: (laughing nervously) Yes, I am married.
DJ: Thank you. Now, what is your wife's name? First only please.
Brian: Sarah.
DJ: Is Sarah at work, Brian?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Stay with me here, Brian! Is she at work?
Brian: (laughing) Yes, she's at work.
DJ: Okay, first question - when was the last time you had sex?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Brian! Stay with me here!
Brian: About 8 o'clock this morning.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: (laughing sheepishly) Well...
DJ: Question #2 - How long did it last?
Brian: About 10 minutes.
DJ: Wow! You really want that trip, huh? No one would ever have said that if a trip wasn't at stake.
Brian: Yeah, that trip sure would be nice.
DJ: Okay. Final question. Where did you have sex at 8 o'clock this morning?
Brian: (laughing hard) I, ummm, I, well...
DJ: This sounds good, Brian. Where was it at?
Brian: Not that it was all that great, but her mom is staying with us for a couple of weeks...
DJ: Uh huh...
Brian: .and the Mother-In-Law was in the shower at the time.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: On the kitchen table.
DJ: Not that great?? That is more adventure than the previous hundred times I've done it. Okay folks, I will put Brian on hold, get this wife's
work number and call her up. You listen to this.
(3 minutes of commercials follow)
DJ: Okay audience, let's call Sarah, shall we?
(touch tones... ringing...)
Clerk: Kinkos.
DJ: Hey, is Sarah around there somewhere?
Clerk: This is she.
DJ: Sarah, this is Edgar with WBAM. We are live on the air right now and I've been talking with Brian for a couple of hours now.
Sarah: (laughing) A couple of hours?
DJ: Well, a while now. He is on the line with us. Brian knows not to give any answers away! or you'll lose. Sooooooo... do you know the rules of
MateMatch?
Sarah: No.
DJ: Good!
Brian: (laughing)
Sarah: (laughing) Brian, what the hell are you up to?
Brian: (laughing) Just answer his questions honestly, okay? Be completely honest.
DJ: Yeah yeah yeah. Sure.. Now, I will ask you 3 questions, Sarah. ! If your answers match Brian's answers, then the both of you will be of To
Orlando, Florida for 5 ! days on us. Disney World. Sea World. Tickets to the Magic's game. The whole deal. Get it Sarah?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Alright. When did you last have sex, Sarah?
Sarah: Oh God, Brian....uh, this morning before Brian went to work.
DJ: What time?
Sarah: Around 8 this morning.
DJ: Very good. Next question. How long did it last?
Sarah: 12, 15 minutes maybe.
DJ:! Hmmmm. That's close enough. I am sure she is trying to protect his manhood. We've got one last question, Sarah. You are one question away
from a trip to Florida. Are you ready?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Where did you have it?
Sarah: OH MY GOD, BRIAN!! You didn't tell them that, did you?
Brian: Just tell him, honey.
DJ: What is bothering you so much, Sarah?
Sarah: Well, it's just that my mom is! vacationing with us and...
DJ: Come on Sarah... where did you have it?
Sarah: In the butt...
(long pause)
DJ: Folks, we need to take a station break
and hearing this. Many Chicago folks DID hear this on the WBAM FM morning show in Chicago. The DJs play a game where they award winners great
prizes. The game is called "Mate Match." The DJs call someone at work and ask if they are married or seriously involved with someone. If the
contestant answers "yes," he or she is then asked 3 random yet highly personal questions. The person is also asked to divulge the name of
their partner (with phone number) for verification. If their partner answers those same three questions correctly, they both win the prize. One
particular game, however, several months ago made the Windy City drop to its knees with laughter and is possibly the funniest thing I've heard
yet. Anyway, here's how it all went down:
DJ: Hey! This is Edgar on WBAM. Have you ever heard of Mate Match?
Contestant: (laughing) Yes, I have.
DJ: Great! Then you know we're giving away a trip to Orlando, Florida if you win. What is your name? First only please.
Contestant: Brian.
DJ: Brian, are you married or what?
Brian: Yes.
DJ: Yes? Does that mean you're married or you're what?
Brian: (laughing nervously) Yes, I am married.
DJ: Thank you. Now, what is your wife's name? First only please.
Brian: Sarah.
DJ: Is Sarah at work, Brian?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Stay with me here, Brian! Is she at work?
Brian: (laughing) Yes, she's at work.
DJ: Okay, first question - when was the last time you had sex?
Brian: She is gonna kill me.
DJ: Brian! Stay with me here!
Brian: About 8 o'clock this morning.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: (laughing sheepishly) Well...
DJ: Question #2 - How long did it last?
Brian: About 10 minutes.
DJ: Wow! You really want that trip, huh? No one would ever have said that if a trip wasn't at stake.
Brian: Yeah, that trip sure would be nice.
DJ: Okay. Final question. Where did you have sex at 8 o'clock this morning?
Brian: (laughing hard) I, ummm, I, well...
DJ: This sounds good, Brian. Where was it at?
Brian: Not that it was all that great, but her mom is staying with us for a couple of weeks...
DJ: Uh huh...
Brian: .and the Mother-In-Law was in the shower at the time.
DJ: Atta boy, Brian.
Brian: On the kitchen table.
DJ: Not that great?? That is more adventure than the previous hundred times I've done it. Okay folks, I will put Brian on hold, get this wife's
work number and call her up. You listen to this.
(3 minutes of commercials follow)
DJ: Okay audience, let's call Sarah, shall we?
(touch tones... ringing...)
Clerk: Kinkos.
DJ: Hey, is Sarah around there somewhere?
Clerk: This is she.
DJ: Sarah, this is Edgar with WBAM. We are live on the air right now and I've been talking with Brian for a couple of hours now.
Sarah: (laughing) A couple of hours?
DJ: Well, a while now. He is on the line with us. Brian knows not to give any answers away! or you'll lose. Sooooooo... do you know the rules of
MateMatch?
Sarah: No.
DJ: Good!
Brian: (laughing)
Sarah: (laughing) Brian, what the hell are you up to?
Brian: (laughing) Just answer his questions honestly, okay? Be completely honest.
DJ: Yeah yeah yeah. Sure.. Now, I will ask you 3 questions, Sarah. ! If your answers match Brian's answers, then the both of you will be of To
Orlando, Florida for 5 ! days on us. Disney World. Sea World. Tickets to the Magic's game. The whole deal. Get it Sarah?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Alright. When did you last have sex, Sarah?
Sarah: Oh God, Brian....uh, this morning before Brian went to work.
DJ: What time?
Sarah: Around 8 this morning.
DJ: Very good. Next question. How long did it last?
Sarah: 12, 15 minutes maybe.
DJ:! Hmmmm. That's close enough. I am sure she is trying to protect his manhood. We've got one last question, Sarah. You are one question away
from a trip to Florida. Are you ready?
Sarah: (laughing) Yes.
DJ: Where did you have it?
Sarah: OH MY GOD, BRIAN!! You didn't tell them that, did you?
Brian: Just tell him, honey.
DJ: What is bothering you so much, Sarah?
Sarah: Well, it's just that my mom is! vacationing with us and...
DJ: Come on Sarah... where did you have it?
Sarah: In the butt...
(long pause)
DJ: Folks, we need to take a station break
Macaca
12-16 09:22 PM
Democrats Assess Hill Damage, Leadership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121600306.html) By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press, December 16, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats will have plenty to ponder during the Christmas-New Year recess. For instance, why did things go so badly this fall, and how well did their leaders serve them?
Partisan players will quarrel for months, but objective analysts say the debate must start here: An embattled president made extraordinary use of his veto power and he was backed by GOP lawmakers who may have put their political fortunes at risk.
Also, a new Democratic leadership team overestimated the impact of the Iraq war and the 2006 elections, learning too late they had no tools to force Bush and his allies to compromise on bitterly contested issues.
Both parties seem convinced that voters will reward them 11 months from now. And they agree that Congress' gridlock and frustration are likely to continue until then _ and possibly beyond _ unless the narrow party margins in the House and Senate change appreciably.
In a string of setbacks last week, Democratic leaders in Congress yielded to Bush and his GOP allies on Iraqi war funding, tax and health policies, energy policy and spending decisions affecting billions of dollars throughout the government.
The concessions stunned many House and Senate Democrats, who saw the 2006 elections as a mandate to redirect the war and Bush's domestic priorities. Instead, they found his goals unchanged and his clout barely diminished.
Facing a Democratic-run Congress after six years of GOP control, Bush repeatedly turned to actual or threatened vetoes, which can be overridden only by highly elusive two-thirds majority votes in both congressional chambers.
Bush's reliance on veto threats was so remarkable that "it's hard to say there are precedents for it," said Steve Hess, a George Washington University government professor whose federal experience began in the Eisenhower administration.
Previous presidents used veto threats more sparingly, Hess said, partly because they hoped to coax later concessions from an opposition-run Congress. But with the demise of major Bush initiatives such as revamping Social Security and immigration laws, Hess said, "you've got a president who doesn't want anything" in his final year.
Bush's scorched-earth strategy may prove riskier for Republicans who backed him, Hess said. Signs point to likely Democratic victories in the presidential and many congressional races next year, he said.
That is the keen hope of Congress' Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. They have admitted that Bush's intransigence on the war surprised them, as did the unbroken loyalty shown to him by most House and Senate Republicans.
Empowered by Bush's veto threats, Republican lawmakers rejected Democratic efforts to wind down the war, impose taxes on the wealthy to offset middle-class tax cuts, roll back tax breaks on oil companies to help promote renewable energy and conservation, and greatly expand federal health care for children.
Pelosi on Friday cited "reckless opposition from the president and Republicans in Congress" in defending her party's modest achievements.
Americans remain mostly against the war, though increasingly pleased with recent reductions in violence and casualties, an AP-Ipsos poll showed earlier this month. While a steady six in 10 have long said the 2003 invasion was a mistake, the public is now about evenly split over whether the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Opposition to the war is especially strong among the Democratic Party's liberal base. Some lawmakers say Pelosi and Reid should have told those liberal activists to accept more modest changes in Iraq, tax policies and spending, in the name of political reality.
"They never learned to accept the art of the possible," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., a former majority leader who is partisan but willing to work with Democrats. "They kept going right up to the limit and exceeding it, making it possible for us to defeat them, over and over again," Lott said in an interview.
He cited the Democrats' failed efforts to add billions of dollars to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush vetoed twice because of the proposed scope and cost. A somewhat smaller increase was possible, Lott said, but Democrats refused to negotiate with moderate Republicans until it was too late.
"They thought, 'We're going to win on the politics, we'll stick it to Bush,'" Lott said. "That's not the way things happen around here."
Some Democrats say House GOP leaders would have killed any bid to forge a veto-proof margin on the children's health bill. But others say the effort was clumsily handled in the House, where key Democrats at first ignored, and later selectively engaged, rank-and-file Republicans whose support they needed.
Some Washington veterans say Democrats, especially in the ostentatiously polite Senate, must fight more viciously if they hope to turn public opinion against GOP obstruction tactics. With Democrats holding or controlling 51 of the 100 seats, Republicans repeatedly thwart their initiatives by threatening filibusters, which require 60 votes to overcome.
Democrats should force Republicans into all-day and all-night sessions for a week or two, said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar for the right-of-center think tank American Enterprise Institute. The tactic wouldn't change senators' votes, he said, but it might build public awareness and resentment of GOP obstructionists in a way that a one-night talkfest cannot.
To date, Reid has resisted such ideas, which would anger and inconvenience some Democratic senators as well as Republicans.
more...
jhegde
08-02 03:47 PM
.
2010 sweet sisters love dog and cat
thakurrajiv
03-26 10:13 AM
These banks, Mortgage companies and realtors - The whole nexus of sharks have made refinance almost impossible since last week.. Any body else noticed that? What happened is as soon as FED cut down the rate this nexus dramatically reduces the price 10 - 15%. If you go to zillow, you would find at least 10% reduction published for almost every home with comparison to 5 days before... Something is cooking up.. I do not know what it may be...At least for VA, MD, DC based homes I see this pattern. It looks like, lenders do not want to invite refinances.. and that is scary. Even most sites shows the list of properties with less value under " property sold last in 6 months" and make the properties disappeared which wer sold with reasonable price. I noticed this pattern for many bank alerts as well. So now the real picture you can get from is the county database only to fight these sharks. Are they trying to divert all to government loans (FHA?)... watch out.
I posted a few messages in another thread on macroeconomic issues. As you found out, a lot of people don't understand the severity of credit crunch. If you have lot of cash, yes you have a big advantage, go and invest. Even if you get it wrong for next 5 years, you will be ok.
But for people who want to do this on borrowed money, credit crunch will hit you. The credit crunch will get worse. Whole mortgage industry will change, things will tighten. This just means something has to give up, which is house price.
If you are already not in a house, wait as you might be able to buy at much lower prices. Jump into RE as investment now only if you have enough cash to sustain upto 30% drop in home prices !!
I posted a few messages in another thread on macroeconomic issues. As you found out, a lot of people don't understand the severity of credit crunch. If you have lot of cash, yes you have a big advantage, go and invest. Even if you get it wrong for next 5 years, you will be ok.
But for people who want to do this on borrowed money, credit crunch will hit you. The credit crunch will get worse. Whole mortgage industry will change, things will tighten. This just means something has to give up, which is house price.
If you are already not in a house, wait as you might be able to buy at much lower prices. Jump into RE as investment now only if you have enough cash to sustain upto 30% drop in home prices !!
more...
paskal
07-14 04:45 PM
The reason for this was not because of EB3ROW getting preference, it was because USCIS illegally used up entire year's quota before the congress actually authorized them to. Stop making false claims about EB3ROW getting preference over Eb2-I
but you are not correct about this. please look it up. The vertical spillover was going to EB3 ROW, had that not been so, EB2 I would not have become U, even though (you are right about that) USCIS was actually allocating a little too fast.
The bottom line is this: before the "system changed" the spillover went to EB3 ROW (country quota more important that category preference)
Now with revised interpretation spillover goes first to EB2 retrogressed countries (preference category precedent over country quota- use of soft quota provison from AC21). Either way Eb3 I was last on the totem pole.
There would have been no spillover to EB3 I in either situation. I'm not saying this to either to justify it or to argue for it's fairness. Just trying to make a point about the root issues.
Therefore, the "change" leaves EB3 I exactly where it was before- which of course is an insane place to be. Frankly, in your place, I would be freaking going out of my mind. But if your only reason for this action is that "change", you have to sit back a moment and understand what the change has doen (or in this case not done) to you.
The ONLY way to solve the EB3I problem is increased GC numbers. That is why recapture has been the first and foremost thing we have always pursued. Last time there was a recapture, GC numbers went to every single category. Anyway you look at it, if with a recapture, EB2 became current, every bit of spillover in every quarter would go to EB3. Eventually, there will be more long lasting reform. For now we desperately need the extra numbers in any form or shape.
Just my 2c. not trying to trying to "stop your voice from being heard". One piece of friendly and well meaning advice. Target letters and measures at those that have the power to make the changes you want. Otherwise the effort is pointless from the start.
but you are not correct about this. please look it up. The vertical spillover was going to EB3 ROW, had that not been so, EB2 I would not have become U, even though (you are right about that) USCIS was actually allocating a little too fast.
The bottom line is this: before the "system changed" the spillover went to EB3 ROW (country quota more important that category preference)
Now with revised interpretation spillover goes first to EB2 retrogressed countries (preference category precedent over country quota- use of soft quota provison from AC21). Either way Eb3 I was last on the totem pole.
There would have been no spillover to EB3 I in either situation. I'm not saying this to either to justify it or to argue for it's fairness. Just trying to make a point about the root issues.
Therefore, the "change" leaves EB3 I exactly where it was before- which of course is an insane place to be. Frankly, in your place, I would be freaking going out of my mind. But if your only reason for this action is that "change", you have to sit back a moment and understand what the change has doen (or in this case not done) to you.
The ONLY way to solve the EB3I problem is increased GC numbers. That is why recapture has been the first and foremost thing we have always pursued. Last time there was a recapture, GC numbers went to every single category. Anyway you look at it, if with a recapture, EB2 became current, every bit of spillover in every quarter would go to EB3. Eventually, there will be more long lasting reform. For now we desperately need the extra numbers in any form or shape.
Just my 2c. not trying to trying to "stop your voice from being heard". One piece of friendly and well meaning advice. Target letters and measures at those that have the power to make the changes you want. Otherwise the effort is pointless from the start.
hair Cat and Dog Can Live Together
Beta_mle
04-05 05:09 PM
I think one needs to consider both cash flow and quality of life. Apartment living with kids is not very pleasant, a house with a yard is really the optimal scenario. Mortgage payments may be comparable with rent, depending on your location, but utility bills are greater in a house. Then there are tax issues, whereby you can deduct the interest paid, and you are also building equity.
It's very complex, and our immigration status is just one more complication. However, like the Bible says, "he that regardeth the wind shall not sow". I think if you are at that time of life and you are planning to settle in the USA just go ahead and do it. I did it in my second year of H1B and it is now 5 yrs later. I am now in 485 stage and in the meantime I have built some equity and have no regrets.
Good luck to you!
It's very complex, and our immigration status is just one more complication. However, like the Bible says, "he that regardeth the wind shall not sow". I think if you are at that time of life and you are planning to settle in the USA just go ahead and do it. I did it in my second year of H1B and it is now 5 yrs later. I am now in 485 stage and in the meantime I have built some equity and have no regrets.
Good luck to you!
more...
alisa
01-03 10:59 PM
I try to avoid long posts, as well as obviously silly ones. I also pick and choose sometimes.
Otherwise it takes up a lot of time.
Let me try to sum up my logic, and my beliefs. I'll try to be brief.
1) There are militants running around in Pakistan that want to provoke India into a conflict with Pakistan. These are the same people who blew up Marriot in Islamabad, and killed Benazir, and tried to kill Musharraf twice.
2) If they succeed in starting an India/Pakistan 'cricket match', that would provide them with relief, and give them more room and more chances to grow.
3) If they don't succeed, they will probably try again, and again, until they DO succeed, which would be a disaster. And therefore, it is absolutely necessary that Pakistan investigates and gets to the bottom of Bombay.
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, I am seeing denial. That is not good.
4) Steps that convert the situation into an India-Pakistan cricket match must be avoided. In the past, India and Pakistan have tried to score points against each other, and supported insurgencies and tried to destabilize the other country. Some of that probably goes on today as well. So, this childish and silly cricket match should stop.
So, that probably sums up what I think. I don't know if I contradict myself anywhere; maybe I do. But its a very complex situation, with no easy answers.
I'm not with those proposing war on this thread neither am I with those advocating no war (I felt most of the reasons, not all, were ugly).I was not keen about sharing my thoughts on this topic or may be I was not sure so I didn't join this thread earlier although I've been watching this thread.
No matter what is being discussed on this thread there is no war imminent in South Asia ,which is good.There's not going to be any war not because of the reasons that some of the folks on this thread that are against war were citing . We all know the reasons why there won't be war.
There's not much that we as individuals could do to wage a war or stop a war ,that's for sure at least for now.
Nevertheless it's interesting discussion.
That said now something for you alisa.
If you would revisit the earlier posts on this thread you would find that we did trace that part of the circle. With due respect I would like to ask, now do you understand why 'nojoke' is calling you delirious?
Please revisit the earlier posts on this thread you and all of your Pakistanis(that you are pitching in for) would get to know what you want to know.
Now Specifically for you :
1.Either you already know what you are doing -trying to take everyone on a silly logical ride
or
2.You don't know what you are doing and thus taking everyone along with yourself on this silly logical ride.
If it's #1 we have many smart alecs in the society and that's nothing new.It's for us to royally ignore you unless of course someone wants to kill their time responding to you.
If it's #2 , though you have not asked me here's a piece of friendly advice, take it or drop it,it's your choice.But before you go about posting on this thread next time sit down and contemplate your logic that's telling you what you are doing is right.See if you are convinced. That'll help you a lot in many aspects not just on the subject of this thread.
Your this unending tireless logic that is so strong that it won't let you see that you are doing circles.Delirium would be one word for it but my explanation is the customized(for you) meaning of the word delirium which seems to suit you aptly for now.
you would find an answer to your this question if you went back to read your posts just yours not even other posts on this thread.
Now if there were incidents like 9/11 going on in this country for last 20 years, all committed by South Asians and then a person from South Asia keeps arguing that Americans should not go to war against South Asia to deal with a problem that South Asia doesn't seem capable of dealing with then apology won't look silly to start with and here 'nojoke' is asking for an apology almost towards the tail end of the thread(Meaning all the folks on this thread have been really patient,understanding with you and your logic though we allcould see through it just after first 5-6 posts.)
If you keep your house shabby,don't get rid of the garbage that you know is breeding those roaches and those roaches keep jumping on to the next house from yours ...the said neighbor has been patient with those roaches for like 20 years...then when he and the corporation think of taking action(clean up) the garbage in your place... then you/your house mates jump in to say that your neighbor,corporation and you should work together or wait for like another 20 years to get rid of those roaches when the actual work can be accomplished much sooner, who is at fault here?.
I've also observed from all your posts that you keep citing example after example, when someone joins in to break your silly logic you royally ignore those posts ,go ahead and throw another logical example at another post that you choose.
For instance refer to this answer from 'GCmuddu_H1BVadd' to you earlier post
Moral of the story:
Till a certain point you were fine (where many of us thought that you are much better than 'Zeb','Shuuyaib') but then you started (you kow it or not ) playing this game where you concede a point only to keep peddling this haggard logic of yours.
On a humorous note I guess you are trying to get solutions to all of the pakistan's problems for free on this forum from IV members(be it roaches, terrorists, non-state actors or the state itself.)
So go on ...keep posting your delusions ...or give your self a chance to
think what you are doing...I'm not saying you don't think(just that your logic in on what can be called irrelevant overdrive). I guess even you would agree that too much of anything is too bad be it terrorism or your haggard logic.
All those who don't agree with me keep having fun with this handles posts.
Thank you.
Otherwise it takes up a lot of time.
Let me try to sum up my logic, and my beliefs. I'll try to be brief.
1) There are militants running around in Pakistan that want to provoke India into a conflict with Pakistan. These are the same people who blew up Marriot in Islamabad, and killed Benazir, and tried to kill Musharraf twice.
2) If they succeed in starting an India/Pakistan 'cricket match', that would provide them with relief, and give them more room and more chances to grow.
3) If they don't succeed, they will probably try again, and again, until they DO succeed, which would be a disaster. And therefore, it is absolutely necessary that Pakistan investigates and gets to the bottom of Bombay.
Unfortunately, in Pakistan, I am seeing denial. That is not good.
4) Steps that convert the situation into an India-Pakistan cricket match must be avoided. In the past, India and Pakistan have tried to score points against each other, and supported insurgencies and tried to destabilize the other country. Some of that probably goes on today as well. So, this childish and silly cricket match should stop.
So, that probably sums up what I think. I don't know if I contradict myself anywhere; maybe I do. But its a very complex situation, with no easy answers.
I'm not with those proposing war on this thread neither am I with those advocating no war (I felt most of the reasons, not all, were ugly).I was not keen about sharing my thoughts on this topic or may be I was not sure so I didn't join this thread earlier although I've been watching this thread.
No matter what is being discussed on this thread there is no war imminent in South Asia ,which is good.There's not going to be any war not because of the reasons that some of the folks on this thread that are against war were citing . We all know the reasons why there won't be war.
There's not much that we as individuals could do to wage a war or stop a war ,that's for sure at least for now.
Nevertheless it's interesting discussion.
That said now something for you alisa.
If you would revisit the earlier posts on this thread you would find that we did trace that part of the circle. With due respect I would like to ask, now do you understand why 'nojoke' is calling you delirious?
Please revisit the earlier posts on this thread you and all of your Pakistanis(that you are pitching in for) would get to know what you want to know.
Now Specifically for you :
1.Either you already know what you are doing -trying to take everyone on a silly logical ride
or
2.You don't know what you are doing and thus taking everyone along with yourself on this silly logical ride.
If it's #1 we have many smart alecs in the society and that's nothing new.It's for us to royally ignore you unless of course someone wants to kill their time responding to you.
If it's #2 , though you have not asked me here's a piece of friendly advice, take it or drop it,it's your choice.But before you go about posting on this thread next time sit down and contemplate your logic that's telling you what you are doing is right.See if you are convinced. That'll help you a lot in many aspects not just on the subject of this thread.
Your this unending tireless logic that is so strong that it won't let you see that you are doing circles.Delirium would be one word for it but my explanation is the customized(for you) meaning of the word delirium which seems to suit you aptly for now.
you would find an answer to your this question if you went back to read your posts just yours not even other posts on this thread.
Now if there were incidents like 9/11 going on in this country for last 20 years, all committed by South Asians and then a person from South Asia keeps arguing that Americans should not go to war against South Asia to deal with a problem that South Asia doesn't seem capable of dealing with then apology won't look silly to start with and here 'nojoke' is asking for an apology almost towards the tail end of the thread(Meaning all the folks on this thread have been really patient,understanding with you and your logic though we allcould see through it just after first 5-6 posts.)
If you keep your house shabby,don't get rid of the garbage that you know is breeding those roaches and those roaches keep jumping on to the next house from yours ...the said neighbor has been patient with those roaches for like 20 years...then when he and the corporation think of taking action(clean up) the garbage in your place... then you/your house mates jump in to say that your neighbor,corporation and you should work together or wait for like another 20 years to get rid of those roaches when the actual work can be accomplished much sooner, who is at fault here?.
I've also observed from all your posts that you keep citing example after example, when someone joins in to break your silly logic you royally ignore those posts ,go ahead and throw another logical example at another post that you choose.
For instance refer to this answer from 'GCmuddu_H1BVadd' to you earlier post
Moral of the story:
Till a certain point you were fine (where many of us thought that you are much better than 'Zeb','Shuuyaib') but then you started (you kow it or not ) playing this game where you concede a point only to keep peddling this haggard logic of yours.
On a humorous note I guess you are trying to get solutions to all of the pakistan's problems for free on this forum from IV members(be it roaches, terrorists, non-state actors or the state itself.)
So go on ...keep posting your delusions ...or give your self a chance to
think what you are doing...I'm not saying you don't think(just that your logic in on what can be called irrelevant overdrive). I guess even you would agree that too much of anything is too bad be it terrorism or your haggard logic.
All those who don't agree with me keep having fun with this handles posts.
Thank you.
hot wallpaper Cat and Dog
sundarpn
07-13 12:05 AM
Just curious if this is being endorsed by IV?
more...
house Dogs, a cats best friend,
subba
12-27 12:57 PM
Especially considering Sen. Cornyn seems to be opposed to some of the provisions being discussed for the illegal immigrants.
tattoo Cat And Dog Wallpaper,
chintu25
08-07 10:59 AM
CIRCUIT
Bhai, Bapu ne bola tha ke kabhi jhoot nehin bolna mangta hai. Apun aaj se kabhi jhoot nehin bolega Bhai.
MUNNA BHAI
Aye Circuit, woh Sunita ka baap aya hai terayko dund rehla hai.
CIRCUIT
Bhai usko bolo apun gaon gaya hai, kheti karneko.
MUNNA BHAI
Par Circuit, abhi to tu bola kabhi jhoot nehin bolega.
CIRCUIT
Bhai, apun jhoot nehin bolega, par tum to bol sakta hai na.
:D
MAMU
Bhai, apnay ko char mahinay mein Tamil sikhna padega. Kuch upay batao.
MUNNA BHAI
Kannada kyun, aur char mahinay ka kya chakkar hai?
MAMU
Meinay ek Tamil baccha adopt kiya hai, aur woh char mahinay mein bolne lagay ga.
:D
CIRCUIT
Oye Short Circuit yeh light bulb pe baap ka naam kya likh raha hai?
SHORT CIRCUIT
Apun baap ka naam roshan kar rehle hai.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Bhai, Bapu ne bola tha ke kabhi jhoot nehin bolna mangta hai. Apun aaj se kabhi jhoot nehin bolega Bhai.
MUNNA BHAI
Aye Circuit, woh Sunita ka baap aya hai terayko dund rehla hai.
CIRCUIT
Bhai usko bolo apun gaon gaya hai, kheti karneko.
MUNNA BHAI
Par Circuit, abhi to tu bola kabhi jhoot nehin bolega.
CIRCUIT
Bhai, apun jhoot nehin bolega, par tum to bol sakta hai na.
:D
MAMU
Bhai, apnay ko char mahinay mein Tamil sikhna padega. Kuch upay batao.
MUNNA BHAI
Kannada kyun, aur char mahinay ka kya chakkar hai?
MAMU
Meinay ek Tamil baccha adopt kiya hai, aur woh char mahinay mein bolne lagay ga.
:D
CIRCUIT
Oye Short Circuit yeh light bulb pe baap ka naam kya likh raha hai?
SHORT CIRCUIT
Apun baap ka naam roshan kar rehle hai.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
more...
pictures Dogs and Cats Gallery Photo
Munna Bhai
07-08 07:47 PM
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
What made them to ask paystub for during 2000 and 2001?
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
What made them to ask paystub for during 2000 and 2001?
dresses cat dog space cute picture and
unitednations
08-02 10:47 PM
Thanks for your valuable suggestions UN.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Keep in mind that not many people post all of these issues. People keep these types of rfe's, denials closely guarded. When I used to have my contact info. on the boards; people would call me and discuss with me and I would remember a similar posting. The posting would have been that persons but what they posted had only 10% of the story of what it really was. Point is that people need to educate themselves on these scenarios. At the same time; uscis usually just goes and approves the case by glossing over it and missing it. However, when you get an adjudicator who wants to make a mark for him/herself they may go after these gray areas. I was pretty ignorant about it until my case went for a loop and then I got obsessed with learning these issues.
From a common sense point of view; future base employment or if you leave an employer before 485 is pending for less then 180 days and say you had intent to work with them until 485 was pending for 180 days is pretty much not genuine. However; it is in the law. If uscis sees that you were working with a company and left early and said you were going to return or had intent up until 180 days was over to join them; then they can start going after the intent issue. That is; if you went to self employed, totally different field; made substantially more money and said that you still had intent up until 180 days to join upon greencard approval; then you have to be really careful about it.
Confusion within the law is that ac21 says you can "switch" employers after 180 days. The word "switch" implies that you were in that employment for 180 days and then you changed.
However; uscis clarified in all of the memos that since greencard is future base; there is no standard to even work with the employer until greencard is approved. Since there is no standard to work with them prior to approval then a person could use ac21 to change "intention" after 180 days. However; they always talk about "intent", "bona fide", etc. These words have so much wiggle room for uscis to abuse their powers or make things difficult for you.
If you wanted to be on the safe side, just in case uscis asked then you should get an updated offer letter at the 180 day mark that the job is still open once you get the greencard approved.
So, do you think it's a better to take a letter from the current employer stating that the position will be available at the time of GC approval, just in case?
Also if I start working on EAD before 180 days, will that cause any problems in getting I-485 approval?
Thanks again. I really appreciate your help.
Keep in mind that not many people post all of these issues. People keep these types of rfe's, denials closely guarded. When I used to have my contact info. on the boards; people would call me and discuss with me and I would remember a similar posting. The posting would have been that persons but what they posted had only 10% of the story of what it really was. Point is that people need to educate themselves on these scenarios. At the same time; uscis usually just goes and approves the case by glossing over it and missing it. However, when you get an adjudicator who wants to make a mark for him/herself they may go after these gray areas. I was pretty ignorant about it until my case went for a loop and then I got obsessed with learning these issues.
From a common sense point of view; future base employment or if you leave an employer before 485 is pending for less then 180 days and say you had intent to work with them until 485 was pending for 180 days is pretty much not genuine. However; it is in the law. If uscis sees that you were working with a company and left early and said you were going to return or had intent up until 180 days was over to join them; then they can start going after the intent issue. That is; if you went to self employed, totally different field; made substantially more money and said that you still had intent up until 180 days to join upon greencard approval; then you have to be really careful about it.
Confusion within the law is that ac21 says you can "switch" employers after 180 days. The word "switch" implies that you were in that employment for 180 days and then you changed.
However; uscis clarified in all of the memos that since greencard is future base; there is no standard to even work with the employer until greencard is approved. Since there is no standard to work with them prior to approval then a person could use ac21 to change "intention" after 180 days. However; they always talk about "intent", "bona fide", etc. These words have so much wiggle room for uscis to abuse their powers or make things difficult for you.
If you wanted to be on the safe side, just in case uscis asked then you should get an updated offer letter at the 180 day mark that the job is still open once you get the greencard approved.
more...
makeup Cat, Dog Wallpaper: Hero
GCInThisLife
07-19 02:17 PM
UN,
Sorry for sending the PM.
This link was provided in another thread regarding H1B status. Not entirely sure what it means.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : Must an H-1B alien be working at all times?
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Sorry for sending the PM.
This link was provided in another thread regarding H1B status. Not entirely sure what it means.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : Must an H-1B alien be working at all times?
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
girlfriend Windows wallpaper, cat love
unseenguy
06-26 06:04 PM
A lot of bickering going on in this thread is because many of us (including yours truely) find it very difficult to understand/calculate
1. Time Value of money (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money)).
2. Cash Flow (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_flow))
3. Risk, not the english term - but the quantifiable aspects of it (Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk))
4. Leverage (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)))
I have worked on many of these concepts for > 2 years at work (I am a techie - but have also worked as a BA and part time quant for some time). I still personally find it very difficult to intuitively understand many of those concepts.
A proper conclusion of whether buying is better or renting is would involve each and every one of these concepts - and a lot of assumptions (what will be rate of inflation, how will the home prices behave etc). Since there would be so many assumptions - I doubt it will be at all possible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. Your best bet would probably be a monte carlo analysis and see which one is more probably the superior one.
So surprise of surprises - there is no "right answer"!!
That said - I personally follow the a modified model of "dynamic programming" that my college taught me in the 2nd year of bachelors. You CAN NOT estimate future variables with ANY accuracy. So optimize your present steps based on some cost function.
Applying that to the present problem - you CAN NOT estimate how the home prices will behave in future or how will the rent be or how will the inflation (or - horror of horrors - deflation) behave. The only thing you can optimize is your cash flow TODAY and the Present Value of any investment you hold. Present value = market value of your equity (even if the price is 40% lower than when you bought). Your "cost function" (maybe we should rename it to "wealth function") that you are trying to optimize is your net worth.
The result of the "dynamic programming" approach if probably not going to be the most optimal - but it will be the best that I know of. :-)
Best of luck guys.
Hi Puddon head :
Thanks for putting this all together. I support mathematical approaches. Monte carlo analysis is a good approach and it will always present the most pessimistic scenario.
For optimistic analysis you can use, 3 or 6 point analysis like, (P + O + 4*ML)/6. Although ML in this situation is a tricky part.
I agree that you are going to end up with a range rather than any specific number. I also agree that it is crucial to get the Most likely range with acceptable standard deviation :)
You can use six sigma approach also :) ;) (just kidding on this last one).
1. Time Value of money (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money)).
2. Cash Flow (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_flow))
3. Risk, not the english term - but the quantifiable aspects of it (Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk))
4. Leverage (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)))
I have worked on many of these concepts for > 2 years at work (I am a techie - but have also worked as a BA and part time quant for some time). I still personally find it very difficult to intuitively understand many of those concepts.
A proper conclusion of whether buying is better or renting is would involve each and every one of these concepts - and a lot of assumptions (what will be rate of inflation, how will the home prices behave etc). Since there would be so many assumptions - I doubt it will be at all possible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. Your best bet would probably be a monte carlo analysis and see which one is more probably the superior one.
So surprise of surprises - there is no "right answer"!!
That said - I personally follow the a modified model of "dynamic programming" that my college taught me in the 2nd year of bachelors. You CAN NOT estimate future variables with ANY accuracy. So optimize your present steps based on some cost function.
Applying that to the present problem - you CAN NOT estimate how the home prices will behave in future or how will the rent be or how will the inflation (or - horror of horrors - deflation) behave. The only thing you can optimize is your cash flow TODAY and the Present Value of any investment you hold. Present value = market value of your equity (even if the price is 40% lower than when you bought). Your "cost function" (maybe we should rename it to "wealth function") that you are trying to optimize is your net worth.
The result of the "dynamic programming" approach if probably not going to be the most optimal - but it will be the best that I know of. :-)
Best of luck guys.
Hi Puddon head :
Thanks for putting this all together. I support mathematical approaches. Monte carlo analysis is a good approach and it will always present the most pessimistic scenario.
For optimistic analysis you can use, 3 or 6 point analysis like, (P + O + 4*ML)/6. Although ML in this situation is a tricky part.
I agree that you are going to end up with a range rather than any specific number. I also agree that it is crucial to get the Most likely range with acceptable standard deviation :)
You can use six sigma approach also :) ;) (just kidding on this last one).
hairstyles Dog amp; Cat Wallpapers. Download
krishna.ahd
01-06 04:10 PM
Didn't Narendra Modi followed the footstep of Isreali counterparts by killing innocents in Gujarat?
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
If you dont know the reality , then
I had lived in gujarat for 40 years and all these years right from 1965 every year there was communal riots ( sepcially starts on Rath Yatra ) and more Hindu got killed then Muslims , just once the more muslim got killed then Hindu , and you see the whole world come to know about that. Where were every one including you for the last 40 years ??
BTW - tackle terrorism ( proxy war from Pakistan) we need some one like Modi , the way Isreal hadnling . Isreal IS REAL (hero).
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
If you dont know the reality , then
I had lived in gujarat for 40 years and all these years right from 1965 every year there was communal riots ( sepcially starts on Rath Yatra ) and more Hindu got killed then Muslims , just once the more muslim got killed then Hindu , and you see the whole world come to know about that. Where were every one including you for the last 40 years ??
BTW - tackle terrorism ( proxy war from Pakistan) we need some one like Modi , the way Isreal hadnling . Isreal IS REAL (hero).
unitednations
03-26 04:51 PM
We had similar case. It was in 2002. Company was ready to issue another future offer letter. Local USCIS office at Buffalo NY did not agree to continue process. They said job offer is gone the I-485 is gone and has valid reason the denial. They asked my friend to refile I-140 and I-485.
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
What eventually happened to the case.
The baltimore case I mentioned happened in 2005 which was certified by AAO.
Macaca
07-28 07:43 AM
Democratic Leaders Agree on Overhaul of Lobbying (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28lobby.html?hp) By CARL HULSE New York Times, July 28, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
WASHINGTON, July 27 � Congressional Democrats reached tentative agreement Friday night on a major overhaul of lobbying rules that would for the first time require lawmakers to identify lobbyists who assemble multiple donations and turn them over to candidates.
The disclosure of what is known in political circles as bundling would be a central element of the first major changes made in lobbying rules in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff scandal and other Congressional corruption cases tied to lobbying.
Democrats, who intend to push the changes through Congress next week, say the bundling disclosure requirement and a number of other changes would shed new light on the relationship between lawmakers and those who seek to sway them on legislation.
�This rewrites the rules as it relates to lobbyists and their influence on Washington,� said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an advocate for the changes.
Democrats, who campaigned against what they called a �culture of corruption� in taking control of the House and Senate last year, are eager to finish the package next week as part of their drive to counter Republican accusations that Democrats are making little legislative headway.
Negotiators for the House and Senate Democratic leadership engaged in talks throughout the day Friday in an effort to reach final agreement on the long-delayed bill. They hit a last-minute snag over the level of bundled donations that would set off disclosure by the House and Senate campaign committees.
But officials familiar with the talks said that point appeared to be resolved in an evening phone call between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, putting a deal in place.
�We have reached an agreement,� said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
There are other potential obstacles. The details had yet to be presented to the Democratic rank and file in the House and Senate. But officials said they were confident the tentative agreement would hold, and a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said he expected the legislation to reach the House floor as early as Tuesday.
�We are committed to lobbying reform and we are committed to operating Congress in an open and transparent manner, and we will live up to our commitment,� said Brendan Daly of the speaker�s office.
Because of objections by one Republican senator, the House and Senate were not engaged in formal, bipartisan negotiations, and Republican leaders said Friday they were unaware of the details of the emerging agreement and could make no judgment. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said repeatedly this week that Republicans were leaning toward support of the measure.
The tentative proposal puts new requirements on lobbyists as well as on lawmakers, and orders disclosure of contributions that have become alternative ways to curry favor with politicians by giving to entities like favored charities, special awards and honors and presidential library funds. Lobbyists would also have to disclose at least twice a year if they paid for meetings or retreats.
The measure would set a one-year ban on lobbying for former House members and senior staff members, and two years in the Senate. New restrictions would be put on lobbying by spouses, and lobbyists would be required to disclose any previous experience in the executive or legislative branches.
Politicians would be banned from trying to pressure firms and associations to hire certain lobbyists based on partisan background � the so-called Republican K-Street project. Lawmakers and top aides would have to recuse themselves from issues where there could be a conflict because of negotiations for future employment, and such negotiations would have to be disclosed within three business days. New public databases would be established of lobbyists� disclosures as well as of lawmaker travel and personal financial data. Penalties for violations would be increased.
Watchdog groups that have pressed for the changes were awaiting the details. �I am very hopeful about this legislation, but the final statutory language still has to be seen,� said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Bundling became a focus after critics complained it was a back-door way for some lobbyists to ingratiate themselves with Congressional candidates by collecting a series of legal donations from others and then getting credit for delivering the cumulative amount and saving the politician the effort.
Under the tentative proposal, Congressional contenders and the respective campaign committees would be required to notify the Federal Election Commission once one individual had delivered more than $15,000 in contributions within six months or $30,000 in one year.
The plan initially approved by the House had put the responsibility for disclosing the bundling on the lobbyist. But in the talks, Senate Democrats proposed shifting the onus to the recipient and making the Federal Election Commission, which handles campaign fund-raising reports, the repository of the record.
But Mr. Van Hollen said House negotiators decided to consent to the change since the basic information being disclosed remained the same.
Mr. Van Hollen said he believed that the new requirements, if they became law, could represent a fundamental change in the interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers. �We heard the message voters sent last November and we are following through,� he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment