Macaca
12-28 07:23 PM
In India, a struggle for moderation as a young Muslim woman quietly battles extremism (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/27/AR2010122704519.html) By Emily Wax | Washington Post
Rubina Sandhi had settled in for a night of homework when panic swept through the narrow, congested alleys of her neighborhood.
It was Sept. 11, 2001. Television sets in the mosques, tea shops and market were beaming images of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames in New York. Five months later, Rubina's house was burning as Hindu mobs torched Muslim areas of her city, leaving thousands of people homeless. She remembers smoke hovering over Ahmedabad just as it had over New York.
With their few remaining possessions, Rubina's family members took refuge in a squalid relief camp and, several weeks later, moved into ramshackle housing on the edge of the city - where only Muslims lived and worked. "We felt like ghosts," recalled Rubina, who was then 12.
The rioting was among India's worst sectarian violence in decades, hardening divisions between the Hindu majority and the country's 140 million Muslims as hard-liners on both sides sought to exploit the tensions. Soon after the rioting, many young Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood started following stricter forms of Islam as imams fanned out into the region's poorest Muslim areas, some bringing with them Wahhabism, the fundamentalist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
Some Indian Muslims even sought training in Pakistan to carry out acts of revenge in India, their version of violent jihad. For her part, Rubina chose a different struggle, determined to be a good Muslim and daughter as the community around her became more radicalized. She fought for the right to make decisions for herself, and she tried to find a way to voice her beliefs as a woman, as others around her were being silenced.
Her decisions would mirror those of many other young Muslim women in her city who entered adulthood in the aftermath of religious violence and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She would be asked to compromise her dreams, and her commitment to Islam would be questioned.
Ahmedabad, a 600-year-old city in the state of Gujarat, has long been a vibrant historical center where religions aspired to coexist. It was the headquarters for Mahatma Gandhi's ashram and his peaceful freedom struggle and is celebrated for its Indo-Islamic architecture. Of the city's 5 million people, 11 percent are Muslim.
Before the riots, many Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood celebrated Hindu traditions. Yet tensions between Hindus and Muslims here often rose to the surface.
The violence in 2002 erupted after 59 Hindus were burned to death on a train as they were returning home from a pilgrimage site. Muslim extremists were blamed for the blaze, but the cause of the fire remains in dispute. In 2004, a government-appointed panel ruled that the train fire was an accident and not caused by Muslims.
Soon after the anti-Muslim riots, extremist imams started to gain more clout. Among them was a firebrand televangelist named Zakir Naik, whose weekly sermons are broadcast from Mumbai and Saudi Arabia. Thousands of young Muslims have been drawn to his powerful slogans, including his declaration that to defend Islam, "every Muslim should be a terrorist."
This more conservative brand of Islam became more acceptable, and it seemed to empower Muslim men in India. But it had the opposite effect on Muslim women. The imams and mullahs warned young women to stay indoors, to forgo higher education and to become dutiful mothers of as many children as God would give them. The children, they said, would replace the Muslims killed during the riots.
"The Hindu mobs who attacked us called us all terrorists. Then the mullahs wanted to take away our freedoms," Rubina said, adding: "Everyone felt confused."
A pervasive fear
Rubina's father, Mohammed Sandhi, had an eighth-grade education and a job selling incense sticks to Hindu temples. When he was a young boy, his grandparents had told him haunting stories about Muslim-Hindu tensions in the 1930s and rioting in the southern city of Hyderabad that forced the family to migrate to Ahmedabad.
Mohammed believed in the aspirations of a rising India. He had saved for years to move the family into a comfortable two-room home, and he hoped that his two children - Rubina and her older brother, Irfan - would be the first in their family to attend college.
But after the riots, Mohammed began to believe that his ambitions were naive, at least for Indian Muslims. "We thought that was the past, over, just our history. But after the 2002 riots, we worry every day that the violence could happen again," he said.
In the street just outside the family's housing complex, 69 people, mostly Muslims, were burned alive during the riots, the first and largest single massacre during the crisis, a federal investigation later found.
From there, fighting spread. Over the next two months, more than 200 mosques and hundreds of Muslim shrines were burned down, and 17 ancient Hindu temples were attacked, according to police and human rights workers.
Everything in Rubina's home was destroyed: childhood photographs, birth certificates, school records and land deeds.
The family left behind the charred ruins of their home for a relief camp, one of more than 100 that housed 150,000 Muslims after the riots.
The city slowly calmed, but acts of violence on both sides continued and people remained fearful.
Watching their parents weep, Rubina and Irfan grew angrier and more confused. "We never thought this could happen here," said Rubina's mother, Mumtaz Sandhi. "We thought we are Muslims. But we are also Indians."
Silencing women's voices
After several weeks in the camps, Rubina's family settled in Juhapura, a poor area on the western outskirts of the city where many Muslims moved from Hindu-dominated localities.
The neighborhood has some middle-class areas but is largely poor, and activists have fought for basic government services, including paved roads, a sewage treatment system and garbage collection.
During her teenage years, Rubina started to notice that her brother, like many young Muslim men, was growing more observant of Islam, more conservative, introverted. They had always been close, and tragedy had strengthened their bond. But their paths began to diverge as Irfan sought comfort and sanctuary in the strictures of Islam.
Rubina, like other young Muslim women, feared she would lose her freedom under those strictures. She resisted calls from increasingly conservative imams to wear a traditional black garment that covers the body and sometimes the face.
In Gujarat, more and more women suddenly started dressing more conservatively, often as a show of Muslim pride but also to ward off sexual advances and potential sexual violence.
Rubina's mother began covering her hair, and Rubina said Irfan soon told her that he preferred to marry a woman who dressed conservatively.
Around this time, Rubina met a social worker named Jamila Khan at a meeting for Muslim women concerned about the living conditions in Juhapura and profiling of Muslim men as terrorists. But Khan also spoke out against Muslim leaders intent on reeling in Muslim women, curbing the liberties enshrined in India's secular constitution. She described herself as an "Islamic feminist."
"It doesn't matter what our women were wearing," Khan told Rubina and her friends. "What is important is still having a voice. Islamic rigidity is silencing our most dynamic Muslim female minds."
Many of Rubina's peers were giving up on having a career and were marrying and starting families earlier. Instead of going to college to study business or medicine, many were taking up courses at nearby mosques that taught them to be good Muslim wives.
But as Rubina entered young adulthood, she said, she became aware of the hypocrisy among many of the imams. Although they preached that Muslim women should be homemakers, they sent their daughters to private schools and universities in Britain, Canada and the United States.
During her first and only year at college, a Hindu extremist group circulating on campus began warning Hindus against having friendships or romantic relationships with Muslims. Rubina said some Hindu students started calling the places where Muslim students gathered "the Gaza Strip" or "Pakistan."
"But I am Indian, too," Rubina said she wanted to tell them. She felt ashamed. Betrayed. Silenced.
Rubina Sandhi had settled in for a night of homework when panic swept through the narrow, congested alleys of her neighborhood.
It was Sept. 11, 2001. Television sets in the mosques, tea shops and market were beaming images of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames in New York. Five months later, Rubina's house was burning as Hindu mobs torched Muslim areas of her city, leaving thousands of people homeless. She remembers smoke hovering over Ahmedabad just as it had over New York.
With their few remaining possessions, Rubina's family members took refuge in a squalid relief camp and, several weeks later, moved into ramshackle housing on the edge of the city - where only Muslims lived and worked. "We felt like ghosts," recalled Rubina, who was then 12.
The rioting was among India's worst sectarian violence in decades, hardening divisions between the Hindu majority and the country's 140 million Muslims as hard-liners on both sides sought to exploit the tensions. Soon after the rioting, many young Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood started following stricter forms of Islam as imams fanned out into the region's poorest Muslim areas, some bringing with them Wahhabism, the fundamentalist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
Some Indian Muslims even sought training in Pakistan to carry out acts of revenge in India, their version of violent jihad. For her part, Rubina chose a different struggle, determined to be a good Muslim and daughter as the community around her became more radicalized. She fought for the right to make decisions for herself, and she tried to find a way to voice her beliefs as a woman, as others around her were being silenced.
Her decisions would mirror those of many other young Muslim women in her city who entered adulthood in the aftermath of religious violence and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She would be asked to compromise her dreams, and her commitment to Islam would be questioned.
Ahmedabad, a 600-year-old city in the state of Gujarat, has long been a vibrant historical center where religions aspired to coexist. It was the headquarters for Mahatma Gandhi's ashram and his peaceful freedom struggle and is celebrated for its Indo-Islamic architecture. Of the city's 5 million people, 11 percent are Muslim.
Before the riots, many Muslims in Rubina's neighborhood celebrated Hindu traditions. Yet tensions between Hindus and Muslims here often rose to the surface.
The violence in 2002 erupted after 59 Hindus were burned to death on a train as they were returning home from a pilgrimage site. Muslim extremists were blamed for the blaze, but the cause of the fire remains in dispute. In 2004, a government-appointed panel ruled that the train fire was an accident and not caused by Muslims.
Soon after the anti-Muslim riots, extremist imams started to gain more clout. Among them was a firebrand televangelist named Zakir Naik, whose weekly sermons are broadcast from Mumbai and Saudi Arabia. Thousands of young Muslims have been drawn to his powerful slogans, including his declaration that to defend Islam, "every Muslim should be a terrorist."
This more conservative brand of Islam became more acceptable, and it seemed to empower Muslim men in India. But it had the opposite effect on Muslim women. The imams and mullahs warned young women to stay indoors, to forgo higher education and to become dutiful mothers of as many children as God would give them. The children, they said, would replace the Muslims killed during the riots.
"The Hindu mobs who attacked us called us all terrorists. Then the mullahs wanted to take away our freedoms," Rubina said, adding: "Everyone felt confused."
A pervasive fear
Rubina's father, Mohammed Sandhi, had an eighth-grade education and a job selling incense sticks to Hindu temples. When he was a young boy, his grandparents had told him haunting stories about Muslim-Hindu tensions in the 1930s and rioting in the southern city of Hyderabad that forced the family to migrate to Ahmedabad.
Mohammed believed in the aspirations of a rising India. He had saved for years to move the family into a comfortable two-room home, and he hoped that his two children - Rubina and her older brother, Irfan - would be the first in their family to attend college.
But after the riots, Mohammed began to believe that his ambitions were naive, at least for Indian Muslims. "We thought that was the past, over, just our history. But after the 2002 riots, we worry every day that the violence could happen again," he said.
In the street just outside the family's housing complex, 69 people, mostly Muslims, were burned alive during the riots, the first and largest single massacre during the crisis, a federal investigation later found.
From there, fighting spread. Over the next two months, more than 200 mosques and hundreds of Muslim shrines were burned down, and 17 ancient Hindu temples were attacked, according to police and human rights workers.
Everything in Rubina's home was destroyed: childhood photographs, birth certificates, school records and land deeds.
The family left behind the charred ruins of their home for a relief camp, one of more than 100 that housed 150,000 Muslims after the riots.
The city slowly calmed, but acts of violence on both sides continued and people remained fearful.
Watching their parents weep, Rubina and Irfan grew angrier and more confused. "We never thought this could happen here," said Rubina's mother, Mumtaz Sandhi. "We thought we are Muslims. But we are also Indians."
Silencing women's voices
After several weeks in the camps, Rubina's family settled in Juhapura, a poor area on the western outskirts of the city where many Muslims moved from Hindu-dominated localities.
The neighborhood has some middle-class areas but is largely poor, and activists have fought for basic government services, including paved roads, a sewage treatment system and garbage collection.
During her teenage years, Rubina started to notice that her brother, like many young Muslim men, was growing more observant of Islam, more conservative, introverted. They had always been close, and tragedy had strengthened their bond. But their paths began to diverge as Irfan sought comfort and sanctuary in the strictures of Islam.
Rubina, like other young Muslim women, feared she would lose her freedom under those strictures. She resisted calls from increasingly conservative imams to wear a traditional black garment that covers the body and sometimes the face.
In Gujarat, more and more women suddenly started dressing more conservatively, often as a show of Muslim pride but also to ward off sexual advances and potential sexual violence.
Rubina's mother began covering her hair, and Rubina said Irfan soon told her that he preferred to marry a woman who dressed conservatively.
Around this time, Rubina met a social worker named Jamila Khan at a meeting for Muslim women concerned about the living conditions in Juhapura and profiling of Muslim men as terrorists. But Khan also spoke out against Muslim leaders intent on reeling in Muslim women, curbing the liberties enshrined in India's secular constitution. She described herself as an "Islamic feminist."
"It doesn't matter what our women were wearing," Khan told Rubina and her friends. "What is important is still having a voice. Islamic rigidity is silencing our most dynamic Muslim female minds."
Many of Rubina's peers were giving up on having a career and were marrying and starting families earlier. Instead of going to college to study business or medicine, many were taking up courses at nearby mosques that taught them to be good Muslim wives.
But as Rubina entered young adulthood, she said, she became aware of the hypocrisy among many of the imams. Although they preached that Muslim women should be homemakers, they sent their daughters to private schools and universities in Britain, Canada and the United States.
During her first and only year at college, a Hindu extremist group circulating on campus began warning Hindus against having friendships or romantic relationships with Muslims. Rubina said some Hindu students started calling the places where Muslim students gathered "the Gaza Strip" or "Pakistan."
"But I am Indian, too," Rubina said she wanted to tell them. She felt ashamed. Betrayed. Silenced.
wallpaper Keira Knightley On The Cover
mrajatish
07-08 07:22 PM
There are a lot of protections in immigration law for us beneficiaries.
When we quote laws; we generally are looking for specific items that may benefit us.
However; uscis uses or misuses other parts of immigration law to override these friendly type aspects.
Every piece of paper a person signs and sends to uscis is done under "penalty of perjury". Even though there is protection such as 245k; uscis can use the "perjury" and document fraud to override all of these friendly type policies. If they think a person is dirty or trying to get away with something then they will dig even harder until they find something. I remember as an auditor; a company wanted to fire their CFO but couldn't find a performance reason. Easiest way was to go to the persons expense report because everyone fudges it and this is essentially how he got fired. USCIS knows that if they dig hard into someones file they will find something.
Many people don't really understand the investigative powers uscis has or the extent they will go through. if person fakes paystubs to do an h-1b transfer; well uscis issues rfe's asking for a listing of all h-1b employees and payments made to each employee for last two years. I have seen them inter-relate this information for people who have faked these types of things.
Recently; I saw uscis california service center request state unemployment compensation reports for all employees for wages paid for the last two years. the service center actually picked four people who were paid substantially less and pulled their h-1b files and pointed this out in their denial that they coudn't trust the companies assertions on the LCA and they had to deny the petition for the current beneficiary.
All these talks of lawsuits, etc; will just make them dig in their heels more and find more things and make it more and more difficult.
Frankly, this is very very scary - I do not know what to say here. As per law, USCIS should only worry about what happenned after the last lawful admission into United States. But they can find any number of small faults in a application - after all, the application is so comprehensive that it is biased towards making small mistakes. This may not be true for people who get GC within the first 2-3 years in US but for others, they have a long enough history in US such that they will be pre-disposed to making errors.
It is best to be up front about a situation if one gets an RFE - even if one has violated certain laws, it is better to admit that and convince the officer about the circumstances leading to such violation.
My earnest prayers with you - please find a good lawyer to represent your case.
When we quote laws; we generally are looking for specific items that may benefit us.
However; uscis uses or misuses other parts of immigration law to override these friendly type aspects.
Every piece of paper a person signs and sends to uscis is done under "penalty of perjury". Even though there is protection such as 245k; uscis can use the "perjury" and document fraud to override all of these friendly type policies. If they think a person is dirty or trying to get away with something then they will dig even harder until they find something. I remember as an auditor; a company wanted to fire their CFO but couldn't find a performance reason. Easiest way was to go to the persons expense report because everyone fudges it and this is essentially how he got fired. USCIS knows that if they dig hard into someones file they will find something.
Many people don't really understand the investigative powers uscis has or the extent they will go through. if person fakes paystubs to do an h-1b transfer; well uscis issues rfe's asking for a listing of all h-1b employees and payments made to each employee for last two years. I have seen them inter-relate this information for people who have faked these types of things.
Recently; I saw uscis california service center request state unemployment compensation reports for all employees for wages paid for the last two years. the service center actually picked four people who were paid substantially less and pulled their h-1b files and pointed this out in their denial that they coudn't trust the companies assertions on the LCA and they had to deny the petition for the current beneficiary.
All these talks of lawsuits, etc; will just make them dig in their heels more and find more things and make it more and more difficult.
Frankly, this is very very scary - I do not know what to say here. As per law, USCIS should only worry about what happenned after the last lawful admission into United States. But they can find any number of small faults in a application - after all, the application is so comprehensive that it is biased towards making small mistakes. This may not be true for people who get GC within the first 2-3 years in US but for others, they have a long enough history in US such that they will be pre-disposed to making errors.
It is best to be up front about a situation if one gets an RFE - even if one has violated certain laws, it is better to admit that and convince the officer about the circumstances leading to such violation.
My earnest prayers with you - please find a good lawyer to represent your case.
munnu77
12-18 02:54 PM
Sign of very rare good pakistani journalism:
http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/pakistan/dont-let-this-sickness-spread-any-further--qs
Worth reading.
good article..
but i always believed, if there is a war between these countries, India will be the loser as pakistan has nothing to lose right now..we will go 10-15 yrs behind compared to other developing countires..
The war between 2 countries is that the terrorists really want, so they get a bigger grip on pakistan and they can recruit more people into them showing this..
Europen countries doesnt have much of a problem if they want to attack pak..
They will bomb and just go..India will have to deal with a destabilised country and people after tht..may be for decades
http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect/Dawn%20Content%20Library/dawn/news/pakistan/dont-let-this-sickness-spread-any-further--qs
Worth reading.
good article..
but i always believed, if there is a war between these countries, India will be the loser as pakistan has nothing to lose right now..we will go 10-15 yrs behind compared to other developing countires..
The war between 2 countries is that the terrorists really want, so they get a bigger grip on pakistan and they can recruit more people into them showing this..
Europen countries doesnt have much of a problem if they want to attack pak..
They will bomb and just go..India will have to deal with a destabilised country and people after tht..may be for decades
2011 Keira Knightley wears the
Macaca
11-23 08:38 AM
Tech trade groups combining for greater clout (http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_7538070?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com&nclick_check=1) TRADE ASSOCIATIONS PLANNING MERGER By Dibya Sarkar | Associated Press, 11/23/2007
WASHINGTON - Relative newcomers to Capitol Hill lobbying, technology giants with sometimes differing agendas are figuring out what oil and pharmaceutical companies have known for years: There's strength in numbers.
Microsoft, Cisco Systems and Yahoo, among others, hope a merger of two major tech trade groups will increase their lobbying clout inside the Beltway.
The industry's presence in Washington has long suffered, critics say, from lacking a unified force voice to lobby on fundamental issues, such as taxes, patent reform, immigration and trade, that affect tech companies of all stripes.
Combining the Information Technology Association of America and the Government Electronics and Information Technology Association will create a "powerhouse" organization with "much more of a consolidated voice in the industry," said GEIA president Dan Heinemeier.
Representing more than 380 companies and combined membership revenues of $8 million, it's the latest sign that the tech industry, currently represented by more than a dozen associations here, is growing up.
It also reflects a better understanding of the importance of lobbying by an industry that long believed the practice was an unnecessary part of their business strategy.
Software giant Microsoft, which is an ITAA member, only established a Washington office about a dozen years ago, while Google, which doesn't belong to either group, set up a Capitol Hill shop in 2005.
While GEIA recently registered to lobby, ITAA spent $120,000 lobbying in the first half of 2007, according to federal disclosure forms.
Of course, that's small potatoes compared with the $10.7 million spent by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the $1.6 million spent by the American Petroleum Institute during the same period.
The merger creates a platform where diverse companies can "speak with both a louder voice and also . . . with a somewhat clearer voice," said Jon Korin, Northrop Grumman's vice president for strategic development and an ITAA board member. Northrop also is a member of GEIA.
While the groups have some overlapping members and agendas, GEIA, founded in 1952, focuses on technical standards work and government technology market analysis. ITAA, which began in 1961, is a major public policy player working on broader technology business issues.
WASHINGTON - Relative newcomers to Capitol Hill lobbying, technology giants with sometimes differing agendas are figuring out what oil and pharmaceutical companies have known for years: There's strength in numbers.
Microsoft, Cisco Systems and Yahoo, among others, hope a merger of two major tech trade groups will increase their lobbying clout inside the Beltway.
The industry's presence in Washington has long suffered, critics say, from lacking a unified force voice to lobby on fundamental issues, such as taxes, patent reform, immigration and trade, that affect tech companies of all stripes.
Combining the Information Technology Association of America and the Government Electronics and Information Technology Association will create a "powerhouse" organization with "much more of a consolidated voice in the industry," said GEIA president Dan Heinemeier.
Representing more than 380 companies and combined membership revenues of $8 million, it's the latest sign that the tech industry, currently represented by more than a dozen associations here, is growing up.
It also reflects a better understanding of the importance of lobbying by an industry that long believed the practice was an unnecessary part of their business strategy.
Software giant Microsoft, which is an ITAA member, only established a Washington office about a dozen years ago, while Google, which doesn't belong to either group, set up a Capitol Hill shop in 2005.
While GEIA recently registered to lobby, ITAA spent $120,000 lobbying in the first half of 2007, according to federal disclosure forms.
Of course, that's small potatoes compared with the $10.7 million spent by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the $1.6 million spent by the American Petroleum Institute during the same period.
The merger creates a platform where diverse companies can "speak with both a louder voice and also . . . with a somewhat clearer voice," said Jon Korin, Northrop Grumman's vice president for strategic development and an ITAA board member. Northrop also is a member of GEIA.
While the groups have some overlapping members and agendas, GEIA, founded in 1952, focuses on technical standards work and government technology market analysis. ITAA, which began in 1961, is a major public policy player working on broader technology business issues.
more...
jthomas
06-05 08:58 PM
Do not take that snipet out of context.. Innovation, research and development, that you have talked about was in the past. Do you know that Boeing has a R & D Lab in bangalore? So does many globals.. They are already doing modelling and simulation at those centers :). When they made it difficult for innovators to get here.. jobs left US to go to innovators.. .Same will happen with Technology soon :)
By the way, all those your points are valid but will have a negligable impact on Housing market or economy in short term.. atleast until next cycle.. Unless US reform immigration policies for a 21st century knowledge revolution.. create well paid jobs for best and brightest in the world right here.. who can earn, spend and not borrow.. (EB category) ... Housing problem will also resolved... But US is lagging way behind. this is my opinion as Obama Administration has not thought so far beyond providing food coupons, housing rescue and medicare... Based on what is on the card, there will be lot of blue collar folks... nothing on innovation and technology and more Family based immigrants on welfare and low paid jobs... Do you still think, thing of past holds good now?
Most of the jobs are going to china and elsewhere. I am a power supply design engineer and have interviewed with many firms. some of them say they have moved their research to Taiwan because there is no difference in innovation between US and Taiwan. They have sales and service facility in Irvine, southern california. Another company i talked to was *ell computers. They are subcontracting the design + production to china and other places. The cost of a computer power supply is around 6 dollars and its no way US can produce it at $6. They have a small portion of design over here and it will still stay in US but it hires very less PHd guys. I am sure china/india will have more PHd guys in future than in US. There are several more who buy from china and after testing the product use their name sticker.
there will be more high school graduates, average educated person than high skilled engineers. There are a lot of companies who would like to hire engineers (US citizen)at a very good pay but they are not able to do so. My last employer was looking for a good engineer from last 4 years and my prior employer have waited for 8 years to find a good engineer.
Good technical guys are at a very small percentage.
housing price has to go down. I don't know what else is going to happen.
J thomas
By the way, all those your points are valid but will have a negligable impact on Housing market or economy in short term.. atleast until next cycle.. Unless US reform immigration policies for a 21st century knowledge revolution.. create well paid jobs for best and brightest in the world right here.. who can earn, spend and not borrow.. (EB category) ... Housing problem will also resolved... But US is lagging way behind. this is my opinion as Obama Administration has not thought so far beyond providing food coupons, housing rescue and medicare... Based on what is on the card, there will be lot of blue collar folks... nothing on innovation and technology and more Family based immigrants on welfare and low paid jobs... Do you still think, thing of past holds good now?
Most of the jobs are going to china and elsewhere. I am a power supply design engineer and have interviewed with many firms. some of them say they have moved their research to Taiwan because there is no difference in innovation between US and Taiwan. They have sales and service facility in Irvine, southern california. Another company i talked to was *ell computers. They are subcontracting the design + production to china and other places. The cost of a computer power supply is around 6 dollars and its no way US can produce it at $6. They have a small portion of design over here and it will still stay in US but it hires very less PHd guys. I am sure china/india will have more PHd guys in future than in US. There are several more who buy from china and after testing the product use their name sticker.
there will be more high school graduates, average educated person than high skilled engineers. There are a lot of companies who would like to hire engineers (US citizen)at a very good pay but they are not able to do so. My last employer was looking for a good engineer from last 4 years and my prior employer have waited for 8 years to find a good engineer.
Good technical guys are at a very small percentage.
housing price has to go down. I don't know what else is going to happen.
J thomas
nogc_noproblem
08-07 01:05 PM
If you can figure out what these words have in common...
...., you are a lot smarter than I am. And no, it isn't 6 letters in each word; you need a little more moxey than that.
Banana
Dresser
Grammar
Potato
Revive
Uneven
Assess
Are you peeking or have you already given up? Give it another try.... You'll kick yourself when you discover the answer.
Go back and look at them again; think hard. OK... Here you go. Hope you didn't cheat.
Answer: In all of the words listed, if you take the first letter, place it at the end of the word, and then spell the word backwards, it will be the same word.
...., you are a lot smarter than I am. And no, it isn't 6 letters in each word; you need a little more moxey than that.
Banana
Dresser
Grammar
Potato
Revive
Uneven
Assess
Are you peeking or have you already given up? Give it another try.... You'll kick yourself when you discover the answer.
Go back and look at them again; think hard. OK... Here you go. Hope you didn't cheat.
Answer: In all of the words listed, if you take the first letter, place it at the end of the word, and then spell the word backwards, it will be the same word.
more...
validIV
06-26 02:47 PM
I don't know what else to tell you except what I've already stated. Frankly I am surprised that this debate has gone beyond 1 page. I am tired of beating a dead horse.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
If you are renting for 1500/month thats 18,000 a year, or 540,000 in 30 years that you lose with no chance of claiming as a deduction or ever using for anything. Rather than losing that money, why not use it to own the property you are living in?
As a homeowner, you can use that 540,000 to own the home. The interest and property taxes you pay are tax deductible, and the principal means that at the end of the 30 years, the home is yours (20 if your loan is 20 years). Even when you are paying the mortgage, you are saving. You are getting bigger tax returns and you are owning the home that you live in. No amount of rent will guarantee either.
Through a combination of tax deductions, home equity, and property value, I am willing to bet you that I can save the same amount you do by renting, but still be ahead by owning the property I live in in 30 years. Just take a look at any home owner's history and tell me someone who hasn't doubled the value of their home (home only, not including their savings) in the past 30 years or more.
Everyone here that is dead-set on renting, by all means continue to throw your money away. And it REALLY is throwing your money away. How you wish to justify doing so is fine by me as long as you can sleep at night and explain to your family, friends and kids why you chose to rent for 30 or so years.
If you buy - and take a mortgate - you end up losing (the same way you "lose" your rent)
1. Interest you pay
2. Property taxes you will pay forever.
3. Maintenance you will pay forever.
On the other hand - if you rent and,
A. IF you pay less in rent than #1 + #2 + #3,
B. IF you invest the remainder plus your mortgage principal amount in some other investment vehicle with superior investment returns than real estate.
.... Then you will come out ahead renting.
The tipping point is whether your rent equals interest + property taxes + maintenance. Based on which side is higher - either renting or buying could be good for you. I don't think there is a clear cut answer. This does not take into account the flexibility associated with renting - which is important for non-GC holders. If you assign a non-zero dollar value of $X with that flexibility, then your rent needs to be interest + tax + maintanance + $X to get to the tipping point. On the other hand, if you are not forced to save (in the form of mortgage principal payment every month) - you may just spend that money instead of investing that. If you assign a dollar value of $Y with that (probability multiplied by actual dollar value) - then the tipping point is at
$rent = $interest + $tax + $maintenance + $X(dollar value for flexibility) - $Y(dollar value for probability of spending money instead of saving).
Now as soon as you plug in the numbers in this equation - it will give you your tipping point and will tell you whether it is right for you to rent or to buy.
Think about it. It is not as clear cut as you think it is. :-) Based on your earlier posts - you got an absolutely faboulous deal on your house (maybe because of your timing) and the tipping point equation would probably highly favor buying in your case. For many other (specially for those without a GC) - it may not be so clear cut.
2010 Keira Knightley and Rodarte
unitednations
07-10 03:21 PM
UN, I am impressed by your knowledge of immigration laws. Can you point me in right direction as to where I find information regarding the current immigration laws and their interpretations.
I'll tell you how I did it:
1) USCIS administrative appeals office decisions (can be found by navigating around USCIS.GOV
2) USCIS memos/interpretations/policies (can also be found on uscis)
3) Go to department of state web-site. Navigate around it and you will find links to their procedures and interpretations
4) monitor the forums and see postings
5) immigration portal used to have links or summaries to AILA liaision minutes with service centers
6) people used to send me their rfe's, denials and what they lawyers did to get them into the mess. Basically learning how people got into a mess and what uscis did to catch them or to deny their cases
7) go to dol.gov and look for foreign labor certification; there are FAQ's on perm labors and h-1b
8) go to uscis.gov and read the INA and CFR's
--------------------------------------------------------------
If a person is used to reading laws and understanding the hierarchy and then intertwining uscis procedure along with the various service center procedure then you will start to get a clearer understanding.
All of the information is public. Don't rely on what your friend told you as they usually only know what someone else told them.
I had a non compete agreement when I left my employer and couldn't work for one year. During that year; I had nothing to do other then watch tv and watch the portal. No matter how small a question was asked/posted I researched it through all the sources I mentioned above.
Finally; don't do what you think is right or "gut feeling"...
Research it; research it and research it some more. Sometimes what you read at first glance; you make a conclusion to your own benefit without understanding all the other laws/policies/procedures that override it.
I'll tell you how I did it:
1) USCIS administrative appeals office decisions (can be found by navigating around USCIS.GOV
2) USCIS memos/interpretations/policies (can also be found on uscis)
3) Go to department of state web-site. Navigate around it and you will find links to their procedures and interpretations
4) monitor the forums and see postings
5) immigration portal used to have links or summaries to AILA liaision minutes with service centers
6) people used to send me their rfe's, denials and what they lawyers did to get them into the mess. Basically learning how people got into a mess and what uscis did to catch them or to deny their cases
7) go to dol.gov and look for foreign labor certification; there are FAQ's on perm labors and h-1b
8) go to uscis.gov and read the INA and CFR's
--------------------------------------------------------------
If a person is used to reading laws and understanding the hierarchy and then intertwining uscis procedure along with the various service center procedure then you will start to get a clearer understanding.
All of the information is public. Don't rely on what your friend told you as they usually only know what someone else told them.
I had a non compete agreement when I left my employer and couldn't work for one year. During that year; I had nothing to do other then watch tv and watch the portal. No matter how small a question was asked/posted I researched it through all the sources I mentioned above.
Finally; don't do what you think is right or "gut feeling"...
Research it; research it and research it some more. Sometimes what you read at first glance; you make a conclusion to your own benefit without understanding all the other laws/policies/procedures that override it.
more...
indianindian2006
08-02 02:21 PM
United Nations,
I do not have words to express how knowledgeable I find you in immigration related questions,You are very good.
Please answer on simple question for me....
What will be consequences if we file 485 without employer letter.Is EVL a part of initial evidence.
I do not have words to express how knowledgeable I find you in immigration related questions,You are very good.
Please answer on simple question for me....
What will be consequences if we file 485 without employer letter.Is EVL a part of initial evidence.
hair Keira Knightley Tribute Picture Gallery - Photo Shoot Green White Dress
qasleuth
06-05 03:09 PM
Yeah, but why do you have to BUY that house to live in it if in the same neighbor hood same or similar house can be rented at much lower price?
Kids can still play and enjoy the sprinklers and you can still enjoy your beer. Isn't it?
don't think the rent will be much lower than paying the mortgage, it is true atleast in the city where I live. For example: If I am paying a mortgage of $1200 and the rental of an equivalent is $ 900, the $300 difference you get back in tax refund at the end of the year. So why pay rent when I can buy a house and do whatever I want to with it ?
Infact we have attached a sense of pride in owning even if we can't afford it. I am not talking about you but in general. People bought 700K houses in 100K salary. And this is a VERY good salary but it still can't afford a 700K house!
Where I live, the median house price is 200,000. I bought a house which is lower than the median and when the market was on the downward trend (september 2006). If you look at the post I quoted, you would notice that I am not subscribing to the crazies who bought houses with the example dollar amounts you gave. If you know your limits and do 2 hours of internet research, then the person probably will make a much better decision. The information and warning signs were there everywhere starting 2005, if people chose to ignore and got burned then shame on them.
Kids can still play and enjoy the sprinklers and you can still enjoy your beer. Isn't it?
don't think the rent will be much lower than paying the mortgage, it is true atleast in the city where I live. For example: If I am paying a mortgage of $1200 and the rental of an equivalent is $ 900, the $300 difference you get back in tax refund at the end of the year. So why pay rent when I can buy a house and do whatever I want to with it ?
Infact we have attached a sense of pride in owning even if we can't afford it. I am not talking about you but in general. People bought 700K houses in 100K salary. And this is a VERY good salary but it still can't afford a 700K house!
Where I live, the median house price is 200,000. I bought a house which is lower than the median and when the market was on the downward trend (september 2006). If you look at the post I quoted, you would notice that I am not subscribing to the crazies who bought houses with the example dollar amounts you gave. If you know your limits and do 2 hours of internet research, then the person probably will make a much better decision. The information and warning signs were there everywhere starting 2005, if people chose to ignore and got burned then shame on them.
more...
SunnySurya
12-22 09:53 PM
Shuyaib saheb ASAK and welcome to 21st century.
And by the way thanks for enlightening us on the hindu scriptures, these are news to us.
Its a known tendency of hindu groups of radicalizing muslims, so much so that Jinnah took into consideration and formed pakistan.
Still the hindus will target an abominal act of 11 people and make a community of muslims, a country victim of their acts.
Yet, even if a hindu preaches infanticide of girls, he is not terrorist, a hindu scripture preaching burning alive of widows is not terrorist doctrine, a mythical god preaching murder of low caste for chanting holy rhymes is not a terrorist! Hail Ram!
India could fight british militantly under Subhash Chandra, and under Gandhi, and that is fight for freedom, yet Palestinians fighting for free country is terrorism! Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?
And by the way thanks for enlightening us on the hindu scriptures, these are news to us.
Its a known tendency of hindu groups of radicalizing muslims, so much so that Jinnah took into consideration and formed pakistan.
Still the hindus will target an abominal act of 11 people and make a community of muslims, a country victim of their acts.
Yet, even if a hindu preaches infanticide of girls, he is not terrorist, a hindu scripture preaching burning alive of widows is not terrorist doctrine, a mythical god preaching murder of low caste for chanting holy rhymes is not a terrorist! Hail Ram!
India could fight british militantly under Subhash Chandra, and under Gandhi, and that is fight for freedom, yet Palestinians fighting for free country is terrorism! Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?
hot Keira Knightley and Van Cleef
Macaca
05-18 05:15 PM
How the Middle East’s uprisings affect China’s foreign relations (http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/17/how-the-middle-east-s-uprisings-affect-china-s-foreign-relations/) By Shi Yinhong | Renmin University of China
The recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East have important consequences for China’s foreign relations.
With Washington becoming increasingly preoccupied with the Middle East, it will have less opportunity to focus on China. At the same time, the return of a US policy aimed at promoting democratisation could have a destabilising effect on Sino–US relations. China might reassess how it shapes its relations with highly repressive regimes, and it will have to take into account that Western countries are now better positioned to push resolutions aimed at intervening in certain types of countries through the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The uprisings run counter to assumptions that the predominant struggle in Middle Eastern politics is between US-backed authoritarian regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, the recent revolts involve a third force — the ‘urban underdogs.’ These popular movements are largely disorganised, have no leaders and are not based on clearly defined ideas. The uprisings are the outcome of poor economic conditions, the authoritarian suppression of fundamental liberties, and the highly corrupt nature of the ruling elite. Situational factors also play a role: the spill over effect from revolts in one country to the next; the availability of modern forms of communication to enable mobilisation; the use of symbolic places for mass gathering (in the case of Tahrir Square in Cairo); overwhelming attention from the West; and the policy inclinations of the US and European governments.
As the Arab world transforms, becoming more tumultuous along the way, Washington will face new dilemmas, and the fight against terror will no longer be overwhelmingly dominant. ‘Pushing democracy’ has returned as a major foreign policy theme in Washington as the uprisings partially restore the West’s self-confidence, battered from the financial crisis.
All of this has major implications for China’s foreign relations. Washington’s deeper involvement in the Middle East is favourable to Beijing, reducing Washington’s ability to place focused attention and pressure on China. But, conversely, the partial return of the push for democracy is not to the benefit of China or stable Sino–US relations. China may need to reconsider its quite amicable relationships with regimes that are repressive, corrupt and have little popular support. Beijing is insufficiently prepared to deal with dramatic political changes in such countries, clearly shown in the past when China’s relations with Iran (1979), Romania (1989) and Serbia (1999) were severely affected. This happened more recently in Zimbabwe, and now also in Egypt and Sudan. Other countries where similar developments could take place are Burma, North Korea and perhaps also Pakistan.
The Middle Eastern turmoil is also relevant to China’s domestic stability. Some activists in and outside China are hoping for a ‘Chinese jasmine revolution.’ Beijing overreacted somewhat, particularly in the early days, by taking strong domestic security precautions despite no signs of widespread activism in China. This may have been the activists’ immediate purpose: to embarrass the Chinese government and to show its lack of self-confidence to the world and the Chinese public. This in turn could make Beijing more hesitant about deepening economic and political reforms.
The uprisings are also affecting China’s international position with regard to the issue of intervention. Beijing probably believed they had no choice other than to allow the UNSC to adopt Resolution 1973, which gave the international community the authority to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. It was clear that the US, France and the UK were resolutely determined to launch a military strike, and certain Arab and African countries supported and even intended to join the intervention. Had Beijing vetoed the resolution, China’s relations with both the West and the Arab countries involved would have been severely strained — and the West would have still launched their attack anyway. This was a hard decision for China: Resolution 1973 could form a dangerous precedent in international law, as previous norms have been revised in favour of armed intervention in a domestic conflict. In the future, the US and its allies might reapply this, potentially to the detriment of China’s interests.
China’s hope for stable Sino–US relations following the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the US in January 2011, and China’s important relationship with Saudi Arabia, had induced Beijing to abstain from using its veto in the UNSC. Moreover, if a similar case does occur in the foreseeable future, it seems rather unlikely that China or Russia would use their veto in order to protect the principle of non-interference. Consequently, the US and its associates in the UNSC might very well see an opportunity to act resolutely in the coming years, with the aim of effecting intervention in other countries, comparable to Libya, a country first of all not allied with them and far distant from them. This is an opportunity that has likely not escaped Washington’s attention.
Shi Yinhong is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing
Ferguson vs. Kissinger on the future of China, and what it means for the rest of us (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/ferguson_vs_kissinger_on_the_future_of_china_and_w hat_it_means_for_the_rest_of_us) By Thomas E. Ricks | Foreign Policy
Getting China Ready to Go Abroad
Companies need to revamp management structures and customer service before they can compete globally. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576328842793701106.html)
By KEVIN TAYLOR | Wall Street Journal
Chinese Spreading Wealth Make Vancouver Homes Pricier Than NYC (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-16/chinese-spreading-wealth-make-vancouver-homes-pricier-than-nyc.html) By Yu and Donville | Bloomberg
China shafts Philippine mines (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME19Ae01.html) By Joel D Adriano | Asia Times
Is This the China that Can't? (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3200&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China's Bold New Plan for Economic Domination (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/chinas-bold-new-plan-for-economic-domination/239041/) By Abraham & Ludlow | The Atlantic
The recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East have important consequences for China’s foreign relations.
With Washington becoming increasingly preoccupied with the Middle East, it will have less opportunity to focus on China. At the same time, the return of a US policy aimed at promoting democratisation could have a destabilising effect on Sino–US relations. China might reassess how it shapes its relations with highly repressive regimes, and it will have to take into account that Western countries are now better positioned to push resolutions aimed at intervening in certain types of countries through the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The uprisings run counter to assumptions that the predominant struggle in Middle Eastern politics is between US-backed authoritarian regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. Instead, the recent revolts involve a third force — the ‘urban underdogs.’ These popular movements are largely disorganised, have no leaders and are not based on clearly defined ideas. The uprisings are the outcome of poor economic conditions, the authoritarian suppression of fundamental liberties, and the highly corrupt nature of the ruling elite. Situational factors also play a role: the spill over effect from revolts in one country to the next; the availability of modern forms of communication to enable mobilisation; the use of symbolic places for mass gathering (in the case of Tahrir Square in Cairo); overwhelming attention from the West; and the policy inclinations of the US and European governments.
As the Arab world transforms, becoming more tumultuous along the way, Washington will face new dilemmas, and the fight against terror will no longer be overwhelmingly dominant. ‘Pushing democracy’ has returned as a major foreign policy theme in Washington as the uprisings partially restore the West’s self-confidence, battered from the financial crisis.
All of this has major implications for China’s foreign relations. Washington’s deeper involvement in the Middle East is favourable to Beijing, reducing Washington’s ability to place focused attention and pressure on China. But, conversely, the partial return of the push for democracy is not to the benefit of China or stable Sino–US relations. China may need to reconsider its quite amicable relationships with regimes that are repressive, corrupt and have little popular support. Beijing is insufficiently prepared to deal with dramatic political changes in such countries, clearly shown in the past when China’s relations with Iran (1979), Romania (1989) and Serbia (1999) were severely affected. This happened more recently in Zimbabwe, and now also in Egypt and Sudan. Other countries where similar developments could take place are Burma, North Korea and perhaps also Pakistan.
The Middle Eastern turmoil is also relevant to China’s domestic stability. Some activists in and outside China are hoping for a ‘Chinese jasmine revolution.’ Beijing overreacted somewhat, particularly in the early days, by taking strong domestic security precautions despite no signs of widespread activism in China. This may have been the activists’ immediate purpose: to embarrass the Chinese government and to show its lack of self-confidence to the world and the Chinese public. This in turn could make Beijing more hesitant about deepening economic and political reforms.
The uprisings are also affecting China’s international position with regard to the issue of intervention. Beijing probably believed they had no choice other than to allow the UNSC to adopt Resolution 1973, which gave the international community the authority to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. It was clear that the US, France and the UK were resolutely determined to launch a military strike, and certain Arab and African countries supported and even intended to join the intervention. Had Beijing vetoed the resolution, China’s relations with both the West and the Arab countries involved would have been severely strained — and the West would have still launched their attack anyway. This was a hard decision for China: Resolution 1973 could form a dangerous precedent in international law, as previous norms have been revised in favour of armed intervention in a domestic conflict. In the future, the US and its allies might reapply this, potentially to the detriment of China’s interests.
China’s hope for stable Sino–US relations following the state visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the US in January 2011, and China’s important relationship with Saudi Arabia, had induced Beijing to abstain from using its veto in the UNSC. Moreover, if a similar case does occur in the foreseeable future, it seems rather unlikely that China or Russia would use their veto in order to protect the principle of non-interference. Consequently, the US and its associates in the UNSC might very well see an opportunity to act resolutely in the coming years, with the aim of effecting intervention in other countries, comparable to Libya, a country first of all not allied with them and far distant from them. This is an opportunity that has likely not escaped Washington’s attention.
Shi Yinhong is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing
Ferguson vs. Kissinger on the future of China, and what it means for the rest of us (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/ferguson_vs_kissinger_on_the_future_of_china_and_w hat_it_means_for_the_rest_of_us) By Thomas E. Ricks | Foreign Policy
Getting China Ready to Go Abroad
Companies need to revamp management structures and customer service before they can compete globally. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576328842793701106.html)
By KEVIN TAYLOR | Wall Street Journal
Chinese Spreading Wealth Make Vancouver Homes Pricier Than NYC (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-16/chinese-spreading-wealth-make-vancouver-homes-pricier-than-nyc.html) By Yu and Donville | Bloomberg
China shafts Philippine mines (http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ME19Ae01.html) By Joel D Adriano | Asia Times
Is This the China that Can't? (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3200&Itemid=422) By John Berthelsen | Asia Sentinel
China's Bold New Plan for Economic Domination (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/chinas-bold-new-plan-for-economic-domination/239041/) By Abraham & Ludlow | The Atlantic
more...
house KEIRA KNIGHTLEY
axp817
03-25 03:31 PM
I know many people think about it but they don't have the kahunas to actually execute it. I am not aware of anyone who has tried it and was open about it with uscis.
In my case when my 485 was pending I went self employment route. I had to give updated g-325a to show employmnet history and I put it right there for officer to see at local office interview. He actually made an astonishing face and I told him that it was allowed and 485 was pending and I can do what I wish during this time. I also told him that I was not my ac21 employer I was just doing this while 485 was pending and I was porting to another job after my 485 was approved. I gave him offer letter and company tax returns from the ac21 employer that I hadn't joined yet.
Thank you, that is helpful information, although I was talking about a situation where you are self-employed while in AOS, and intend to stay self employed even after your 485 is approved. Self employment being your 'AC21 employer' essentially.
Any cases you might have come across?
In my case when my 485 was pending I went self employment route. I had to give updated g-325a to show employmnet history and I put it right there for officer to see at local office interview. He actually made an astonishing face and I told him that it was allowed and 485 was pending and I can do what I wish during this time. I also told him that I was not my ac21 employer I was just doing this while 485 was pending and I was porting to another job after my 485 was approved. I gave him offer letter and company tax returns from the ac21 employer that I hadn't joined yet.
Thank you, that is helpful information, although I was talking about a situation where you are self-employed while in AOS, and intend to stay self employed even after your 485 is approved. Self employment being your 'AC21 employer' essentially.
Any cases you might have come across?
tattoo Keira Knightley oscar
Macaca
05-16 05:51 PM
Future Tense
Are the United States and China on a collision course? (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87879/united-states-china-diplomacy-taiwan)
By Aaron Friedberg | The New Republic
In October 2008, a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers�with the United States�s financial system seemingly about to buckle and Washington in desperate need of cash to prevent a total economic collapse�a State Department official contacted his Chinese counterpart about China buying U.S. securities. To his surprise, the Chinese, who had previously displayed an insatiable appetite for U.S. Treasury bills, suddenly balked at lending a hand. The reason, the Chinese official said, was the recent announcement of an impending sale of U.S. armaments to Taiwan.
This not-so-subtle threat, detailed in a memo released by Wikileaks, turned out to be a bluff, but it signaled a striking shift in the tone and content of Chinese foreign policy. Over the course of the past two years, Beijing has adopted a more assertive posture in its dealings with Washington, as well as with many of America�s allies in Asia. Among other things, China has threatened for the first time to impose sanctions on U.S. companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan; intensified its claims to virtually all of the resource-rich South China Sea; and conducted its largest-ever naval exercises in the Western Pacific.
America�s �China hands� have long attributed any tensions between the two countries to misunderstandings or readily correctable policy errors. But with the passage of time it has become increasingly apparent that the differences between China and the United States spring from deeply rooted sources and aren�t likely to be resolved anytime soon. Indeed, as recent events suggest, it appears that the two nations are in for a long, tense, perhaps even dangerous struggle. And, most disconcerting of all, it�s a struggle in which, at least for the moment, China seems to be gaining the upper hand.
If you look back over the last 2,500 years�from the days of Athens and Sparta through the cold war�there has inevitably been mistrust, rivalry, and often open conflict between leading global powers and rising states that seek to displace them. In these scenarios, the leading power has wanted to preserve its privileges, while fearing that emerging challengers would seek to overturn the international order that it dominates. Rising powers, for their part, chafe at hierarchies of influence that were put in place when they were relatively weak.
Much of the tension in today�s U.S.-China relationship is a reflection of this familiar dynamic. But this tension is exacerbated by an additional factor that has only sometimes been present in great power rivalries of the past: deep ideological differences. One often hears it said that, because China is no longer truly a communist country, ideology has ceased to be a factor in its relations with the United States. This misses the point. Today�s Chinese leaders may no longer be anti-capitalist Marxists but they govern as Leninists and, as such, are determined to preserve the Communist Party�s exclusive monopoly on political power. China�s rulers see the United States as intent on spreading its brand of democracy to every corner of the earth. For their part, the American people continue to eye with suspicion a regime they see as repressive and autocratic. Ideology may not be sufficient, in itself, to provoke conflict between the United States and China, but it aggravates and amplifies the geopolitical tensions between the two.
This backdrop of great power rivalry and sharp ideological disagreement helps to explain U.S. policies toward China and Chinese policies toward the United States. In contrast to the cold war strategy of containment, America�s strategy for dealing with China has never been codified in official documents or given a name. But over the past two decades, roughly the same strategy has been employed by both Republicans (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Democrats (Clinton and now Obama). Broadly speaking, the aim has been to discourage Beijing from seeking to challenge America�s interests and those of our allies in Asia, while at the same time nudging China toward democracy. To accomplish these ends, American policymakers have employed a dual approach. On the one hand, they have sought extensive economic and diplomatic engagement with China. The hope has been that these interactions will �tame� China by giving it a stake in the existing international order�and, over the long run, encourage the growth of a middle class and the spread of liberal values, thereby pushing the country gently and indirectly down the path toward democracy. At the same time, Washington has worked to preserve a balance of power in East Asia that is favorable to its interests and those of its allies. This began in earnest following the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-1996, when Beijing test-fired missiles in an attempt to influence the outcome of Taiwanese elections, and the Clinton administration dispatched two aircraft carriers in response. Since then, the United States has taken steps to strengthen its military capabilities in the region, while solidifying bonds with partners old (South Korea, Japan, Australia) and new (India).
China�s strategy for dealing with the United States developed somewhat more deliberately. In the wake of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, China�s leaders recognized that the previous rationale for cooperation with the United States no longer applied. They feared that, having toppled one communist giant, the Americans would turn their attention to the other. Surveying the scene in 1991, Deng Xiaoping circulated a brief memo to his top party colleagues. The essential message of the so-called �24 Character Strategy� was that China had little choice but to �hide its capabilities and bide its time.� That meant avoiding confrontation with other states, especially the United States, while working to build up all aspects of its power�economic, military, technological, and political.
Recently, Chinese foreign policy has taken on a more assertive tone; but its overall aims have not changed much in two decades. Above all, the current regime wants to preserve indefinitely the Chinese Communist Party�s grip on political power; it seeks, in effect, to make the world safe for continued CCP rule. In part for this reason, China�s leaders want to restore their country to its place as the preponderant regional power. This requires reducing the influence of the United States in East Asia, constricting its presence, and perhaps eventually extruding it from the region. Chinese officials allude to this objective with varying degrees of subtlety. When I worked in the Bush administration from 2003 to 2005, I had several conversations with Chinese diplomats in which they said, almost in passing, that, while the United States might be a Pacific power, it was, of course, not an Asian power. Rather more bluntly, in 2007, a Chinese admiral reportedly told his American counterpart that their two countries should divide the Pacific between them, with China taking everything west of Hawaii.
Are the United States and China on a collision course? (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87879/united-states-china-diplomacy-taiwan)
By Aaron Friedberg | The New Republic
In October 2008, a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers�with the United States�s financial system seemingly about to buckle and Washington in desperate need of cash to prevent a total economic collapse�a State Department official contacted his Chinese counterpart about China buying U.S. securities. To his surprise, the Chinese, who had previously displayed an insatiable appetite for U.S. Treasury bills, suddenly balked at lending a hand. The reason, the Chinese official said, was the recent announcement of an impending sale of U.S. armaments to Taiwan.
This not-so-subtle threat, detailed in a memo released by Wikileaks, turned out to be a bluff, but it signaled a striking shift in the tone and content of Chinese foreign policy. Over the course of the past two years, Beijing has adopted a more assertive posture in its dealings with Washington, as well as with many of America�s allies in Asia. Among other things, China has threatened for the first time to impose sanctions on U.S. companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan; intensified its claims to virtually all of the resource-rich South China Sea; and conducted its largest-ever naval exercises in the Western Pacific.
America�s �China hands� have long attributed any tensions between the two countries to misunderstandings or readily correctable policy errors. But with the passage of time it has become increasingly apparent that the differences between China and the United States spring from deeply rooted sources and aren�t likely to be resolved anytime soon. Indeed, as recent events suggest, it appears that the two nations are in for a long, tense, perhaps even dangerous struggle. And, most disconcerting of all, it�s a struggle in which, at least for the moment, China seems to be gaining the upper hand.
If you look back over the last 2,500 years�from the days of Athens and Sparta through the cold war�there has inevitably been mistrust, rivalry, and often open conflict between leading global powers and rising states that seek to displace them. In these scenarios, the leading power has wanted to preserve its privileges, while fearing that emerging challengers would seek to overturn the international order that it dominates. Rising powers, for their part, chafe at hierarchies of influence that were put in place when they were relatively weak.
Much of the tension in today�s U.S.-China relationship is a reflection of this familiar dynamic. But this tension is exacerbated by an additional factor that has only sometimes been present in great power rivalries of the past: deep ideological differences. One often hears it said that, because China is no longer truly a communist country, ideology has ceased to be a factor in its relations with the United States. This misses the point. Today�s Chinese leaders may no longer be anti-capitalist Marxists but they govern as Leninists and, as such, are determined to preserve the Communist Party�s exclusive monopoly on political power. China�s rulers see the United States as intent on spreading its brand of democracy to every corner of the earth. For their part, the American people continue to eye with suspicion a regime they see as repressive and autocratic. Ideology may not be sufficient, in itself, to provoke conflict between the United States and China, but it aggravates and amplifies the geopolitical tensions between the two.
This backdrop of great power rivalry and sharp ideological disagreement helps to explain U.S. policies toward China and Chinese policies toward the United States. In contrast to the cold war strategy of containment, America�s strategy for dealing with China has never been codified in official documents or given a name. But over the past two decades, roughly the same strategy has been employed by both Republicans (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Democrats (Clinton and now Obama). Broadly speaking, the aim has been to discourage Beijing from seeking to challenge America�s interests and those of our allies in Asia, while at the same time nudging China toward democracy. To accomplish these ends, American policymakers have employed a dual approach. On the one hand, they have sought extensive economic and diplomatic engagement with China. The hope has been that these interactions will �tame� China by giving it a stake in the existing international order�and, over the long run, encourage the growth of a middle class and the spread of liberal values, thereby pushing the country gently and indirectly down the path toward democracy. At the same time, Washington has worked to preserve a balance of power in East Asia that is favorable to its interests and those of its allies. This began in earnest following the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-1996, when Beijing test-fired missiles in an attempt to influence the outcome of Taiwanese elections, and the Clinton administration dispatched two aircraft carriers in response. Since then, the United States has taken steps to strengthen its military capabilities in the region, while solidifying bonds with partners old (South Korea, Japan, Australia) and new (India).
China�s strategy for dealing with the United States developed somewhat more deliberately. In the wake of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, China�s leaders recognized that the previous rationale for cooperation with the United States no longer applied. They feared that, having toppled one communist giant, the Americans would turn their attention to the other. Surveying the scene in 1991, Deng Xiaoping circulated a brief memo to his top party colleagues. The essential message of the so-called �24 Character Strategy� was that China had little choice but to �hide its capabilities and bide its time.� That meant avoiding confrontation with other states, especially the United States, while working to build up all aspects of its power�economic, military, technological, and political.
Recently, Chinese foreign policy has taken on a more assertive tone; but its overall aims have not changed much in two decades. Above all, the current regime wants to preserve indefinitely the Chinese Communist Party�s grip on political power; it seeks, in effect, to make the world safe for continued CCP rule. In part for this reason, China�s leaders want to restore their country to its place as the preponderant regional power. This requires reducing the influence of the United States in East Asia, constricting its presence, and perhaps eventually extruding it from the region. Chinese officials allude to this objective with varying degrees of subtlety. When I worked in the Bush administration from 2003 to 2005, I had several conversations with Chinese diplomats in which they said, almost in passing, that, while the United States might be a Pacific power, it was, of course, not an Asian power. Rather more bluntly, in 2007, a Chinese admiral reportedly told his American counterpart that their two countries should divide the Pacific between them, with China taking everything west of Hawaii.
more...
pictures actresses, Keira Knightley
Refugee_New
01-06 02:17 PM
Unfortunately Hamas has been using this school as human shield launching missiles against Israel military. You need to consider all acts before accusing Israel of killing innocents.
Hamas must stop their methodology of using innocent civilian homes/schools as launch pads for bombings and they must drop their quest of eliminating a Jewish state. Similarly Israel should recognize Palestine as a separate independent country.
If its true, why media is not showing how Hamas is hiding behind schools and mosques? Its a big lie and this is what they say in order to justify the killing. Also what rockets you are talking about? Those 7000 rockets that killed 4 people? I agree Hamas must stop their mindless and useless rocket attack.
Hamas must stop their methodology of using innocent civilian homes/schools as launch pads for bombings and they must drop their quest of eliminating a Jewish state. Similarly Israel should recognize Palestine as a separate independent country.
If its true, why media is not showing how Hamas is hiding behind schools and mosques? Its a big lie and this is what they say in order to justify the killing. Also what rockets you are talking about? Those 7000 rockets that killed 4 people? I agree Hamas must stop their mindless and useless rocket attack.
dresses Keira Knightley with elephant
delax
07-14 10:54 AM
Delax,
please read my message you quoted. I wrote nothing in support of or aganst the letter. Nothing they (earlier posts) say is going to make the dates go back or forward. All the poor folks are trying to do is maybe vent out their frustration. What difference does this make to you? No action is going to be taken based on one letter. You are safe, please enjoy your current date status.
I can see the writing on the wall about where IV would be once most of Eb2 get their GC. It would almost stop existing.
You and other EB2 people dates are current. Enjoy your GC. Best of luck.
I am not worried about my GC safety or lack thereof. Lets talk specifics - thats always been my position. I am also fully aware that nothing is going to happen in an arbitrary and knee jerk manner based on sympathetic letter requests.
However for argument sake lets assume something happens based on these letters. If a number is taken from EB2 to be given to EB3, I am well within my rights to express my opposition to that just like EB3 is well within their rights to vent their frustration.
Not mentioning EB2 in the letters is not going to result in numbers being created out of thin air. These numbers have to come from somewhere IF the total pie does not increase: read EB2.
As to your comment about IV existing or not - time will tell, but I dont try to hide the fact that beyond attending the Sept. rally, I am only an arm chair participant.
please read my message you quoted. I wrote nothing in support of or aganst the letter. Nothing they (earlier posts) say is going to make the dates go back or forward. All the poor folks are trying to do is maybe vent out their frustration. What difference does this make to you? No action is going to be taken based on one letter. You are safe, please enjoy your current date status.
I can see the writing on the wall about where IV would be once most of Eb2 get their GC. It would almost stop existing.
You and other EB2 people dates are current. Enjoy your GC. Best of luck.
I am not worried about my GC safety or lack thereof. Lets talk specifics - thats always been my position. I am also fully aware that nothing is going to happen in an arbitrary and knee jerk manner based on sympathetic letter requests.
However for argument sake lets assume something happens based on these letters. If a number is taken from EB2 to be given to EB3, I am well within my rights to express my opposition to that just like EB3 is well within their rights to vent their frustration.
Not mentioning EB2 in the letters is not going to result in numbers being created out of thin air. These numbers have to come from somewhere IF the total pie does not increase: read EB2.
As to your comment about IV existing or not - time will tell, but I dont try to hide the fact that beyond attending the Sept. rally, I am only an arm chair participant.
more...
makeup The dress is worn during the
GC_US_64
12-26 05:08 PM
CNBC. They are also airing a programme on immigration at 8pm eastern.
girlfriend Keira Knightley to Play Anna
GCKaMaara
01-10 04:55 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
You are pretty much right. Lets not combine "40 innocent children killed" with war. Even if it is war, it is a war crime. God bless soul of those kids.
About poisoning kids by extremists, I agree that they are poisoned from very childhood. But killing them is not a solution - never. If it is a problem with 1 or 2 persons, you can work on them and get them out of poisoned mind. Can't work on mass. Thats why B****ds who have their personal benefits associated, always associate these poisons with religion to expand their own empire. Misguided muslim people need to and will understand one day that they are breeding dangerous new generations and is hurting themselves.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
You are pretty much right. Lets not combine "40 innocent children killed" with war. Even if it is war, it is a war crime. God bless soul of those kids.
About poisoning kids by extremists, I agree that they are poisoned from very childhood. But killing them is not a solution - never. If it is a problem with 1 or 2 persons, you can work on them and get them out of poisoned mind. Can't work on mass. Thats why B****ds who have their personal benefits associated, always associate these poisons with religion to expand their own empire. Misguided muslim people need to and will understand one day that they are breeding dangerous new generations and is hurting themselves.
hairstyles Keira Knightley in
SunnySurya
12-22 10:17 PM
Good post,
You post is a testimony that not all hope is lost with Islam. There are still people like yourselves who can think objectively or at least open to one.
And this is the reason why I am not against Islam as this would also mean that I am raising my fingers on the guys like urself.
Please quantify your response. There are numerous hindu groups that have worked for the upliftment of many. There are certain right wing hindu groups that do that just like there are many right wing muslims groups that target the other communities. As for Jinnah, I wonder if there would pakistan if he was offered the PM or the home minister. It is a rheotrical question and I doubt there is a clear answer.
Hindus have pretty much killed the practice of Sati and I doubt there will ever be such abominable events. Atleast they looked at it and removed it and that is praise worthy. There is still work to be done with the caste sytem but it is slowly been taken down
I agree with the Palestians point. I think that community is unfortunately the most beseiged and under one of the worst oppressors. Using religion to usurp their land and then making them prisoners in their own land in this age is unbelievable.
You post is a testimony that not all hope is lost with Islam. There are still people like yourselves who can think objectively or at least open to one.
And this is the reason why I am not against Islam as this would also mean that I am raising my fingers on the guys like urself.
Please quantify your response. There are numerous hindu groups that have worked for the upliftment of many. There are certain right wing hindu groups that do that just like there are many right wing muslims groups that target the other communities. As for Jinnah, I wonder if there would pakistan if he was offered the PM or the home minister. It is a rheotrical question and I doubt there is a clear answer.
Hindus have pretty much killed the practice of Sati and I doubt there will ever be such abominable events. Atleast they looked at it and removed it and that is praise worthy. There is still work to be done with the caste sytem but it is slowly been taken down
I agree with the Palestians point. I think that community is unfortunately the most beseiged and under one of the worst oppressors. Using religion to usurp their land and then making them prisoners in their own land in this age is unbelievable.
Macaca
12-27 07:15 PM
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
desi3933
07-12 10:33 AM
My employer back in 2001 and 2002 did not pay me in a consistent way..I was paid once in every three months during the time I was in bench. I have the W2 returns from those two years which shows average income of only 29K. However I had valid visa status and h1b approval from my employer as well as employment verification letter from them. Now i am with a new employer since 2003 and do not have any problems with them and get paid regularly. After reading manub's post I am also worried if my I485 will be denied whenever I apply for it... or is there somethings I can take care of before? It is not my fault that the employer did not pay me consistently - right?
There are some serious issues here.
You got 29k salary for 2 years and still maintain that you had valid status for these 2 years.
I suggest you consult a good attorney.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
There are some serious issues here.
You got 29k salary for 2 years and still maintain that you had valid status for these 2 years.
I suggest you consult a good attorney.
______________________________
Not a legal advice.
