BMS
07-10 07:01 PM
My situation goes something like this.
1) I got 7th year extension in Sep 2005
2) Visited India and got stamped and got new I-94 on return.
3) Applied for 8th year extension without submitting new I-94.
but applied with old replacement I-94 came with I-797.
4) So the same I-94 continued on subsequent I-797 extensions.
5) Recently applied for 9th year extension with the same.
My Question is, do I need to submit last entry I-94 card that I missed which is expired now, for correction? Or is there any issue with this.
All these years I have the same employer.
I appreciate your help on this.
Thanks
-BMS
1) I got 7th year extension in Sep 2005
2) Visited India and got stamped and got new I-94 on return.
3) Applied for 8th year extension without submitting new I-94.
but applied with old replacement I-94 came with I-797.
4) So the same I-94 continued on subsequent I-797 extensions.
5) Recently applied for 9th year extension with the same.
My Question is, do I need to submit last entry I-94 card that I missed which is expired now, for correction? Or is there any issue with this.
All these years I have the same employer.
I appreciate your help on this.
Thanks
-BMS
wallpaper Rory McIlroy
bfadlia
01-10 02:56 AM
Again I beg to differ. Britishers gave land to Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Why should only Israel be responsible? Where will they go? Why not Egypt and Jordan? Secondly, I have children and I am also terrified by the pictures of brutal massacre but think about this. If those who want to kill my children is hiding among women and children what choices do I have? be "civil" and let them kill our children or attack and kill them?
man, what r u talking about?!!!
Britain didn't give any land to Egypt or Jordan.. After half a century of enabling jewish migration to palestine (not out of its kind heart, but an anti-semetic european plan to rid europe of them), Britain suddenly pulled out of the region in 1947 and Israeli gangs started going village to village massacring palestinians and throwing them off their lands. egypt managed to protect the palestinians who fled to gaza, about 1.5 million refugees now crammed in that very tiny city, jordan protected the ones who fled to the west bank, but again Israel attacked and occupied both of these since 1967 Imagine being kicked off your prosperous home and put in a refugee camp nearby while others enjoy your home, then them complaining that you should be pleased they allow you to live in the refugee camp and you should let them live in peace..
at least get some basics about gaza here if you want to discuss it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
man, what r u talking about?!!!
Britain didn't give any land to Egypt or Jordan.. After half a century of enabling jewish migration to palestine (not out of its kind heart, but an anti-semetic european plan to rid europe of them), Britain suddenly pulled out of the region in 1947 and Israeli gangs started going village to village massacring palestinians and throwing them off their lands. egypt managed to protect the palestinians who fled to gaza, about 1.5 million refugees now crammed in that very tiny city, jordan protected the ones who fled to the west bank, but again Israel attacked and occupied both of these since 1967 Imagine being kicked off your prosperous home and put in a refugee camp nearby while others enjoy your home, then them complaining that you should be pleased they allow you to live in the refugee camp and you should let them live in peace..
at least get some basics about gaza here if you want to discuss it http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
gcbikari
08-11 04:58 PM
Where is lesson 2?
Lesson 2:
A priest offered a Nun a lift. She got in and crossed her legs, forcing her gown to reveal a leg. The priest nearly had an accident. After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg.
The nun said, "Father, remember Psalm 129?"
The priest removed his hand. But, changing gears, he let his hand slide up her leg again.
The nun once again said, "Father, remember Psalm 129?"
The priest apologized "Sorry sister but the flesh is weak."
Arriving at the convent, the nun sighed heavily and went on her way.
On his arrival at the church, the priest rushed to look up Psalm 129 It said, "Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory."
Moral of the story
If you are not well informed in your job, you might miss a great opportunity.
Lesson 2:
A priest offered a Nun a lift. She got in and crossed her legs, forcing her gown to reveal a leg. The priest nearly had an accident. After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg.
The nun said, "Father, remember Psalm 129?"
The priest removed his hand. But, changing gears, he let his hand slide up her leg again.
The nun once again said, "Father, remember Psalm 129?"
The priest apologized "Sorry sister but the flesh is weak."
Arriving at the convent, the nun sighed heavily and went on her way.
On his arrival at the church, the priest rushed to look up Psalm 129 It said, "Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory."
Moral of the story
If you are not well informed in your job, you might miss a great opportunity.
2011 Rory McIlroy
SunnySurya
12-21 09:00 AM
SOLIDARITY DEMONSTRATION
Sunday, December 21, 2008 1.00 - 3.00 P. M.
Dag Hammarskjold Plaza (East 47th Street between 1st Ave. and 2nd Ave.) Manhattan, New York
• HAVE THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN MUMBAI SHAKEN YOU TO THE CORE?
• ARE YOU SICK TO YOUR STOMACH WITH THE PUSSYFOOTING OF COWARDLY LEADERS?
• DO YOU WANT TO PROCLAIM TO THE WORLD PAKISTAN’S INVOVLEMENT IN THESE ATTACKS?
• DOES YOUR HEART GRIEVE FOR THE TORTURED JEWISH PEOPLE OF CHABAD LUBAVITCH?
• DO YOU SHED TEARS FOR 200 PEOPLE MASSACRED IN COLD BLOOD AND 400 INJURED?
• DOES THE LOSS OF SOME OF THE BRAVEST AND FINEST OF THE POLICE & NSG BOTHER YOU?
• HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH WITH ONE AFTER ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS?
• DO YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?
• IS “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” FOR YOU? DO YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING?
If you answered YES to any one of the above, then
Come Rain, Snow or Cold, JOIN
TRI-STATE INDIANS on SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21 at 1:00 P. M.
The latest Pakistan sponsored terrorist attacks have traumatized the nation and left deep scars on its psyche. Property worth millions of dollars is destroyed and the economy is affected adversely. Safety of the people and security of the nation is compromised
Who will set the things right? WE THE CONCERNED PEOPLE...
TRISTATE INDIANS: Supporting Organizations
Aligarh Muslim University Engineering Alumni Association of North America
Afghan Hindu Association, Inc
Arsha Bodha Center
Art of Living Foundation, USA
Baba Balak Nath Temple, New York
Bangladeshi Hindus of America, New York
Bangladesh Minority Forum, USA
Bunt Association of North America
Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation of USA
Federation of Indian Associations
Friends of India Society, International
Hindi Samiti of USA
Hindu Center, New York
Hindu Collective Initiative of North America (HCINA)
Hindu Human Rights Watch
Hindu International Council Against Defamation (HICAD)
Hindu Right Action Force (HINDRAF)
Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh
Indian American Intellectual Forum
Kanchi Kamkoti Foundation USA
Kannada Koota
Malyali Hindu Mandalam of North America
Marathi Vishwa
Nataraja Mandir (WSFC)
Om Temple of Garden State
Overseas Friends of BJP
Overseas Sindhu Sabha, New York
Panchvati Ashram, New York
Phagwah Parade & Festival Committee
Punjabi Darbar Religious & Cultural Society
Sadhanalaya Dance, Inc.
Samskrita Bharati
Satya Narayan Mandir, Elmhurst
Save Temples in India
Shree Trimurthi Bhavan
Sindhi Circle, New York
The Caribbean Voice
The South Asian Times
Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America
and many more …
Sunday, December 21, 2008 1.00 - 3.00 P. M.
Dag Hammarskjold Plaza (East 47th Street between 1st Ave. and 2nd Ave.) Manhattan, New York
• HAVE THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN MUMBAI SHAKEN YOU TO THE CORE?
• ARE YOU SICK TO YOUR STOMACH WITH THE PUSSYFOOTING OF COWARDLY LEADERS?
• DO YOU WANT TO PROCLAIM TO THE WORLD PAKISTAN’S INVOVLEMENT IN THESE ATTACKS?
• DOES YOUR HEART GRIEVE FOR THE TORTURED JEWISH PEOPLE OF CHABAD LUBAVITCH?
• DO YOU SHED TEARS FOR 200 PEOPLE MASSACRED IN COLD BLOOD AND 400 INJURED?
• DOES THE LOSS OF SOME OF THE BRAVEST AND FINEST OF THE POLICE & NSG BOTHER YOU?
• HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH WITH ONE AFTER ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS?
• DO YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?
• IS “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” FOR YOU? DO YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING?
If you answered YES to any one of the above, then
Come Rain, Snow or Cold, JOIN
TRI-STATE INDIANS on SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21 at 1:00 P. M.
The latest Pakistan sponsored terrorist attacks have traumatized the nation and left deep scars on its psyche. Property worth millions of dollars is destroyed and the economy is affected adversely. Safety of the people and security of the nation is compromised
Who will set the things right? WE THE CONCERNED PEOPLE...
TRISTATE INDIANS: Supporting Organizations
Aligarh Muslim University Engineering Alumni Association of North America
Afghan Hindu Association, Inc
Arsha Bodha Center
Art of Living Foundation, USA
Baba Balak Nath Temple, New York
Bangladeshi Hindus of America, New York
Bangladesh Minority Forum, USA
Bunt Association of North America
Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation of USA
Federation of Indian Associations
Friends of India Society, International
Hindi Samiti of USA
Hindu Center, New York
Hindu Collective Initiative of North America (HCINA)
Hindu Human Rights Watch
Hindu International Council Against Defamation (HICAD)
Hindu Right Action Force (HINDRAF)
Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh
Indian American Intellectual Forum
Kanchi Kamkoti Foundation USA
Kannada Koota
Malyali Hindu Mandalam of North America
Marathi Vishwa
Nataraja Mandir (WSFC)
Om Temple of Garden State
Overseas Friends of BJP
Overseas Sindhu Sabha, New York
Panchvati Ashram, New York
Phagwah Parade & Festival Committee
Punjabi Darbar Religious & Cultural Society
Sadhanalaya Dance, Inc.
Samskrita Bharati
Satya Narayan Mandir, Elmhurst
Save Temples in India
Shree Trimurthi Bhavan
Sindhi Circle, New York
The Caribbean Voice
The South Asian Times
Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America
and many more …
more...
Macaca
11-29 08:39 PM
Trade groups question new lobbying law (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/trade-groups-question-new-lobbying-law-2007-11-28.html) By Jim Snyder | The Hill, November 28, 2007
Trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say a new lobbying law could require the release of their member lists, violating freedom of association protections granted by the Constitution.
The Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Society of Association Executives wrote Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson and House Clerk Lorraine Miller on Wednesday asking for clarification in how the new law will be applied.
The potential problem relates to a section in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 that would impose new lobbying disclosure rules.
The trade groups said Congress wrote the section of the law to shine light on so-called �stealth coalitions� that often use innocuous-sounding names to anonymously represent specific industries.
But the imprecision of lobbying definitions in the law could mean disclosure requirements would fall on a variety of trade groups, the groups said in the letter.
Groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobbying activities now will face criminal penalties, the letter also notes.
�The price for being wrong is extremely high,� said Steven Law, senior vice president and chief legal officer for the Chamber.
The letter was signed by Law; Jim Clarke, senior vice president of public policy for the American Society of Association Executives; and Jan Amundson, senior vice president and general counsel at NAM.
The lobbying law, passed in response to scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff and ex-Rep. Randy �Duke� Cunningham (R-Calif.), would require disclosure of any organization or entity that �actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control� in lobbying activities and contributes more than $5,000 per quarter for those efforts.
The �breadth and vagueness of the provision� require further clarification in how the new law will be applied, the letter stated.
The groups noted Supreme Court rulings that they say prohibit the government from forcing groups to disclose their membership without a compelling government interest in doing so.
�We take seriously the constitutional rights of our members to associate freely without government looking over our shoulders,� Law said.
Brett Kappel, a campaign finance and government ethics lawyer, said Congress wrote the provision to target ad-hoc associations that are formed to lobby on a particular issue.
�These typically spring up when there is legislation that would have a major economic impact on a small number of companies from a specific segment of the economy. That�s when they form the Coalition for Apple Pie and Motherhood and lobby against it,� said Kappel, who practices at the firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.
The new law �wasn�t designed to get at trade associations,� he said.
Law said the lobbying law gives the clerk and the secretary broad powers in implementing the new requirements. He said he expected further guidance from those offices by Dec. 10.
Trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say a new lobbying law could require the release of their member lists, violating freedom of association protections granted by the Constitution.
The Chamber, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Society of Association Executives wrote Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson and House Clerk Lorraine Miller on Wednesday asking for clarification in how the new law will be applied.
The potential problem relates to a section in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 that would impose new lobbying disclosure rules.
The trade groups said Congress wrote the section of the law to shine light on so-called �stealth coalitions� that often use innocuous-sounding names to anonymously represent specific industries.
But the imprecision of lobbying definitions in the law could mean disclosure requirements would fall on a variety of trade groups, the groups said in the letter.
Groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobbying activities now will face criminal penalties, the letter also notes.
�The price for being wrong is extremely high,� said Steven Law, senior vice president and chief legal officer for the Chamber.
The letter was signed by Law; Jim Clarke, senior vice president of public policy for the American Society of Association Executives; and Jan Amundson, senior vice president and general counsel at NAM.
The lobbying law, passed in response to scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff and ex-Rep. Randy �Duke� Cunningham (R-Calif.), would require disclosure of any organization or entity that �actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control� in lobbying activities and contributes more than $5,000 per quarter for those efforts.
The �breadth and vagueness of the provision� require further clarification in how the new law will be applied, the letter stated.
The groups noted Supreme Court rulings that they say prohibit the government from forcing groups to disclose their membership without a compelling government interest in doing so.
�We take seriously the constitutional rights of our members to associate freely without government looking over our shoulders,� Law said.
Brett Kappel, a campaign finance and government ethics lawyer, said Congress wrote the provision to target ad-hoc associations that are formed to lobby on a particular issue.
�These typically spring up when there is legislation that would have a major economic impact on a small number of companies from a specific segment of the economy. That�s when they form the Coalition for Apple Pie and Motherhood and lobby against it,� said Kappel, who practices at the firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.
The new law �wasn�t designed to get at trade associations,� he said.
Law said the lobbying law gives the clerk and the secretary broad powers in implementing the new requirements. He said he expected further guidance from those offices by Dec. 10.
gimme_GC2006
03-23 12:31 PM
You/lawyer/employer may have forgotten to shred the extra/unwanted documents. Someone may have got hold of them.
Google 'identity theft' and you will be surprised.
Do not answer anyone unless to check. Ask for a call back number. Find the name , badge number. ask them to send you an email with a legit id and you will call back.
You should anyways never talk alone to such people even if they are real. Ask them to talk to your lawyer. If they ask you his number, tell them to find from the application.
Basically never give any information on the phone.
well..I guess..I will take Infopass and checkout whats going on..
I know my file is at local office..not sure if they transferred it back to NBC or TSC..(atleast there are no LUDs)..
and I hope whoever called me can see it in their system that this case is pending at local office..so dont know why they wanted all the detailsfrom me rather than taking from the file..may be thats how they work..
but I am heading to Infopass have enough doubts now :cool:
Google 'identity theft' and you will be surprised.
Do not answer anyone unless to check. Ask for a call back number. Find the name , badge number. ask them to send you an email with a legit id and you will call back.
You should anyways never talk alone to such people even if they are real. Ask them to talk to your lawyer. If they ask you his number, tell them to find from the application.
Basically never give any information on the phone.
well..I guess..I will take Infopass and checkout whats going on..
I know my file is at local office..not sure if they transferred it back to NBC or TSC..(atleast there are no LUDs)..
and I hope whoever called me can see it in their system that this case is pending at local office..so dont know why they wanted all the detailsfrom me rather than taking from the file..may be thats how they work..
but I am heading to Infopass have enough doubts now :cool:
more...
Beemar
01-01 03:25 PM
Oops!! Scratch that. Apparently these are old links. Some going back to 90's! Actually our country is threatening war for so many years that the links become all mixed up. It is embarrassing to see our country warnign pakistan with dire consequences for almost 20 years now, without dropping even a small firecracker in pakistani territory. Indian govt should at least threaten google to block all these stale links, or it should threaten google with surgical strikes :)
Guys, sorry for starting this alarming thread. But the talk of an imminent indian strike in pakistan was all over the internet. I found so many links where indian govt threatens pakistan with war if it does not mends its ways. Just see for yourself.
India Set to Launch 'Small War'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-01.htm
Delhi ups its war rhetoric
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/BA27Df01.html
US fears India may attack militant training camps in PoK
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=10507
India Hinted At Attack In Pakistan; U.S. Acts to Ease Tension on Kashmir
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-588205.html
Bush appeals to India, Pakistan to `draw back from war'
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8816140_ITM
India, Pakistan shoot, talk of war
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/12/29/foreign/AAPAKINDI.HTM
Guys, sorry for starting this alarming thread. But the talk of an imminent indian strike in pakistan was all over the internet. I found so many links where indian govt threatens pakistan with war if it does not mends its ways. Just see for yourself.
India Set to Launch 'Small War'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-01.htm
Delhi ups its war rhetoric
http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/BA27Df01.html
US fears India may attack militant training camps in PoK
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=10507
India Hinted At Attack In Pakistan; U.S. Acts to Ease Tension on Kashmir
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-588205.html
Bush appeals to India, Pakistan to `draw back from war'
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8816140_ITM
India, Pakistan shoot, talk of war
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/12/29/foreign/AAPAKINDI.HTM
2010 Rory Mcilroy Swing Images:
sledge_hammer
12-17 04:14 PM
I too will post something funny :)
<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>
<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3VJrXo5zGNk&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>
more...
gomirage
06-08 06:41 PM
Your common sense tells you to abandon your GC because it is taking too long? Then with your defeatist mentality, you should leave the country now. In case you didn't read a word of what I said, the interest you pay is tax deductible.
What is the difference if you had your GC or not? If you had it would you still be renting? The ONE and ONLY reason I would ever rent is if it was a rent stabilised apartment in a good location in Manhattan, or when I am saving up enough money to buy.
You are a genius. Actually it's been a while now since since I left and I am glad and had the defeatist mentality to build a better life for myself and my family elsewhere.
For a genius, you should better. Just because you are on this forum, doesn't mean you are in the US, lol.
I have been member of this community and like to discuss with ex fellow GC seekers. You don't know the difference between GC or not ? Let me explain it to you, genius. With a GC you know that you are legaly entitled to stay permanently, at least until you commit something to have it revoked. Without GC, when your time is up, you have to pack and leave. Get it ? or is it STILL too complicated for you, genius ?
Wonder how can someone suffer after GC and still doesn't know the difference.
What is the difference if you had your GC or not? If you had it would you still be renting? The ONE and ONLY reason I would ever rent is if it was a rent stabilised apartment in a good location in Manhattan, or when I am saving up enough money to buy.
You are a genius. Actually it's been a while now since since I left and I am glad and had the defeatist mentality to build a better life for myself and my family elsewhere.
For a genius, you should better. Just because you are on this forum, doesn't mean you are in the US, lol.
I have been member of this community and like to discuss with ex fellow GC seekers. You don't know the difference between GC or not ? Let me explain it to you, genius. With a GC you know that you are legaly entitled to stay permanently, at least until you commit something to have it revoked. Without GC, when your time is up, you have to pack and leave. Get it ? or is it STILL too complicated for you, genius ?
Wonder how can someone suffer after GC and still doesn't know the difference.
hair Wallpaper World: Rory McIlroy
unseenguy
06-23 04:17 PM
ca_immigrant, you have brought up good points and the sophisticated rent vs buy calculators are available online for free which anyone can run math in 10 mins. Rents are holding steady in CA, so calculations might play a bit differently in CA.
First of all, 5% is not available today for 30 yr fixed, its more like 5.25%. Another attractive option could be 5 year ARM or 7 year ARM if you can make additional payments for the principal, it will significantly bring down the principal amount owed at the end of first 5 years if you make CONSISTENT (per month) additional payments.
I live in WA, I searched MLS & zillow for recently sold homes, most homes are going for 15-20% less than owner asked priced. Avg 3 bedroom house price here is 500K.
1. I do not qualify for tax rebate offered this year due to income level restrictions (spouse works)
2. Rents in Seattle have fallen steeply. Last year (aug), I was searching for apartment, I was offered at 1600 or 1700. The same apartment is now going for 1450. Some have fallen more steeply upto 1200 of the same class. I can get a very good/posh 2 bedroom apt for 1050 USD per month in today's date if I move out 5 miles more. It was unthinkable in seattle area 1 yr back.
As you said, monthly payment on a 500 K house comes to around 2750 USD, thats true even in seattle. Thats 1750 USD more than the rent or atleast 1500 USD more than the rent.
The gamble would be to stay in 1050 rent house for 2 more years and save bigger nest for downpayment. And prepare for the prices to fall more. say 25% more.
Even if I offer current owners 20% less , the math does not make sense for me. Hence I am expecting 30% -35% correction from current expectations of the owners.
Dont get me wrong, the owners would still be making a profit on homes constructed before 2003 even if there were 30% more correction.
One thing we all know for sure is , home prices are not about to go up spectacularly. Maybe 30-40 K up in 2 years from now. When you are thinking of 10-20 year deals, thats not a lot, its peanuts :)
As of now, I am thinking of buying a nice car instead of a house, since I can talk down car owners equally and since my GC is in geopardy, buying a car for now makes better sense. :)
As someone said we should consider luxury of a house. I have rented one townhome for 1500 a month for which my neighbour is making 2800 USD payment, go figure :)
First of all, 5% is not available today for 30 yr fixed, its more like 5.25%. Another attractive option could be 5 year ARM or 7 year ARM if you can make additional payments for the principal, it will significantly bring down the principal amount owed at the end of first 5 years if you make CONSISTENT (per month) additional payments.
I live in WA, I searched MLS & zillow for recently sold homes, most homes are going for 15-20% less than owner asked priced. Avg 3 bedroom house price here is 500K.
1. I do not qualify for tax rebate offered this year due to income level restrictions (spouse works)
2. Rents in Seattle have fallen steeply. Last year (aug), I was searching for apartment, I was offered at 1600 or 1700. The same apartment is now going for 1450. Some have fallen more steeply upto 1200 of the same class. I can get a very good/posh 2 bedroom apt for 1050 USD per month in today's date if I move out 5 miles more. It was unthinkable in seattle area 1 yr back.
As you said, monthly payment on a 500 K house comes to around 2750 USD, thats true even in seattle. Thats 1750 USD more than the rent or atleast 1500 USD more than the rent.
The gamble would be to stay in 1050 rent house for 2 more years and save bigger nest for downpayment. And prepare for the prices to fall more. say 25% more.
Even if I offer current owners 20% less , the math does not make sense for me. Hence I am expecting 30% -35% correction from current expectations of the owners.
Dont get me wrong, the owners would still be making a profit on homes constructed before 2003 even if there were 30% more correction.
One thing we all know for sure is , home prices are not about to go up spectacularly. Maybe 30-40 K up in 2 years from now. When you are thinking of 10-20 year deals, thats not a lot, its peanuts :)
As of now, I am thinking of buying a nice car instead of a house, since I can talk down car owners equally and since my GC is in geopardy, buying a car for now makes better sense. :)
As someone said we should consider luxury of a house. I have rented one townhome for 1500 a month for which my neighbour is making 2800 USD payment, go figure :)
more...
puddonhead
06-05 07:47 PM
>> US does not produce any consumer goods, its all China..if you don't produce you don't sell and if you don't sell you don't make an income, and if you don't make an income you don't pay taxes...plain and simple. So, what do we do, Borrow and spend.. but remember, the interest obligations will grow to suck the dollars away from goods and services that it purchases. (Folks are in China now )
I believe this is oversimplified. You are completely ignoring the value of knowledge properties and innovation.
Lets take the example of Boeing. 20 years down the line - it may decide that manufacturing may make more sense in China and relocate its factory. However, my belief is that it will be very difficult for Boeing to relocate all of its knowledge workers. The low levels ones are easy to relocate. But the key innovators will continue coming from the US education system. The next generation of ceramic or alloy materials to build components will be invented in US 90% of the time (It may be a bold claim - I will substantiate this in more detail later).
If the key innovators/management are in/from US - a lot of the profit of this corporation would stay in the US - either in the form of taxes or return paid to shareholders. In fact, I would argue that the intellectual properties (that US would "own") will be more valuable than the value addition from the grunt work in China/India. So your comment suggesting that US is no longer adding any real value to the world economy is probably misplaced.
Now to my big assumption/comment about the unassailable lead in innovation.
US is unique in that it allowed the best people from all over the world immigrate and let all ideas mingle to create great ones. No other country allowed this. No other country is even in the horizon to be doing that in the next 100 years. There are so many tech workers in Bangalore and so many manufacturers in China - how many latest innovations did you see coming from there? Unless Bangalore/Shanghai becomes the next hub for people all over the world to come in and synthesize ideas - they will never replace the US. I dont see that happening any time soon.
And what happens if the Lou Dobbs types are successful and US goes down the drain? Well - then all of us are well and truely screwed and the economy, its trends etc become meaningless. The world has many major issues to face in the next 100 years - global worming, over population, depleting natural resources etc. If there is no center of innovation any more (like the current US) - then all the calculations we do about economy and all will probably be irrelevant. When you are fighting for survival then economy does not matter - your next bowl of rice does.
I believe this is oversimplified. You are completely ignoring the value of knowledge properties and innovation.
Lets take the example of Boeing. 20 years down the line - it may decide that manufacturing may make more sense in China and relocate its factory. However, my belief is that it will be very difficult for Boeing to relocate all of its knowledge workers. The low levels ones are easy to relocate. But the key innovators will continue coming from the US education system. The next generation of ceramic or alloy materials to build components will be invented in US 90% of the time (It may be a bold claim - I will substantiate this in more detail later).
If the key innovators/management are in/from US - a lot of the profit of this corporation would stay in the US - either in the form of taxes or return paid to shareholders. In fact, I would argue that the intellectual properties (that US would "own") will be more valuable than the value addition from the grunt work in China/India. So your comment suggesting that US is no longer adding any real value to the world economy is probably misplaced.
Now to my big assumption/comment about the unassailable lead in innovation.
US is unique in that it allowed the best people from all over the world immigrate and let all ideas mingle to create great ones. No other country allowed this. No other country is even in the horizon to be doing that in the next 100 years. There are so many tech workers in Bangalore and so many manufacturers in China - how many latest innovations did you see coming from there? Unless Bangalore/Shanghai becomes the next hub for people all over the world to come in and synthesize ideas - they will never replace the US. I dont see that happening any time soon.
And what happens if the Lou Dobbs types are successful and US goes down the drain? Well - then all of us are well and truely screwed and the economy, its trends etc become meaningless. The world has many major issues to face in the next 100 years - global worming, over population, depleting natural resources etc. If there is no center of innovation any more (like the current US) - then all the calculations we do about economy and all will probably be irrelevant. When you are fighting for survival then economy does not matter - your next bowl of rice does.
hot Rory Mcilroy Swing:
logiclife
02-21 11:16 AM
Today, Lou Dobbs has written on more article.
This time, Lou Dobbs is having a lot of admiration and good words to say about.....guess what ...LOU DOBBS.
Yes, Lou Dobbs loves Lou Dobbs. He has created a whole new class of people in this country. He says that there are 150 million "Lou Dobbs Democrats" in the country the no ones knows about.
Read the whole article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/Dobbs.February21/index.html)
Excerpts of Lou Dobbs talking about how great and popular Lou Dobbs is...
The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families.
--Lou Dobbs, Feb 21 2007.
The Democratic Leadership Council is obviously frightened that my brand of independent populism is a threat.
--Lou Dobbs again, on Feb 21 2007, when absolutely in awe of Lou Dobbs.
I call that independent populism, not neo-populism. And I also call that truth.
--Lou Dobbs, calling Lou Dobbs an INDEPENDENT populist while writing a column praising Lou Dobbs.
In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.
--Lou Dobbs, describing the Lou Dobbs brand of Democrats.
Geeezzz...really. Why doesnt he just run for office instead of campaigning from CNN.
This time, Lou Dobbs is having a lot of admiration and good words to say about.....guess what ...LOU DOBBS.
Yes, Lou Dobbs loves Lou Dobbs. He has created a whole new class of people in this country. He says that there are 150 million "Lou Dobbs Democrats" in the country the no ones knows about.
Read the whole article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/Dobbs.February21/index.html)
Excerpts of Lou Dobbs talking about how great and popular Lou Dobbs is...
The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families.
--Lou Dobbs, Feb 21 2007.
The Democratic Leadership Council is obviously frightened that my brand of independent populism is a threat.
--Lou Dobbs again, on Feb 21 2007, when absolutely in awe of Lou Dobbs.
I call that independent populism, not neo-populism. And I also call that truth.
--Lou Dobbs, calling Lou Dobbs an INDEPENDENT populist while writing a column praising Lou Dobbs.
In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.
--Lou Dobbs, describing the Lou Dobbs brand of Democrats.
Geeezzz...really. Why doesnt he just run for office instead of campaigning from CNN.
more...
house Rory McIlroy SA Desktop
Macaca
12-21 10:00 AM
Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21cong.html) By CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, Dec 21, 2007
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
WASHINGTON � It was a picture-perfect start for Nancy Pelosi as she took the speaker�s podium last January in her tailored aubergine suit surrounded by children to emphasize her singular status as the first woman, mother and grandmother to lead the House.
What Ms. Pelosi did not know, as she beamed at her fellow Democrats cheering their return to power, was that the glum Republicans witnessing the tableau would remain persistently unified against her and her ambitious new majority in the legislative year ahead.
Defying expectations and surprising even themselves, Republicans were able to slow and sometimes halt Democratic momentum by refusing to break with President Bush and his war strategy, no matter how unpopular, and by resisting social initiatives, no matter how appealing.
�What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president,� said Ms. Pelosi, of California, looking back on her history-making first year capped by the president signing an energy bill that she declared as a top priority from the start. �I didn�t foresee that.�
Republicans say their unity was inspired by what they saw as Democratic overreaching on policy, bolstered by a fundamental belief that a Congressionally forced withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous, and stiffened by attacks on vulnerable members from outside advocacy groups.
Holding together, they exerted their influence in three main areas: a children�s health care bill, domestic spending and, first and foremost, the war in Iraq. Time and again, even when a few of their number defected, they refused to provide the votes needed to challenge the president�s handling of the war. As a result, the final House vote of the year handed Mr. Bush another $70 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, much to the frustration of Democrats who had begun 2007 with enormous expectations.
�I was much more hopeful and optimistic that we would be able to do more to bring a new direction to this war, with our majority in the House and Senate,� said Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat often viewed as the conscience of the party.
As they left the Capitol, Congressional Republicans took the view that they had been able to leverage their minority status to a degree even they had not thought possible.
�A year into �the wilderness,� our Republican team has scored legislative and political victories that no one � no one � could have predicted a year ago,� Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, wrote in a confidential memorandum distributed to Republican House members.
Democrats predicted that Republicans would pay a steep price in 2008 for their conduct in 2007 while Democrats would take advantage of their own victories on kitchen-table issues like worker pay and education costs.
As they face the voters in a presidential election year, Republicans will have to explain their loyalty to Mr. Bush�s war policies when polls have been clear for months about public dissatisfaction with the war. Even the relatively positive military trends that some see in Iraq have not, so far, produced much in the way of social stability there.
Democrats will remind voters at every turn that Republicans fought the expansion of health insurance for children and higher federal spending on biomedical research, college aid and an entire spectrum of federal programs.
�Many are paying and will continue to pay a price, but they are standing by the president and their most conservative base,� said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. �The general polling across the country suggests this will not work in November.�
As Democrats asserted their new power at the start of the year, they raced ahead in the House with a series of initiatives on the minimum wage, higher education, terrorism, health care and energy, often with solid bipartisan support, giving hope that they might be able to attract Republicans.
But the early action also foreshadowed problems that would hinder the new majority all year: the Senate, with its minority-empowering rules, was not on the same hurry-up schedule, and House Republicans bristled at what they considered heavy-handed treatment. �Overreaching and the exclusion of Republicans � that formula equals a lack of results,� said Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan.
The first serious collision with Republicans and Mr. Bush came in the spring when Democrats first tried to condition $120 billion in war spending on a deadline for withdrawal. Initially they were able to push the measure through with minimal Republican support, but when it was vetoed, they fell far short of the margin needed for an override.
Unwilling to be accused of depriving the troops of funds, they stripped the withdrawal provision. It was a pattern repeated throughout the year. At different points, Republicans seemed poised to bolt from Mr. Bush on the war � and other issues � but held firm.
On another national security issue, Democrats caved to administration pressure on terror surveillance before a summer break. Ms. Pelosi allowed the House to approve a temporary extension of a wiretapping program even though she considered the proposal constitutionally flawed and felt that the White House had dishonestly accused Democrats of impeding surveillance. �That was a sad day,� she said. �Sometimes it is just a fight where we don�t have a similar platform.�
The solidarity of House Republicans was also on display in a long-running fight over proposals to expand the Children�s Health Insurance Program, a top priority for Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. On Sept. 28, one day after a child health bill cleared Congress for the first time, Democrats mapped out a strategy to override Mr. Bush�s promised veto.
Democrats and their allies held rallies, broadcast television commercials and made hundreds of telephone calls. They focused initially on 15 House Republicans, many from swing districts and suburban areas. They predicted that most of these lawmakers would switch sides and support the bill. But none did.
As the spending bills that finance federal agencies stalled, partly because of a long Senate immigration debate that ended without producing major legislation, Republicans joined Mr. Bush in insisting that Democrats not exceed the White House�s spending limit. Democratic leaders, who by and large earned their spurs on the appropriation committees, kept waiting for Mr. Bush to cut a deal. But the White House was spoiling for a fight.
�The president as we all know, I can verify this for sure, has been eager all year to veto bills sent to his desk,� Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican, said Thursday.
Though Democrats had to settle for Mr. Bush�s spending figure, they rewrote parts of the $555 billion spending package to suit their own priorities. And they said that by passing the budget measure, they succeeded where Republicans could not in 2006, while depriving Republicans of the clash they wanted.
Heading into 2008, Republicans say they know they cannot campaign without a more positive agenda than simply thwarting Democrats. Republicans say they are putting together their own proposals on health care and the economy to present to the public.
�I think it�s incumbent upon us to provide solutions to their concerns,� Mr. Boehner said, �but solutions built on our principles.�
Democrats have their own plans. Ms. Pelosi and others say they will revisit elements of the energy legislation that they had to jettison to get the new law enacted. They will have a health care push and major economic legislation to counter the possibility of a looming recession. They will keep the pressure on over Iraq, though the speaker indicated that she might focus more on policy questions and less on money for troops.
And Democrats will try to paint Republicans as the problem. �But for the president and the Bush Republicans in the Senate,� said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, �we could have accomplished so much more.�
tattoo rory mcilroy girlfriend photos
Macaca
02-27 07:18 PM
Democrats Should Read Kipling (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18kristol.html?ref=opinion) By WILLIAM KRISTOL | NYT, Feb 18
Browsing through a used-book store Friday � in the Milwaukee airport, of all places � I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell�s essays. That�s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell�s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn�t be surprised that its argument would shed light� or so it seems to me � on contemporary American politics.
Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is �morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.� Still, he says, Kipling �survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.� One reason for this is that Kipling �identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.�
�In a gifted writer,� Orwell remarks, �this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.� Kipling �at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.� For, Orwell explains, �The ruling power is always faced with the question, �In such and such circumstances, what would you do?�, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.� Furthermore, �where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.�
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell�s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party � with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats� academic and media supporters � a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition � seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush�s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn�t turn those failures around. Democrats were �against� the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13 to 2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government�s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the United States. The full Senate passed the legislation easily � with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Senators Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail.
But the Democratic House leadership balked � particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. Director McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to antiterror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. �Your country is at risk if we can�t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time,� he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies � and to the Bush administration � seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
An Old Hand Goads Democrats to Get Tough on Ethics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002831.html?hpid=sec-politics) By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane | WP, Feb 21
Browsing through a used-book store Friday � in the Milwaukee airport, of all places � I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell�s essays. That�s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell�s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn�t be surprised that its argument would shed light� or so it seems to me � on contemporary American politics.
Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is �morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.� Still, he says, Kipling �survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.� One reason for this is that Kipling �identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.�
�In a gifted writer,� Orwell remarks, �this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.� Kipling �at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.� For, Orwell explains, �The ruling power is always faced with the question, �In such and such circumstances, what would you do?�, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.� Furthermore, �where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.�
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell�s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party � with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats� academic and media supporters � a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition � seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush�s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn�t turn those failures around. Democrats were �against� the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13 to 2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government�s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the United States. The full Senate passed the legislation easily � with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Senators Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail.
But the Democratic House leadership balked � particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. Director McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to antiterror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. �Your country is at risk if we can�t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time,� he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies � and to the Bush administration � seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
An Old Hand Goads Democrats to Get Tough on Ethics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002831.html?hpid=sec-politics) By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane | WP, Feb 21
more...
pictures Rory McIlroy Omega European
alterego
07-14 05:19 PM
I think we all agreed that the letter contents were somewhat pre-baked. The letter campaign was a idea in the right direction.
And mind you, we are now very active not because EB2 is moving, but because we now have concrete proof that the system was changed this year. I had my doubts, and had been asking about it for a while now, but all of the people said, "no you are wrong, the spill-over is working as it should, and as it always has". We have just recently realized that we were being misled, and there indeed has been a change. That is the reason we are being active.
Yes, you agreed that the immigration system needs to be overhauled, but the only relief in sight is for EB2 folks.. There is no legislation that will help EB3 backlogs. Recapture will again help Eb2 folks, and given the new "pecking order" that has been wrongly put by USICS, Eb3 will never truly benefit from any of these bills.
IV has its goals, as any organization should, and we fully realize that it can't keep everyone happy. However, some of you are stopping voices of others from being heard -- which is fine too. IV is a private organization that can choose to censor or restrict some kind of activities. But when you do that, you can't hope that everyone will support the organization, and believe everything that is being told to them.
What you have said is completely incorrect. EB3I stands to benefit the most from visa recapture legislation. The last time visas were recaptured was in 2000 through the AC21 legislation and as a result of the 230K or so visas that were added to the pool, the USCIS was able to keep PDs for all EB categories, EB1/2/3, EBI/C/ROW, everything current for nearly 4 yrs until 2005 when those extra numbers ran out and retrogression hit. I should know, I could have filed since 2002 but delayed because my less than knowlegable lawyer advised me when you file does not matter. I did not know didly about PD in those days.
Anyway, when you say visa recapture does not hep EB3I, that is patently FALSE. En Contraire, it is the ONLY thing that can help that category.
And mind you, we are now very active not because EB2 is moving, but because we now have concrete proof that the system was changed this year. I had my doubts, and had been asking about it for a while now, but all of the people said, "no you are wrong, the spill-over is working as it should, and as it always has". We have just recently realized that we were being misled, and there indeed has been a change. That is the reason we are being active.
Yes, you agreed that the immigration system needs to be overhauled, but the only relief in sight is for EB2 folks.. There is no legislation that will help EB3 backlogs. Recapture will again help Eb2 folks, and given the new "pecking order" that has been wrongly put by USICS, Eb3 will never truly benefit from any of these bills.
IV has its goals, as any organization should, and we fully realize that it can't keep everyone happy. However, some of you are stopping voices of others from being heard -- which is fine too. IV is a private organization that can choose to censor or restrict some kind of activities. But when you do that, you can't hope that everyone will support the organization, and believe everything that is being told to them.
What you have said is completely incorrect. EB3I stands to benefit the most from visa recapture legislation. The last time visas were recaptured was in 2000 through the AC21 legislation and as a result of the 230K or so visas that were added to the pool, the USCIS was able to keep PDs for all EB categories, EB1/2/3, EBI/C/ROW, everything current for nearly 4 yrs until 2005 when those extra numbers ran out and retrogression hit. I should know, I could have filed since 2002 but delayed because my less than knowlegable lawyer advised me when you file does not matter. I did not know didly about PD in those days.
Anyway, when you say visa recapture does not hep EB3I, that is patently FALSE. En Contraire, it is the ONLY thing that can help that category.
dresses Wallpaper World: Rory McIlroy
snathan
01-06 05:56 PM
Exactly. Hamas was the need of the hour for Palestinians and that why they choose their government. We may call them terrorists, but they are their legitimate government. People always chose leaders who fight for their right. Now you brand them terrorist and that will give you free hand to kill them and their people. Thats what happening. Isreal doesn't want anyone to stand up to their aggression. At the end, its poor people and children who get killed.
If Hamas is the need of hour...why you cry foul?
If Hamas is the need of hour...why you cry foul?
more...
makeup girlfriend Rory McIlroy
axp817
03-26 05:50 PM
I tried looking for the baltimore case but I don't have it on this computer. You might want to search for it on immigration.com.
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
So when they started picking on these other things, do you know what eventually ended up happening - denial/approval?
I tried looking on immigration.com, a lot of hits came up when i searched for "baltimore AC21" but none of them were this particular case.
Aren't there many consulting scenarios where the labor is filed in a certain state but the employee (although worked for the same employer) worked in another location on H-1B (with due LCA amendments of course). Is that not acceptable from a GC perspective?
sorry, I don't mean to drag this topic on forever.
thanks,
That case had a lot more things in it.
1) person never worked at the location as specified by the greencard labor
2) person acknowledged he wasn't going to work there upon greencard approval
3) person was claiming ac21 within same employer for different location
Administrative appeals office; concurred that ac21 wasn't specific to geographic location and didn't have to be done with another company; it could be done within same company.
Then AAO went another way and picked on some other issues: Other issues they picked on was information on his g-325a and his work locations. They picked onthat he didn't have h-1b's approved for those particular locations or LCA's and he was out of status. he was good on the ac21 but was out of status prior to filing 485.
So when they started picking on these other things, do you know what eventually ended up happening - denial/approval?
I tried looking on immigration.com, a lot of hits came up when i searched for "baltimore AC21" but none of them were this particular case.
Aren't there many consulting scenarios where the labor is filed in a certain state but the employee (although worked for the same employer) worked in another location on H-1B (with due LCA amendments of course). Is that not acceptable from a GC perspective?
sorry, I don't mean to drag this topic on forever.
thanks,
girlfriend wallpaper Rory McIlroy
langagadu
02-12 06:45 PM
Finally Pak agreed Mumbai terror attacks are partly planned on its soil. I hope they come back after few months and say ISI partly involved.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7886469.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7886469.stm
hairstyles 2010 Rory McIlroy from
Green06
09-26 10:31 AM
We are living in this country for 8 years on H1b with a hope that one day we will be permanent residents of this country. I love to see Senator Obama as the next president of US but I am afraid that that would be the end of my GC path. I have Canadian Immigration as a backup and if we don't get anything here by next year then we will move to Canada. We are already getting good offers from Alberta Canada and seriously thinking about moving there.
satishku_2000
08-02 07:10 PM
Re-file 140 or file an appeal on the 140.
Filing the appeal; you will be able to extend the h-1b.
Thanks UN for your comments , any comments for the situation mentioned in this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11819
Filing the appeal; you will be able to extend the h-1b.
Thanks UN for your comments , any comments for the situation mentioned in this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11819
chanduv23
03-24 10:38 AM
hehehe..
Looks like this thread is taking a different turn..
to set the records..I was never been on bench, always paid, and never out of status..
Also, I have sent all the docs to them
and I dont think they are looking into case suspecting something..mine was a random pick transferred to NBC.. last year.
And My case was almost approved last Aug2008..during the interview..but visa numbers were exhausted already for the fiscal year (remember.DOS bulleting said visa #s are there but in reality they were long gone..they only gave statement so in the Mid sep2008)..
so..I think since it was lying there laying eggs, a different officer started looking into it all over it again..apparently, I assume earlier officer didnt put any note on it
That seems right. The officer looking into your case might have changed and could not have immediate access to your case information and that's why he/she is asking everything from you and your employer.
If this was the trend - then we would see a lot of people getting such queries.
Looks like this thread is taking a different turn..
to set the records..I was never been on bench, always paid, and never out of status..
Also, I have sent all the docs to them
and I dont think they are looking into case suspecting something..mine was a random pick transferred to NBC.. last year.
And My case was almost approved last Aug2008..during the interview..but visa numbers were exhausted already for the fiscal year (remember.DOS bulleting said visa #s are there but in reality they were long gone..they only gave statement so in the Mid sep2008)..
so..I think since it was lying there laying eggs, a different officer started looking into it all over it again..apparently, I assume earlier officer didnt put any note on it
That seems right. The officer looking into your case might have changed and could not have immediate access to your case information and that's why he/she is asking everything from you and your employer.
If this was the trend - then we would see a lot of people getting such queries.
No comments:
Post a Comment