maine_gc
09-26 09:21 AM
I love to see Obama in White House too. My only concern is who drives his Immigration Policy. Sen. Durbin? We all know what provisions were added to CIR 2007.
I am here legally in this country for 8 years. Applied for 9th year extension this month and waiting in line for Green Card since 2004. I strongly beleive that with Sen. Obama in WH, the US economy will get out of the current crisis and we can see the good old days of 90's again.
I am also looking after the backup plans now just in case if Sen. Obama's immigration policy is based on the CIR 2007 and all the provisions that are against the EB community are included then i do not have any choice other than to leave the country. I am getting ready to apply for Canadian PR whcih would not take more than a year and by that time i believe we will have a good picture of Obama's immigration policy.
I am here legally in this country for 8 years. Applied for 9th year extension this month and waiting in line for Green Card since 2004. I strongly beleive that with Sen. Obama in WH, the US economy will get out of the current crisis and we can see the good old days of 90's again.
I am also looking after the backup plans now just in case if Sen. Obama's immigration policy is based on the CIR 2007 and all the provisions that are against the EB community are included then i do not have any choice other than to leave the country. I am getting ready to apply for Canadian PR whcih would not take more than a year and by that time i believe we will have a good picture of Obama's immigration policy.
wallpaper hot Nicki Minaj finally
485Mbe4001
08-11 04:11 PM
Dobbs is more worried about his show and ratings. i am sure he has an h1b working somewhere in his office or his old office at space.com. more importantly do you guys feel that he affects policy decisions or the immigration debates going on. if he barks let him bark...
I heard sensenbrener (wrong spelling but you know the guy) on the radio yesterday, it sounded like no way in hell he was going to compromise on his issue an let the bill pass. Now that is one guy people from IV need to talk to or send emails to, atleast to help him understand out point of view.
I heard sensenbrener (wrong spelling but you know the guy) on the radio yesterday, it sounded like no way in hell he was going to compromise on his issue an let the bill pass. Now that is one guy people from IV need to talk to or send emails to, atleast to help him understand out point of view.
alisa
12-27 01:04 AM
There is no coherent state or government in Pakistan anymore, there are only personalities pulling the country in various directions. So let's only talk of personalities. My hunch (and that of the many world intelligence agencies too) is that Kayani did it! He was being pushed to a corner by Zardari, who was rapidly chipping away at his power at the behest of US. Apparently Zardari is wiling to give US a much freer hand in western Pak than Kayani. Kayani feared that Zardati may topple him and appoint another COAS. So he played this masterstroke. Zardari and Gillani were taken completely off guard by this hit.
You are right about the lack of governance in Pakistan. And that there are more personalities and less institutions.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
You are right about the lack of governance in Pakistan. And that there are more personalities and less institutions.
But I think you are wrong about Kayani. I haven't seen any reports about any intelligence agencies pointing fingers at Kayani. So, I am curious if you could provide any links. It sounds like a conspiracy theory otherwise.
2011 Nicki Minaj 2010 Single Album
h1techSlave
04-07 03:19 PM
In early 2000 when the stock market was going crazy, every pundit worth his salt was proclaiming at the top of their voice to buy stock. And then the whole thing collapsed.
In the same time period, not many experts recommend buying a house. I remember in 2002 a community near my work was selling town homes for around 200,000 and there were no buyers. Today (after correction) those same houses are still selling at around 450,000.
I 100% agree with you that this is a good time to buy. I know many people are saying that the market would crash another 20%. But the fact is that you can negotiate 10-15% from the advertised price. And there are enough homes in the bank-repo and short sale categories where the prices are 20-30% below the price mentioned in zillow.
Having owned a town home for the last 2.5 years, I can very confidently say that the yard work and house cleaning etc. etc. are not such a big deal. Actually we mow our lawn with a manual push mower (may not be practical if you have more than 10 cents to mow) and clean the snow using a $10 snow shovel. Who said a little exercise is bad for you? I have also helped my single family friends in their yard work and never thought working outside is such a bad thing.
But there is a risk. And house is big ticket item, you have move cautiously.
I firmly believe in the Contrarian Theory. When speculators run, its time to get in and BUY. I owned two homes and I am in the process to getting a third one. I would be a good candidate for those TV shows on HGTv/TLC. I buy a home build equity(through appreciation) and flip. This will get me closer to my DREAM home. I cannot see myself in a home for more than 5 years.
The inventory glut in (SF Bay Area) is not desirable, they talk about east contra-costa and south Santa Clara but there are not much available in core bay-area. The inventory is basically non-desirable.
Simple math, just estimate the number of immigrants that will be ready to buy a home in SF Bay. Just look at the inventory in desirable neighborhoods. They dont match.
Stretching (financially) yourself is always uncomfortable but it can reap you huge dividends. If you are not comfortable, then I would say keep aside monthly payments that would cover 6 months and your home should be sold incase you need to get out of it.
No other investment in US(for individuals) is as leveraged as homes/real-estate. You invest 5% and reap the benefits(or losses) of the rest.
In the same time period, not many experts recommend buying a house. I remember in 2002 a community near my work was selling town homes for around 200,000 and there were no buyers. Today (after correction) those same houses are still selling at around 450,000.
I 100% agree with you that this is a good time to buy. I know many people are saying that the market would crash another 20%. But the fact is that you can negotiate 10-15% from the advertised price. And there are enough homes in the bank-repo and short sale categories where the prices are 20-30% below the price mentioned in zillow.
Having owned a town home for the last 2.5 years, I can very confidently say that the yard work and house cleaning etc. etc. are not such a big deal. Actually we mow our lawn with a manual push mower (may not be practical if you have more than 10 cents to mow) and clean the snow using a $10 snow shovel. Who said a little exercise is bad for you? I have also helped my single family friends in their yard work and never thought working outside is such a bad thing.
But there is a risk. And house is big ticket item, you have move cautiously.
I firmly believe in the Contrarian Theory. When speculators run, its time to get in and BUY. I owned two homes and I am in the process to getting a third one. I would be a good candidate for those TV shows on HGTv/TLC. I buy a home build equity(through appreciation) and flip. This will get me closer to my DREAM home. I cannot see myself in a home for more than 5 years.
The inventory glut in (SF Bay Area) is not desirable, they talk about east contra-costa and south Santa Clara but there are not much available in core bay-area. The inventory is basically non-desirable.
Simple math, just estimate the number of immigrants that will be ready to buy a home in SF Bay. Just look at the inventory in desirable neighborhoods. They dont match.
Stretching (financially) yourself is always uncomfortable but it can reap you huge dividends. If you are not comfortable, then I would say keep aside monthly payments that would cover 6 months and your home should be sold incase you need to get out of it.
No other investment in US(for individuals) is as leveraged as homes/real-estate. You invest 5% and reap the benefits(or losses) of the rest.
more...
gcgreen
08-06 01:03 PM
Excellent point.
Here is the relevant portion from 8 C.P.R. � 204.5(k)(2). This is the reason, in my opinion, why any lawsuit against BS+5 has not much merit value.
...
(2) Definitions. As used in this section:
Advanced degree
means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
======================================
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
Here is the relevant portion from 8 C.P.R. � 204.5(k)(2). This is the reason, in my opinion, why any lawsuit against BS+5 has not much merit value.
...
(2) Definitions. As used in this section:
Advanced degree
means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
======================================
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
Macaca
07-23 07:48 PM
Big Labor flexes its muscles in Congress � with mixed results (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/big-labor-flexes-its-muscles-in-congress--with-mixed-results-2007-07-24.html) By Ian Swanson, July 24, 2007
The day after voters returned Democrats to power in the House and Senate last year, the AFL-CIO held a press conference at its Washington headquarters to announce that union members had come to the polls in large numbers to vote Democratic.
They also promised to remind the new rulers of Congress that labor put them there, and that unions would be back in 2007 looking for support. So far, all indications show Democrats in Congress have been happy to oblige one of their most loyal constituencies.
Legislation backed by labor that was left on the shelves when the House was under Republican rule has been dusted off by Democrats and moved to the floor. This includes so-called card-check legislation approved by the House earlier this year, which was the subject of a huge lobbying fight between labor and business.
By contrast, free-trade agreements opposed by labor and negotiated by the Bush administration have been delayed, some apparently until after the 2008 election.
�There�s been a dramatic change since January,� said Bill Samuel, a top lobbyist for the AFL-CIO who is in frequent communication with Democratic leaders. �Issues that have been long ignored are now getting the attention they deserve.�
�I think they�ve done a fair job in recognizing what our priorities are and addressing them,� agreed Fred McLuckie, legislative director of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) agreed with the labor leaders, but put a different spin on the changing tides.
�The brazenness with which they�ve paid back Big Labor is astonishing,� said Putnam, who thinks the loyalty will come back to haunt Democrats next year, particularly since labor unions now represent less than 8 percent of the nation�s private workforce.
Putnam said the shifting fortunes for labor reflect �a blatant return to the old stereotype of Big Labor bosses pulling the strings of Democrats.�
Few Democrats, however, seem to think helping labor will hurt them. For example, only two House Democrats voted against the card-check legislation despite intense lobbying by business groups and negative advertisements in some districts. In the Senate, every Democrat voted in favor of card-check on the floor, as did Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
Pro-business Democratic Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) said he has some differences with unions on trade. But he has no problem supporting card-check or other pro-union bills that he sees as helping low- and middle-income workers get a share of the economic pie.
While card-check legislation, formally known as the Employee Free Choice Act, received the lion�s share of headlines over the first half of the year, dozens of other measures designed to help the labor movement have been inching forward.
For example, lawmakers have attached to several bills language requiring that workers be paid a prevailing wage � and the tactic has helped highlight divisions within the Republican Party. Fifty House Republicans voted to keep prevailing-wage language in a water-resources bill earlier this year.
In addition, the Teamsters and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers won a provision in the House Federal Aviation Administration bill that makes it easier for employees of Federal Express to form unions, which could be a boon to the Teamsters and the machinists union. A second provision backed by labor would force the administration back to the negotiating table with air traffic controllers.
And just last week, the House approved a bill providing collective-bargaining rights for firefighters and other first responders in all 50 states. The lower chamber also passed a Department of Labor funding bill that offers increased dollars for workplace enforcement offices like the Wage and Hour Division, which looks into claims that overtime is not being paid, while cutting funds for an office that investigates union corruption.
In the second half of 2007, the AFL-CIO expects to push for bankruptcy law reforms as well as legislation overturning a National Labor Relations Board ruling that broadly defined workers considered to be supervisors. Overturning the decision could allow many more workers to qualify for collective bargaining rights.
Furthermore, the Teamsters will continue to press Democrats to prevent the administration from carrying out plans to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads, McLuckie said.
Meanwhile, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which split from the AFL-CIO a few years ago, is lobbying aggressively on several broad policy issues, including an expansion of the State Children�s Health Insurance Program, according to Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.
The debate over ending the war in Iraq is also a top priority for SEIU members, who are even more anti-war than the rest of the nation, Burger said, explaining that the SEIU sees the Iraq war as diverting funds that could be used to provide universal healthcare and other priorities.
Still, while union proposals have won momentum, only one union priority � an increase in the minimum wage � has actually become law. Other measures have been held up in the Senate by Republican-led filibusters or are threatened by presidential vetoes.
While the AFL-CIO�s Samuel admits that moving from a defensive posture to offense has been exciting, he said there is frustration that labor issues have been held up in the Senate. And he insists Democrats have not given labor a blank check, even though he and his colleagues are spending more time in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in this Congress. �You still have to argue your case on its merits,� he said.
�For the last 12 years we were for the most part on the defensive,� Samuel continued. �It was other people who were making decisions which we were reacting to. I think now we are able to make decisions, to decide what issues to promote.�
AFL-CIO officials meet weekly to decide which issues to push for. They are also in frequent contact with other labor leaders, who say there�s no evidence that Democratic leaders are playing favorites among the sometimes-fractious labor movement.
SEIU and the Teamsters left the AFL-CIO a few years ago and formed the Change to Win coalition. But McLuckie said he hadn�t heard any complaints within the Change to Win coalition about access to Democrats.
For their part, Republicans hope to use labor�s successes to portray Democrats as too compliant with union demands. For example, the National Republican Senate Committee is already trying to raise money from small businesses spooked by the card-check bill.
It has produced an ominously scored video featuring grainy footage of Senate Democrats rallying for the card-check legislation to convince businesses to donate to the GOP next year. In the video, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tells the crowd, �We have a majority in the U.S. Senate because of you.� Meanwhile, the figure $1,389,489 flashes on the screen to reflect the contributions Reid has received from �Big Labor.�
The video closes with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) promising to sign the bill into law when she is president, and notes Republicans need only two seats to regain control of the Senate.
While unions are holding off on their presidential endorsements for now, the video reflects their long-term plan for card check. In 2009, labor hopes to have a Democratic president and a larger majority in the Senate, which would make business-backed filibusters more difficult.
�I think it will be easier next time,� said Samuel, who thinks the labor agenda in Congress will help Democrats in next year�s elections. �I think these measures are generally very popular.�
The day after voters returned Democrats to power in the House and Senate last year, the AFL-CIO held a press conference at its Washington headquarters to announce that union members had come to the polls in large numbers to vote Democratic.
They also promised to remind the new rulers of Congress that labor put them there, and that unions would be back in 2007 looking for support. So far, all indications show Democrats in Congress have been happy to oblige one of their most loyal constituencies.
Legislation backed by labor that was left on the shelves when the House was under Republican rule has been dusted off by Democrats and moved to the floor. This includes so-called card-check legislation approved by the House earlier this year, which was the subject of a huge lobbying fight between labor and business.
By contrast, free-trade agreements opposed by labor and negotiated by the Bush administration have been delayed, some apparently until after the 2008 election.
�There�s been a dramatic change since January,� said Bill Samuel, a top lobbyist for the AFL-CIO who is in frequent communication with Democratic leaders. �Issues that have been long ignored are now getting the attention they deserve.�
�I think they�ve done a fair job in recognizing what our priorities are and addressing them,� agreed Fred McLuckie, legislative director of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) agreed with the labor leaders, but put a different spin on the changing tides.
�The brazenness with which they�ve paid back Big Labor is astonishing,� said Putnam, who thinks the loyalty will come back to haunt Democrats next year, particularly since labor unions now represent less than 8 percent of the nation�s private workforce.
Putnam said the shifting fortunes for labor reflect �a blatant return to the old stereotype of Big Labor bosses pulling the strings of Democrats.�
Few Democrats, however, seem to think helping labor will hurt them. For example, only two House Democrats voted against the card-check legislation despite intense lobbying by business groups and negative advertisements in some districts. In the Senate, every Democrat voted in favor of card-check on the floor, as did Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
Pro-business Democratic Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) said he has some differences with unions on trade. But he has no problem supporting card-check or other pro-union bills that he sees as helping low- and middle-income workers get a share of the economic pie.
While card-check legislation, formally known as the Employee Free Choice Act, received the lion�s share of headlines over the first half of the year, dozens of other measures designed to help the labor movement have been inching forward.
For example, lawmakers have attached to several bills language requiring that workers be paid a prevailing wage � and the tactic has helped highlight divisions within the Republican Party. Fifty House Republicans voted to keep prevailing-wage language in a water-resources bill earlier this year.
In addition, the Teamsters and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers won a provision in the House Federal Aviation Administration bill that makes it easier for employees of Federal Express to form unions, which could be a boon to the Teamsters and the machinists union. A second provision backed by labor would force the administration back to the negotiating table with air traffic controllers.
And just last week, the House approved a bill providing collective-bargaining rights for firefighters and other first responders in all 50 states. The lower chamber also passed a Department of Labor funding bill that offers increased dollars for workplace enforcement offices like the Wage and Hour Division, which looks into claims that overtime is not being paid, while cutting funds for an office that investigates union corruption.
In the second half of 2007, the AFL-CIO expects to push for bankruptcy law reforms as well as legislation overturning a National Labor Relations Board ruling that broadly defined workers considered to be supervisors. Overturning the decision could allow many more workers to qualify for collective bargaining rights.
Furthermore, the Teamsters will continue to press Democrats to prevent the administration from carrying out plans to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads, McLuckie said.
Meanwhile, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which split from the AFL-CIO a few years ago, is lobbying aggressively on several broad policy issues, including an expansion of the State Children�s Health Insurance Program, according to Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.
The debate over ending the war in Iraq is also a top priority for SEIU members, who are even more anti-war than the rest of the nation, Burger said, explaining that the SEIU sees the Iraq war as diverting funds that could be used to provide universal healthcare and other priorities.
Still, while union proposals have won momentum, only one union priority � an increase in the minimum wage � has actually become law. Other measures have been held up in the Senate by Republican-led filibusters or are threatened by presidential vetoes.
While the AFL-CIO�s Samuel admits that moving from a defensive posture to offense has been exciting, he said there is frustration that labor issues have been held up in the Senate. And he insists Democrats have not given labor a blank check, even though he and his colleagues are spending more time in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in this Congress. �You still have to argue your case on its merits,� he said.
�For the last 12 years we were for the most part on the defensive,� Samuel continued. �It was other people who were making decisions which we were reacting to. I think now we are able to make decisions, to decide what issues to promote.�
AFL-CIO officials meet weekly to decide which issues to push for. They are also in frequent contact with other labor leaders, who say there�s no evidence that Democratic leaders are playing favorites among the sometimes-fractious labor movement.
SEIU and the Teamsters left the AFL-CIO a few years ago and formed the Change to Win coalition. But McLuckie said he hadn�t heard any complaints within the Change to Win coalition about access to Democrats.
For their part, Republicans hope to use labor�s successes to portray Democrats as too compliant with union demands. For example, the National Republican Senate Committee is already trying to raise money from small businesses spooked by the card-check bill.
It has produced an ominously scored video featuring grainy footage of Senate Democrats rallying for the card-check legislation to convince businesses to donate to the GOP next year. In the video, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tells the crowd, �We have a majority in the U.S. Senate because of you.� Meanwhile, the figure $1,389,489 flashes on the screen to reflect the contributions Reid has received from �Big Labor.�
The video closes with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) promising to sign the bill into law when she is president, and notes Republicans need only two seats to regain control of the Senate.
While unions are holding off on their presidential endorsements for now, the video reflects their long-term plan for card check. In 2009, labor hopes to have a Democratic president and a larger majority in the Senate, which would make business-backed filibusters more difficult.
�I think it will be easier next time,� said Samuel, who thinks the labor agenda in Congress will help Democrats in next year�s elections. �I think these measures are generally very popular.�
more...
Macaca
01-28 09:01 AM
Lou Dobbs does not present all facts. He presents facts to support his agenda; he is against legal immigration. He is NOT a news reporter. This is very obvious. Most balanced minds ignore his rants.
He is the only one on CNN who presents his opinions. I think he has a special contract. CNN wants viewers with his opnion.
He is the only one on CNN who presents his opinions. I think he has a special contract. CNN wants viewers with his opnion.
2010 Nicki Minaj Pink Friday Album
485Mbe4001
09-30 03:01 PM
He had proposed a very harsh H1b revamp and a total revamp of the L1 visa system.
for example companies hiring H1 would have had to certify and attest that multiple american candidates were interviewed for the poisition. The prevailing wage had to be the highest of three measures (i forget which 3). Transfers were limited or restricted. On the other hand the Dream act simply gave citizenship to any illegal attending high school. The Senator talks about humane immigration and i agree to a certain extent but it should be humane for legals too.
Yes, you are right, the recent 485 denials for people using AC-21 have nothing to do with Obama/Durbin immigtaion policy. But I kind of remember there were some harsh provisions for people using AC 21 in CIR 2007 version. I am trying to find out the details about it.
Correct me if I am wrong.
for example companies hiring H1 would have had to certify and attest that multiple american candidates were interviewed for the poisition. The prevailing wage had to be the highest of three measures (i forget which 3). Transfers were limited or restricted. On the other hand the Dream act simply gave citizenship to any illegal attending high school. The Senator talks about humane immigration and i agree to a certain extent but it should be humane for legals too.
Yes, you are right, the recent 485 denials for people using AC-21 have nothing to do with Obama/Durbin immigtaion policy. But I kind of remember there were some harsh provisions for people using AC 21 in CIR 2007 version. I am trying to find out the details about it.
Correct me if I am wrong.
more...
riva2005
04-09 11:57 AM
Thx for saying that. My boss who is a professor in a research university at least thinks that way, and also believes that I am a leader (FYI riva2005). Frankly, if you are not displacing an American, and there is legal proof of that, there is no reason to worry. Also, mjrajatish: yes, it will be difficult to move in 2 weeks. Same holds for me too because they have to prove that Iam not displacing another American in the new workplace. I see nothing wrong in that.
Great. Maybe you should put out an ad in the newspaper. Or maybe you should say in your EB1 petition "My boss believes that I am a leader". That ought to do it. I am sure USCIS will approve your EB1 right away when they see that your boss believes that you are a leader.
My boss too believes many things. He believes that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Maybe I should tell my parents about what my Boss believes. That would make them proud.
Seriously rimzhim, you are thinking that only you and a handful of others with Ph.Ds are providing service to this country and others like "Consultants" are just getting a free ride. I am not a consultant myself, but I do see really smart and capable professionals doing consulting. You need to get out of your lab more. There are plenty of consultants in IBM, Accenture etc. who are some of the best brains in IT and management and who are either on H1B or used to be on H1B.
Quite contrary, the best brains actually prefer consulting beacuse there is more money to be made in it. Many H1Bs doing fulltime jobs start consulting when they get greencards because consulting pays more.
If you are really a scientist, you should be doing something good with your time rather than trolling the posts of EB3 losers like myself.
Go shake some test-tubes or something. Or go to your boss's office and he will tell you how great you are.
Great. Maybe you should put out an ad in the newspaper. Or maybe you should say in your EB1 petition "My boss believes that I am a leader". That ought to do it. I am sure USCIS will approve your EB1 right away when they see that your boss believes that you are a leader.
My boss too believes many things. He believes that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Maybe I should tell my parents about what my Boss believes. That would make them proud.
Seriously rimzhim, you are thinking that only you and a handful of others with Ph.Ds are providing service to this country and others like "Consultants" are just getting a free ride. I am not a consultant myself, but I do see really smart and capable professionals doing consulting. You need to get out of your lab more. There are plenty of consultants in IBM, Accenture etc. who are some of the best brains in IT and management and who are either on H1B or used to be on H1B.
Quite contrary, the best brains actually prefer consulting beacuse there is more money to be made in it. Many H1Bs doing fulltime jobs start consulting when they get greencards because consulting pays more.
If you are really a scientist, you should be doing something good with your time rather than trolling the posts of EB3 losers like myself.
Go shake some test-tubes or something. Or go to your boss's office and he will tell you how great you are.
hair Nicki Minaj – Pink Friday
zCool
04-07 12:45 AM
I don't think that will be end of the world. H1B was answer to the xenophobia itself. It's beneficial to corporations and US economy but very bad for Indians who are being lured under wrong perception. People are getting temperory permits for jobs that basically happen to be of permanant nature.
When there happen to be 200K applications for 65K permits on day 1.. and folks from Microsoft and Google have to worry abt being able to keep geniuses they have hired.. something's gotta happen to separate wheat from chaff.. this will be it..!
When there happen to be 200K applications for 65K permits on day 1.. and folks from Microsoft and Google have to worry abt being able to keep geniuses they have hired.. something's gotta happen to separate wheat from chaff.. this will be it..!
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-22 02:52 PM
Satan was complaining bitterly to God, "You made the world so that it was not fair, and you made it so that most people would have to struggle every day, fight against their innate wishes and desires, and deal with all sorts of losses, grief, disasters, and catastrophes. Yet people worship and adore you. People fight, get arrested, and cheat each other, and I get blamed, even when it is not my fault. Sure, I'm evil, but give me a break. Can't you do something to make them stop blaming me?"
And so God created lawyers.
And so God created lawyers.
hot Nicki Minaj - Pink Friday
Macaca
07-08 06:54 PM
In approving another h-4 visa; they askd h-1b person why they didn't get paid for three month when they entered USA. Company president along with h-1b beneficiary said that he had to climitize himself and then it took a while to get the social security number. Once he got it then he got paid. Visa officer laughed at the explanation and gave the h-4 visa. Six months later; company gets a DOL audit request for possible h-1b violations. DOL officer said that consulate sent them notification that there was h-1b violations.
Must an H-1B alien be working at all times? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
Must an H-1B alien be working at all times? (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a62bec897643f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD)
As long as the employer/employee relationship exists, an H-1B alien is still in status. An H-1B alien may work in full or part-time employment and remain in status. An H-1B alien may also be on vacation, sick/maternity/paternity leave, on strike, or otherwise inactive without affecting his or her status.
more...
house Album: Pink Friday
xyzgc
12-30 02:23 AM
I think you missed my point. Which was that the 'solution' that Mr rinku1112 was suggesting, destabilizing Pakistan by funding dissident groups, is something that Pakistan already suspects India is doing. And there might be some truth to it. So, then, Pakistan would want to fund groups that would try to destabilize India.
Thats the vicious cycle.
It might be true, it might not be. Its only reactionary if its at all true and a very subdued reaction that is. If India was Israel in its attitude and what it is in its size, you wouldn't have seen the vicious circle that you think you see. It would have been all over by now - without all the intellectual sparring and head-banging that go on, on these immigration forums. Pakistani terrorism would have been a moot point - a non-issue.
Thats the vicious cycle.
It might be true, it might not be. Its only reactionary if its at all true and a very subdued reaction that is. If India was Israel in its attitude and what it is in its size, you wouldn't have seen the vicious circle that you think you see. It would have been all over by now - without all the intellectual sparring and head-banging that go on, on these immigration forums. Pakistani terrorism would have been a moot point - a non-issue.
tattoo Nicki Minaj Album Pink Friday.
jonty_11
07-09 01:49 PM
Just follow the law. There are lots of protections in it for us.
Related question - if your I94 is expiring say 8/11/2007 and ur H1 is still valid until 11/11/2009; do you have to renew the I94..while in the US (given that you are not travelling outside US)
The H1B does have a I94 at the bottom corner with 11/11/2009 as Exp Date.
Related question - if your I94 is expiring say 8/11/2007 and ur H1 is still valid until 11/11/2009; do you have to renew the I94..while in the US (given that you are not travelling outside US)
The H1B does have a I94 at the bottom corner with 11/11/2009 as Exp Date.
more...
pictures Nicki Minaj,Pink Friday,album
logiclife
11-21 05:44 PM
Lou Dobbs gets his ratings based on how much angry he can get people.
Same goes for Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.
The easiest way to get good ratings and viewership of your program on radio or TV, if you dont have substance and if you dont want to work hard, is to make people angry.
Angry listeners are regular listeners and motivated listeners. Also, a lot more emotional and a lot less objective.
They all know they are talking garbage. Take Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas" for example. Does it really matter if walmart hangs a sign that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Does it feed the hungry homeless people? Does to stop Genocide in Darfur. NO.
But it can make some people angry, which gets good ratings and 90% of broadcast media are ratings pimps. All they care about is viewership and ratings and they dont themselves believe in the nonsense they utter into the microphones.
Same goes for Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.
The easiest way to get good ratings and viewership of your program on radio or TV, if you dont have substance and if you dont want to work hard, is to make people angry.
Angry listeners are regular listeners and motivated listeners. Also, a lot more emotional and a lot less objective.
They all know they are talking garbage. Take Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas" for example. Does it really matter if walmart hangs a sign that says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Does it feed the hungry homeless people? Does to stop Genocide in Darfur. NO.
But it can make some people angry, which gets good ratings and 90% of broadcast media are ratings pimps. All they care about is viewership and ratings and they dont themselves believe in the nonsense they utter into the microphones.
dresses Nicki Minaj Pink Friday Charm
abracadabra102
01-03 02:48 PM
Writer, Shuja Nawaz
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
http://www.shujanawaz.com/index.php?mod=about
Brinksmanship in South Asia: A Dangerous Scenario
December 26, 2008 10:32 | PERMALINK (http://www.shujanawaz.com/blog/brinksmanship-in-south-asia-a-dangerous-scenario)
Reports of military movement to the India-Pakistan border must raise alarums in Washington DC. The last thing that the incoming Obama administration wants is a firestorm in South Asia. There cannot be a limited war in the subcontinent, given the imbalance of forces between India and Pakistan. Any Indian attack across the border into Pakistan will likely be met with a full scale response from Pakistan. Yet, the rhetoric that seemed to have cooled down after the immediate aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is rising again. It was exactly this kind of aggressive posturing and public statements that led to the 1971 conflict between these two neighbors. Pakistan has relied in the past on international intervention to prevent war. It worked, except in 1971 when the US and other powers let India invade East Pakistan and lead to the birth of Bangladesh. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is that both are now nuclear weapon states with anywhere up to150 nuclear bombs in their arsenal. If India and Pakistan go to war, the world will lose. Big time. By putting conventional military pressure on Pakistan, is India calling what it perceives to be Pakistan’s bluff under the belief that the United Sates will force nuclear restraint on Pakistan?
The early evidence after the Mumbai terrorist attack pointed to the absence of the Pakistan government’s involvement in the attack. Indeed, the government of Pakistan seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate and understand Indian anger at the tragedy. But, in the weeks since then, as domestic political pressure mounted on the Indian government to do more, talk has turned to the use of surgical strikes or other means to teach Pakistan a lesson. It was in India’s own interest to strengthen the ability of the fledgling civilian government of Pakistan to move against the militancy within the country. But it seems to have opted for threats to attack Pakistan, threats that, if followed up by actions, may well derail the process of civilianization and democratization in that country. India must recognize the constraints under which Pakistan operates. It cannot fight on two fronts. And it lacks the geographic depth to take the risk of leaving its eastern borders undefended at a time when India has been practicing its emerging Cold Start strategy in the border opposite Kasur. Under this strategy, up to four Integrated Battle Groups could move rapidly across the border and occupy a strategic chunk of Pakistani territory up to the outskirts of Lahore in a “limited war”.
For Pakistan, there is no concept of “limited war”. Any war with India is seen as a total war, for survival. It risks losing everything the moment India crosses its border, and will likely react by attacking India in force at a point of its own choosing under its own Offensive-Defensive strategy. (That is probably why it is moving some of its Strike Force infantry divisions back from the Afghan border to the Indian one.) As the battles escalate, Indian’s numerical and weapon superiority will become critical. If no external intervention takes place quickly, Pakistan will then be left with the “poison pill” defence of its nuclear weapons.
The consequences of such action are unimaginable for both countries and the world...
The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) conducted an analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia a year before the last stand-off in 2002. Under two scenarios, one (with a Princeton University team) studied the results of five air bursts over each country’s major cities and the other (done by the NRDC alone) with 24 ground explosions. The results were horrifying to say the least: 2.8 million dead, 1.5 million seriously injured, and 3.4 million slightly injured in the first case. Under the second scenario involving an Indian nuclear attack on eight major Pakistani cities and Pakistan’s attack on seven major Indian cities:
NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.
Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.
Studies by Richard Turco, Alan Robock, and Brian Toon in 2006 and 2008 on the climate change impact of a regional nuclear war between these two South Asian rivals, were based on the use of 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices of 15 kiloton each. The ensuing nuclear explosions would set 15 major cities in the subcontinent on fire and hurl five million tonnes of soot 80 kilometers into the air. This would deplete ozone levels in the atmosphere up to 40 per cent in the mid-latitudes that “could have huge effects on human health and on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems.” More important, the smoke and sot would cool the northern hemisphere by several degrees, disrupting the climate (shortening growing seasons, etc.) and creating massive agricultural failure for several years. The whole world would suffer the consequences.
An Indo-Pakistan war will not cure the cancer of religious militancy that afflicts both countries today. Rather, India and Pakistan risk jeopardizing not only their own economic futures but also that of the world by talking themselves into a conflict. The world cannot afford to let that happen. The Indian and Pakistani governments can step back from the brink by withdrawing their forces from their common border and going back to quiet diplomacy to resolve their differences. The United States and other friends of both countries can act as honest brokers by publicly urging both to do just that before this simmering feud starts to boil over.
This piece appeared in The Huffington Post, 26 December 2008 (http://www.shujanawaz.com//)
This guy sounds as though some injustice was done to Pakistan during 1971 war and conveniently forgets about the atrocities committed by Pakistani soldiers in Bangladesh. Millions were killed, raped or maimed. Around 10 million bangladeshis fled to India. India fought a just war and gave independence to Bangladesh. India did not occupy any of Pakistani territories despite a resounding victory (Entire Pakistan army was rolled up in less than 2 weeks). 1971 war brought back democracy to Pakistan.
Regarding war casualities, yes, wars cost lives. 60 million died during WW-II and most of these are from allies (85%). Russia alone lost around 30 million.
In fact, India can pre-emptively strike Pakistan with nukes and take out Pakistan. A few nukes fired by Pakistan may slip through and kill some Indians but majority casualities will be from Pakistan.
Here is some guesstimate of India-Pakistan nuclear arsenal (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jsws/jsws020530_1_n.shtml)
If India waits longer, Pakistan builds more nukes and threat to India only increases and may end up taking in more casualities later. And yes, Pakistan will attack if it is confident of destroying India with first strike. It is, after all, run by military junta which is hand in glove with all these terror groups.
But none of this will happen. India is run by hizdas.
more...
makeup album Pink Friday fourteen
chintu25
08-22 11:23 AM
:D
"Some good news for the economy. President went on a month-long vacation." �Jay Leno
"The federal government announced today that the recession ended back in November of 2001. It ended two years ago! Be sure to pass that on to all your unemployed friends. So you know what that means? The past twenty months of job layoffs, corporate bankruptcies and declining stocks, those were the good times. We should have been living it up." �Jay Leno
"Yesterday Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he would be willing to serve another term. Greenspan said, 'Where else would I get a job in this economy?'" �Conan O'Brien
"Democrats were quick to point out that President 's budget creates a 1 trillion dollar deficit. The White House quickly responded with 'Hey, look over there, it's Saddam Hussein.'" �Craig Kilborn
"President unveiled his new economic stimulus plan this week. It was reported that if the plan passes, the president himself would save $44,000 in taxes, Dick Cheney would save $327,000, and you could afford to take the whole family down to Burger King to pick up job applications." �Tina Fey, on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update"
"President 's economic plan will create 2.5 million new jobs. The bad news, they are all for Iraqi soldiers." �Craig Kilborn
"According to a new study, bad economic times can actually be good for you because people tend to exercise more and eat better. This is not a recession, this is the President�s Health Care Plan." �Jay Leno
"The big story here tonight comes from Washington, D.C. where President announced his new economic plans. The centerpiece was a proposed repeal of the dividends tax on stocks, a boon that could be worth millions of dollars to average Americans. Well, average stock owning Americans. Technically, Americans who own a significant amount of shares in dividend dealing companies. Well, rich people, that's what I'm trying to say. They're going to do really well with this." �Jon Stewart
"Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neal has resigned. He didn't want to resign, but there wasn't any money left in the treasury so he's got nothing to do." �Jay Leno
" Presidents advisers have long been worried that a lagging economy could hamper the president's re-election chances. They hope that the Cabinet shake-up will provide a needed jolt. If that doesn't work, North Korea has to go." �Jon Stewart
"Al Gore says President�s economic plan has zero chance of working. Now, this raises on important question: President has an economic plan?" �David Letterman
"President said today that it is our job to vote. That's what he called it, a job. And considering how the way economy is going, that may be the only job we have." �Jay Leno
"The same week the administration slashed pay raises for all federal workers, they announced they are going to provide bonuses to political appointees who do a good job. You know, that guy who cut everyone else's pay, he gets the bonus." �Jay Leno
"The Stock Market was down today. Two major businesses declared bankruptcy, consumer spending is at an all time low � in other words, president is back on the job." �Jay Leno
"President hosted something called the President's Economic Forum down in Waco, Texas today. Waco. Apparently Jonestown and Guyana were booked up. When I think of government policy that works, Waco is the place to go. He invited members of small business to the summit. He was going to invite big business, but they're all in jail." �Jay Leno
"President told the attendees (at his economic forum) that he wants to simplify the numbers on Wall Street so that people can understand what they are looking at. Simplify the numbers? We are already looking at single digits!" �Jay Leno
"In a speech yesterday in Milwaukee, President vowed to do whatever it takes to keep the economy strong. In fact he said that if he needs to, he will take vacation for another three months." �Jay Leno
"There's now speculation in Washington that President is now planning to increase the economic sanctions on Iraq. And let me tell you if they are half as tough as the economic sanctions he has imposed on this country, they are screwed." �Jay Leno
"President is leaving the White House for a vacation. He's taking a month off. Yeah, take a break, you deserve it. But aides say that while on vacation, will continue to make two or three speeches a week to make sure that the market keeps crashing." �Jay Leno
"Boy, another bad day on Wall Street. Things are getting ugly. Dow Jones is starting to look more like Paula Jones." �Jay Leno
"Do you have any idea how cheap stocks are now? Wall Street is now being called Wal-Mart Street." �Jay Leno
"The United States has developed a new weapon that destroys people but it leaves buildings standing. It's called the stock market." �Jay Leno
"The economy is in big trouble. Yesterday in a big speech, President said the economy was still getting over the hangover from the 90's. And then, the president admitted he was still getting over his hangover from the 80's." �Conan O'Brien
"Some good news for the economy. President went on a month-long vacation." �Jay Leno
"The federal government announced today that the recession ended back in November of 2001. It ended two years ago! Be sure to pass that on to all your unemployed friends. So you know what that means? The past twenty months of job layoffs, corporate bankruptcies and declining stocks, those were the good times. We should have been living it up." �Jay Leno
"Yesterday Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he would be willing to serve another term. Greenspan said, 'Where else would I get a job in this economy?'" �Conan O'Brien
"Democrats were quick to point out that President 's budget creates a 1 trillion dollar deficit. The White House quickly responded with 'Hey, look over there, it's Saddam Hussein.'" �Craig Kilborn
"President unveiled his new economic stimulus plan this week. It was reported that if the plan passes, the president himself would save $44,000 in taxes, Dick Cheney would save $327,000, and you could afford to take the whole family down to Burger King to pick up job applications." �Tina Fey, on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update"
"President 's economic plan will create 2.5 million new jobs. The bad news, they are all for Iraqi soldiers." �Craig Kilborn
"According to a new study, bad economic times can actually be good for you because people tend to exercise more and eat better. This is not a recession, this is the President�s Health Care Plan." �Jay Leno
"The big story here tonight comes from Washington, D.C. where President announced his new economic plans. The centerpiece was a proposed repeal of the dividends tax on stocks, a boon that could be worth millions of dollars to average Americans. Well, average stock owning Americans. Technically, Americans who own a significant amount of shares in dividend dealing companies. Well, rich people, that's what I'm trying to say. They're going to do really well with this." �Jon Stewart
"Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neal has resigned. He didn't want to resign, but there wasn't any money left in the treasury so he's got nothing to do." �Jay Leno
" Presidents advisers have long been worried that a lagging economy could hamper the president's re-election chances. They hope that the Cabinet shake-up will provide a needed jolt. If that doesn't work, North Korea has to go." �Jon Stewart
"Al Gore says President�s economic plan has zero chance of working. Now, this raises on important question: President has an economic plan?" �David Letterman
"President said today that it is our job to vote. That's what he called it, a job. And considering how the way economy is going, that may be the only job we have." �Jay Leno
"The same week the administration slashed pay raises for all federal workers, they announced they are going to provide bonuses to political appointees who do a good job. You know, that guy who cut everyone else's pay, he gets the bonus." �Jay Leno
"The Stock Market was down today. Two major businesses declared bankruptcy, consumer spending is at an all time low � in other words, president is back on the job." �Jay Leno
"President hosted something called the President's Economic Forum down in Waco, Texas today. Waco. Apparently Jonestown and Guyana were booked up. When I think of government policy that works, Waco is the place to go. He invited members of small business to the summit. He was going to invite big business, but they're all in jail." �Jay Leno
"President told the attendees (at his economic forum) that he wants to simplify the numbers on Wall Street so that people can understand what they are looking at. Simplify the numbers? We are already looking at single digits!" �Jay Leno
"In a speech yesterday in Milwaukee, President vowed to do whatever it takes to keep the economy strong. In fact he said that if he needs to, he will take vacation for another three months." �Jay Leno
"There's now speculation in Washington that President is now planning to increase the economic sanctions on Iraq. And let me tell you if they are half as tough as the economic sanctions he has imposed on this country, they are screwed." �Jay Leno
"President is leaving the White House for a vacation. He's taking a month off. Yeah, take a break, you deserve it. But aides say that while on vacation, will continue to make two or three speeches a week to make sure that the market keeps crashing." �Jay Leno
"Boy, another bad day on Wall Street. Things are getting ugly. Dow Jones is starting to look more like Paula Jones." �Jay Leno
"Do you have any idea how cheap stocks are now? Wall Street is now being called Wal-Mart Street." �Jay Leno
"The United States has developed a new weapon that destroys people but it leaves buildings standing. It's called the stock market." �Jay Leno
"The economy is in big trouble. Yesterday in a big speech, President said the economy was still getting over the hangover from the 90's. And then, the president admitted he was still getting over his hangover from the 80's." �Conan O'Brien
girlfriend Nicki Minaj - #39;Pink Friday#39;:
hiralal
06-07 09:38 PM
Chances of loosing right now, is very slim, since everything is lost and if you still have a good healthy job, chances are you would have it, and if you have backup like double income, you are running in no probability zone.
After your i485 gets denied, I am assuming you can file MTR and wait for it. More senior members may throw light but I am guessing you would have 2-3 months time to leave the country.
. o.k. Thanks. I don't understand why chances of losing are slim ?
it is not high but it is not slim either for those on EAD / H1. majority of jobs posted ask for GC. H1 is in complete mess if you talk to any immi lawyer (I have a friend who is lawyer and I heard the same from a lawyer on desi radio).
buying one house may still be o.k. ...buying 2 - 3 houses to put it on rent is absolute nightmare ..my friend tried that too (he too believed earlier that land is best asset) ... the renter stopped paying rent and he had trouble in evicting him ..on top of it the renter painted the rooms in wierd colors ...also how do you chechk how many people are staying in the house that you give on rent ..it is messy all way around ..if you really believe in land then better to buy some REITS (that is in mess too right now). luckily I had economics in my final year in engg college and the first and the fundamental equation is relation between supply and demand.
in this country land is in huge huge supply (just look around) and families are getting smaller and green cards is given to 60 year old's (who just leave).
credit is tight and will be for a long long time ..baby boomers will start selling their homes once prices stop falling ...so supply is massive and less demand ..
After your i485 gets denied, I am assuming you can file MTR and wait for it. More senior members may throw light but I am guessing you would have 2-3 months time to leave the country.
. o.k. Thanks. I don't understand why chances of losing are slim ?
it is not high but it is not slim either for those on EAD / H1. majority of jobs posted ask for GC. H1 is in complete mess if you talk to any immi lawyer (I have a friend who is lawyer and I heard the same from a lawyer on desi radio).
buying one house may still be o.k. ...buying 2 - 3 houses to put it on rent is absolute nightmare ..my friend tried that too (he too believed earlier that land is best asset) ... the renter stopped paying rent and he had trouble in evicting him ..on top of it the renter painted the rooms in wierd colors ...also how do you chechk how many people are staying in the house that you give on rent ..it is messy all way around ..if you really believe in land then better to buy some REITS (that is in mess too right now). luckily I had economics in my final year in engg college and the first and the fundamental equation is relation between supply and demand.
in this country land is in huge huge supply (just look around) and families are getting smaller and green cards is given to 60 year old's (who just leave).
credit is tight and will be for a long long time ..baby boomers will start selling their homes once prices stop falling ...so supply is massive and less demand ..
hairstyles Nicki Minaj – Pink Friday
Macaca
12-30 06:57 PM
A Bridge to a Love for Democracy (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/us/30iht-letter30.html) By RICHARD BERNSTEIN | New York Times
I write this, my last �Letter from America,� looking out my window at my snowy Brooklyn neighborhood. It�s midmorning Wednesday, three days after our Christmas weekend blizzard, and my street has yet to receive the benefit of a snowplow.
Cars, as the prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow once put it, are impounded by the drifts. The city is still partly paralyzed, pleasantly, in a way. There�s nothing like a heavy snowfall to give one a bit of a respite, to turn the ordinary, like walking to the corner store, into a little adventure. And there�s the countrylike stillness of this city block filled with snow, absent the usual traffic.
It seems a good moment, in other words, to pause and reflect. My thoughts turn to a very unsnowy moment in 1972 in a village called Lowu, which was the last village in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong just before the border with China. I was a graduate student in Chinese history and a stringer for The Washington Post going to the territory of Chairman Mao for the first time in my life.
There was a short trestle bridge at Lowu. I�ve often wondered if it�s still there. The Union Jack flew at one side, the red flag of the People�s Republic of China at the other. The border town on the other side was a little fishing and farming village called Shenzhen, now a modern city of skyscrapers and shopping malls, an emblem of China�s amazing economic development.
I was favorably disposed toward China as I strode across the bridge, ready to experience the radical egalitarianism of the Maoist revolution, which was generally viewed with favor among American graduate students specializing in China. I was a member of a group, moreover, that partook of a certain leftist orthodoxy. We had learned the �Internationale� so we could sing it for our revolutionary hosts. We were supposed to return to America and report the truth about China, which was, essentially, that it was the future and it worked.
But it took only about 24 hours on that first journey to China for me utterly to change my mind and, indeed, to become a lifelong anti-Communist and devotee of liberal democracy, to find great wisdom in Winston Churchill�s dictum about its being the worst of all systems except for all the others.
The noxious cult of personality around Mao was the first thing that effected my political transformation. But deeper than that was the pervasive odor of orthodoxy, the uniformity of it all, the mandatory pious declarations, which, if they were believed, were ridiculous, and, if they were forced, illustrated the terror of it all.
Many of my American fellow travelers felt very differently about this. In my intense discomfort, I found myself in a sort of Menshevik minority, criticized by the majority for what I remember one person calling my �Darkness at Noon� mentality.
Still, that discomfort, and the unwillingness of most of the others to experience it, has informed my work as a journalist ever since. I have to admit it: When I went to China as a correspondent for Time magazine seven years after that first trip, my impulse was not so much to look with fresh and impartial eyes on a country that had just opened up to a degree of foreign inspection as it was to expose what I felt many Americans were missing in those rhapsodic days. Namely, that the country under Mao and after belonged to the 20th-century totalitarian mainstream � that it was a poverty-stricken police state and not a viable alternative to Western ways.
There was a degree of bias in this view, and it led me into some mistakes. On China, in particular, I was perhaps focused too single-mindedly on its totalitarian elements so that I underplayed other elements, notably the speed of change in China, and perhaps even the unsuitableness of many Western democratic ways for a country so essentially backward.
And perhaps, too, I extrapolated a bit too much from the China experience when it came to other places and other times. When I covered academic life in the United States, for example, I tended to see vicious Maoist Red Guards in the phenomenon of what came to be called political correctness, and, while I don�t think this was entirely wrong, it was an exaggeration.
And yet, it seems appropriate in this final column to say, as well, that my nearly 40 years in the journalism game haven�t shaken me from the essential belief that formed during that first, memorable visit to China.
Ever since, despite all our infuriating faults, our wastefulness, our occasional self-satisfied sluggishness, our proneness to demagogy and other forms of anti-intellectualism, our crumbling infrastructure, the Fox News channel, the cult of Sarah Palin, the narcissistic self-indulgence of our urban elites, the detention center in Guant�namo Bay and our crisis-creating greed and shortsightedness � despite all that � I continue to believe that, not to put too fine a point on it, we�re better than they are.
This doesn�t mean that I think we�re perfect, or that our impulse toward a kind of benevolent imperialism has always had benevolent results. But I have stuck for 40 years to a belief that, yes, our ways are superior � and by our ways I mean such things often taken for granted as a free press, strong civil institutions, an independent judiciary and, perhaps above all, the belief that the powers of the state need to be restrained, and that the institutions of government exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
The essential difference with China, even the much-changed China of today, and most of the other non-Western political cultures, is the absence of this sense of restraint, and the primacy of the collective over the individual.
That�s the idea that I was actually groping toward when I crossed the bridge at Lowu. It�s the idea that I want to end with here on this snowy day in New York in my final sentence on this page. Goodbye.
I write this, my last �Letter from America,� looking out my window at my snowy Brooklyn neighborhood. It�s midmorning Wednesday, three days after our Christmas weekend blizzard, and my street has yet to receive the benefit of a snowplow.
Cars, as the prize-winning novelist Saul Bellow once put it, are impounded by the drifts. The city is still partly paralyzed, pleasantly, in a way. There�s nothing like a heavy snowfall to give one a bit of a respite, to turn the ordinary, like walking to the corner store, into a little adventure. And there�s the countrylike stillness of this city block filled with snow, absent the usual traffic.
It seems a good moment, in other words, to pause and reflect. My thoughts turn to a very unsnowy moment in 1972 in a village called Lowu, which was the last village in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong just before the border with China. I was a graduate student in Chinese history and a stringer for The Washington Post going to the territory of Chairman Mao for the first time in my life.
There was a short trestle bridge at Lowu. I�ve often wondered if it�s still there. The Union Jack flew at one side, the red flag of the People�s Republic of China at the other. The border town on the other side was a little fishing and farming village called Shenzhen, now a modern city of skyscrapers and shopping malls, an emblem of China�s amazing economic development.
I was favorably disposed toward China as I strode across the bridge, ready to experience the radical egalitarianism of the Maoist revolution, which was generally viewed with favor among American graduate students specializing in China. I was a member of a group, moreover, that partook of a certain leftist orthodoxy. We had learned the �Internationale� so we could sing it for our revolutionary hosts. We were supposed to return to America and report the truth about China, which was, essentially, that it was the future and it worked.
But it took only about 24 hours on that first journey to China for me utterly to change my mind and, indeed, to become a lifelong anti-Communist and devotee of liberal democracy, to find great wisdom in Winston Churchill�s dictum about its being the worst of all systems except for all the others.
The noxious cult of personality around Mao was the first thing that effected my political transformation. But deeper than that was the pervasive odor of orthodoxy, the uniformity of it all, the mandatory pious declarations, which, if they were believed, were ridiculous, and, if they were forced, illustrated the terror of it all.
Many of my American fellow travelers felt very differently about this. In my intense discomfort, I found myself in a sort of Menshevik minority, criticized by the majority for what I remember one person calling my �Darkness at Noon� mentality.
Still, that discomfort, and the unwillingness of most of the others to experience it, has informed my work as a journalist ever since. I have to admit it: When I went to China as a correspondent for Time magazine seven years after that first trip, my impulse was not so much to look with fresh and impartial eyes on a country that had just opened up to a degree of foreign inspection as it was to expose what I felt many Americans were missing in those rhapsodic days. Namely, that the country under Mao and after belonged to the 20th-century totalitarian mainstream � that it was a poverty-stricken police state and not a viable alternative to Western ways.
There was a degree of bias in this view, and it led me into some mistakes. On China, in particular, I was perhaps focused too single-mindedly on its totalitarian elements so that I underplayed other elements, notably the speed of change in China, and perhaps even the unsuitableness of many Western democratic ways for a country so essentially backward.
And perhaps, too, I extrapolated a bit too much from the China experience when it came to other places and other times. When I covered academic life in the United States, for example, I tended to see vicious Maoist Red Guards in the phenomenon of what came to be called political correctness, and, while I don�t think this was entirely wrong, it was an exaggeration.
And yet, it seems appropriate in this final column to say, as well, that my nearly 40 years in the journalism game haven�t shaken me from the essential belief that formed during that first, memorable visit to China.
Ever since, despite all our infuriating faults, our wastefulness, our occasional self-satisfied sluggishness, our proneness to demagogy and other forms of anti-intellectualism, our crumbling infrastructure, the Fox News channel, the cult of Sarah Palin, the narcissistic self-indulgence of our urban elites, the detention center in Guant�namo Bay and our crisis-creating greed and shortsightedness � despite all that � I continue to believe that, not to put too fine a point on it, we�re better than they are.
This doesn�t mean that I think we�re perfect, or that our impulse toward a kind of benevolent imperialism has always had benevolent results. But I have stuck for 40 years to a belief that, yes, our ways are superior � and by our ways I mean such things often taken for granted as a free press, strong civil institutions, an independent judiciary and, perhaps above all, the belief that the powers of the state need to be restrained, and that the institutions of government exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
The essential difference with China, even the much-changed China of today, and most of the other non-Western political cultures, is the absence of this sense of restraint, and the primacy of the collective over the individual.
That�s the idea that I was actually groping toward when I crossed the bridge at Lowu. It�s the idea that I want to end with here on this snowy day in New York in my final sentence on this page. Goodbye.
sanju
12-26 11:06 PM
In modern times, wars between nations are not started in days or weeks. Wars are not based on one event. There is a systematic three stage process to go to war and for a nation to convince the majority of the society/nation that the other guy is pure evil and your mortal enemy. Society in Pakistan is based on their haterade towards Indians. For many years children in Pakistan were taught that Indians are evil, their belief system is barbaric, and their existence means that Islam is in danger. That was the reason some of us saw posts on this forum talking about sati system in Hinduism or some others Pakistanis saying that Hindus are attacking Muslims in India, and then other Pakistanis talking about Modi, VHP and Bajrang Dal. The first step for creating a war involves propaganda within the population of the country that your enemy is evil. Pakistan has been doing this preparation very systematically for sometime.
Second stage to go to war involves finding a reason after the decision has been made to go to war. In this stage, one has to come up with a reason and then waits for the trigger to create the reason to go to war.
The third and final stage to go to war involves invoking the trigger, which will create a flash point for the war, and so the war begins. Mumabi was that trigger.
The reason why I am saying this is, because someone wrote on this form "don't be a war monger". You see, we are not creating a war. The war is being forced on us. To defend oneself is not "war mongering". Our willingness to live in peace and harmony should not become our weakness such that someone openly and deliberately attacks the population of our country. I do not hold any false sense of myth of nationalism hosting the flag. But when war is forced upon us, there is no way we can run away from it.
For a moment, just imagine, what would have happened if Mumbai attacks were done in China as "Beijing attack", or if Pakistani terrorists would have attacked Iran and they were "Tehran attack" or for that matter an attack on any country in Europe or say US. How will any other country China, Iran, UK, US, France, Germany, and score of other, how will these countries respond to the attacks like Mumbai attack? There is only one way to reply to such attacks. Respond swiftly and with full force. Personally, I believe that 30 days is too late to respond. I believe that response has to come before the ashes of the dead is still hot. Otherwise, justice hasn't served, because justice delayed is justice denied.
If the war begins, this will be my last post.
Adios
.
Second stage to go to war involves finding a reason after the decision has been made to go to war. In this stage, one has to come up with a reason and then waits for the trigger to create the reason to go to war.
The third and final stage to go to war involves invoking the trigger, which will create a flash point for the war, and so the war begins. Mumabi was that trigger.
The reason why I am saying this is, because someone wrote on this form "don't be a war monger". You see, we are not creating a war. The war is being forced on us. To defend oneself is not "war mongering". Our willingness to live in peace and harmony should not become our weakness such that someone openly and deliberately attacks the population of our country. I do not hold any false sense of myth of nationalism hosting the flag. But when war is forced upon us, there is no way we can run away from it.
For a moment, just imagine, what would have happened if Mumbai attacks were done in China as "Beijing attack", or if Pakistani terrorists would have attacked Iran and they were "Tehran attack" or for that matter an attack on any country in Europe or say US. How will any other country China, Iran, UK, US, France, Germany, and score of other, how will these countries respond to the attacks like Mumbai attack? There is only one way to reply to such attacks. Respond swiftly and with full force. Personally, I believe that 30 days is too late to respond. I believe that response has to come before the ashes of the dead is still hot. Otherwise, justice hasn't served, because justice delayed is justice denied.
If the war begins, this will be my last post.
Adios
.
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.