Ramba
09-29 03:57 PM
Good analysis ..
Full disclousre - I consider myself a fiscal conservative. But after watching the debate I believe Obama is a better candidate for Presidency than John McCain and here's why -
1) There is a third dimension to the economic debate besides tax cuts and tax raises - National Debt - which has run into uncountable trillions of Dollars. Obama gets it. McCain doesn't.
2) Both candidates want to cut Defense expenditure. McCain thinks making Defense contracts fixed cost will cut expenditure substantially. How does he plan to do that without affecting quality? Are we to see more of the guns that don't fire in Iraq? Obama has a better solution - end the Iraq War in a timely fashion and save trillions of dollars spent every month.
3) McCain wishes to continue the practice of cutting billions of dollars check anually to Pakistan, most of which goes to buy ammunition from US weapons manufacturers. In other words, a subsidy/corporate welfare in the name of 'War on Terror'. Obama plans to hold them accountable for the money they receive and wishes to see the money go to rooting out Al-queda rather than weapons that threaten India into an arms race. Obama plans to hunt down and eliminate Al-queda in Iraq. McCain has no such immediate plans! He wishes to fight the war in Iraq for 4-8 more years and pass on the responsibility to his successor.
4) McCains solution to energy crisis is to destroy the North Pole and burden thousands of generations to come with nuclear waste which will literally take a millenia to clean-up. Obama has placed is bet on replenishable ,greener and less expensive alternatives.
5) Both candidates plans require 'Borrow and Spend' in the short term due to proposed tax cuts. I would rather have Obama spend it on Energy Research than let McCain blow it up in I-rack. At least with Obama plan, America has a chance that reduced dependency on foreign oil may let US government divert the money currently spent on Foreign Oil in paying off debt, rather than pass it on to the future generation.
6) Obama has proposed a medical insurance to help veterans. McCains answer -' I know veterans. I will take care of them'. What kind of answer is that?
7) Obama's stated position is that American companies can bring in more skilled foreign workers as long as there is a need. We are of course concerned about his buddy Sen. Durbin's views which are diametrically opposite of Obama's stated position. On the other hand, McCain doesn't consider EB immigration to be important enough to have a position. In John McCains world - we simply don't exist!
I think it's a good effort by Chandu to educate EB immigrants on the political realities so that we get ready in the days to come to face any eventuality. Also it will aid those of us who get Green Cards in the mean time to make wise decisions while contributing to future election campaigns.
Full disclousre - I consider myself a fiscal conservative. But after watching the debate I believe Obama is a better candidate for Presidency than John McCain and here's why -
1) There is a third dimension to the economic debate besides tax cuts and tax raises - National Debt - which has run into uncountable trillions of Dollars. Obama gets it. McCain doesn't.
2) Both candidates want to cut Defense expenditure. McCain thinks making Defense contracts fixed cost will cut expenditure substantially. How does he plan to do that without affecting quality? Are we to see more of the guns that don't fire in Iraq? Obama has a better solution - end the Iraq War in a timely fashion and save trillions of dollars spent every month.
3) McCain wishes to continue the practice of cutting billions of dollars check anually to Pakistan, most of which goes to buy ammunition from US weapons manufacturers. In other words, a subsidy/corporate welfare in the name of 'War on Terror'. Obama plans to hold them accountable for the money they receive and wishes to see the money go to rooting out Al-queda rather than weapons that threaten India into an arms race. Obama plans to hunt down and eliminate Al-queda in Iraq. McCain has no such immediate plans! He wishes to fight the war in Iraq for 4-8 more years and pass on the responsibility to his successor.
4) McCains solution to energy crisis is to destroy the North Pole and burden thousands of generations to come with nuclear waste which will literally take a millenia to clean-up. Obama has placed is bet on replenishable ,greener and less expensive alternatives.
5) Both candidates plans require 'Borrow and Spend' in the short term due to proposed tax cuts. I would rather have Obama spend it on Energy Research than let McCain blow it up in I-rack. At least with Obama plan, America has a chance that reduced dependency on foreign oil may let US government divert the money currently spent on Foreign Oil in paying off debt, rather than pass it on to the future generation.
6) Obama has proposed a medical insurance to help veterans. McCains answer -' I know veterans. I will take care of them'. What kind of answer is that?
7) Obama's stated position is that American companies can bring in more skilled foreign workers as long as there is a need. We are of course concerned about his buddy Sen. Durbin's views which are diametrically opposite of Obama's stated position. On the other hand, McCain doesn't consider EB immigration to be important enough to have a position. In John McCains world - we simply don't exist!
I think it's a good effort by Chandu to educate EB immigrants on the political realities so that we get ready in the days to come to face any eventuality. Also it will aid those of us who get Green Cards in the mean time to make wise decisions while contributing to future election campaigns.
wallpaper floral ackgrounds for tumblr.
sledge_hammer
03-24 11:51 AM
Can you please elaborate?
I may be understanding this incorrectly, but are they denying our right to be represented by a lawyer?
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
I may be understanding this incorrectly, but are they denying our right to be represented by a lawyer?
In fact just about every local USCIS office makes you sign a statement that you are not being represented by a lawyer and they "swear" you in that you are going to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
nojoke
04-10 12:13 AM
we may be thinking that the points below are a worst case scenario but according to the famous economist Roubini - this is a likely one.
on the lighter side - if this really happens then even the mighty GC would become finally just a card (or a Garbage Can as my friend points out) .:rolleyes:
--------
1. We are experiencing the worst US housing recession since the Great Depression and this housing recession is nowhere near bottoming out.
Unfortunately this is where we are heading. Lowering the interest rate and inflating everything else is not the solution. If they let the housing fall quick, the economy will probably recover quickly.It will be painful, but short. Fed is just delaying the inevitable and making it slow and painful. They wouldn't be able to save the housing and they will inflate everything else:mad: Unless we stop throwing the money into the iraq black hole, this will be another depression.
on the lighter side - if this really happens then even the mighty GC would become finally just a card (or a Garbage Can as my friend points out) .:rolleyes:
--------
1. We are experiencing the worst US housing recession since the Great Depression and this housing recession is nowhere near bottoming out.
Unfortunately this is where we are heading. Lowering the interest rate and inflating everything else is not the solution. If they let the housing fall quick, the economy will probably recover quickly.It will be painful, but short. Fed is just delaying the inevitable and making it slow and painful. They wouldn't be able to save the housing and they will inflate everything else:mad: Unless we stop throwing the money into the iraq black hole, this will be another depression.
2011 This Tumblr background
bkarnik
08-05 05:45 PM
We always hear "the rules" from the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side. These are our rules! Print this out and pass to your partner for a greater understanding:
1. Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don't hear us bitching about you leaving it down.
2. Birthdays, Valentines, and Anniversaries are not quests to see if we can find the perfect present yet again!
3. Sometimes we are not thinking about you. Live with it.
4. Don't cut your hair. Ever. Long hair is always more attractive than short hair. One of the big reasons guys fear getting married is that married women always cut their hair, and by then you're stuck with her.
5. Crying is blackmail.
6. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work! Just say it!
7. We don't remember dates. Mark birthdays and anniversaries on a calendar. Remind us frequently beforehand.
8. Most guys own three pairs of shoes - tops. What makes you think we'd be any good at choosing which pair, out of thirty, would look good with your dress?
9. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.
10. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.
11. A headache that lasts for 17 months is a problem.See a doctor.
12. Check your oil! Please.
13. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 days.
14. If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us. We refuse to answer.
15. If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.
16. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.
17. Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.
18. Christopher Columbus did not need directions, and neither do we.
19. All men see in only 16 colors, like windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a colour. We have no idea what mauve is.
20. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.
21. We are not mind readers and we never will be. Our lack of mind-reading ability is not proof of how little we care about you.
22. If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying,but it is just not worth the hassle.
23. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.
24. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine. Really.
25. Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as the shotgun formation, or monster trucks.
26. You have enough clothes.
27. You have too many shoes.
28. No you really do have too many clothes and shoes.
29. BEER is as exciting for us as handbags are for you.
30. Thank you for reading this; Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight, but did you know we really don't mind that, it's like camping.
31. I'm in shape. ROUND is a shape.
1. Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don't hear us bitching about you leaving it down.
2. Birthdays, Valentines, and Anniversaries are not quests to see if we can find the perfect present yet again!
3. Sometimes we are not thinking about you. Live with it.
4. Don't cut your hair. Ever. Long hair is always more attractive than short hair. One of the big reasons guys fear getting married is that married women always cut their hair, and by then you're stuck with her.
5. Crying is blackmail.
6. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work! Just say it!
7. We don't remember dates. Mark birthdays and anniversaries on a calendar. Remind us frequently beforehand.
8. Most guys own three pairs of shoes - tops. What makes you think we'd be any good at choosing which pair, out of thirty, would look good with your dress?
9. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.
10. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.
11. A headache that lasts for 17 months is a problem.See a doctor.
12. Check your oil! Please.
13. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 days.
14. If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us. We refuse to answer.
15. If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.
16. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.
17. Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.
18. Christopher Columbus did not need directions, and neither do we.
19. All men see in only 16 colors, like windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a colour. We have no idea what mauve is.
20. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.
21. We are not mind readers and we never will be. Our lack of mind-reading ability is not proof of how little we care about you.
22. If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying,but it is just not worth the hassle.
23. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.
24. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine. Really.
25. Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as the shotgun formation, or monster trucks.
26. You have enough clothes.
27. You have too many shoes.
28. No you really do have too many clothes and shoes.
29. BEER is as exciting for us as handbags are for you.
30. Thank you for reading this; Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight, but did you know we really don't mind that, it's like camping.
31. I'm in shape. ROUND is a shape.
more...
Macaca
12-30 07:11 PM
Judgment that risks tainting democracy (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article1018825.ece) By VINAY SITAPATI | The Hindu
One thousand three hundred and twenty days after he was first arrested, Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition against the Indian state. Narratives on his guilt portray him as an �intellectual� coordinating Naxal attacks in the red corridor, just as narratives on his innocence are of a sainted doctor fingered by a vengeful state. But the only narrative that really matters is the legal case against him, and this in turn hinges on three distinct legal questions: Is the evidence against Dr. Sen enough to convict him? Are the laws applied to him fair? And finally, is the maximalist sentence (life imprisonment) justified?
Around a single event
The evidence against Dr. Sen centres on a single event. He is accused of having met a jailed Naxalite, Narayan Sanyal, 33 times and carried letters from him to a Naxalite, Piyush Guha. But Dr. Sen met Sanyal in Raipur Central Jail with the permission of the Chhattisgarh police; the jail superintendent who supervised the meetings told the Raipur sessions court that no letters were exchanged. At the other end of the �crime�, Piyush Guha did not name him when he appeared before a magistrate. He is alleged to have implicated Dr. Sen while in police custody. But this is legally barred from being weighed as evidence, since all custodial confessions are presumed tainted with torture.
The central allegation against him is therefore tenuous at both ends. Other attempts to link him to Naxalites are individually trivial (or downright dubious, like an unsigned letter from the CPI-Maoists allegedly found in his house, but which is not part of the official seizure memo). But taken together they have managed to convince Justice B.P. Verma of Dr. Sen's role in aiding and abetting Naxal groups.
The second concern is the fairness of the laws used against Dr. Sen. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Sedition) is a colonial-era law that has been previously invoked against Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Since it is a serious offence with the possibility of life in jail, in the 1962 case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar the Supreme Court limited the definition of sedition to the �tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.� Dr. Sen is convicted for acting as a letter courier between Naxalites; it is questionable if this �act� falls within the definition of sedition.
The other laws that Dr. Sen has been convicted under, the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, make illegal a wide variety of actions that �support� unlawful activities: taking part in meetings or harbouring a Naxalite. These laws have been invoked against grain merchants and cloth traders who unwittingly sold their wares to Naxalites. Taken together, what all these laws do is to broaden the scope of what �guilt by association� means. Perhaps this is understandable in a State where Maoists are present in half of its 18 districts and requires an army of civilian supporters to sustain a war under forested cover. But fashioning a blunt legal tool to go after an elusive enemy enhances the risk of snaring innocents.
The final concern
The Congress party has declined to comment on the judgment, invoking the prerogative of an independent judiciary. It is no one's argument that the decision was politically determined. But political abuse includes the fairness of the laws formulated by the political class for judges to impose. After all, judicial independence must also consider the quality of laws that the Raipur sessions court had to enforce, and those laws define �guilt by association� so broadly that they blur the line between innocent and guilty.
The final concern is that of punishment. Dr. Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiring to commit sedition. Sentencing ranges from three years to life in jail. Justifying the use of the maximalist sentence, Justice Verma's Hindi judgment points to �the way that terrorists and Maoists are killing ... paramilitary forces � and innocent Adivasis.� But surely there is a difference between CPI (Maoist) General Secretary Ganapati, a man with much blood on his hands, and a mere courier of letters between Naxalites? Even if Dr. Sen is guilty as charged, that charge is not of violence � something he has repeatedly spoken out against. To club varying actions together defeats the purpose of flexibility in sentencing, which is after all to permit the judge to recognise degrees of motivations and culpabilities.
The Raipur sessions court verdict is only the quarterfinal. Indian law affords Dr. Sen one automatic right to appeal, and another at the discretion of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, given the visible disparity between the quality of allegations against him and the repercussions, the judgment is sure to provoke an outcry, if the national and international outrage over his two-year long arrest without bail is any indication (already Amnesty International has criticised the verdict).
The outcry will reverberate beyond one man. In 2009, a non-violent critic of the state was held guilty of sedition and sentenced to a lengthy spell in prison. That man's name is Liu Xiaobo, and the international focus on him dims the mandarin equivalent of India Shining. While the specific �crimes� of the 2010 Nobel Prize winner vary from those of Dr. Binayak Sen, the life imprisonment given to the Chhattisgarh doctor will surely discredit the justifiable struggle against Naxalism much as Mr. Liu's incarceration discounts the distance China has travelled since Tiananmen Square. Apart from the irreparable harm to the life of an individual and his family, the judgment risks tainting Indian democracy itself.
The writer is a doctoral student working on law and politics in India
One thousand three hundred and twenty days after he was first arrested, Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition against the Indian state. Narratives on his guilt portray him as an �intellectual� coordinating Naxal attacks in the red corridor, just as narratives on his innocence are of a sainted doctor fingered by a vengeful state. But the only narrative that really matters is the legal case against him, and this in turn hinges on three distinct legal questions: Is the evidence against Dr. Sen enough to convict him? Are the laws applied to him fair? And finally, is the maximalist sentence (life imprisonment) justified?
Around a single event
The evidence against Dr. Sen centres on a single event. He is accused of having met a jailed Naxalite, Narayan Sanyal, 33 times and carried letters from him to a Naxalite, Piyush Guha. But Dr. Sen met Sanyal in Raipur Central Jail with the permission of the Chhattisgarh police; the jail superintendent who supervised the meetings told the Raipur sessions court that no letters were exchanged. At the other end of the �crime�, Piyush Guha did not name him when he appeared before a magistrate. He is alleged to have implicated Dr. Sen while in police custody. But this is legally barred from being weighed as evidence, since all custodial confessions are presumed tainted with torture.
The central allegation against him is therefore tenuous at both ends. Other attempts to link him to Naxalites are individually trivial (or downright dubious, like an unsigned letter from the CPI-Maoists allegedly found in his house, but which is not part of the official seizure memo). But taken together they have managed to convince Justice B.P. Verma of Dr. Sen's role in aiding and abetting Naxal groups.
The second concern is the fairness of the laws used against Dr. Sen. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Sedition) is a colonial-era law that has been previously invoked against Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Since it is a serious offence with the possibility of life in jail, in the 1962 case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar the Supreme Court limited the definition of sedition to the �tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.� Dr. Sen is convicted for acting as a letter courier between Naxalites; it is questionable if this �act� falls within the definition of sedition.
The other laws that Dr. Sen has been convicted under, the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, make illegal a wide variety of actions that �support� unlawful activities: taking part in meetings or harbouring a Naxalite. These laws have been invoked against grain merchants and cloth traders who unwittingly sold their wares to Naxalites. Taken together, what all these laws do is to broaden the scope of what �guilt by association� means. Perhaps this is understandable in a State where Maoists are present in half of its 18 districts and requires an army of civilian supporters to sustain a war under forested cover. But fashioning a blunt legal tool to go after an elusive enemy enhances the risk of snaring innocents.
The final concern
The Congress party has declined to comment on the judgment, invoking the prerogative of an independent judiciary. It is no one's argument that the decision was politically determined. But political abuse includes the fairness of the laws formulated by the political class for judges to impose. After all, judicial independence must also consider the quality of laws that the Raipur sessions court had to enforce, and those laws define �guilt by association� so broadly that they blur the line between innocent and guilty.
The final concern is that of punishment. Dr. Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiring to commit sedition. Sentencing ranges from three years to life in jail. Justifying the use of the maximalist sentence, Justice Verma's Hindi judgment points to �the way that terrorists and Maoists are killing ... paramilitary forces � and innocent Adivasis.� But surely there is a difference between CPI (Maoist) General Secretary Ganapati, a man with much blood on his hands, and a mere courier of letters between Naxalites? Even if Dr. Sen is guilty as charged, that charge is not of violence � something he has repeatedly spoken out against. To club varying actions together defeats the purpose of flexibility in sentencing, which is after all to permit the judge to recognise degrees of motivations and culpabilities.
The Raipur sessions court verdict is only the quarterfinal. Indian law affords Dr. Sen one automatic right to appeal, and another at the discretion of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, given the visible disparity between the quality of allegations against him and the repercussions, the judgment is sure to provoke an outcry, if the national and international outrage over his two-year long arrest without bail is any indication (already Amnesty International has criticised the verdict).
The outcry will reverberate beyond one man. In 2009, a non-violent critic of the state was held guilty of sedition and sentenced to a lengthy spell in prison. That man's name is Liu Xiaobo, and the international focus on him dims the mandarin equivalent of India Shining. While the specific �crimes� of the 2010 Nobel Prize winner vary from those of Dr. Binayak Sen, the life imprisonment given to the Chhattisgarh doctor will surely discredit the justifiable struggle against Naxalism much as Mr. Liu's incarceration discounts the distance China has travelled since Tiananmen Square. Apart from the irreparable harm to the life of an individual and his family, the judgment risks tainting Indian democracy itself.
The writer is a doctoral student working on law and politics in India
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
more...
alterego
09-27 10:39 AM
I wish Obama wins. His team has more clarity on many issues and he has the zeal like JFK for making things happen. But, a big but - I am very concerned about our Employment Based immigration. If he gets to win (I wish he does..as someone who want to see America regain it's global position not just with might but also being morally right), I am worried if it would be Sen. Durbin who will dictate the immigration policy.
I wish we get some clarity in this aspect. In the economic downturn, I wish to work more than I ever did and see that US comes out of recession fast. But for that I have to be inside the country first. I have to be given a fair chance to contribute to this economy first and I need to be treated with respect and honor.
Sen. Durbin's position on this issue and his closeness to Sen. Obama is certainly a cause for concern, however, one thing I have noticed over and over with Sen. Obama is that he is a cerebral pragmatist with a fairly decent judgement. He is not a locked in ideologue, when a rational argument is put to him he tends not to be dogmatic like the current president and instead will try to cut a deal.
To get the support of republican moderates in any CIR legislation pro business immigration policies will need to be included in an Obama administration. No doubt the legislation will include some H1b restrictions, but they may be more open to EB visa recapture etc. That will atleast get those in the 485 queue some relief. Noone can reason with the Sen. Sessions and Rep. Kings of the congress. The same group that is so ultra conservative that they basically openly revolted with their president on numerous issues including the current economic rescue package.
My fear with a Sen. McCain administration is that on the immigration issue, whatever his personal views, we will see another 4 yrs similar to the last 4 on immigration! He will get nowhere moving his party either. Pres. Bush is about as pro CIR as they come, he tried and tried very hard, but to no avail with the Congress. Even before the election, you can see the disagreements between McCain and the extreme right wing conservatives. Atleast with Obama, the scene will be shaken up, noone knows where it ends up, but atleast there is a chance the gridlock will be broken.
I wish we get some clarity in this aspect. In the economic downturn, I wish to work more than I ever did and see that US comes out of recession fast. But for that I have to be inside the country first. I have to be given a fair chance to contribute to this economy first and I need to be treated with respect and honor.
Sen. Durbin's position on this issue and his closeness to Sen. Obama is certainly a cause for concern, however, one thing I have noticed over and over with Sen. Obama is that he is a cerebral pragmatist with a fairly decent judgement. He is not a locked in ideologue, when a rational argument is put to him he tends not to be dogmatic like the current president and instead will try to cut a deal.
To get the support of republican moderates in any CIR legislation pro business immigration policies will need to be included in an Obama administration. No doubt the legislation will include some H1b restrictions, but they may be more open to EB visa recapture etc. That will atleast get those in the 485 queue some relief. Noone can reason with the Sen. Sessions and Rep. Kings of the congress. The same group that is so ultra conservative that they basically openly revolted with their president on numerous issues including the current economic rescue package.
My fear with a Sen. McCain administration is that on the immigration issue, whatever his personal views, we will see another 4 yrs similar to the last 4 on immigration! He will get nowhere moving his party either. Pres. Bush is about as pro CIR as they come, he tried and tried very hard, but to no avail with the Congress. Even before the election, you can see the disagreements between McCain and the extreme right wing conservatives. Atleast with Obama, the scene will be shaken up, noone knows where it ends up, but atleast there is a chance the gridlock will be broken.
2010 2011 Tumblr background image:
another one
09-29 05:14 PM
I have been here since 1997. An Obama win may just restore my faith (which was severely damaged after Bush relection) in the average intelligence of a voter.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
I am an Electrical Engineer by training and I manage and lead an R&D group at an American semiconductor company. We design computer-chips that enable about 50% of the world cellular phones.
I will definitely be moving out of the US when the Dems get elected as I do not think that they capable of making the politically tough but necessary decisions on immigration. They are beholden to too many populist groups and will make the immigration issue a class-based fight. I've had enough of paying taxes, creating $$ & jobs for US-based companies - I've been waiting since 1999.
I am of course thankful to the US taxpayer who has paid for my graduate school tuition and board, to the US-companies that have given me opportunities that are equal to native-born Americans, and to my American friends for their friendship and hospitality. But prudence demands that I hedge my bets and I will have to relocate to friendlier shores.
Thought I'd share my experience. Good Luck to All.
I know that chances of passing of a bill favorable to skilled immigrants are greater with Republicans, but there are other issues far more important to me. For e.g. with a Republican win, the chances of "collateral damage" (deaths of innocent abroad) increase tremendously. I do not want that to be funded through my tax money. Neither do i want my child to read about "creationism" in school (despite paying for all that private school fees!). These issues are more important to me than tax cuts or getting a green card sooner. just my two thoughts...
I am an Electrical Engineer by training and I manage and lead an R&D group at an American semiconductor company. We design computer-chips that enable about 50% of the world cellular phones.
I will definitely be moving out of the US when the Dems get elected as I do not think that they capable of making the politically tough but necessary decisions on immigration. They are beholden to too many populist groups and will make the immigration issue a class-based fight. I've had enough of paying taxes, creating $$ & jobs for US-based companies - I've been waiting since 1999.
I am of course thankful to the US taxpayer who has paid for my graduate school tuition and board, to the US-companies that have given me opportunities that are equal to native-born Americans, and to my American friends for their friendship and hospitality. But prudence demands that I hedge my bets and I will have to relocate to friendlier shores.
Thought I'd share my experience. Good Luck to All.
more...
file485
07-07 09:41 PM
Hi Manu..
it must be living hell for you with this mess, we all pray for you to get some route out of this hell.
When did INS ask for your husband's pay stubs for 2000-2001? although he was filed as a derivative when did they ask you for this..?
pls post..
waiting for your response.
it must be living hell for you with this mess, we all pray for you to get some route out of this hell.
When did INS ask for your husband's pay stubs for 2000-2001? although he was filed as a derivative when did they ask you for this..?
pls post..
waiting for your response.
hair hair offers tumblr backgrounds
bigboy007
09-29 11:17 PM
We can argue this for long and long ... some ppl say obama is good some ppl say McCain is good... Neither we have chance to determine who would be next. Please dont jump on me...
But we can discuss on what we can do or have to do based on "IF" "Obama is elected president and as understandable Senator Durbin determines the rules of the game for EB Immigrants.." what are our options , what can we do overcome the crisis through IV , I think this is constructive discussion... and what direction would and will benefit all of us , I see this happening as nightmare.
Some ppl might argue that its in hands of Congress and Senate... thats right who ever would have followed on CIR 2007 debate its understandable thats the basic rule. But if you see last year the reason bill was defeated was with narrow voting. There is a good chance these numbers might change due to elections new senators might come in. Also argument is there might not be much heat as elections are over , IF not we are all happy and if comes again we need to pursue this again as we did in 2007. But things might change we should be prepared to handle in the apt and best way we can for our best benefit.
Taking in to other direction if McCain might win I dont see any -ve challenges if not positive. Lets change our direction from whoz best to what to do if such scenario arises ... there are lot of ppl from INdian origin in Obama campaign.. will they help...
My point is if McCain is elected, there is no chance for GC debates. The economy will become so bad that there won't be any support from any law makers. Nobody will touch the immigration bill.
But we can discuss on what we can do or have to do based on "IF" "Obama is elected president and as understandable Senator Durbin determines the rules of the game for EB Immigrants.." what are our options , what can we do overcome the crisis through IV , I think this is constructive discussion... and what direction would and will benefit all of us , I see this happening as nightmare.
Some ppl might argue that its in hands of Congress and Senate... thats right who ever would have followed on CIR 2007 debate its understandable thats the basic rule. But if you see last year the reason bill was defeated was with narrow voting. There is a good chance these numbers might change due to elections new senators might come in. Also argument is there might not be much heat as elections are over , IF not we are all happy and if comes again we need to pursue this again as we did in 2007. But things might change we should be prepared to handle in the apt and best way we can for our best benefit.
Taking in to other direction if McCain might win I dont see any -ve challenges if not positive. Lets change our direction from whoz best to what to do if such scenario arises ... there are lot of ppl from INdian origin in Obama campaign.. will they help...
My point is if McCain is elected, there is no chance for GC debates. The economy will become so bad that there won't be any support from any law makers. Nobody will touch the immigration bill.
more...
nojoke
04-07 04:54 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.
Your reasoning is flawed. Lot of people made money in the dot com boom era selling stocks. Just like you, lot of them said during the midway of crash that the stocks had fallen and is very attractive to buy and is a buying opportunity bla bla. Many fell victims. All those stocks became worthless.
We are in the middle/start of the correction. Housing takes a long time to correct, unlike stocks. It took 6 years for the last real estate crash(1989) to bottom out. No way it is attractive to buy at this time.
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.
Your reasoning is flawed. Lot of people made money in the dot com boom era selling stocks. Just like you, lot of them said during the midway of crash that the stocks had fallen and is very attractive to buy and is a buying opportunity bla bla. Many fell victims. All those stocks became worthless.
We are in the middle/start of the correction. Housing takes a long time to correct, unlike stocks. It took 6 years for the last real estate crash(1989) to bottom out. No way it is attractive to buy at this time.
hot ackgrounds for tumblr.
Macaca
12-30 07:20 PM
In Mumbai, a Place to Showcase an Art Collection (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/greathomesanddestinations/30gh-location.html) By AMANA FONTANELLA-KHAN | New York Times
At Ashiesh Shah’s housewarming party in November, amid clinking champagne flutes, one of his friends joked that his apartment is actually an art gallery in disguise. Looking at the sculpture of a two-foot-long baby made of material from a spinnaker by the Canadian artist Max Streicher suspended above the staircase, any guest to his home might agree.
Mr. Shah, 32, began collecting art in his 20s when he was still getting his start as an architect. Now he designs interiors for many of the city’s Bollywood actors. But up until last year, he had never had his own space to design. He was living with his parents in an apartment on Mumbai’s scenic Marine Drive.
It was struggle to find the right space to showcase his art collection in a dense city with soaring real estate prices. “My art is not only two dimensional, it also takes up floor space and in a city like Mumbai, floor space can be just as expensive as art,” Mr. Shah said.
He looked at more than 40 apartments over seven months, before settling on the one he bought in October 2009, a dark apartment subdivided into several small, boxy rooms in a five-story concrete structure built in the 1960s.
The 1,075-square-foot apartment was nearly 41 million rupees (about $900,000 at 45 rupees to the dollar) average for an apartment on Peddar Road, a busy arterial in south Mumbai in the affluent Altamount neighborhood. His neighbors include some of his clients, as well as Mukesh Ambani, a business magnate who built a $1 billion 27-story building home, and industrialists like Kumar Mangalam Birla, the chairman of the Aditya Birla Group.
It took over a year and around 5 million rupees ($110,000) to convert the space from a two-bedroom cramped duplex to an airy one-bedroom studio. Knocking down a total of nine walls, Mr. Sha said, “gave me freedom to place art pieces in a fluid, open space.”
Still, it wasn’t enough square footage to showcase all of his collection at the same time. As a result, he created a small storage room for pieces not on display, which he rotates into the apartment about every six months. “It means that the art never gets static,” he said.
But with limited space were opportunities for functional pieces to have artistic elements, as is the case for his staircase. Mr. Shah had initially planned to turn the steps — carved from a solid cube of white Indian marble — into drawers for additional storage, but they were too small. He converted them into what he calls “curious steps” instead. “I am planning to give them out to artists in the future to make commissioned miniature art for them,” he said.
Other features, such as a partition panel that pulls out from a wall in the living room, have dual functionality, serving as a projection screen for video art and creating a sectioned-off viewing area.
White epoxy flooring — “Which took three tries to get right,” he says — and white walls on the main floor help create an illusion of greater perceived space, as well as a neutral background for his art collection.
Mr. Shah also added whimsical elements to “give the flat an element of play,” he said. In the guest bathroom, a light projector positioned above the sink creates pronounced shadows on the walls when people wash their hands. “Guests end up spending those five seconds more in the bathroom and think, ‘That was fun,’ ” Mr. Shah said. He placed a sculpture of obstetric forceps by the Indian artist Anita Dube next to the floating baby that hangs above his stairs.
Pointing to an antique couch, which he upholstered using a vintage Rajasthani carpet, Mr. Shah said that he made sure the red design motif in the center of the carpet was positioned to resemble a pair of lips.
“Did you notice that?” he asked. “I did that because this is my gossip couch.”
Taking on the world (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Taking-on-the-world/articleshow/7192176.cms) Times of India Editorial
Delhi plans Tate Modern-style gallery in old power station
Ambitious project in Indian capital involves dismantling parts of the Indraprastha power plant beside banks of Yamuna river (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/28/india-delhi-power-plant-project)
By Jason Burke
Delhi to build its own Tate Modern on banks of Yamuna (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/8228523/Delhi-to-build-its-own-Tate-Modern-on-banks-of-Yamuna.html) By Barney Henderson | Daily Telegraph
Indian Citibank 'fraudster' arrested (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12092058) BBC
At Ashiesh Shah’s housewarming party in November, amid clinking champagne flutes, one of his friends joked that his apartment is actually an art gallery in disguise. Looking at the sculpture of a two-foot-long baby made of material from a spinnaker by the Canadian artist Max Streicher suspended above the staircase, any guest to his home might agree.
Mr. Shah, 32, began collecting art in his 20s when he was still getting his start as an architect. Now he designs interiors for many of the city’s Bollywood actors. But up until last year, he had never had his own space to design. He was living with his parents in an apartment on Mumbai’s scenic Marine Drive.
It was struggle to find the right space to showcase his art collection in a dense city with soaring real estate prices. “My art is not only two dimensional, it also takes up floor space and in a city like Mumbai, floor space can be just as expensive as art,” Mr. Shah said.
He looked at more than 40 apartments over seven months, before settling on the one he bought in October 2009, a dark apartment subdivided into several small, boxy rooms in a five-story concrete structure built in the 1960s.
The 1,075-square-foot apartment was nearly 41 million rupees (about $900,000 at 45 rupees to the dollar) average for an apartment on Peddar Road, a busy arterial in south Mumbai in the affluent Altamount neighborhood. His neighbors include some of his clients, as well as Mukesh Ambani, a business magnate who built a $1 billion 27-story building home, and industrialists like Kumar Mangalam Birla, the chairman of the Aditya Birla Group.
It took over a year and around 5 million rupees ($110,000) to convert the space from a two-bedroom cramped duplex to an airy one-bedroom studio. Knocking down a total of nine walls, Mr. Sha said, “gave me freedom to place art pieces in a fluid, open space.”
Still, it wasn’t enough square footage to showcase all of his collection at the same time. As a result, he created a small storage room for pieces not on display, which he rotates into the apartment about every six months. “It means that the art never gets static,” he said.
But with limited space were opportunities for functional pieces to have artistic elements, as is the case for his staircase. Mr. Shah had initially planned to turn the steps — carved from a solid cube of white Indian marble — into drawers for additional storage, but they were too small. He converted them into what he calls “curious steps” instead. “I am planning to give them out to artists in the future to make commissioned miniature art for them,” he said.
Other features, such as a partition panel that pulls out from a wall in the living room, have dual functionality, serving as a projection screen for video art and creating a sectioned-off viewing area.
White epoxy flooring — “Which took three tries to get right,” he says — and white walls on the main floor help create an illusion of greater perceived space, as well as a neutral background for his art collection.
Mr. Shah also added whimsical elements to “give the flat an element of play,” he said. In the guest bathroom, a light projector positioned above the sink creates pronounced shadows on the walls when people wash their hands. “Guests end up spending those five seconds more in the bathroom and think, ‘That was fun,’ ” Mr. Shah said. He placed a sculpture of obstetric forceps by the Indian artist Anita Dube next to the floating baby that hangs above his stairs.
Pointing to an antique couch, which he upholstered using a vintage Rajasthani carpet, Mr. Shah said that he made sure the red design motif in the center of the carpet was positioned to resemble a pair of lips.
“Did you notice that?” he asked. “I did that because this is my gossip couch.”
Taking on the world (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Taking-on-the-world/articleshow/7192176.cms) Times of India Editorial
Delhi plans Tate Modern-style gallery in old power station
Ambitious project in Indian capital involves dismantling parts of the Indraprastha power plant beside banks of Yamuna river (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/28/india-delhi-power-plant-project)
By Jason Burke
Delhi to build its own Tate Modern on banks of Yamuna (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/8228523/Delhi-to-build-its-own-Tate-Modern-on-banks-of-Yamuna.html) By Barney Henderson | Daily Telegraph
Indian Citibank 'fraudster' arrested (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12092058) BBC
more...
house Flower Backgrounds For Tumblr.
lonedesi
06-01 06:22 PM
I admire the manner in which you eloquently conveyed the message. You are just too good. Keep it up.
The culture of rant, the tendency of being angry at all times has landed success to many broadcast journalists, authors and politicians.
On the right:
Rush Limbaugh.
Bill O Reilly.
Sean Hannity.
Ann Coulter(not a journalist but close).
On the left:
Howard Dean.
Al Sharpton.
It seems that the more angry you are, the more successful you are. What surprises me is the Republicans control the congress and the white house and still, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs etc. are angry at all times. They are angry if Bill Clinton is President. They are angry if George Bush is president. They are angry when Democrats win, they are angry even if republicans win. They are just angry and they want everyone else to be angry. Probably, there is a secret key to ratings success written somewhere in a secret book in a secret library that these guys have read. And that books says "Make thy audience mad at someone and thou shalt see success in thy Neilson ratings".
The culture of rant, the tendency of being angry at all times has landed success to many broadcast journalists, authors and politicians.
On the right:
Rush Limbaugh.
Bill O Reilly.
Sean Hannity.
Ann Coulter(not a journalist but close).
On the left:
Howard Dean.
Al Sharpton.
It seems that the more angry you are, the more successful you are. What surprises me is the Republicans control the congress and the white house and still, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs etc. are angry at all times. They are angry if Bill Clinton is President. They are angry if George Bush is president. They are angry when Democrats win, they are angry even if republicans win. They are just angry and they want everyone else to be angry. Probably, there is a secret key to ratings success written somewhere in a secret book in a secret library that these guys have read. And that books says "Make thy audience mad at someone and thou shalt see success in thy Neilson ratings".
tattoo ackgrounds for tumblr.
go_guy123
09-27 12:31 PM
It's only the visa numbers...if not 1 year,it will be on the road by two years.Cheer up...I myself have negative feelings what will happen to my family future here.I just talk to myself,Whether I have to apply for Canadian PR for back up.It sure does kill our minds.
Cheer up...We all will be safe by 2009.It will move faster.
EB3 I 2004 Jul.
Canada PR can no longer be backup...since 2002 the new rules have are requiring Canadian PRs to physically stay in Canada for 2 out of 5 years to
maintain PR.
Cheer up...We all will be safe by 2009.It will move faster.
EB3 I 2004 Jul.
Canada PR can no longer be backup...since 2002 the new rules have are requiring Canadian PRs to physically stay in Canada for 2 out of 5 years to
maintain PR.
more...
pictures ackgrounds for tumblr blog.
chanduv23
03-24 04:32 PM
I think it is mainly for graduate students who are researchers or professors right?
I know my brother went this route and the graduate students/post doctorate students don't get paid much. I thought that was changing though.
it can be for Physicians, professors, reseaerch, teaching etc..
I know my brother went this route and the graduate students/post doctorate students don't get paid much. I thought that was changing though.
it can be for Physicians, professors, reseaerch, teaching etc..
dresses +ackgrounds+for+tumblr
chanduv23
05-17 06:31 AM
For folks who think banning any sort of consulting on hn1b will solve the purpose and has a good cause, this is what is going to happen.
You most probably will have been a h1b working ina fulltime job. You will think that when h1b consultants go away, you will fall ahead in the queue and get ur GC. But my dear friend, the intent of this bill is different. IEEE USA, PG etc.. have members who are American citizens and a lot of them may be your own collegues at work and will be encouraging you to support their cause saying it benefits you.
Once consulting is banned, and when your own American collegues know it is banned and consulting company cannot hire h1b, they will be after your job. They will make conditions miswerable for u at workplace and life will get worse and you will not have any options left for you but to lead a screwed up life.
If you get fired or layed off, you will be left with no option at all. Remember, while cost cutting, companies will get rid of h1bs before they get rid of citizens, no matter how much u hang on to your job and how much u perform. Basic fact is that your are despensible.
Their only aim in life is to get rid of all Asians especially Indians and Chinese and reduce their numbers drastically, they will follow any tool or weapon. Don't believe their sweet words and their intent to help you. You must help yourself and help IV.
Though I do agree that h1b body shops indulge in irregular practices, this is common to any company. Look at biggies like msft, google etcc. they have an entire legal team working hard to workaround any system and utilize loopholes in the system. Thats how businesses survive and make money. Business means "no ethics". So just do not rationalize yourselves by claiming that you know everything. It all boils down to survival of the fittest and it is how you handle situations. Lets all not be selfish and be divided among ourselves.
You most probably will have been a h1b working ina fulltime job. You will think that when h1b consultants go away, you will fall ahead in the queue and get ur GC. But my dear friend, the intent of this bill is different. IEEE USA, PG etc.. have members who are American citizens and a lot of them may be your own collegues at work and will be encouraging you to support their cause saying it benefits you.
Once consulting is banned, and when your own American collegues know it is banned and consulting company cannot hire h1b, they will be after your job. They will make conditions miswerable for u at workplace and life will get worse and you will not have any options left for you but to lead a screwed up life.
If you get fired or layed off, you will be left with no option at all. Remember, while cost cutting, companies will get rid of h1bs before they get rid of citizens, no matter how much u hang on to your job and how much u perform. Basic fact is that your are despensible.
Their only aim in life is to get rid of all Asians especially Indians and Chinese and reduce their numbers drastically, they will follow any tool or weapon. Don't believe their sweet words and their intent to help you. You must help yourself and help IV.
Though I do agree that h1b body shops indulge in irregular practices, this is common to any company. Look at biggies like msft, google etcc. they have an entire legal team working hard to workaround any system and utilize loopholes in the system. Thats how businesses survive and make money. Business means "no ethics". So just do not rationalize yourselves by claiming that you know everything. It all boils down to survival of the fittest and it is how you handle situations. Lets all not be selfish and be divided among ourselves.
more...
makeup ackgrounds for tumblr.
xyzgc
12-26 06:16 PM
Can you post the source of this information please. I don't think its anywhere close 100,000. Its somewhere arnd 10000.
You are right, its around 12k died in combat and over 100k wounded. Thanks for pointing it out, my intent is not to spread any false info.
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
In any case, the intent of the post was something quite different.
My point simply was this:
That american opposition to Iraq was mostly an afterthought - when the adventurism went really, really bad. Most senators and other americans supported these actions.
No nation (other than India) tolerates terrorist attacks on its soil. Every nation responds with military action by bombing terrorist camps.
You are right, its around 12k died in combat and over 100k wounded. Thanks for pointing it out, my intent is not to spread any false info.
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
In any case, the intent of the post was something quite different.
My point simply was this:
That american opposition to Iraq was mostly an afterthought - when the adventurism went really, really bad. Most senators and other americans supported these actions.
No nation (other than India) tolerates terrorist attacks on its soil. Every nation responds with military action by bombing terrorist camps.
girlfriend Flower Backgrounds For Tumblr.
hopefulgc
08-11 04:32 PM
get outta town.. that hilarious:D
hey, this happened right in front of eyes!! I can NEVER EVER forget it!!
My colleague was getting laid off in a month, so she was trying to find a project elsewhere. She was sitting a few yards away from me when she got a call for an interview. And I saw her coming towards me with a total white face (if there is an expression like this).
I asked her what happened..
She said "How can they do that?"
"This is not good."
"Don't they know how to talk to a woman?"
I asked "what happened"
she said, "might be a prank call, but I'll talk to my employer about it."
Her next sentence had me rolling over the floor for the next hour.
She said "After asking some technical questions, they wanted to ask some general ones"
and he asked "why is a manhole round?"
She LITERALLY had no meaning for manhole (gutter/sewerage can). And you can imagine her embarassement when I told her!
hey, this happened right in front of eyes!! I can NEVER EVER forget it!!
My colleague was getting laid off in a month, so she was trying to find a project elsewhere. She was sitting a few yards away from me when she got a call for an interview. And I saw her coming towards me with a total white face (if there is an expression like this).
I asked her what happened..
She said "How can they do that?"
"This is not good."
"Don't they know how to talk to a woman?"
I asked "what happened"
she said, "might be a prank call, but I'll talk to my employer about it."
Her next sentence had me rolling over the floor for the next hour.
She said "After asking some technical questions, they wanted to ask some general ones"
and he asked "why is a manhole round?"
She LITERALLY had no meaning for manhole (gutter/sewerage can). And you can imagine her embarassement when I told her!
hairstyles cute ackgrounds for tumblr.
vdixit
03-24 04:31 PM
Bought a house, sold it. Changed jobs, moved cities, planning to buy a new house.
I dont think renting (flushing money down the landlords toilet) is a wise idea if you plan to live in this country for a long time.
Go for it. PLan these things according to your family's needs.
Cheers.
I dont think renting (flushing money down the landlords toilet) is a wise idea if you plan to live in this country for a long time.
Go for it. PLan these things according to your family's needs.
Cheers.
Macaca
05-20 06:13 PM
The United States v Canada (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/05/immigration) The Economist
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
AS A matter of national policy, Canada actively solicits immigrants and has done so for years. The public supports this and the default political assumption is in support of continued immigration. According to a recent poll, only a third of Canadians believe immigration is more of a problem than an opportunity, far fewer than any other country included in the survey. Rather, Canadians are concerned about "brain waste" and ensuring that foreign credentials are appropriately recognised and rewarded in the job market? Being an immigrant is also no barrier to being a proper Canadian; in parliamentary elections earlier this month, 11% of the people elected were not native. This warm embrace isn't just a liberal abstraction; 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.
It's well-known that Canada is an outlier among immigrant nations, but it is nonetheless interesting to consider in reference to the ongoing and heated debate about immigration in the United States. Why is Canadian public opinion so different from views in United States?
At a conference yesterday, Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, cited two big explanations for the difference. The first was that Canadians are convinced of the positive economic benefits of immigration�to the extent that towns under economic duress are especially keen to promote immigration, because they believe immigrants will create jobs. Even unemployed Canadians will stoutly insist that immigrants do not take work away from the native born. This makes sense, as most immigrants to Canada are authorised under a "points" system tied to their credentials and employment potential. About half of Canadian immigrants have bachelor's degrees. They may have a higher unemployment rate than native-born workers, Mr Reitz said, and they benefit from programmes and services created specially for immigrants, such as language training. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that Canada's immigrants, being high-skilled, are net contributors.
Mr Reitz's second explanation was that Canadians see multiculturalism as an important component of national identity. In one public opinion poll, Mr Reitz said, multiculturalism was deemed less important than national health care but more important than the flag, the Mounties, and hockey. Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley, picked up this theme. There wasn't such a thing as a purely Canadian passport, she said, until 1947. Canada was, psychosocially, very much a part of the British commonwealth until quite recently. When it came time to create a distinctively Canadian identity, the country included a large and vocal Francophone minority (as well as a considerable number of first peoples). The necessity of bilingualism contributed to a broader public commitment to multiculturalism, which persists today.
Other factors allow Canada to be more inviting. The country has little reason to worry about illegal immigration. Like the United States, it shares a long southern border with a country suffering from high levels of crime, unemployment and income inequality. But there aren't millions of Americans yearning to get into Canada. To put it another way, the United States's buffer zone from the eager masses is a shallow river. Canada's is the United States. That reduces unauthorised migration to Canada and eases public anxiety about it. Canada also has a smaller population and lower birth rate than the United States�it needs immigrants for population growth.
Incidentally, the emphasis on multiculturalism points to an interesting normative distinction between the United States and Canada. The United States supports pluralism and in some respect this leads to similar structures in the two countries. (Ms Bloemraad mentioned that both the United States and Canada have unusually robust legal protections against discrimination, for example.) But in the United States, you rarely hear somebody advocate for immigration on the grounds that it adds to the social fabric of the country. When the normative argument arises here, it has a humanitarian dimension. I would posit that in the United States, identity is a right, not a value.
Still, looking at Canada, we can extrapolate a few things for the United States. The first is that, as we've previously discussed here, the United States really should be more open to high-skilled immigrants. They're good for the economy, and an uptick in demonstrably uncontroversial immigrants might mitigate anxiety about the group as a whole. Another is that while there may be benefits to the tacit acceptance of undocumented immigration�the United States acquires an immigrant labour force without making any accommodations for the population�there are also foregone opportunities. One of these, compared to the Canadian approach, is in the United States's ability to foster integration through language training or other settlement programmes.
Losing (but Loving) the Green Card Lottery (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/opinion/20mounk.html) By YASCHA MOUNK | New York Times
We Need Sane Immigration Reform (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509104576330110520111554.html) Letters | Wall Street Journal
U.S. to investigate Secure Communities deportation program (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secure-communities-20110519,0,3087175.story) By Lee Romney | Los Angeles Times
file485
07-08 07:56 PM
Assuming your husband is here from 2000, they are asking for 7 years, i.e. 12 * 7 = 84 months of paystubs? This is ridiculous. How many people keep paystubs from 7 years ago? Infact in those days paystubs used to have their social security numbers on them, they should be shredded, atleast that's the common advice.
pls dont give wrong info..
paystubs..W2's, tax returns r the most imp documents..especially for souls like us with employment based immigration..
pls dont give wrong info..
paystubs..W2's, tax returns r the most imp documents..especially for souls like us with employment based immigration..
