logiclife
03-07 11:34 AM
Please dont create new threads, use the "Important CIR updates" thread to ask questions and discuss CIR.
wallpaper For Credit Card Knight 1.4.0
tor78
04-25 11:33 AM
You can show/do non-payed or volunteer work on your OPT to avoid the 90 day unemployed restriction.
deletedUser459
11-10 10:24 PM
hm...i like the concept. i think it could be better if the guy stood out color wise from the background, and different fonts
2011 EZ Credit Card Number
tinuverma
09-01 02:32 PM
Hello Gurus,
Any ideas? BTW, there is no change in the status. Still says: Case received and pending for i-485 and the same old "message was sent..." on other two.
Any ideas? BTW, there is no change in the status. Still says: Case received and pending for i-485 and the same old "message was sent..." on other two.
more...
Blog Feeds
01-27 06:40 AM
List of H-1B visa employers for 2009 (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142152/List_of_H_1B_visa_employers_for_2009?sms_ss=blogge r)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-1416870262196971491?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/list-of-h-1b-visa-employers-for-2009.html)
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/2893395975825897727-1416870262196971491?l=martinvisalaw.blogspot.com
More... (http://martinvisalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/list-of-h-1b-visa-employers-for-2009.html)
Macaca
10-27 10:14 AM
America has a persuadable center, but neither party appeals to it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502774.html) By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@washpost.com) | Washington Post, October 28, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, Penguin. 484 pp. $27.95
These are difficult times for American politics at just about all levels, but especially in presidential politics, which has been poisoned -- the word is scarcely too strong -- by a variety of influences, none more poisonous than what Ronald Brownstein calls "an unrelenting polarization . . . that has divided Washington and the country into hostile, even irreconcilable camps." There is nothing new about this, he quickly acknowledges, and "partisan rivalry most often has been a source of energy, innovation, and inspiration," but what is particularly worrisome now "is that the political system is more polarized than the country. Rather than reducing the level of conflict, Washington increases it. That tendency, not the breadth of the underlying divisions itself, is the defining characteristic of our era and the principal cause of our impasse on so many problems."
Most people who pay reasonably close attention to American politics will not find much to surprise them in The Second Civil War, but Brownstein -- who recently left the Los Angeles Times to become political correspondent for Atlantic Media and who is a familiar figure on television talk shows -- has done a thorough job of amassing all the pertinent material and analyzing it with no apparent political or ideological axe to grind. He isn't an especially graceful prose stylist, and he's given to glib, one-word portraits -- on a single page he gives us "the burly Joseph T. Robinson," "the bullet-headed Sam Rayburn," "the mystical Henry A. Wallace" and "the flinty Harold Ickes" -- but stylistic elegance is a rare quality in political journalism in the best of times, and in these worst of times it can be forgiven. What matters is that Brownstein knows what he's talking about.
He devotes the book's first 175 pages -- more, really, than are necessary -- to laying the groundwork for the present situation. Since the election of 1896, he argues, "the two parties have moved through four distinct phases": the first, from 1896 to 1938, when they pursued "highly partisan strategies," the "period in modern American life most like our own"; the second, from the late New Deal through the assassination of John F. Kennedy, "the longest sustained period of bipartisan negotiation in American history," an "ideal of cooperation across party lines"; the third, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, "a period of transition" in which "the pressures for more partisan confrontation intensified"; and the fourth, "our own period of hyperpartisanship, an era that may be said to have fully arrived when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted on a virtually party-line vote to impeach Bill Clinton in December 1998."
As is well known, the lately departed (but scarcely forgotten) Karl Rove likes to celebrate the presidency of William McKinley, which serious historians generally dismiss out of hand but in which Rove claims to find strength and mastery. Perhaps, as Brownstein and others have suggested, this is because Rove would like to be placed alongside Mark Hanna, the immensely skilled (and immensely cynical) boss who was the power behind McKinley's throne. But the comparison is, indeed, valid in the sense that the McKinley era was the precursor of the Bush II era, which "harkened back to the intensely partisan strategies of McKinley and his successors." Bush's strategies are now widely regarded as failures, not merely among his enemies but also among his erstwhile allies on Capitol Hill, who grouse about "White House incompetence or arrogance." But Brownstein places these complaints in proper context:
"Yet many conservatives recognized in Bush a kindred soul, not only in ideology, but more importantly in temperament. Because their goals were transformative rather than incremental, conservative activists could not be entirely satisfied with the give and take, the half a loaf deal making, of politics in ordinary times. . . . In Bush they found a leader who shared that conviction and who demonstrated, over and again, that in service of his goals he was willing to sharply divide the Congress and the country."
This, as Brownstein notes, came from the man who pledged to govern as "a uniter, not a divider." Bush's service as governor of Texas had been marked by what one Democrat there called a "collaborative spirit," but "he is not the centrist as president that he was as governor." This cannot be explained solely by the influence of Rove, who appeared to be far more interested in placating the GOP's hard-right "base" than in enacting effective legislation. Other influences probably included a Democratic congressional leadership that grew ever more hostile and ideological, the frenzied climate whipped up by screamers on radio and television, and Bush's own determination not to repeat his father's second-term electoral defeat. But whatever the precise causes, the Bush Administration's "forceful, even belligerent style" assured nothing except deadlock on the Hill, even on issues as important to Bush as immigration and Social Security "reform."
Brownstein's analysis of the American mood is far different from Bush/Rove's. He believes, and I think he's right, that there is "still a persuadable center in American politics -- and that no matter how effectively a party mobilized its base, it could not prevail if those swing voters moved sharply and cohesively against it," viz., the 2006 midterm elections. He also believes, and again I think he's right, that coalition politics is the wisest and most effective way to govern: "The party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country's problems." As Lyndon Johnson used to say to those on the other side of the fence, "Come now, let us reason together."
Yet there's not much evidence that many in either party have learned this rather obvious lesson. Several of the (remarkably uninspired) presidential candidates have made oratorical gestures toward the politics of inclusion, but from Hillary Clinton to Rudolph Giuliani they're practicing interest-group politics of exclusion as delineated in the Gospel According to Karl Rove. Things have not been helped a bit by the Democratic leadership on the Hill, which took office early this year with great promises of unity but quickly lapsed into an ineffective mixture of partisan rhetoric and internal bickering. Brownstein writes:
"Our modern system of hyperpartisanship has unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges. . . . In Washington the political debate too often careens between dysfunctional poles: either polarization, when one party imposes its will over the bitter resistance of the other, or immobilization, when the parties fight to stalemate. . . . Our political system has virtually lost its capacity to formulate the principled compromises indispensable for progress in any diverse society. By any measure, the costs of hyperpartisanship vastly exceed the benefits."
Brownstein has plenty of suggestions for changing things, from "allowing independents to participate in primaries" to "changing the rules for drawing districts in the House of Representatives." Most of these are sensible and a few are first-rate, but they have about as much chance of being adopted as I do of being president. The current rush by the states to be fustest with the mostest in primary season suggests how difficult it would be to achieve reform in that area, and the radical gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts engineered by Tom DeLay makes plain that reform in that one won't be easy, either. Probably what would do more good than anything else would be an attractive, well-organized, articulate presidential candidate willing, in Adlai Stevenson's words, "to talk sense to the American people." Realistically, though, what we can look for is more meanness, divisiveness and cynicism. It's the order of the day, and it's not going away any time soon.
more...
seeker
01-11 03:46 PM
Guys as I said earlier, lets start calling cornyn's office and plead for skil bill or interim I485 relief.
2010 i want some free credit card
DAGGSREE
07-31 04:05 PM
All
I need your help to come to a conclusion on my issue.
1) I am on L1-b now in USA and working on company A
2) company B filed me and H1B as consulate process(means i have to get
stamped to start working for them)
Recently company B filed me labor+ I-140 mentioning as future employment and they are planning to file I 485 also now(since we have current dates)
Now I am planning to quit company A for who i am working on L1 and want to go for stamping to join company B who will be filing 485 for me. I have plans to travel to canada for stamping on August last week (after 485 filing).
Do we have any issues to get the stamping for new company who filed my 485
any help is greatly appriciated.
thanks
sree
I need your help to come to a conclusion on my issue.
1) I am on L1-b now in USA and working on company A
2) company B filed me and H1B as consulate process(means i have to get
stamped to start working for them)
Recently company B filed me labor+ I-140 mentioning as future employment and they are planning to file I 485 also now(since we have current dates)
Now I am planning to quit company A for who i am working on L1 and want to go for stamping to join company B who will be filing 485 for me. I have plans to travel to canada for stamping on August last week (after 485 filing).
Do we have any issues to get the stamping for new company who filed my 485
any help is greatly appriciated.
thanks
sree
more...
H1BEERFE
05-08 08:08 PM
Employee Employer Relationship RFE is issued for my extension and my employer is replying. Just want to know the answer of above questions now.
hair credit card numbers from pi
wandmaker
02-20 12:17 PM
Guys,
My company is forcing everyone to fill I9 form. I have EAD but maintaining H1 status and did not use EAD. I did some research on I9 and it is no where mentioned that only people with EAD has to fill this. I need Guru's opinion on this.
I just don't want to loose my H1 status in any case.
I-9 should be filled by every employee, irrespective of your visa status; Go through the list A, B and C documents, it is self explanatory. This is the proof that you reported to work.
My company is forcing everyone to fill I9 form. I have EAD but maintaining H1 status and did not use EAD. I did some research on I9 and it is no where mentioned that only people with EAD has to fill this. I need Guru's opinion on this.
I just don't want to loose my H1 status in any case.
I-9 should be filled by every employee, irrespective of your visa status; Go through the list A, B and C documents, it is self explanatory. This is the proof that you reported to work.
more...
Blog Feeds
08-13 11:40 AM
It's not unusual for immigrant sports figures in the US to have big followings in their home countries. When Omri Casspi don's a Sacramento Kings NBA jersey this coming season, it will be extra special for millions of his fellow Israelis who are looking forward to seeing the first one of their countrymen to play in the NBA. Casspi was a star player in Israel and is a first round draft choice this year.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/immigrant-of-the-day-omri-casspi-basketball-player.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/immigrant-of-the-day-omri-casspi-basketball-player.html)
hot accept-credit-card-merchant-
NANO3
11-10 09:59 PM
nice background image !
text is weak make it bold or something
text is weak make it bold or something
more...
house credit cards numbers,
1528boyz
08-19 12:45 AM
Hi There,
I need some advice on my current situation.I am in the 4th year of my H1-B .I have my
I-140 approved from my current employer with PD of Aug'09.
I am planning to change my job, my concern is :
Assuming that my current employer do not revoke/recall my I-140
1. Do i need to have the same job responsibilities in my new job to transfer my PD?
2. Do i have to stick with my current employer for atleast 6 months to transfer my PD?
3. What will happen if i change employer within 6 months, can i still be able to get my PD?
4. Will employers provide approval of I-140 ?
Appreciate for your time,
Thanks
I need some advice on my current situation.I am in the 4th year of my H1-B .I have my
I-140 approved from my current employer with PD of Aug'09.
I am planning to change my job, my concern is :
Assuming that my current employer do not revoke/recall my I-140
1. Do i need to have the same job responsibilities in my new job to transfer my PD?
2. Do i have to stick with my current employer for atleast 6 months to transfer my PD?
3. What will happen if i change employer within 6 months, can i still be able to get my PD?
4. Will employers provide approval of I-140 ?
Appreciate for your time,
Thanks
tattoo your credit card number.
godbless
08-05 06:17 PM
While most of the folks are busy working on I485, EAD, AP stuff, does anyone has any information about the h1b filing that would begin in April 2008. Is there any policy program, the govt. is coming out with to let the chaos of April 2007 not happen again?
more...
pictures Credit-cards-logos in Free
morchu
06-12 01:00 PM
You could be in H1 till Dec 2010. Nothing in the law states that your already approved H1 has to be revoked, with the PERM denial.
dresses (They get your credit card
muhamm5
02-05 10:43 PM
I am on H-1 B , and planning to apply for Labor certification - working for an Automobile manufacturing Company in Engineering department,my qualifications are Bachelor in Mechanical Engineering-SOC CODE (17-2141), Masters in Industrial Engineering SOC CODE(17-2112).
my current job responsibilities matches with Industrial designer, Just want to ask in order to apply Labor can i use Commercial & Industrial designer SOC CODE(27-1021), also base cause for using this code is meeting Salary requirements, other two codes giving high salaries compare to this code which is matching my salary code, . help will be appreciated
my current job responsibilities matches with Industrial designer, Just want to ask in order to apply Labor can i use Commercial & Industrial designer SOC CODE(27-1021), also base cause for using this code is meeting Salary requirements, other two codes giving high salaries compare to this code which is matching my salary code, . help will be appreciated
more...
makeup credit card numbers real
das0
12-08 07:05 PM
please help. any lawyers local to Texas will help
girlfriend Free Credit Card Numbers
qualified_trash
08-28 10:31 PM
I got my 8th year renewal, 3rd time with the same employer. The company only had to pay USD 190.
hairstyles free credit card numbers
ragz4u
02-05 04:47 PM
We are pleased to announce that renowned author and economist Dr. Richard Florida has endorsed the efforts of the folks at www.immigrationvoice.org
You can read the bio of Dr. Richard here http://www.creativeclass.org/_flight_author.shtml
The text of the endorsement can be seen here http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=43
You can read the bio of Dr. Richard here http://www.creativeclass.org/_flight_author.shtml
The text of the endorsement can be seen here http://www.immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=43
loudobbs
10-17 04:05 PM
From immigration law website
10/17/2007: Total of 60,000+ EB-485 Applications Adjudicated During July-August-September by NSC and TSC
* AILA has reported that during the period of July, August, and September 2007, Nebraska Service Center and Texas Service Center adjudicated 60,000 plus EB-485 applications. Since EB visa number was unavailable for the entire EB cases in August, presumedly a substantial portion of these cases could include those cases for which the EB visa numbers were pull out before July 2, 2007 in June and adjudicated throughout the period as reported by some I-485 applicants who reported that their I-485 applications were approved when the visa number was unavailable. Interesting.
10/17/2007: Total of 60,000+ EB-485 Applications Adjudicated During July-August-September by NSC and TSC
* AILA has reported that during the period of July, August, and September 2007, Nebraska Service Center and Texas Service Center adjudicated 60,000 plus EB-485 applications. Since EB visa number was unavailable for the entire EB cases in August, presumedly a substantial portion of these cases could include those cases for which the EB visa numbers were pull out before July 2, 2007 in June and adjudicated throughout the period as reported by some I-485 applicants who reported that their I-485 applications were approved when the visa number was unavailable. Interesting.
Blog Feeds
05-19 10:00 AM
Opponents of comprehensive immigration reform often point to the 1986 legalization bill as a great failure that should not be repeated. What they don't want to talk about are the great number of success stories for people who were able to become legal. One story that is making the news 25 years later is that of Ana Hernandez Luna who gave an extraordinary speech on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives where she told her own story of her life as a young undocumented immigrant in the 1980s. The Texas Observer reported on her remarks: Tuesday, after it...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/immigrant-of-the-day-ana-hernandez-luna-legislator.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/05/immigrant-of-the-day-ana-hernandez-luna-legislator.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment