There are certain members who are intransigent about their support for the Durbin-Grassley bill.
Majority of them are supporting Durbin-Grassley not because they believe that consulting a lower kind of work compared to full-time employment but because they have themselves never felt the need for consulting companies.
Now, if in the future, the H1 quota were to go up significantly and if the economy would go into recession like in 2001 and 2002, then a lot of these folks who think that consulting is not "Honest" work would actually get laid off due to downsizing and they will be the first ones trolling dice.com to get a H1 quickely. And in those times, only the consulting companies will do an H1 transfer and save their asses from getting out of status and out of country. At such a point in time, the highly elite people here on this forum who think that consulting is not "honest and hard work" and only full-time employees are the real workers will have a very very different view of Durbin-Grassley bill.
The good times and good economy offers us luxury of slinging mud on the lesser mortals in consulting jobs but bad times in economy can put you right at the place where you are slinging mud.
So if you get your GC without ever needing to beg a consulting shop to quickely get you an H1 transfer to change your status during layoff season and economic recession, then good for you. You will have a luxury of sticking to your position in opposing Durbin-Grassley. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the Durbin-Grassley will look like a very bad deal to you too and you will flip-flop in your position.
So enjoy the good times and take potshots at consultants while you can afford to.
Well said Riva2005!
Majority of them are supporting Durbin-Grassley not because they believe that consulting a lower kind of work compared to full-time employment but because they have themselves never felt the need for consulting companies.
Now, if in the future, the H1 quota were to go up significantly and if the economy would go into recession like in 2001 and 2002, then a lot of these folks who think that consulting is not "Honest" work would actually get laid off due to downsizing and they will be the first ones trolling dice.com to get a H1 quickely. And in those times, only the consulting companies will do an H1 transfer and save their asses from getting out of status and out of country. At such a point in time, the highly elite people here on this forum who think that consulting is not "honest and hard work" and only full-time employees are the real workers will have a very very different view of Durbin-Grassley bill.
The good times and good economy offers us luxury of slinging mud on the lesser mortals in consulting jobs but bad times in economy can put you right at the place where you are slinging mud.
So if you get your GC without ever needing to beg a consulting shop to quickely get you an H1 transfer to change your status during layoff season and economic recession, then good for you. You will have a luxury of sticking to your position in opposing Durbin-Grassley. Otherwise, I am pretty sure the Durbin-Grassley will look like a very bad deal to you too and you will flip-flop in your position.
So enjoy the good times and take potshots at consultants while you can afford to.
Well said Riva2005!
wallpaper Alphabet designed for use in
Can someone note the
- Best funny post on this thread
- Best post of the thread
- Worse post of the thread
for the 3 awards and I will go through just those 3 posts and close the thread. :D
I will open the thread once Rollling_flood files the lawsuit:D.
What do you say?
- Best funny post on this thread
- Best post of the thread
- Worse post of the thread
for the 3 awards and I will go through just those 3 posts and close the thread. :D
I will open the thread once Rollling_flood files the lawsuit:D.
What do you say?
Randall,
We, members of IV who are on H-1B visas, can bring our spouses and children with full rights to travel. Family members are NOT counted in the quota for H-1B. Spouses cannot work as their status is dependent (H-4).
Our agenda is to resolve the Green Card Queue. People are waiting in the queue since 2001. The current status of queue can be found at: http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2943.html (Look under the employment based numbers)
We do not mind waiting in the queue until we get the Green Card. The problem is that the Green Card process is currently Employer-Centric. In the sense, once the GC process is initiated (Let's say Microsoft), the employee has to stick with Microsoft until the Green Card is approved.
Even worse, we cannot get an official promotion during the wait as this will result in starting the GC process from scratch and inadvertantly sends their application to the end of the queue. Imagine Skilled Labor (people with BS, MS and PhD degrees in Science and Math) who are waiting in the queue for more than 5 years with out an official promotion and at employer's mercy.
The employer precisely knows that the employee is stuck with their firm until they get their GC and they can conveniently ignore our professional growth (pay raise, promotion, etc). Make no mistake:rolleyes: , on the record they always sympathize our plight but they will not do anything about it. They always want more H-1B numbers but not GC numbers. Talk about employer exploitation.
IV wants to make the GC process employee-centric so that the employers do not exploit the skilled labor.
The problem of mis-match between H-1B numbers and GC numbers is created because of the disconnect between two programs. H-1B numbers do not have country limits where as GC numbers have a country limit.
For example, let's assume that out of the current 65000 H-1B visas, 25000 are from India and 25000 are from China (First come first served basis) and the remaining 15000 are from the Rest of the World. However, the GC numbers have a country limit: 10000 for India, 10000 for China, etc. This results in a queue that will only increase with more H-1B numbers and a disconnected GC program.
IV members are not against H-1B program (we are here on this program) but at the same time the H-1B increase is not our agenda (we leave it to the exploitant employers who lobby for it). We want to make the GC process employee-centric so as to stop the employer-exploitation and not hinder our professional growth.
I am not aware of AFL-CIO/Programmers Guild agenda but my understanding was that they want to completely shut-down the H-1B program instead of reforming it. The bottom line is there aren't enough American Citizens who have advanced science and math degrees. So, we need a H-1B program. How to make this program more effective and less exploitative is debatable.
This thread is very interesting to me. I've kind of lived though both sides, and it is really aweful for everyone but the abusive employer.
My understanding of Immigration Voice's agenda is that this group is really for people who have H1B visas and are in the country already to bring their spouses and children here with full rights to travel and work, make sure renewals of H1Bs happen so you can stay in the country, and, even better, to convert H1B visas to green cards.
My understanding is that the only reason that Immigration Voice supports increased H1B visa numbers is because people whose current visas are about to expire, and family members, are counted in these same numbers.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I really would like to get this right.
Anyway, if I do have it right, it seems to me that the AFL-CIO position (give people green cards instead of H1B visas) bridges the core concerns of members of Immigration Voice and the Programmers Guild. Whether or not everybody recognizes this is a different story, but it is good to know where the overlapping concern is, and hopefully in long term, get people talking about a solution that really does try to bridge the gap.
We, members of IV who are on H-1B visas, can bring our spouses and children with full rights to travel. Family members are NOT counted in the quota for H-1B. Spouses cannot work as their status is dependent (H-4).
Our agenda is to resolve the Green Card Queue. People are waiting in the queue since 2001. The current status of queue can be found at: http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_2943.html (Look under the employment based numbers)
We do not mind waiting in the queue until we get the Green Card. The problem is that the Green Card process is currently Employer-Centric. In the sense, once the GC process is initiated (Let's say Microsoft), the employee has to stick with Microsoft until the Green Card is approved.
Even worse, we cannot get an official promotion during the wait as this will result in starting the GC process from scratch and inadvertantly sends their application to the end of the queue. Imagine Skilled Labor (people with BS, MS and PhD degrees in Science and Math) who are waiting in the queue for more than 5 years with out an official promotion and at employer's mercy.
The employer precisely knows that the employee is stuck with their firm until they get their GC and they can conveniently ignore our professional growth (pay raise, promotion, etc). Make no mistake:rolleyes: , on the record they always sympathize our plight but they will not do anything about it. They always want more H-1B numbers but not GC numbers. Talk about employer exploitation.
IV wants to make the GC process employee-centric so that the employers do not exploit the skilled labor.
The problem of mis-match between H-1B numbers and GC numbers is created because of the disconnect between two programs. H-1B numbers do not have country limits where as GC numbers have a country limit.
For example, let's assume that out of the current 65000 H-1B visas, 25000 are from India and 25000 are from China (First come first served basis) and the remaining 15000 are from the Rest of the World. However, the GC numbers have a country limit: 10000 for India, 10000 for China, etc. This results in a queue that will only increase with more H-1B numbers and a disconnected GC program.
IV members are not against H-1B program (we are here on this program) but at the same time the H-1B increase is not our agenda (we leave it to the exploitant employers who lobby for it). We want to make the GC process employee-centric so as to stop the employer-exploitation and not hinder our professional growth.
I am not aware of AFL-CIO/Programmers Guild agenda but my understanding was that they want to completely shut-down the H-1B program instead of reforming it. The bottom line is there aren't enough American Citizens who have advanced science and math degrees. So, we need a H-1B program. How to make this program more effective and less exploitative is debatable.
This thread is very interesting to me. I've kind of lived though both sides, and it is really aweful for everyone but the abusive employer.
My understanding of Immigration Voice's agenda is that this group is really for people who have H1B visas and are in the country already to bring their spouses and children here with full rights to travel and work, make sure renewals of H1Bs happen so you can stay in the country, and, even better, to convert H1B visas to green cards.
My understanding is that the only reason that Immigration Voice supports increased H1B visa numbers is because people whose current visas are about to expire, and family members, are counted in these same numbers.
Please correct if I'm wrong. I really would like to get this right.
Anyway, if I do have it right, it seems to me that the AFL-CIO position (give people green cards instead of H1B visas) bridges the core concerns of members of Immigration Voice and the Programmers Guild. Whether or not everybody recognizes this is a different story, but it is good to know where the overlapping concern is, and hopefully in long term, get people talking about a solution that really does try to bridge the gap.
2011 you come lock letters to
sink/kill
What is deep six??
What is deep six??
In �Daily Show� Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/business/media/27stewart.html) By BILL CARTER and BRIAN STELTER | New York Times
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
Did the bill pledging federal funds for the health care of 9/11 responders become law in the waning hours of the 111th Congress only because a comedian took it up as a personal cause?
And does that make that comedian, Jon Stewart � despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism � the modern-day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow?
Certainly many supporters, including New York�s two senators, as well as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, played critical roles in turning around what looked like a hopeless situation after a filibuster by Republican senators on Dec. 10 seemed to derail the bill.
But some of those who stand to benefit from the bill have no doubt about what � and who � turned the momentum around.
�I don�t even know if there was a deal, to be honest with you, before his show,� said Kenny Specht, the founder of the New York City Firefighter Brotherhood Foundation, who was interviewed by Mr. Stewart on Dec. 16.
That show was devoted to the bill and the comedian�s effort to right what he called �an outrageous abdication of our responsibility to those who were most heroic on 9/11.�
Mr. Specht said in an interview, �I�ll forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did.�
Mr. Bloomberg, a frequent guest on �The Daily Show,� also recognized Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Success always has a thousand fathers,� the mayor said in an e-mail. �But Jon shining such a big, bright spotlight on Washington�s potentially tragic failure to put aside differences and get this done for America was, without a doubt, one of the biggest factors that led to the final agreement.�
Though he might prefer a description like �advocacy satire,� what Mr. Stewart engaged in that night � and on earlier occasions when he campaigned openly for passage of the bill � usually goes by the name �advocacy journalism.�
There have been other instances when an advocate on a television show turned around public policy almost immediately by concerted focus on an issue � but not recently, and in much different circumstances.
�The two that come instantly to mind are Murrow and Cronkite,� said Robert J. Thompson, a professor of television at Syracuse University.
Edward R. Murrow turned public opinion against the excesses of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Murrow had an even more direct effect when he reported on the case of Milo Radulovich, an Air Force lieutenant who was stripped of his commission after he was charged with associating with communists. Mr. Murrow�s broadcast resulted in Mr. Radulovich�s reinstatement.
Walter Cronkite�s editorial about the stalemate in the war in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive in 1968 convinced President Lyndon B. Johnson that he had lost public support and influenced his decision a month later to decline to run for re-election.
Though the scale of the impact of Mr. Stewart�s telecast on public policy may not measure up to the roles that Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite played, Mr. Thompson said, the comparison is legitimate because the law almost surely would not have moved forward without him. �He so pithily articulated the argument that once it was made, it was really hard to do anything else,� Mr. Thompson said.
The Dec. 16 show focused on two targets. One was the Republicans who were blocking the bill; Mr. Stewart, in a clear effort to shame them for hypocrisy, accused them of belonging to �the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase.� The other was the broadcast networks (one of them being CBS, the former home of Mr. Murrow and Mr. Cronkite), which, he charged, had not reported on the bill for more than two months.
�Though, to be fair,� Mr. Stewart said, �it�s not every day that Beatles songs come to iTunes.� (Each of the network newscasts had covered the story of the deal between the Beatles and Apple for their music catalog.) Each network subsequently covered the progress of the bill, sometimes citing Mr. Stewart by name. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, credited Mr. Stewart with raising awareness of the Republican blockade.
Eric Ortner, a former ABC News senior producer who worked as a medic at the World Trade Center site on 9/11, expressed dismay that Mr. Stewart had been virtually alone in expressing outrage early on.
�In just nine months� time, my skilled colleagues will be jockeying to outdo one another on 10th anniversary coverage� of the attacks, Mr. Ortner wrote in an e-mail. �It�s when the press was needed most, when sunlight truly could disinfect,� he said, that the news networks were not there.
Brian Williams, the anchor of �NBC Nightly News� and another frequent Stewart guest, did not comment on his network�s news judgment in how it covered the bill, but he did offer a comment about Mr. Stewart�s role.
�Jon gets to decide the rules governing his own activism and the causes he supports,� Mr. Williams said, �and how often he does it � and his audience gets to decide if they like the serious Jon as much as they do the satirical Jon.�
Mr. Stewart is usually extremely careful about taking serious positions for which he might be accused of trying to exert influence. He went to great lengths to avoid commenting about the intentions of his Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington in October, and the rally itself emphasized such less-than-impassioned virtues as open-minded debate and moderation.
In this case, Mr. Stewart, who is on vacation, declined to comment at all on the passage of the bill. He also ordered his staff not to comment or even offer any details on how the show was put together.
But Mr. Specht, the show guest, described how personally involved Mr. Stewart was in constructing the segment.
After the news of the Republican filibuster broke, �The Daily Show� contacted John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 victims, who then referred the show producers to Mr. Specht and the other guests.
Mr. Stewart met with the show�s panel of first responders in advance and briefed them on how the conversation would go. He even decided which seat each of the four men should sit in for the broadcast.
For Mr. Stewart, the topic of the 9/11 attacks has long been intensely personal. He lives in the TriBeCa area and has noted that in the past, he was able to see the World Trade Center from his apartment. Like other late-night comedians, he returned to the air shaken by the events and found performing comedy difficult for some time.
But comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy, Mr. Thompson of Syracuse said. �Comedy has the potential to have an important role in framing the way we think about civic life,� he said.
And Mr. Stewart has thrust himself into the middle of that potential, he said.
�I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,� Mr. Thompson said. �Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.�
UN, you are genius in immigarion matteres and better than any of this screwed up attorneys, Pls help this community as much as you can. I didn't come across any one close to you in immigration matters
:eek:I don't think it's good time to buy in CA.. Just wait for option ARM reset and market will drop more.
I agree with this statement!
See this chart?
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/adjustable-rate-mortgage-reset-schedule.jpg
Most of the higher priced properties purchased in 2003 - 2006 in the coastal areas of California were purchased using Option ARMs. I was talking to an acquaintance last week who was in the loan broking business in Orange County (had to switch careers since then) who told me that over 90% of several hundreds of loans that he was involved with were Option ARMs and very little 3% to no cash down.
He also said that all the loan guidelines are so strict now that a majority of those who took these dicey loans will not be able to refinance when the payments reset in the next 3-4 years.
As an example he said he knew someone who had bought a $750k house with 3% down ($22.5k), with an Option ARM at 2% interest only with negative amortization of unpaid interest (i.e. principal payment and a portion ofthe interest payment was "Optional" in the first 3 years). This interest even with today's low interest environment will reset to LIBOR (http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html)+ 3.75%. Furthermore, this will reset to a "fully amortizing loan", i.e. paying principal is no longer an option.
So can you imagine trying to refinance this house in two years, when it has declined say conservatively 20% in value down to $600k, and one still owes the full amount of $750k+ unpaid principal on the original loan? Right now lenders are asking for a minimum of 20% down and financing no more than 80% of current appraised value. In bubble markets such as ours in CA, they are asking to finance no more than 75% of appraised value in some cases. So all in all, these "homeowners" are pretty much screwed. Experienced observers are positing that there will be increase in foreclosures and walkaways.
For those who rented and saved, there will be lots of choices in the best areas. Just be patient!
I agree with this statement!
See this chart?
http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/adjustable-rate-mortgage-reset-schedule.jpg
Most of the higher priced properties purchased in 2003 - 2006 in the coastal areas of California were purchased using Option ARMs. I was talking to an acquaintance last week who was in the loan broking business in Orange County (had to switch careers since then) who told me that over 90% of several hundreds of loans that he was involved with were Option ARMs and very little 3% to no cash down.
He also said that all the loan guidelines are so strict now that a majority of those who took these dicey loans will not be able to refinance when the payments reset in the next 3-4 years.
As an example he said he knew someone who had bought a $750k house with 3% down ($22.5k), with an Option ARM at 2% interest only with negative amortization of unpaid interest (i.e. principal payment and a portion ofthe interest payment was "Optional" in the first 3 years). This interest even with today's low interest environment will reset to LIBOR (http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html)+ 3.75%. Furthermore, this will reset to a "fully amortizing loan", i.e. paying principal is no longer an option.
So can you imagine trying to refinance this house in two years, when it has declined say conservatively 20% in value down to $600k, and one still owes the full amount of $750k+ unpaid principal on the original loan? Right now lenders are asking for a minimum of 20% down and financing no more than 80% of current appraised value. In bubble markets such as ours in CA, they are asking to finance no more than 75% of appraised value in some cases. So all in all, these "homeowners" are pretty much screwed. Experienced observers are positing that there will be increase in foreclosures and walkaways.
For those who rented and saved, there will be lots of choices in the best areas. Just be patient!
2010 print lock font -. alphabet
Why we must reclaim religion from the right-wing (http://www.rediff.com/news/column/column-why-we-must-reclaim-religion-from-the-right-wing/20101229.htm) By Yoginder Sikand | Rediff
Decades after the two States came into being, relations between India and Pakistan continue to be, to put it mildly, hostile. This owes largely to the vast, and continuously mounting, influence of the Hindu religious right-wing in India and its Muslim counterpart in Pakistan.
Seemingly irreconcilable foes, the two speak the same language -- of unending hatred between Hindus and Muslims -- each seeking to define itself by building, stressing and constantly reinforcing boundaries between the two religiously-defined imagined communities.
Much has been written on the ideology and politics of right-wing Hindu and Islamic movements and organisations in both India and Pakistan, by academics and journalists alike. Yet, almost no attention has been given to how individual Hindu and Muslim religious activists at the local level, as distinct from key ideologues and leaders at the national-level, imagine and articulate notions of the religious and national 'other'.
Understanding this issue is crucial, for such activists exercise an enormous clout among their following.
The Lahore-based Mashal Books, one of Pakistan's few progressive, left-leaning publishing houses, recently launched a unique experiment: Of recording and making publicly accessible speeches delivered by maulvis or Muslim clerics at mosque congregations across Pakistan's Punjab province, including some located in small towns and obscure villages.
These speeches deal with a host of issues, ranging from women's status and scientific education, to jihad and anti-Indianism, all these linked to an amazingly diverse set of understandings of Islam.
Hosted on the Mashal Books Web site MASHAL BOOKS (http://www.mashalbooks.org), these speeches reflect the worldviews of a large majority of Pakistani maulvis, representing a range of sectarian backgrounds, who now exercise a major influence on the country's politics and in shaping Pakistani public opinion and discourse.
Of the dozens of speeches hosted on the Web site, only two are classified as relating particularly to India, but these may still be taken to be representative of how a great many Pakistani maulvis conceive of India and of relations between India and Pakistan. Predictably, in both speeches India is depicted in lurid colours, as an implacable foe of Pakistan, of Muslims, and of Islam.
Not surprisingly, then, efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan or to work towards rapprochement between Hindus and Muslims are vociferously denounced. The two maulvis appear to insist that Islam, as they understand it, itself requires that Pakistani Muslims must never cool off their anti-Hindu and anti-Indian zeal.
The first of these two speeches, by the Deobandi Maulana Muhammad Hafeez of the Jamia Masjid Umar Farooq, Rawalpindi, refers to India only in passing. He presents Muslims the world over as besieged by a host of powerful non-Muslim enemies.
It is almost as if their 'disbelief' (kufr) in Islam goads all non-Muslims, wherever they may be, to engage in a relentless conspiracy against Islam and its adherents, a war, like Samuel Huntington's infamous 'Clash of Civilisations', in which compromise and reconciliation are simply impossible because Islam and 'non-Islam' can, in this worldview, never comfortably coexist.
It is also as if Muslims have a monopoly on virtue and non-Muslims on vice. 'Islam will rise,' Maulana Hafeez thunders, 'and America and India will fall,' conveniently forgetting (assuming he knew of the fact) that India probably has more Muslims than Pakistan and that if India falls, it will drag its tens of millions of Muslims along with it, too.
The second speech is by a certain Maulana Mufti Saeed Ahmed of Jamia Masjid Mittranwali, Sialkot, who belongs to the Ahl-e Hadith sect, which closely resembles the Saudi Wahhabis.
Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith groups, most notoriously the Lashkar-e Tayiba, have been heavily involved in fomenting violence across Pakistan, Kashmir and in India as well.
Hatred for India and the Hindus seems to be an article of faith for many Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith, as Maulana Ahmed's speech clearly indicates.
At the same time, it must also be recognised, as is evident from instances that the Maulana cites, that these deep-rooted anti-Indian and anti-Hindu sentiments are constantly fuelled by brutalities inflicted by non-Muslim powers, including the United States and fiercely anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinists in India, on Muslim peoples.
These brutalities need not always be physical. They can also take the form of assaults on and insults to cherished Islamic beliefs, which inevitably provoke Muslim anger. The appeal of people like Maulana Ahmed lies in their practiced ability to use these instances of brutality directed against Muslims to craft a frighteningly Manichaean world, where all Muslims are pitted against all non-Muslims in a ceaseless war of cosmic proportions that shall carry on until Muslims, it is fervently believed, will finally triumph.
Recounting a long list of anti-Muslim brutalities (but conveniently ignoring similar outrages committed by Muslims on others), Maulana Ahmed exhorts his listeners to unite and take revenge. 'O Muslims!,' he shrilly appeals, 'get up and take in hand your arrows, pick up your Kalashnikovs, train yourselves in explosives and bombs, organise yourselves into armies, prepare nuclear attacks and destroy every part of the body of the enemy.'
His speech is peppered with fervent calls for what he terms as 'jihad' against both America and India, these being projected as inveterate foes of Islam and of all Muslims.
He prays for America to 'be destroyed', and ecstatically celebrates the recent devastating terrorist assault on Mumbai by a self-styled Islamist group that left vast numbers of people dead, unapologetically hailing the dastardly act as a 'big slap on the cheek of the Hindus'.
Not stopping at this, he calls for continuous terrorist violence against India, including, he advises, unleashing 'bloodbath to (sic) Indian and American diplomats in Kabul and Kandahar'. Only then, he argues, can Pakistan's rulers 'relieve the pressure' on them and being peace to their country.
The 'enemy', as Maulana Ahmed constructs the notion, could be any and every non-Muslim, particularly Americans, Jews and Hindus or Indians. It is as if every non-Muslim is, by definition, irredeemably opposed to Islam and is necessarily engaged in a grand global conspiracy to wipe Islam from off the face of the earth. It is as if non-Muslims have no other preoccupation at all.
All non-Muslims are thus tarred with the same brush, and no exceptions whatsoever are made. It is almost as if Maulana Ahmed desperately wants all non-Muslims to be fired by anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic vitriol, for that is his way to whip up the sentiments of his Muslim followers and fire their zeal and faith.
It is as if further stoking such hatred is crucial to his ability to maintain a following and to claim to authoritatively speak for Islam and its adherents. 'The hatred among the people against the kafirs has reached a new height,' the Maulana exults.
For the Maulana, fomenting hatred of non-Muslims is his chosen way of realising what has for centuries remained the elusive dream of Muslim unity. That this hatred, which he so passionately celebrates, inevitably further stokes the fires of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice, already so widespread among non-Muslims, appears of no concern to him at all. In fact, he seems to positively relish the frightening Huntingtonian thesis of the 'Clash of Civilisations'.
Deobandi and Ahl-e Hadith outfits today enjoy tremendous clout in Pakistan, and they have been at the forefront of Islamist militancy that now threatens to drown the country in the throes of what promises to be an interminable civil war.
As the speeches of these two Pakistani clerics, one a Deobandi and the other from the Ahl-e Hadith, so starkly indicate, inveterate hatred for India and the Hindus, indeed for non-Muslims in general, is integral to the ways in which vast numbers of Pakistani Muslim clerics understand religion, community, nationalism and the world.
Such hatred is inevitably further fuelled by acts of brutality directed against Muslims by non-Muslims, including by the United States, India (particularly in Kashmir) and by militantly anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinist groups.
Muslim and non-Muslim right-wing radicalism and militancy thus enjoy a mutually symbiotic relationship, opposing each other while, ironically, unable to live apart, needing each other even simply to define themselves.
Religion is too powerful an instrument to be left in the hands of hate-driven clerics to manipulate as they please, most often for fuelling conflict between communities and states.
As the frightening records of Hindutva chauvinists in India and the Pakistani clerics discussed in this article so strikingly illustrate, leaving religion to the right-wing to monopolise is a sure recipe for bloody and endless conflict.
Decades after the two States came into being, relations between India and Pakistan continue to be, to put it mildly, hostile. This owes largely to the vast, and continuously mounting, influence of the Hindu religious right-wing in India and its Muslim counterpart in Pakistan.
Seemingly irreconcilable foes, the two speak the same language -- of unending hatred between Hindus and Muslims -- each seeking to define itself by building, stressing and constantly reinforcing boundaries between the two religiously-defined imagined communities.
Much has been written on the ideology and politics of right-wing Hindu and Islamic movements and organisations in both India and Pakistan, by academics and journalists alike. Yet, almost no attention has been given to how individual Hindu and Muslim religious activists at the local level, as distinct from key ideologues and leaders at the national-level, imagine and articulate notions of the religious and national 'other'.
Understanding this issue is crucial, for such activists exercise an enormous clout among their following.
The Lahore-based Mashal Books, one of Pakistan's few progressive, left-leaning publishing houses, recently launched a unique experiment: Of recording and making publicly accessible speeches delivered by maulvis or Muslim clerics at mosque congregations across Pakistan's Punjab province, including some located in small towns and obscure villages.
These speeches deal with a host of issues, ranging from women's status and scientific education, to jihad and anti-Indianism, all these linked to an amazingly diverse set of understandings of Islam.
Hosted on the Mashal Books Web site MASHAL BOOKS (http://www.mashalbooks.org), these speeches reflect the worldviews of a large majority of Pakistani maulvis, representing a range of sectarian backgrounds, who now exercise a major influence on the country's politics and in shaping Pakistani public opinion and discourse.
Of the dozens of speeches hosted on the Web site, only two are classified as relating particularly to India, but these may still be taken to be representative of how a great many Pakistani maulvis conceive of India and of relations between India and Pakistan. Predictably, in both speeches India is depicted in lurid colours, as an implacable foe of Pakistan, of Muslims, and of Islam.
Not surprisingly, then, efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan or to work towards rapprochement between Hindus and Muslims are vociferously denounced. The two maulvis appear to insist that Islam, as they understand it, itself requires that Pakistani Muslims must never cool off their anti-Hindu and anti-Indian zeal.
The first of these two speeches, by the Deobandi Maulana Muhammad Hafeez of the Jamia Masjid Umar Farooq, Rawalpindi, refers to India only in passing. He presents Muslims the world over as besieged by a host of powerful non-Muslim enemies.
It is almost as if their 'disbelief' (kufr) in Islam goads all non-Muslims, wherever they may be, to engage in a relentless conspiracy against Islam and its adherents, a war, like Samuel Huntington's infamous 'Clash of Civilisations', in which compromise and reconciliation are simply impossible because Islam and 'non-Islam' can, in this worldview, never comfortably coexist.
It is also as if Muslims have a monopoly on virtue and non-Muslims on vice. 'Islam will rise,' Maulana Hafeez thunders, 'and America and India will fall,' conveniently forgetting (assuming he knew of the fact) that India probably has more Muslims than Pakistan and that if India falls, it will drag its tens of millions of Muslims along with it, too.
The second speech is by a certain Maulana Mufti Saeed Ahmed of Jamia Masjid Mittranwali, Sialkot, who belongs to the Ahl-e Hadith sect, which closely resembles the Saudi Wahhabis.
Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith groups, most notoriously the Lashkar-e Tayiba, have been heavily involved in fomenting violence across Pakistan, Kashmir and in India as well.
Hatred for India and the Hindus seems to be an article of faith for many Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith, as Maulana Ahmed's speech clearly indicates.
At the same time, it must also be recognised, as is evident from instances that the Maulana cites, that these deep-rooted anti-Indian and anti-Hindu sentiments are constantly fuelled by brutalities inflicted by non-Muslim powers, including the United States and fiercely anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinists in India, on Muslim peoples.
These brutalities need not always be physical. They can also take the form of assaults on and insults to cherished Islamic beliefs, which inevitably provoke Muslim anger. The appeal of people like Maulana Ahmed lies in their practiced ability to use these instances of brutality directed against Muslims to craft a frighteningly Manichaean world, where all Muslims are pitted against all non-Muslims in a ceaseless war of cosmic proportions that shall carry on until Muslims, it is fervently believed, will finally triumph.
Recounting a long list of anti-Muslim brutalities (but conveniently ignoring similar outrages committed by Muslims on others), Maulana Ahmed exhorts his listeners to unite and take revenge. 'O Muslims!,' he shrilly appeals, 'get up and take in hand your arrows, pick up your Kalashnikovs, train yourselves in explosives and bombs, organise yourselves into armies, prepare nuclear attacks and destroy every part of the body of the enemy.'
His speech is peppered with fervent calls for what he terms as 'jihad' against both America and India, these being projected as inveterate foes of Islam and of all Muslims.
He prays for America to 'be destroyed', and ecstatically celebrates the recent devastating terrorist assault on Mumbai by a self-styled Islamist group that left vast numbers of people dead, unapologetically hailing the dastardly act as a 'big slap on the cheek of the Hindus'.
Not stopping at this, he calls for continuous terrorist violence against India, including, he advises, unleashing 'bloodbath to (sic) Indian and American diplomats in Kabul and Kandahar'. Only then, he argues, can Pakistan's rulers 'relieve the pressure' on them and being peace to their country.
The 'enemy', as Maulana Ahmed constructs the notion, could be any and every non-Muslim, particularly Americans, Jews and Hindus or Indians. It is as if every non-Muslim is, by definition, irredeemably opposed to Islam and is necessarily engaged in a grand global conspiracy to wipe Islam from off the face of the earth. It is as if non-Muslims have no other preoccupation at all.
All non-Muslims are thus tarred with the same brush, and no exceptions whatsoever are made. It is almost as if Maulana Ahmed desperately wants all non-Muslims to be fired by anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic vitriol, for that is his way to whip up the sentiments of his Muslim followers and fire their zeal and faith.
It is as if further stoking such hatred is crucial to his ability to maintain a following and to claim to authoritatively speak for Islam and its adherents. 'The hatred among the people against the kafirs has reached a new height,' the Maulana exults.
For the Maulana, fomenting hatred of non-Muslims is his chosen way of realising what has for centuries remained the elusive dream of Muslim unity. That this hatred, which he so passionately celebrates, inevitably further stokes the fires of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice, already so widespread among non-Muslims, appears of no concern to him at all. In fact, he seems to positively relish the frightening Huntingtonian thesis of the 'Clash of Civilisations'.
Deobandi and Ahl-e Hadith outfits today enjoy tremendous clout in Pakistan, and they have been at the forefront of Islamist militancy that now threatens to drown the country in the throes of what promises to be an interminable civil war.
As the speeches of these two Pakistani clerics, one a Deobandi and the other from the Ahl-e Hadith, so starkly indicate, inveterate hatred for India and the Hindus, indeed for non-Muslims in general, is integral to the ways in which vast numbers of Pakistani Muslim clerics understand religion, community, nationalism and the world.
Such hatred is inevitably further fuelled by acts of brutality directed against Muslims by non-Muslims, including by the United States, India (particularly in Kashmir) and by militantly anti-Muslim Hindu chauvinist groups.
Muslim and non-Muslim right-wing radicalism and militancy thus enjoy a mutually symbiotic relationship, opposing each other while, ironically, unable to live apart, needing each other even simply to define themselves.
Religion is too powerful an instrument to be left in the hands of hate-driven clerics to manipulate as they please, most often for fuelling conflict between communities and states.
As the frightening records of Hindutva chauvinists in India and the Pakistani clerics discussed in this article so strikingly illustrate, leaving religion to the right-wing to monopolise is a sure recipe for bloody and endless conflict.
Come on man don't preach here. Your so called paid *permanent job* is to do work at your office, not spend time in this forum to post lengthy text.
Do you think what you are doing is legal or illegal to your company.
Reality is, being a 'consultant' on the bench is illegal.
Do you think what you are doing is legal or illegal to your company.
Reality is, being a 'consultant' on the bench is illegal.
hair letter stencil vera online
what is LTV ratio ? I guess DTI is debt to income ?
I agree with all the above ..so if u have a house and can refi ..good. have a GC and u get a good deal- good. EAD in these shaky conditions - not so good.
one thing is for certain - in our life time, most likely we will never see such price appreciations. maybe appreciations of 4 percent ..which is effectively 1 % appreciation - if inflation is 3%).
LTV - Loan To Value ratio. For an example, the home you want to buy is in the market for 500,000/- You can have 400,000/- maximum as a "First Mortgage" and that is 80%. That is the limit Governmanet has put on first mortgage and applicbale to all loans Confirming/FHA/ARMs etc..
Note: Since last 15 days amny lenders have started new ball game, If LTV is crossing 70%, the charge "Delievry Fees" which is equivalent to 1/2 point.
Now your first and second loans should not exceed 90% combinely inmost cases and in case of FHA loans that is allowed till 95% limit. 100% loan days are completely gone now.
I agree with all the above ..so if u have a house and can refi ..good. have a GC and u get a good deal- good. EAD in these shaky conditions - not so good.
one thing is for certain - in our life time, most likely we will never see such price appreciations. maybe appreciations of 4 percent ..which is effectively 1 % appreciation - if inflation is 3%).
LTV - Loan To Value ratio. For an example, the home you want to buy is in the market for 500,000/- You can have 400,000/- maximum as a "First Mortgage" and that is 80%. That is the limit Governmanet has put on first mortgage and applicbale to all loans Confirming/FHA/ARMs etc..
Note: Since last 15 days amny lenders have started new ball game, If LTV is crossing 70%, the charge "Delievry Fees" which is equivalent to 1/2 point.
Now your first and second loans should not exceed 90% combinely inmost cases and in case of FHA loans that is allowed till 95% limit. 100% loan days are completely gone now.
If this is the case.
Given the high number of ROW EB3 it will never help Indian EB3. so spilling some of EB1 over to EB3 doesn't really help Indian EB3. But this letter could hurt Indian EB2. Now there is hope for lot of Indian EB3 to convert to EB2. That could be lost. I am als one of the converts.
No budy, it is not only EB2 India, it is China too. So it is EB2 getting visa numbers that are not used by EB2 ROW and EB1-ALL.
EB3 is not getting any spilled over numbers and won't happen until EB 3 ROW is current or EB2 becomes current. Long way to go when that happens.
When there are more numbers in the pool it helps one way or the other.
Given the high number of ROW EB3 it will never help Indian EB3. so spilling some of EB1 over to EB3 doesn't really help Indian EB3. But this letter could hurt Indian EB2. Now there is hope for lot of Indian EB3 to convert to EB2. That could be lost. I am als one of the converts.
No budy, it is not only EB2 India, it is China too. So it is EB2 getting visa numbers that are not used by EB2 ROW and EB1-ALL.
EB3 is not getting any spilled over numbers and won't happen until EB 3 ROW is current or EB2 becomes current. Long way to go when that happens.
When there are more numbers in the pool it helps one way or the other.
hot Block letter stencils to print
2. Bubble began forming around 2000 to 2002 depending on the area.
Small correction here. Nationwide, the last bottom was around 1991 and prices began to rise everywhere in 1996. When I bought my first home in 2001, I remember wondering if it was the wrong time to buy since prices had already been rising for 5 years and had been rising for closer to 10 years where I was buying.
Small correction here. Nationwide, the last bottom was around 1991 and prices began to rise everywhere in 1996. When I bought my first home in 2001, I remember wondering if it was the wrong time to buy since prices had already been rising for 5 years and had been rising for closer to 10 years where I was buying.
house 2010 graffiti alphabet block
Hello Guys,
I am a bit confused, I always thought or heard (John Kerry, last Presidential debate) Democratic (Most of them) candidates pro to legal immigrants who have been here from last 5-7 yrs, regularly paying taxes and have not broken any law, there can be few exceptions but over all above democratic strategy have been to support immigrants who meet above three criteria.
What am I missing?
Thanks
I am a bit confused, I always thought or heard (John Kerry, last Presidential debate) Democratic (Most of them) candidates pro to legal immigrants who have been here from last 5-7 yrs, regularly paying taxes and have not broken any law, there can be few exceptions but over all above democratic strategy have been to support immigrants who meet above three criteria.
What am I missing?
Thanks
tattoo BLOCK LETTER PRINTABLES
No, they figured out that it is consulting companies that are exploiting loopholes.
1) Tell me what proof you have that ALL consulting companies are complying with H-1B requriements.
2) Is benching that happens in consulting legal? Is paying salary according to prevailing wages in Maine and sending the contractor to work in Manhattan legal? Please tell me how these practises by desi consulting firms are legal.
And you're telling me I am ignorant! You're funny :D
1. Why don't you give me the proof that ALL consulting companies are not complying. You are the one who is making the argument. Do you have any statistics to prove that ? Do you know all the consulting companies in US ? Do you know all the companies that directly hire H1 ? Do you know their compliance statistics ?
2. Did I say any of these are legal ? If a company applies for H1B, the company has to comply with the requirements of the law. It is that simple. It doesn't matter whether it is a consulting company or a direct placement.
1) Tell me what proof you have that ALL consulting companies are complying with H-1B requriements.
2) Is benching that happens in consulting legal? Is paying salary according to prevailing wages in Maine and sending the contractor to work in Manhattan legal? Please tell me how these practises by desi consulting firms are legal.
And you're telling me I am ignorant! You're funny :D
1. Why don't you give me the proof that ALL consulting companies are not complying. You are the one who is making the argument. Do you have any statistics to prove that ? Do you know all the consulting companies in US ? Do you know all the companies that directly hire H1 ? Do you know their compliance statistics ?
2. Did I say any of these are legal ? If a company applies for H1B, the company has to comply with the requirements of the law. It is that simple. It doesn't matter whether it is a consulting company or a direct placement.
pictures printable lock letter m
I am on H1B and I485 is pending. I just bought a mid-price house and I will recommend to buy only if your I140 is approved. I waited for many years but finally bought one. Buying the house was a big decision but I am glad that I took it. I have a 3 year old daughter and she being able to run in our own backyard is worh of some financial risk. The house prices are lower (still I think a little higher than it should be) and the interest rate is good too. So, go for it and good luck.
dresses wall arts Stencils letters
Looks like the situation in this thread is going to get from bad to worse.
makeup lock lettering guide free
A lot of bickering going on in this thread is because many of us (including yours truely) find it very difficult to understand/calculate
1. Time Value of money (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money)).
2. Cash Flow (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_flow))
3. Risk, not the english term - but the quantifiable aspects of it (Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk))
4. Leverage (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)))
I have worked on many of these concepts for > 2 years at work (I am a techie - but have also worked as a BA and part time quant for some time). I still personally find it very difficult to intuitively understand many of those concepts.
A proper conclusion of whether buying is better or renting is would involve each and every one of these concepts - and a lot of assumptions (what will be rate of inflation, how will the home prices behave etc). Since there would be so many assumptions - I doubt it will be at all possible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. Your best bet would probably be a monte carlo analysis and see which one is more probably the superior one.
So surprise of surprises - there is no "right answer"!!
That said - I personally follow the a modified model of "dynamic programming" that my college taught me in the 2nd year of bachelors. You CAN NOT estimate future variables with ANY accuracy. So optimize your present steps based on some cost function.
Applying that to the present problem - you CAN NOT estimate how the home prices will behave in future or how will the rent be or how will the inflation (or - horror of horrors - deflation) behave. The only thing you can optimize is your cash flow TODAY and the Present Value of any investment you hold. Present value = market value of your equity (even if the price is 40% lower than when you bought). Your "cost function" (maybe we should rename it to "wealth function") that you are trying to optimize is your net worth.
The result of the "dynamic programming" approach if probably not going to be the most optimal - but it will be the best that I know of. :-)
Best of luck guys.
1. Time Value of money (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money)).
2. Cash Flow (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_flow))
3. Risk, not the english term - but the quantifiable aspects of it (Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk))
4. Leverage (Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)))
I have worked on many of these concepts for > 2 years at work (I am a techie - but have also worked as a BA and part time quant for some time). I still personally find it very difficult to intuitively understand many of those concepts.
A proper conclusion of whether buying is better or renting is would involve each and every one of these concepts - and a lot of assumptions (what will be rate of inflation, how will the home prices behave etc). Since there would be so many assumptions - I doubt it will be at all possible to arrive at any definitive conclusion. Your best bet would probably be a monte carlo analysis and see which one is more probably the superior one.
So surprise of surprises - there is no "right answer"!!
That said - I personally follow the a modified model of "dynamic programming" that my college taught me in the 2nd year of bachelors. You CAN NOT estimate future variables with ANY accuracy. So optimize your present steps based on some cost function.
Applying that to the present problem - you CAN NOT estimate how the home prices will behave in future or how will the rent be or how will the inflation (or - horror of horrors - deflation) behave. The only thing you can optimize is your cash flow TODAY and the Present Value of any investment you hold. Present value = market value of your equity (even if the price is 40% lower than when you bought). Your "cost function" (maybe we should rename it to "wealth function") that you are trying to optimize is your net worth.
The result of the "dynamic programming" approach if probably not going to be the most optimal - but it will be the best that I know of. :-)
Best of luck guys.
girlfriend Printable alphabet stencils
India expects quick solution to Iran payments issue (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53843720101230) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India will try to resolve a payments dispute with Iran when their central banks meet on Friday to keep oil shipments flowing from the Islamic Republic without backtracking on a move praised by the United States.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said last week deals with Iran must be settled outside a long-standing Asian Clearing Union (ACU) system and Iran has refused to sell oil under the new rules, threatening about $12 billion a year of exports.
The White House, which wants governments to stop dealing with Iran because of its nuclear programme, on Wednesday praised the RBI's move, which comes less than two months after President Barack Obama visited India.
But India, Asia's third-largest economy, buys more than 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Iran -- about 13 percent of total imports for the fast-growing economy.
Without a solution, its refiners would need to find alternative sources of oil at a time that international crude prices are near two-year highs and the country's inflation rate is painfully high and rising.
"We are working on an alternate settlement mechanism. It is being discussed at length with the Ministry of Finance and a solution will be found in the course of the next few days," Indian Oil Secretary S. Sundareshan said on Thursday.
Both the Indian government and the RBI, which has so far acted unilaterally in the ACU, suggested it was a broader problem, stepping back from a move which seemed allied to the United States and targeting Iran.
"The Asian Clearing Union mechanism ... is under some stress and RBI wants to make changes," Sundareshan said.
FINE-TUNING, NOT SEA CHANGE?
"Iran is an international problem. We have to find out a solution. Please understand it is not India's problem, it is not Iran's problem," RBI Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday.
Among options to rescue oil trade between the two near neighbours is settlement in Indian rupees, similar to South Korea's method of payment to Iran in Korean won, or another currency outside the dollar and the euro of the old mechanism.
"It can be any currency. It could be yen or (Iran's) local currency," Sundareshan said.
Analysts and political observers said India was fine-tuning its stance with an eye to ensuring its access to much-needed oil and protecting its interests in the region and the Middle East.
India, which has U.S. backing for its bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, has voted against Iran on its nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency while Iran has made statements supporting an insurgency in Indian Kashmir.
"India is seeing itself as a 'major responsible power' and it is aiming to be in concert with the other major responsible powers like the U.S., European Union, Russia and China," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation think tank.
Former Indian foreign secretary and a former ambassador to the United States, Lalit Mansingh, said India wanted Iran to understand it had "a nuanced position".
"We have been saying, don't force us to make a choice. But if it comes to a choice, we have far more at stake with the U.S. than with Iran," he added.
But India, seen alongside China as an engine to pull the western world out of economic idling, has no desire to be seen by neighbours as playing a U.S. tune.
"America should not read too much into this. India is not an ally, in the sense it has not signed from A to Z. On nuclear issues, it can go with the U.S., but on energy it will go with Iran," said P.R. Kumaraswamy, head of West Asian studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Iran, India oil row escalates; c.bankers to meet (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53831720101229) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India Joins U.S. Effort to Stifle Iran Trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576046893652486616.html) By JAY SOLOMON And SUBHADIP SIRCAR
India will try to resolve a payments dispute with Iran when their central banks meet on Friday to keep oil shipments flowing from the Islamic Republic without backtracking on a move praised by the United States.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said last week deals with Iran must be settled outside a long-standing Asian Clearing Union (ACU) system and Iran has refused to sell oil under the new rules, threatening about $12 billion a year of exports.
The White House, which wants governments to stop dealing with Iran because of its nuclear programme, on Wednesday praised the RBI's move, which comes less than two months after President Barack Obama visited India.
But India, Asia's third-largest economy, buys more than 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Iran -- about 13 percent of total imports for the fast-growing economy.
Without a solution, its refiners would need to find alternative sources of oil at a time that international crude prices are near two-year highs and the country's inflation rate is painfully high and rising.
"We are working on an alternate settlement mechanism. It is being discussed at length with the Ministry of Finance and a solution will be found in the course of the next few days," Indian Oil Secretary S. Sundareshan said on Thursday.
Both the Indian government and the RBI, which has so far acted unilaterally in the ACU, suggested it was a broader problem, stepping back from a move which seemed allied to the United States and targeting Iran.
"The Asian Clearing Union mechanism ... is under some stress and RBI wants to make changes," Sundareshan said.
FINE-TUNING, NOT SEA CHANGE?
"Iran is an international problem. We have to find out a solution. Please understand it is not India's problem, it is not Iran's problem," RBI Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday.
Among options to rescue oil trade between the two near neighbours is settlement in Indian rupees, similar to South Korea's method of payment to Iran in Korean won, or another currency outside the dollar and the euro of the old mechanism.
"It can be any currency. It could be yen or (Iran's) local currency," Sundareshan said.
Analysts and political observers said India was fine-tuning its stance with an eye to ensuring its access to much-needed oil and protecting its interests in the region and the Middle East.
India, which has U.S. backing for its bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, has voted against Iran on its nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency while Iran has made statements supporting an insurgency in Indian Kashmir.
"India is seeing itself as a 'major responsible power' and it is aiming to be in concert with the other major responsible powers like the U.S., European Union, Russia and China," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation think tank.
Former Indian foreign secretary and a former ambassador to the United States, Lalit Mansingh, said India wanted Iran to understand it had "a nuanced position".
"We have been saying, don't force us to make a choice. But if it comes to a choice, we have far more at stake with the U.S. than with Iran," he added.
But India, seen alongside China as an engine to pull the western world out of economic idling, has no desire to be seen by neighbours as playing a U.S. tune.
"America should not read too much into this. India is not an ally, in the sense it has not signed from A to Z. On nuclear issues, it can go with the U.S., but on energy it will go with Iran," said P.R. Kumaraswamy, head of West Asian studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Iran, India oil row escalates; c.bankers to meet (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53831720101229) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
India Joins U.S. Effort to Stifle Iran Trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576046893652486616.html) By JAY SOLOMON And SUBHADIP SIRCAR
hairstyles lock Letter templates
Israel is fully justified in responding to the rocket attacks from Gaza. How long can they show restraint by not responding to the unprovoked attacks. Do you think US will remain silent, if Canada were to lob rockets into US. Asbolutely not. Every country has the right to protect itself.
Hamas is such a coward orgn that they hide behind school, mosque, hospitals to shoot their rockets, so they really are luring israel to bomb those areas. Unfortunately innocents die...the blame should be on hamas. In fact, before bombing Israel even goes to the extent of calling and texting people in the target area to warn them before bombing. which country at war you know does that. Inspite of all these the biased media portrays Israel as the evil one. time to think. if only india shows some courage like that.
Oh really? Thats how they bombed the school and killed more than 40 kids?
When terrorists attacked Mumbai, Indian commandos took 3 days to rescue hostages and kill terrorits.
When terrorists entered school in Baslan, Russia, Russian commandos took their time to respond in order to minimize the casualty and rescued most of the children and killed all those terrorist.
Do you think same thing happend in Palestinian school? There are certain rules that has to be followed during war. Rules of engagement. Not to kill innocent civilian, not to kill kids, not to bomb place of worship, hospitals etc. Do you think these are followed anywhere in anywhere while killing muslims?
If Israel want to kill terrorist, they have every right to kill those terrorist who kill Isrealis. Instead they are bombing kids. Which is not acceptable by any people or any nation.
Hamas is such a coward orgn that they hide behind school, mosque, hospitals to shoot their rockets, so they really are luring israel to bomb those areas. Unfortunately innocents die...the blame should be on hamas. In fact, before bombing Israel even goes to the extent of calling and texting people in the target area to warn them before bombing. which country at war you know does that. Inspite of all these the biased media portrays Israel as the evil one. time to think. if only india shows some courage like that.
Oh really? Thats how they bombed the school and killed more than 40 kids?
When terrorists attacked Mumbai, Indian commandos took 3 days to rescue hostages and kill terrorits.
When terrorists entered school in Baslan, Russia, Russian commandos took their time to respond in order to minimize the casualty and rescued most of the children and killed all those terrorist.
Do you think same thing happend in Palestinian school? There are certain rules that has to be followed during war. Rules of engagement. Not to kill innocent civilian, not to kill kids, not to bomb place of worship, hospitals etc. Do you think these are followed anywhere in anywhere while killing muslims?
If Israel want to kill terrorist, they have every right to kill those terrorist who kill Isrealis. Instead they are bombing kids. Which is not acceptable by any people or any nation.
what has time to put 30-40 comments. Let the junkies who like him waste their money reading his crap...
If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees....
I am EB3-I and I have no intentions to port to EB2. But if you are planning to try to stop people who are willing to go through the hoops to get it done, all the best for you. In my opinion there is no legal ground for what you are trying.
This is protectionism at it's best. Think about it.
I am EB3-I and I have no intentions to port to EB2. But if you are planning to try to stop people who are willing to go through the hoops to get it done, all the best for you. In my opinion there is no legal ground for what you are trying.
This is protectionism at it's best. Think about it.
