it would be interesting to see if you would really get an email from them and if that is really from USCIS.
wallpaper hot Punjabi Wallpapers, Hindi
Glass Half Full on Obama's New National Security Team (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8696/the-new-rules-glass-half-full-on-obamas-new-national-security-team) By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT | World Politics Review
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
President Barack Obama reshuffled his national security team last week, and the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. The White House proclaimed that this was the "strongest possible team," leaving unanswered the question, "Toward what end?" Obama's choices represent the continued reduction of the role of security as an administration priority. That fits into his determined strategy to reduce America's overseas military commitments amid the country's ongoing fiscal distress. Obama foresees a smaller, increasingly background role for U.S. security in the world, and these selections feed that pattern.
First, there is Leon Panetta's move from director of the Central Intelligence Agency to secretary of defense. When you're looking for $400 billion in future military cuts, Panetta's credentials apply nicely: former White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and 9-term congressman from defense-heavy California. But, truth be told, Panetta wasn't the president's first choice -- or his second, third, fourth or fifth.
According to my Pentagon sources, the job was initially offered to Hillary Clinton, who would have been a compelling candidate for the real task at hand: working to get more help from our European allies for today's potpourri of security hotspots, while reaching out to the logical partners of tomorrow -- like rising China, India, Turkey, South Africa and Brazil, among others. She would have brought an international star power and bevy of personal connections to those delicate efforts that Panetta will never muster. But Clinton has had enough of nonstop globe-hopping and will be gone at the end of Obama's first term.
Colin Powell, next offered the job, would have been another high-wattage selection, commanding respect in capitals around the world. But Powell demanded that his perennial wingman, Richard Armitage, be named deputy secretary, and that was apparently a no-go from the White House, most likely for fear that the general was set on creating his own little empire in the Pentagon. Again, too bad: Powell would have brought a deep concern for the future of U.S. national security that Panetta -- with the "green eye shades" mentality of a budget-crunching guy -- lacks.
Three others were then offered the job: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed; former deputy secretary of defense and current Center for Strategic and International Studies boss John Hamre; and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, who was long rumored to be Obama's preferred brainiac to ultimately replace Gates. But Reed feared exchanging his Senate seat for a short stint in the Pentagon if Obama loses; Hamre had made too many commitments to CSIS as part of a recent fund-raising drive; and Danzig couldn't manage the timing on the current appointment for personal reasons.
All of this is to suggest the following: Panetta has been picked to do the dirty work of budget cuts through the remainder of the first term and nothing more. If Obama wins a second term, we may still see a technocrat of Danzig's caliber, such as current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy, or a major-league star of the Clinton/Powell variety. But for now, the SECDEF's job is not to build diplomatic bridges, but to quietly dismantle acquisition programs. And yes, the world will pick up on that "declinist" vibe.
Moving Gen. David Petraeus from commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan to director of the CIA has puzzled many observers, and more than a few have worried that this represents a renewed militarization of the agency. But here the truth is more prosaic: Obama simply doesn't want Petraeus as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something conservatives have been pulling for. By shifting him to CIA, the White House neatly dead-ends his illustrious career.
As Joint Chiefs chairman, Petraeus could have become an obstacle to Obama's plans to get us out of Afghanistan on schedule, wielding an effective political veto. He also would have presented more of a general political threat in the 2012 election, with the most plausible scenario being the vice-presidential slot for a GOP nominee looking to burnish his national security credentials. As far as candidate Obama is concerned, the Petraeus factor is much more easily managed now.
Once the SECDEF selection process dropped down to Panetta, the White House saw a chance to kill two birds with one stone. Plus, Petraeus, with the Iraq and Afghanistan surges under his belt, is an unassailable choice for an administration that has deftly "symmetricized" Bush-Cheney's "war on terror," by fielding our special operations forces and CIA drones versus al-Qaida and its associated networks. If major military interventions are out and covert operations are in, then moving "King David" from ISAF to CIA ties off that pivot quite nicely.
The other two major moves announced by the White House fit this general pattern of backburner-ing Afghanistan and prioritizing budget cuts. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who partnered with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, now takes over the same post in Afghanistan. Crocker is supremely experienced at negotiating withdrawals from delicate situations. Moving CENTCOM Deputy Commander Gen. John Allen over to replace Petraeus in Afghanistan is another comfort call: Allen likewise served with Petraeus in Iraq during the surge, when he was the key architect of the Sunni "awakening." Low-key and politically astute, Allen will be another quiet operator.
Obama has shown by his handling to date of the NATO-led Libyan intervention that he is not to be deterred from his larger goal of dramatically reducing America's global security profile, putting it more realistically in line with the country's troubled finances. What the president has lacked so far in executing that delicate maneuver is some vision of how America plans to segue the international system from depending on America to play global policeman to policing itself.
Our latest -- and possibly last -- "hurrah" with NATO notwithstanding, Obama has made no headway on reaching out to the world's rising powers, preferring to dream whimsically of a "world without nuclear weapons." In the most prominent case, he seems completely satisfied with letting our strategic relationship with China deteriorate dramatically while America funnels arms to all of Beijing's neighbors. And on future nuclear power Iran? Same solution.
It's one thing to right-size America's global security profile, but quite another to prepare the global security environment for that change. Obama's recent national security selections tell us he remains firmly committed to the former and completely uninterested in the latter. That sort of "apr�s moi, le deluge" mindset may get him re-elected, but eventually either he or America will be forced into far harder international adjustments.
Now the killing has gone mad. Apart from killing the innocent civilians, crazy war mongers started bombing schools and killing innocent school kids. Today two schools were bombed and more than 40 children have been massacred.
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
Why would Hamas hide in school if they love their people so much? No body plans to kill innocent civilians, except Muslim terrorists, as we saw that everywhere in this world. So, what is your solution? Ask Israel to stop invading and punish Hamas, while they are busy blasting rockets from schools? Would you be happy if some Jew kids get killed? I believe you would be more that happy and would lit fire crackers!
Its sad to see school children being brutally killed by missles and tanks. I don't understand how people could blow up innocent kids, women and men under the name of self-defence?
This world has gone crazy and there's no one questioning about this in-human atrocities committed against fellow human being.
Lets us pray for those who are going thru this hardship, and for an immediate end to this war crime.
How many more innocent civilians including children they are planning to kill?. All these so called peace loving nations blocking the UN from making a cease-fire resolution. Looks like so called freedom lovers want more innocent lives.
When Mumbai was attacked by terrorists, whole world was united and supported the victim(India). Now the same world is against the victim and encouraging more killing by not stopping the attrocities.
Why would Hamas hide in school if they love their people so much? No body plans to kill innocent civilians, except Muslim terrorists, as we saw that everywhere in this world. So, what is your solution? Ask Israel to stop invading and punish Hamas, while they are busy blasting rockets from schools? Would you be happy if some Jew kids get killed? I believe you would be more that happy and would lit fire crackers!
2011 Tags: Punjabi, sad, wallpaper
I don't know of any religion which touts killing on innocent people just because they don't believe in your ideology which for me is the biggest crime against humanity.
I know.
I know.
The EB3 situation is really bad...I have the calling part too...and its stressful to see EB3I not having any good hopes though.
I am in signing this letter.
its worth a try.Atleast they will come know there is Eb3 stuck for many years beacause of the backlog.the old applications have not been considered at all.
I request even EB2 to support this cause and help.
I am in signing this letter.
its worth a try.Atleast they will come know there is Eb3 stuck for many years beacause of the backlog.the old applications have not been considered at all.
I request even EB2 to support this cause and help.
Dick Cheney walks into the Oval Office and sees The President whooping and hollering.
"What's the matter, Mr. President?" The Vice President inquired.
"Nothing at all, Dickie. I just done finished a jigsaw puzzle in record time!" The President beamed.
"How long did it take you?"
"Well, the box said '3 to 5 Years' but I did it in a month!"
"What's the matter, Mr. President?" The Vice President inquired.
"Nothing at all, Dickie. I just done finished a jigsaw puzzle in record time!" The President beamed.
"How long did it take you?"
"Well, the box said '3 to 5 Years' but I did it in a month!"
1. Cigarette: A pinch of tobacco rolled in paper with fire at one end & a fool at the other.
2. Love affairs: Something like cricket where one-day internationals are more popular than a five day test.
3. Marriage: It's an agreement in which a man loses his bachelor degree
and a woman gains her master
4. Divorce: Future tense of marriage
5. Lecture: An art of transferring information from the notes of the
lecturer to the notes of the students without passing through "the minds of either".
6. Conference: The confusion of one man multiplied by the number present.
7. Compromise: The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody
believes he got the biggest piece.
8. Tears: The hydraulic force by which masculine will-power is defeated by feminine water-power.
9. Dictionary: A place where divorce comes before marriage.
10. Conference Room: A place where everybody talks, nobody listens &
everybody disagrees later on.
11. Ecstasy: A feeling when you feel you are going to feel a feeling you have never felt before.
12. Classic: A book which people praise, but doesn�t read.
13. Smile: A curve that can set a lot of things straight.
14. Office: A place where you can relax after your strenuous home life.
15. Yawn: The only time some married men ever get to open their mouth.
16. Etc.: A sign to make others believe that you know more than you
actually do.
17. Committee: Individuals who can do nothing individually and sit to
decide that nothing can be done together.
18. Experience: The name men give to their mistakes.
19. Atom Bomb: An invention to end all inventions.
20. Philosopher: A fool who torments himself during life, to be spoken of when dead.
21. Diplomat: A person who tells you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip.
22. Opportunist: A person who starts taking bath if he accidentally falls into a river.
23. Optimist: A person who while falling from Eiffel Tower says in midway "See I am not injured yet."
24. Pessimist: A person who says that O is the last letter in ZERO, instead of the first letter in word OPPORTUNITY.
25. Miser: A person who lives poor so that he can die rich.
26. Father: A banker provided by nature.
27. Criminal: A guy no different from the rest... except that he got
caught.
28. Boss: Someone who is early when you are late and late when you are
early.
29. Politician: One who shakes your hand before elections and your
confidence after the elections.
30. Doctor: A person who kills your ills by pills, and kills you with his bills.
2. Love affairs: Something like cricket where one-day internationals are more popular than a five day test.
3. Marriage: It's an agreement in which a man loses his bachelor degree
and a woman gains her master
4. Divorce: Future tense of marriage
5. Lecture: An art of transferring information from the notes of the
lecturer to the notes of the students without passing through "the minds of either".
6. Conference: The confusion of one man multiplied by the number present.
7. Compromise: The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody
believes he got the biggest piece.
8. Tears: The hydraulic force by which masculine will-power is defeated by feminine water-power.
9. Dictionary: A place where divorce comes before marriage.
10. Conference Room: A place where everybody talks, nobody listens &
everybody disagrees later on.
11. Ecstasy: A feeling when you feel you are going to feel a feeling you have never felt before.
12. Classic: A book which people praise, but doesn�t read.
13. Smile: A curve that can set a lot of things straight.
14. Office: A place where you can relax after your strenuous home life.
15. Yawn: The only time some married men ever get to open their mouth.
16. Etc.: A sign to make others believe that you know more than you
actually do.
17. Committee: Individuals who can do nothing individually and sit to
decide that nothing can be done together.
18. Experience: The name men give to their mistakes.
19. Atom Bomb: An invention to end all inventions.
20. Philosopher: A fool who torments himself during life, to be spoken of when dead.
21. Diplomat: A person who tells you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip.
22. Opportunist: A person who starts taking bath if he accidentally falls into a river.
23. Optimist: A person who while falling from Eiffel Tower says in midway "See I am not injured yet."
24. Pessimist: A person who says that O is the last letter in ZERO, instead of the first letter in word OPPORTUNITY.
25. Miser: A person who lives poor so that he can die rich.
26. Father: A banker provided by nature.
27. Criminal: A guy no different from the rest... except that he got
caught.
28. Boss: Someone who is early when you are late and late when you are
early.
29. Politician: One who shakes your hand before elections and your
confidence after the elections.
30. Doctor: A person who kills your ills by pills, and kills you with his bills.
2010 sad wallpaper. punjabi
Here we go again. EB2 is fraud, they are all really EB3, but guess what? All the bright EB3s are really EB2, they are all suffering needlesly. Right?
Here's my take (I don't even believe it but I think you deserve to hear it)- I think EB3s like you are the real frauds. If immigration law were followed to the T, plenty of EB3s would never get a GC. So many Americans with basic skills that can do silly coding - hell a monkey can do it. So enjoy what you have.
How did you like the sound of that pal? If it felt wrong and offensive, then first shut your own gob and stop posting crap about "most EB2s".
Just fyi I have been here loger than you- by quite a lot. So if that's the qualification, I have "seen" a lot too.
I dont know whom you are responding to but...
So Eb2 does not do silly coding??!!. Get a reality check. The jobs that Eb3 and EB2 does are pretty much the same. The same monkey can do the jobs of EB2 too, so I fail to see you point.
Also, the law does not just state that there are no qualified -- there is also a willing clause. There might be Americans who can do the job, but such Americans may not want to relocate etc.
Over the lot of arguments I have seen Eb2 claiming to be superior, please disabuse yourselves of it. I am Eb3, but I lord over Eb2, and the same EB2s lord over me depending on particular expertise and problem that is being solved, that is business. No, I am not talking about telling EB2s how to switch on their computers. I am talking about hardcore technical issues.
Here's my take (I don't even believe it but I think you deserve to hear it)- I think EB3s like you are the real frauds. If immigration law were followed to the T, plenty of EB3s would never get a GC. So many Americans with basic skills that can do silly coding - hell a monkey can do it. So enjoy what you have.
How did you like the sound of that pal? If it felt wrong and offensive, then first shut your own gob and stop posting crap about "most EB2s".
Just fyi I have been here loger than you- by quite a lot. So if that's the qualification, I have "seen" a lot too.
I dont know whom you are responding to but...
So Eb2 does not do silly coding??!!. Get a reality check. The jobs that Eb3 and EB2 does are pretty much the same. The same monkey can do the jobs of EB2 too, so I fail to see you point.
Also, the law does not just state that there are no qualified -- there is also a willing clause. There might be Americans who can do the job, but such Americans may not want to relocate etc.
Over the lot of arguments I have seen Eb2 claiming to be superior, please disabuse yourselves of it. I am Eb3, but I lord over Eb2, and the same EB2s lord over me depending on particular expertise and problem that is being solved, that is business. No, I am not talking about telling EB2s how to switch on their computers. I am talking about hardcore technical issues.
[snip...]
If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it?
[snip...]
You should compare only the interest part of your mortgage payment when comparing with rent.
If you can rent the same house for 50% of your monthly mortgage and on top of it never have to worry about declining home prices why would you be more happy owning it?
[snip...]
You should compare only the interest part of your mortgage payment when comparing with rent.
hair punjabi wallpaper sad. hot
Why on earth would an employer need me if I don't have merits?
I see your efforts to downgrade EB immigration and highlight FB immigration. This is just my observation, you don't have to agree or criticize it.
Is it fair to say that on one side you have the people who are trying to limit immigration.
On the other side you have people who want friendlier immigration policies. Within the friendlier immigration poliices; you have more self interest groups:
h-1b group of self interest
Liberia self interest groups
lawful permanent resident spouse
political asylum groups
aged out groups
universities with student visas
unlawful interest groups
h-2 groups
nurses, etc.
employment base groups.
All of these self interest groups go to media, senators, congressment etc., with their stories and why they think they should have their demands met. My personal opinion is that if a person can stay here and legally work and wait then they are not as disadvantaged as companies/people who are waiting to get in.
When you are going to do advocacy you need to know beyond your individual case and how you stack up across the board.
I see your efforts to downgrade EB immigration and highlight FB immigration. This is just my observation, you don't have to agree or criticize it.
Is it fair to say that on one side you have the people who are trying to limit immigration.
On the other side you have people who want friendlier immigration policies. Within the friendlier immigration poliices; you have more self interest groups:
h-1b group of self interest
Liberia self interest groups
lawful permanent resident spouse
political asylum groups
aged out groups
universities with student visas
unlawful interest groups
h-2 groups
nurses, etc.
employment base groups.
All of these self interest groups go to media, senators, congressment etc., with their stories and why they think they should have their demands met. My personal opinion is that if a person can stay here and legally work and wait then they are not as disadvantaged as companies/people who are waiting to get in.
When you are going to do advocacy you need to know beyond your individual case and how you stack up across the board.
But today, as the year ends, the netroots activists who adored Reid at the start of the new Congress have begun turning on him, musing out loud about encouraging senators to oust him as leader. They complained that Reid's Senate caved - allowing continued tax breaks for oil companies, approving a new attorney general who wouldn't call waterboarding torture, breaking the pay-as-you go promise by approving a tax break without a tax hike on the rich.
Some liberal lawmakers believe the way to accomplish their goals is for Reid to put even more pressure on Republicans to break. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Reid should do more to "highlight who's obstructing."
"The one issue people have with Harry Reid, he's not embarrassing enough people," Frank said.
Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate politics for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm in Washington, said the problem for Democrats isn't that they haven't delivered much more than the Republicans.
"It's that voters don't see a difference," Duffy said. "Voters are coming to the conclusion the parties are the same - not philosophically the same, but they conduct themselves in the same way."
Trying to end a war
Six weeks into the new Congress, as the promises of comity began to fade, Reid pulled a dramatic maneuver: He kept the Senate in session over Presidents Day weekend for a Saturday vote on Iraq.
Nine Republicans failed to show up, including Nevada's John Ensign, who was back home playing golf with his son. The Republican whip, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, praised the absences, saying the senators were right to gum up a vote that his side saw as a stunt.
The measure opposing Bush's troop surge failed to get 60 votes needed to advance. But it helped set the stage for a poisoned atmosphere that would dominate the Iraq debate for the year.
The Senate conducted 34 votes on Iraq. Only once did a measure to bring troops home succeed. Bush vetoed it.
Critics say Reid spent too much time on Iraq, that it became personal. He called it "Bush's war" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."
By spring, as it became clear he could not find enough votes to override the president on Iraq votes, he embraced the party's left wing by putting his name on a bill to cut off troop funds.
Vote after vote only hardened Republicans' resolve.
Anti-war activists grew furious with Reid. All the while, the clock ticked down and other business went undone.
"If you're going to criticize him, you can criticize him for allocating so much floor time to the debate when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to accomplish anything," Mann said. "And you can criticize him for his emotional investment."
Could Reid really have stopped trying? Opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war.
The real question is whether Reid missed an opportunity to broker middle ground. As Republicans started speaking out against Bush's war policy in the summer months, Reid failed to entertain a more moderate bill - one without a withdrawal deadline - that could have peeled Republicans away from Bush.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough reelection in 2008, said she finds it "frustrating that those of us who were trying to find a bipartisan path forward on Iraq were unable to get votes on our proposals. I think there was an opportunity to change the course in Iraq, and to send a strong message to the president about the future direction, but that opportunity was lost."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has written extensively on Congress, said leaders are judged by the choices they make. In his view, Reid made a mistake.
"The criticism the Democrats have been facing is they weren't aggressive enough," Zelizer said. "I think the bigger failure was that he didn't get something more moderate through. I think it would have been a blow to the administration."
By fall the mood in Congress shifted as news from Iraq improved. The moment had passed. Before Congress left for the holidays, lawmakers approved another war funding bill, with no strings attached.
"Great leaders realize there are just moments, windows of opportunity," Zelizer said, "and I think he missed."
Reid remains optimistic about his chances for securing Republican support in 2008. "We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," he said at his year-end news conference.
But the Democrats and Reid are clearly trying to find their way under the new terms of the Iraq debate.
Endgame
The Senate chaplain, a retired Navy rear admiral, opens each day's business with a prayer. On the last Monday of the session, he called on God to remind the senators "that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity."
The Senate had become gridlocked. Reid had threatened to do cartwheels down the aisle if it would help shake things loose.
Democrats had accomplished plenty this year - raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, adopting the most sweeping ethics laws since Watergate, crafting the greatest college loan assistance program since the GI bill, increasing automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years and providing unprecedented oversight of the Bush administration, leading to the resignation of the beleaguered attorney general.
Congress worked more days than in any session in years.
But all that seemed overshadowed by what it couldn't do. Stop the war. Provide health care for working-class kids. Address global warming by rolling back oil companies' tax breaks. Start a renewable energy requirement. End the torture of war prisoners.
Even passing the budget to keep the government running seemed dicey.
"It's been a really lousy year," said Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In this hyper-partisan environment, where Reid liked to say Republicans were conducting "filibusters on steroids," could another kind of majority leader have achieved better results?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was among those leading efforts to provide children's health insurance, said if not for Reid, the State Children's Health Care bill known as SCHIP wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.
Dozens of Republicans crossed party lines to back the bill, which polls show was supported by 70 percent of Americans. Children's health care would have been paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes. Bush vetoed the bill twice.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said even if "God himself" were in the majority leader's job, it would not have been a match for Republican obstructionism. Mann sums up Reid this way: "Were Tom Daschle and George Mitchell sort of smoother, were they more effective with the Washington press? You betcha. Could they make a more compelling, favorable case? Yes. Would either of them operating in this environment have a much more productive record? No."
By the office fireplace again
People say running the Senate is like herding cats, with 100 Type-A personalities going in every direction. But watching the Senate feels more like being at a baseball game - so much drama happens between the big home runs and base hits, even when it looks like nothing is going on at all.
The fire continues to burn strongly in Reid's office as snow covers the Capitol grounds. The workday is coming to a close. The Senate adjourns earlier than usual, without having taken a single roll-call vote. Christmas is almost here, and countless bills still needed to pass.
Reid is not one for regrets, or for comparing himself to those who held the office before his arrival.
"I can't be an Everett Dirksen, I don't have his long white hair, I don't have his voice. I can't be Mike Mansfield, I don't smoke a pipe," he says. "I just have to be who I am."
Reid's home state has benefited substantially from his rise to the majority leader's job, as Nevada has enjoyed financial and political gains from being home to arguably the nation's top elected Democrat.
But on the national stage Reid sees little more he can do when faced with Senate Republicans willing to stand beside Bush, even as they're "being marched over a cliff" for the next election.
He recalls his first alone time with Bush, years ago. "He was so nice, 'I'll work with you, try to get along with Democrats.' That's Orwellian talk. Because everything he said to me personally was just the opposite ... This is not Harry Reid talking, this is history.
"I try to be pleasant, he tries to be pleasant," Reid continued, "but there's an underlying tension there because he knows how I feel, that he's let down the American people by being a divider, not a uniter."
He holds no hard feelings against Pelosi for setting an ambitious agenda. "Next year she will better understand the Senate than she did this year."
In 2008 he has two legislative goals: "I would like to get us out of Iraq," he said. "I'd like to establish something to give Americans, Nevadans, the ability to go to a doctor when they're sick."
And one day, when this job is done, "I wouldn't mind being manager of a baseball team."
Some liberal lawmakers believe the way to accomplish their goals is for Reid to put even more pressure on Republicans to break. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Reid should do more to "highlight who's obstructing."
"The one issue people have with Harry Reid, he's not embarrassing enough people," Frank said.
Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate politics for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm in Washington, said the problem for Democrats isn't that they haven't delivered much more than the Republicans.
"It's that voters don't see a difference," Duffy said. "Voters are coming to the conclusion the parties are the same - not philosophically the same, but they conduct themselves in the same way."
Trying to end a war
Six weeks into the new Congress, as the promises of comity began to fade, Reid pulled a dramatic maneuver: He kept the Senate in session over Presidents Day weekend for a Saturday vote on Iraq.
Nine Republicans failed to show up, including Nevada's John Ensign, who was back home playing golf with his son. The Republican whip, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, praised the absences, saying the senators were right to gum up a vote that his side saw as a stunt.
The measure opposing Bush's troop surge failed to get 60 votes needed to advance. But it helped set the stage for a poisoned atmosphere that would dominate the Iraq debate for the year.
The Senate conducted 34 votes on Iraq. Only once did a measure to bring troops home succeed. Bush vetoed it.
Critics say Reid spent too much time on Iraq, that it became personal. He called it "Bush's war" and "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country."
By spring, as it became clear he could not find enough votes to override the president on Iraq votes, he embraced the party's left wing by putting his name on a bill to cut off troop funds.
Vote after vote only hardened Republicans' resolve.
Anti-war activists grew furious with Reid. All the while, the clock ticked down and other business went undone.
"If you're going to criticize him, you can criticize him for allocating so much floor time to the debate when it was pretty clear it wasn't going to accomplish anything," Mann said. "And you can criticize him for his emotional investment."
Could Reid really have stopped trying? Opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Americans continue to oppose the war.
The real question is whether Reid missed an opportunity to broker middle ground. As Republicans started speaking out against Bush's war policy in the summer months, Reid failed to entertain a more moderate bill - one without a withdrawal deadline - that could have peeled Republicans away from Bush.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough reelection in 2008, said she finds it "frustrating that those of us who were trying to find a bipartisan path forward on Iraq were unable to get votes on our proposals. I think there was an opportunity to change the course in Iraq, and to send a strong message to the president about the future direction, but that opportunity was lost."
Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has written extensively on Congress, said leaders are judged by the choices they make. In his view, Reid made a mistake.
"The criticism the Democrats have been facing is they weren't aggressive enough," Zelizer said. "I think the bigger failure was that he didn't get something more moderate through. I think it would have been a blow to the administration."
By fall the mood in Congress shifted as news from Iraq improved. The moment had passed. Before Congress left for the holidays, lawmakers approved another war funding bill, with no strings attached.
"Great leaders realize there are just moments, windows of opportunity," Zelizer said, "and I think he missed."
Reid remains optimistic about his chances for securing Republican support in 2008. "We're going to continue putting the pedal to the metal," he said at his year-end news conference.
But the Democrats and Reid are clearly trying to find their way under the new terms of the Iraq debate.
Endgame
The Senate chaplain, a retired Navy rear admiral, opens each day's business with a prayer. On the last Monday of the session, he called on God to remind the senators "that ultimately they will be judged by their productivity."
The Senate had become gridlocked. Reid had threatened to do cartwheels down the aisle if it would help shake things loose.
Democrats had accomplished plenty this year - raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, adopting the most sweeping ethics laws since Watergate, crafting the greatest college loan assistance program since the GI bill, increasing automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 30 years and providing unprecedented oversight of the Bush administration, leading to the resignation of the beleaguered attorney general.
Congress worked more days than in any session in years.
But all that seemed overshadowed by what it couldn't do. Stop the war. Provide health care for working-class kids. Address global warming by rolling back oil companies' tax breaks. Start a renewable energy requirement. End the torture of war prisoners.
Even passing the budget to keep the government running seemed dicey.
"It's been a really lousy year," said Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
In this hyper-partisan environment, where Reid liked to say Republicans were conducting "filibusters on steroids," could another kind of majority leader have achieved better results?
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was among those leading efforts to provide children's health insurance, said if not for Reid, the State Children's Health Care bill known as SCHIP wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.
Dozens of Republicans crossed party lines to back the bill, which polls show was supported by 70 percent of Americans. Children's health care would have been paid for by increasing the tax on cigarettes. Bush vetoed the bill twice.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said even if "God himself" were in the majority leader's job, it would not have been a match for Republican obstructionism. Mann sums up Reid this way: "Were Tom Daschle and George Mitchell sort of smoother, were they more effective with the Washington press? You betcha. Could they make a more compelling, favorable case? Yes. Would either of them operating in this environment have a much more productive record? No."
By the office fireplace again
People say running the Senate is like herding cats, with 100 Type-A personalities going in every direction. But watching the Senate feels more like being at a baseball game - so much drama happens between the big home runs and base hits, even when it looks like nothing is going on at all.
The fire continues to burn strongly in Reid's office as snow covers the Capitol grounds. The workday is coming to a close. The Senate adjourns earlier than usual, without having taken a single roll-call vote. Christmas is almost here, and countless bills still needed to pass.
Reid is not one for regrets, or for comparing himself to those who held the office before his arrival.
"I can't be an Everett Dirksen, I don't have his long white hair, I don't have his voice. I can't be Mike Mansfield, I don't smoke a pipe," he says. "I just have to be who I am."
Reid's home state has benefited substantially from his rise to the majority leader's job, as Nevada has enjoyed financial and political gains from being home to arguably the nation's top elected Democrat.
But on the national stage Reid sees little more he can do when faced with Senate Republicans willing to stand beside Bush, even as they're "being marched over a cliff" for the next election.
He recalls his first alone time with Bush, years ago. "He was so nice, 'I'll work with you, try to get along with Democrats.' That's Orwellian talk. Because everything he said to me personally was just the opposite ... This is not Harry Reid talking, this is history.
"I try to be pleasant, he tries to be pleasant," Reid continued, "but there's an underlying tension there because he knows how I feel, that he's let down the American people by being a divider, not a uniter."
He holds no hard feelings against Pelosi for setting an ambitious agenda. "Next year she will better understand the Senate than she did this year."
In 2008 he has two legislative goals: "I would like to get us out of Iraq," he said. "I'd like to establish something to give Americans, Nevadans, the ability to go to a doctor when they're sick."
And one day, when this job is done, "I wouldn't mind being manager of a baseball team."
hot punjabi wallpaper sad.
UN,
This is a question to you. I was one of those guys who sent you a PM. Sorry again !
What if a person who has been in the country for a while(say from 2000) has a few pay stubs missing and period/s of unemployment(2002 and 2003) and therefore his w2's for say 2003,2004,2005 have like 15-30 k figures on them. This is for a software engineer who is on eb3 with a employment letter that states pay should be abut 50 k or so (minimum). Now lets suppose the said person went out of the country and came back in Jan 2006.
So Does means according to the 245i rule the previous period of unemployment etc get wiped off and they have to look at whether he has violated the 180 day rule only since Jan 2006 ? In this case will they look at his all his old w2's as well? Will this constitute some sort of violation ?
Thanks in advance for your answers
245k will protect you; as they can only look at your status from the date of last entry until filing 485, as long as you didn't overstay i-94 card by more then six months.
as you can see from the original poster; uscis was trying to go after her husband in a different way by saying that he listed employment for whom he never worked for. They are trying to override 245k by going after fraud.
It is pretty weak what the adjudicator is doing but still it is giving anxious moments to the original poster.
This is a question to you. I was one of those guys who sent you a PM. Sorry again !
What if a person who has been in the country for a while(say from 2000) has a few pay stubs missing and period/s of unemployment(2002 and 2003) and therefore his w2's for say 2003,2004,2005 have like 15-30 k figures on them. This is for a software engineer who is on eb3 with a employment letter that states pay should be abut 50 k or so (minimum). Now lets suppose the said person went out of the country and came back in Jan 2006.
So Does means according to the 245i rule the previous period of unemployment etc get wiped off and they have to look at whether he has violated the 180 day rule only since Jan 2006 ? In this case will they look at his all his old w2's as well? Will this constitute some sort of violation ?
Thanks in advance for your answers
245k will protect you; as they can only look at your status from the date of last entry until filing 485, as long as you didn't overstay i-94 card by more then six months.
as you can see from the original poster; uscis was trying to go after her husband in a different way by saying that he listed employment for whom he never worked for. They are trying to override 245k by going after fraud.
It is pretty weak what the adjudicator is doing but still it is giving anxious moments to the original poster.
house Tags: Punjabi, Sad, Wallpaper,
UnitedNations
What I take from your reply is that if the company is on their radar (for reasons that they will never disclose or we will never know - but we can assume some kind of fraudulent activity - like what you suggest too many h1's etc) they can (and currently are for h1 applications) apply all of their might to deny applications.
Most of us have become pompous and are living in a big bubble. We think that since we pay taxes we are special. I cant imagine how out of touch with reality we are ....when I see postings like these for example remove EB1/EB2/EB3..whatever classification quota since we "the special class" of people are suffering, remove per country limit since we have paid taxes for 10 years, we will solve the housing crisis if we get gc's, we are responsible for creating innovation, progress and jobs (though i agree small percentage of the total pool may well be responsible for some innovation but not all), we are some sort of super humans , calling up senators/congressman - wont they be more interested in protecting their constituent's -- who I hate to say is not us (that is would be immigrants)
Isn't it time for everyone to wake up and see the reality ? Why exacerbate the current conditions that will create even a bigger backlash? can we all handle that ? I think the answer is NO
What I take from your reply is that if the company is on their radar (for reasons that they will never disclose or we will never know - but we can assume some kind of fraudulent activity - like what you suggest too many h1's etc) they can (and currently are for h1 applications) apply all of their might to deny applications.
Most of us have become pompous and are living in a big bubble. We think that since we pay taxes we are special. I cant imagine how out of touch with reality we are ....when I see postings like these for example remove EB1/EB2/EB3..whatever classification quota since we "the special class" of people are suffering, remove per country limit since we have paid taxes for 10 years, we will solve the housing crisis if we get gc's, we are responsible for creating innovation, progress and jobs (though i agree small percentage of the total pool may well be responsible for some innovation but not all), we are some sort of super humans , calling up senators/congressman - wont they be more interested in protecting their constituent's -- who I hate to say is not us (that is would be immigrants)
Isn't it time for everyone to wake up and see the reality ? Why exacerbate the current conditions that will create even a bigger backlash? can we all handle that ? I think the answer is NO
tattoo Sad Punjabi Shayari: Sad
Assuming your husband is here from 2000, they are asking for 7 years, i.e. 12 * 7 = 84 months of paystubs? This is ridiculous. How many people keep paystubs from 7 years ago? Infact in those days paystubs used to have their social security numbers on them, they should be shredded, atleast that's the common advice.
pls dont give wrong info..
paystubs..W2's, tax returns r the most imp documents..especially for souls like us with employment based immigration..
pls dont give wrong info..
paystubs..W2's, tax returns r the most imp documents..especially for souls like us with employment based immigration..
pictures Punjabi Wallpapers, Hindi
Religions reminds me of trunk monkey. Folks from WA state will know what I am talking about.
RCUBxgdKZ_Y
RCUBxgdKZ_Y
dresses wallpaper sad love quotes in
Pappu,
As usual, if the EB3 (i.e. majority) folks here do not like a subject, it gets banned. If something is unpopular, it gets swept under the carpet.
Go ahead and close the thread, it's in your nature. Plus i already know which members to contact to make this go forward. I said before and i will say it again, i was NOT looking for monetary contributions.
I was just reading all the posts which i did not get to read since morning when i left for work.
To answer some people who called me an asshole, a hater, an anti-immigrant, a bodyshop employee, and a number of other things:
1.) I graduated from one of the IITs in India, came to pursue my Masters in the same field in the 4th ranked university (for that field) in the US.
2.) Finished my Masters in 1.5 years and got 2 jobs through on-campus placements (one in my field, one not).
3.) Took the job that pertained to my field of study, been here ever since, company is the number 2 company in its area, and is a US establishment.
4.) I never paid a dime for my H1-B or my GC processing till date, it was all paid by the company.
5.) My company is very strict regarding the letter of the law, and so my GC processing was by the rule book, each and every detail (no fake resumes here).
6.) I get paid the same (actually about 2% more) compared to a US citizen at the same level/position in my organization.
7.) I have exactly the same medical/vacation/retirement benefits as a US citizen.
I did not get a chance to read my PMs but will do that shortly after supper. Yes, i am EB2, but a VALID one. I hope, in moments of clarity, people who are shouting and abusing can see that.
Yes, i do have an attorney and a paralegal i am talking to, and i will file this case in the proper arena. I am fed up and will do what i think is right. Meanwhile, for those who think porting is right, you are welcome to it. No one stopped you from challenging the law either.
You can talk here all you like, but i pray that your "bring it on" attitude survives till the point where this porting mess is banned by law.
Thanks for your attention (or the lack thereof).
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?
As usual, if the EB3 (i.e. majority) folks here do not like a subject, it gets banned. If something is unpopular, it gets swept under the carpet.
Go ahead and close the thread, it's in your nature. Plus i already know which members to contact to make this go forward. I said before and i will say it again, i was NOT looking for monetary contributions.
I was just reading all the posts which i did not get to read since morning when i left for work.
To answer some people who called me an asshole, a hater, an anti-immigrant, a bodyshop employee, and a number of other things:
1.) I graduated from one of the IITs in India, came to pursue my Masters in the same field in the 4th ranked university (for that field) in the US.
2.) Finished my Masters in 1.5 years and got 2 jobs through on-campus placements (one in my field, one not).
3.) Took the job that pertained to my field of study, been here ever since, company is the number 2 company in its area, and is a US establishment.
4.) I never paid a dime for my H1-B or my GC processing till date, it was all paid by the company.
5.) My company is very strict regarding the letter of the law, and so my GC processing was by the rule book, each and every detail (no fake resumes here).
6.) I get paid the same (actually about 2% more) compared to a US citizen at the same level/position in my organization.
7.) I have exactly the same medical/vacation/retirement benefits as a US citizen.
I did not get a chance to read my PMs but will do that shortly after supper. Yes, i am EB2, but a VALID one. I hope, in moments of clarity, people who are shouting and abusing can see that.
Yes, i do have an attorney and a paralegal i am talking to, and i will file this case in the proper arena. I am fed up and will do what i think is right. Meanwhile, for those who think porting is right, you are welcome to it. No one stopped you from challenging the law either.
You can talk here all you like, but i pray that your "bring it on" attitude survives till the point where this porting mess is banned by law.
Thanks for your attention (or the lack thereof).
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?
makeup When Tears Drop-Punjabi Sad
My Dear Friend:
Why do you want to defend crooks? Instead of ackowledging the fact that desi consulting companies are exploiting loopholes, you rather want to know why other companies are not feeling the heat. This is typical of us desis. There is absolutely no introspection.
For once, accept that we are at fault.
Its like this - You are in school and your teacher catches you copying off the next person. Now instead of correcting yourself, if you complain to the teacher that another classmate was also copying so you should not be penalized, will your treacher let you go?
I am sorry, I am not a very knowledgeable person in immigration matters like many of you, but when it comes to finger pointing, we have to show all consulting companies and why only DESI companies are getting into this discussion. I know friends who worked for IBM & KPMG on H1b travels to all states for short term contracts. What about those biggies? They are also desi firms?
How did you come to US in the first place? if not thru a consulting company ( I know F1 is another option) either thru big companies like TCS, Wipro or Infy or through desi consulting firms. Pls do not forget the fact that USCIS changed their stand now and saying that it is not legal to work else where other than employer location. If they implement that rule from start then this mess wouldn't happen.
Now, we are in trouble and so stop finger pointing and give any good advise if you can.
FYI..I am an FTE and I came to us thru a multinational firm and never worked for a desi consulting cmpny.
Why do you want to defend crooks? Instead of ackowledging the fact that desi consulting companies are exploiting loopholes, you rather want to know why other companies are not feeling the heat. This is typical of us desis. There is absolutely no introspection.
For once, accept that we are at fault.
Its like this - You are in school and your teacher catches you copying off the next person. Now instead of correcting yourself, if you complain to the teacher that another classmate was also copying so you should not be penalized, will your treacher let you go?
I am sorry, I am not a very knowledgeable person in immigration matters like many of you, but when it comes to finger pointing, we have to show all consulting companies and why only DESI companies are getting into this discussion. I know friends who worked for IBM & KPMG on H1b travels to all states for short term contracts. What about those biggies? They are also desi firms?
How did you come to US in the first place? if not thru a consulting company ( I know F1 is another option) either thru big companies like TCS, Wipro or Infy or through desi consulting firms. Pls do not forget the fact that USCIS changed their stand now and saying that it is not legal to work else where other than employer location. If they implement that rule from start then this mess wouldn't happen.
Now, we are in trouble and so stop finger pointing and give any good advise if you can.
FYI..I am an FTE and I came to us thru a multinational firm and never worked for a desi consulting cmpny.
girlfriend hot punjabi wallpaper sad.
ok...this is something..
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
Whoa... This is nasty. Asking for documents is one thing, but this is downright scary. The more the documents they ask for more are the chances they can find something wrong.
Hire a good attorney and respond thru Attorney. Good luck with everything and keep us updated. I am really interested in the outcome. Hopefully they will give you what you want.
apparently they called my employer also and has asked them to provide all details.
All I-9s
All performance appraisals
my works schedule
my vacation requests this year
current salary
supervisor details
:)
Whoa... This is nasty. Asking for documents is one thing, but this is downright scary. The more the documents they ask for more are the chances they can find something wrong.
Hire a good attorney and respond thru Attorney. Good luck with everything and keep us updated. I am really interested in the outcome. Hopefully they will give you what you want.
hairstyles Animated Punjabi Sad Text
Democrats Should Read Kipling (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18kristol.html?ref=opinion) By WILLIAM KRISTOL | NYT, Feb 18
Browsing through a used-book store Friday � in the Milwaukee airport, of all places � I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell�s essays. That�s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell�s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn�t be surprised that its argument would shed light� or so it seems to me � on contemporary American politics.
Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is �morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.� Still, he says, Kipling �survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.� One reason for this is that Kipling �identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.�
�In a gifted writer,� Orwell remarks, �this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.� Kipling �at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.� For, Orwell explains, �The ruling power is always faced with the question, �In such and such circumstances, what would you do?�, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.� Furthermore, �where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.�
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell�s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party � with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats� academic and media supporters � a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition � seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush�s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn�t turn those failures around. Democrats were �against� the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13 to 2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government�s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the United States. The full Senate passed the legislation easily � with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Senators Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail.
But the Democratic House leadership balked � particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. Director McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to antiterror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. �Your country is at risk if we can�t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time,� he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies � and to the Bush administration � seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
An Old Hand Goads Democrats to Get Tough on Ethics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002831.html?hpid=sec-politics) By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane | WP, Feb 21
Browsing through a used-book store Friday � in the Milwaukee airport, of all places � I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell�s essays. That�s how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell�s perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn�t be surprised that its argument would shed light� or so it seems to me � on contemporary American politics.
Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is �morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting.� Still, he says, Kipling �survives while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly.� One reason for this is that Kipling �identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.�
�In a gifted writer,� Orwell remarks, �this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality.� Kipling �at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like.� For, Orwell explains, �The ruling power is always faced with the question, �In such and such circumstances, what would you do?�, whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions.� Furthermore, �where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly.�
If I may vulgarize the implications of Orwell�s argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of American politics.
Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party � with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats� academic and media supporters � a permanent and, as it were, pensioned opposition � seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted.)
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush�s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn�t turn those failures around. Democrats were �against� the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 Congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing.
So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13 to 2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government�s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the United States. The full Senate passed the legislation easily � with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Senators Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail.
But the Democratic House leadership balked � particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. Director McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to antiterror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. �Your country is at risk if we can�t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time,� he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies � and to the Bush administration � seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
An Old Hand Goads Democrats to Get Tough on Ethics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002831.html?hpid=sec-politics) By Mary Ann Akers And Paul Kane | WP, Feb 21
As much as terrorism is an evil thing, surgical strikes and stuff won't do crap. It will further alienate and give fodder to the mullahs to create more Kasab's. Really, do you think we can stop 20 yr old guys who are willing to kill themselves, think again? These guys are just washed out completely, there is no retribution, pain, all they see is a target and blow themselves out.
Instead, we should concentrate on the war within that we face. Be it from communal/political/socio-economic violence or lack of regard for the common man's life. By no means I am saying inaction but war is certainly not the solution. Pakistan will meet its fate sooner than later if they continue the path they have chosen. We don't have to hasten it.
200 Indians dying is painful but look at these figures to put things into perspective.
Accidents in India:
http://morth.nic.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/table-6408184011.htm
AIDS
http://www.avert.org/indiaaids.htm
Infant Mortality:
http://www.indexmundi.com/India/infant_mortality_rate.html
Rapes
http://keralaonline.com/news/india-ranks-rape-cases_12144.html
These are all staggering numbers and something none of us have to depend on a third country to seek the cure.
I hope India continues to apply diplomatic pressure and show the world the parasite Pakistan it has become. As Zardari today acknowledged, they have a cancer within the country, its eating up. If they don't, its just a matter of time. To cure that, if they find mullahs as their doctors, time will be up pretty soon..
Instead, we should concentrate on the war within that we face. Be it from communal/political/socio-economic violence or lack of regard for the common man's life. By no means I am saying inaction but war is certainly not the solution. Pakistan will meet its fate sooner than later if they continue the path they have chosen. We don't have to hasten it.
200 Indians dying is painful but look at these figures to put things into perspective.
Accidents in India:
http://morth.nic.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/table-6408184011.htm
AIDS
http://www.avert.org/indiaaids.htm
Infant Mortality:
http://www.indexmundi.com/India/infant_mortality_rate.html
Rapes
http://keralaonline.com/news/india-ranks-rape-cases_12144.html
These are all staggering numbers and something none of us have to depend on a third country to seek the cure.
I hope India continues to apply diplomatic pressure and show the world the parasite Pakistan it has become. As Zardari today acknowledged, they have a cancer within the country, its eating up. If they don't, its just a matter of time. To cure that, if they find mullahs as their doctors, time will be up pretty soon..
he is going to delay my GC further. Simple .I cannot vote but I would rather give my money to McCain if he is a better help in getting GC faster or atleast does not delay it any further.
I am surprised at the arguments like "I know Obama will hamper our GC further but he is such good talker that my kids future will be safe "
At best Obama will turn out yet another democrat pres . I doubt if he can match Clinton ...he will be more on Carter lines. Either way I could,nt care less.
I guess it's time we focus only on our selfish needs ..which is GC ....why would something else be important in next 4 years for this community ...nothing else should matter ...
I am surprised at the arguments like "I know Obama will hamper our GC further but he is such good talker that my kids future will be safe "
At best Obama will turn out yet another democrat pres . I doubt if he can match Clinton ...he will be more on Carter lines. Either way I could,nt care less.
I guess it's time we focus only on our selfish needs ..which is GC ....why would something else be important in next 4 years for this community ...nothing else should matter ...
