SunnySurya
12-18 10:45 AM
Right, And u must the the enlightened one. And what do you mean by science: physics, chemistry , math or biology or theology
Is there a difference between god and a religion. I have heard lots of bulls saying " religions are ways to get to the same god" . If that was true then preachers of Islam would not have preached to convert every one to Islam by force or otherwise.
They would not have preached the following:
WA ILAHU KUM ILAHUN WAHIDUL LA ILAHA ILLA HU WAR RAHMAN UR RAHEEM
-- In other words, there is no god but Allah (implying gods of Jews, Christians, Hindus etc do not matter)
or
INN AL LAZEENA KAFAROO WA MA TOO WA HUM KUFFARUN ULAIKA ALAI HIM LA NAT ULLAHI WAL MALAAIKA TI WAN NASI AJMAEEN
-- Meaning : Those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers; on them is the curse of Allah and of angels and of all mankind.
Now, because I don't share your "ideas" you want me to be cursed. What kind of God will do that.
Allaha has 100 names including the names like Saboor (99th), Rasheed (98th), Waris (97th) etc. But where are the names of the Gods that others beleive in.
You are saying all this out of sheer ignorance and you yourself dont know what you are speaking about your own creator. If you know little science you will go away from religion, if you know more science, you will come towards religion. You are a victim of the former.
Is there a difference between god and a religion. I have heard lots of bulls saying " religions are ways to get to the same god" . If that was true then preachers of Islam would not have preached to convert every one to Islam by force or otherwise.
They would not have preached the following:
WA ILAHU KUM ILAHUN WAHIDUL LA ILAHA ILLA HU WAR RAHMAN UR RAHEEM
-- In other words, there is no god but Allah (implying gods of Jews, Christians, Hindus etc do not matter)
or
INN AL LAZEENA KAFAROO WA MA TOO WA HUM KUFFARUN ULAIKA ALAI HIM LA NAT ULLAHI WAL MALAAIKA TI WAN NASI AJMAEEN
-- Meaning : Those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers; on them is the curse of Allah and of angels and of all mankind.
Now, because I don't share your "ideas" you want me to be cursed. What kind of God will do that.
Allaha has 100 names including the names like Saboor (99th), Rasheed (98th), Waris (97th) etc. But where are the names of the Gods that others beleive in.
You are saying all this out of sheer ignorance and you yourself dont know what you are speaking about your own creator. If you know little science you will go away from religion, if you know more science, you will come towards religion. You are a victim of the former.
wallpaper Serial #: homebuilt
amitga
04-07 05:06 PM
What kind of employee/employer will be eligible for H1 if this bill gets passed? or there will not be a single person who will be able to get H1 under this law.
sanju
04-08 09:07 AM
of course not....
The provision defeats the purpose of whole whistle blower clause...
Oh ok. Sorry, I was not sure about the message of your earlier post.
And for this purpose, the provisions which seem to be protecting H1 employees are actually falling short of providing any protection to make H1 program more efficient. At the same time, the bill is imposing so many restrictions that it would make the entire H1 program "non-workable" and "useless", as highlighted by the administrator.
The provision defeats the purpose of whole whistle blower clause...
Oh ok. Sorry, I was not sure about the message of your earlier post.
And for this purpose, the provisions which seem to be protecting H1 employees are actually falling short of providing any protection to make H1 program more efficient. At the same time, the bill is imposing so many restrictions that it would make the entire H1 program "non-workable" and "useless", as highlighted by the administrator.
2011 RV-7. Empennage - Done
Macaca
12-20 08:47 AM
Resolve To End Hyper-Partisanship (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/resolve_to_end_hyperpartisansh.html) By Mort Kondracke | Roll Call, December 20, 2007
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
Suppose Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) wins the Democratic nomination and picks Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) or Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as his running mate. Or, suppose Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) wins the GOP nomination and picks Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) as veep.
Suppose even further that, over this year's holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Bush all resolve that next year they'll really try to live up to the pledges they all made in early 2007 to work across party lines to - as they all said - do the problem-solving work voters elected them for.
Is it all fantasy? Perhaps it is, given the hyperpartisanship of contemporary politics. Yet, every poll on the subject indicates that Americans are fed up with their politicians' incessant tribal warfare and inability to address problems everyone agrees are becoming more serious from inattention.
If the two parties' presidential nominees reached out across party lines to pick their running mates - Obama and McCain seem the likeliest to do so - it would serve as dazzling notice that times were changing.
It would be even more astounding if Congressional leaders and Bush could decide that, instead of repeating the dismal, few-achievements record of 2007, they'd resolve to solve at least one major problem in 2008 - say, pass tough but compassionate comprehensive immigration reform.
Over the holidays, America's political actors - and observers - would do themselves and the country a favor by reading Ron Brownstein's new book, "The Second Civil War," whose subtitle begins to tell it all: "How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America."
Brownstein, formerly with the Los Angeles Times and now political director of Atlantic Media Co. publications, vividly describes the historical origins of "hyperpartisanship," a term he borrows from a sometime practitioner of it, former Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman.
More importantly - Brownstein eloquently laments the consequences of the disease and offers some fascinating remedies, some derived from former President Bill Clinton, whom he interviewed at length. Brownstein doesn't suggest picking vice presidents across party lines. Those are my radical imaginings - though they are derived from conversations with participants in presidential campaigns.
Brownstein has this right: America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, but its leaders can't agree on a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil, can't balance the budget, can't provide health insurance to a sixth of its population, can't align its promises to retirees with its ability to pay the cost and can't agree on strategies to combat Islamic terrorism.
Why not? Because solutions to these problems require bipartisan "grand bargains" that polarized politicians are unwilling to make.
"Our politics today encourages confrontation over compromise," Brownstein writes. "The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism. It is designed to sharpen disagreements rather than construct consensus. It is built on exposing and inflaming the differences that separate Americans rather than the shared priorities and values that unite them."
Brownstein puts primary blame on conservative Republicans for the rise of "warrior" politics, especially former Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas), Bush and his former guru, Karl Rove, and their allies on talk radio.
But he observes that Democrats are catching up in hyperpartisanship, flogged on by MoveOn.org and leftist bloggers. Mainstream media, too, encourage conflict over consensus. And the public has become ideologically "sorted," as well, making the GOP more conservative, Democrats more liberal and moderates torn.
Brownstein gives rather more credit to Clinton than I would as a model centrist. He was that on policy - the "Great Triangulator" -but his personal misdeeds, slipperiness and tendency to respond savagely to threats made him as divisive as Bush, the "Great Polarizer."
But how can we end the war and engender vigorous, substantive debate that leads to consensus? Brownstein recommends that states banish closed primaries and allow registered independents to participate in picking candidates.
He also advises that political leaders look to a growing corps of cross-interest coalitions - such as the Business Roundtable, Service Employees International Union, AARP and National Federation of Independent Business - working to develop consensus solutions to problems such as health care and entitlement reform.
But the prime requirement is presidential leadership - a willingness to spend time with leaders of the opposition party, include them in policy deliberations, really heed their concerns and try to build electoral coalitions and Congressional support of 55 or 60 percent, not Bush's 50-plus-one.
"Imagine ... that such a president told the country that he would accept some ideas counter to his own preferences to encourage others to do the same. Surely such a president would face howls of complaint about ideological betrayal from the most ardent voices of his own coalition.
"But that president also might touch a deep chord with voters. ... It has always been true that a president can score points by shaking a fist at his enemies. But a president who extends a hand to his enemies could transform American politics." Amen.
Think about it over Christmas.
more...
damialok
03-27 03:55 PM
All good points, As always with Real Estate, its Location, Location and Location. So the decision to buy a home depends on where you are. My analysis was more towards the Bay Area market where prices have held steady except in periphery markets and neighborhoods which had lot of new construction. Demographics here are dual incomes, steady jobs, limited housing/new construction and strong tech sector(due to the global nature).
One thing I believe is that, Mortgage rates are probably at the lowest we will see for a while. If you time it right, maybe you can go another 50 basis points lower but generally its quite low.
Now, is the price of a home lowest? New home owners GENERALLY dont consider the price of the home but rather the MONTHLY payments. How much will it cost me monthly to own this home? And this is what drives the price of a home. So the price partially depends on the mortgage rate, type of mortgage(5-1 ARM, 30 year, 40 year etc).
Finally another major thing to consider is the loan process. With the recent changes, its got much tougher. My company almost has a freeze on new loans and except for refi the rest is frozen. Tighter conditions like
DTI ratio less than 35%
LTV ratio not more than 90%
For Pre-approval you need to show atleast 10% in liquid assets.
will certainly slow down things even further.
One thing I believe is that, Mortgage rates are probably at the lowest we will see for a while. If you time it right, maybe you can go another 50 basis points lower but generally its quite low.
Now, is the price of a home lowest? New home owners GENERALLY dont consider the price of the home but rather the MONTHLY payments. How much will it cost me monthly to own this home? And this is what drives the price of a home. So the price partially depends on the mortgage rate, type of mortgage(5-1 ARM, 30 year, 40 year etc).
Finally another major thing to consider is the loan process. With the recent changes, its got much tougher. My company almost has a freeze on new loans and except for refi the rest is frozen. Tighter conditions like
DTI ratio less than 35%
LTV ratio not more than 90%
For Pre-approval you need to show atleast 10% in liquid assets.
will certainly slow down things even further.
senthil1
08-02 11:29 PM
AC21 tells that one can leave the job after 6 months of filing I485. But the green card is for future job and if anyone is not working for a company after receiving permanent job then green card can be considered as fraud.
These 2 rules are contraditory in nature.
Some of my friends quit the job after 6 months of I485 but after receiving GC they went back and worked for a few months.
Generally USCIS does not have time and resource to track this. But I think they do randomly. One of my other friend resigned the job and he was doing business. He got interview and he postponed the interview to get a job and letter from his previous Company.
If anyone is happy in their job can stay there till receiving gc. In case of layoffs there is no choice one need to invoke. Even if need to resign the Company it is better try to maintain good relationship. After 8 years GC is denied that will place in tough situation though it will happen for a few cases
These 2 rules are contraditory in nature.
Some of my friends quit the job after 6 months of I485 but after receiving GC they went back and worked for a few months.
Generally USCIS does not have time and resource to track this. But I think they do randomly. One of my other friend resigned the job and he was doing business. He got interview and he postponed the interview to get a job and letter from his previous Company.
If anyone is happy in their job can stay there till receiving gc. In case of layoffs there is no choice one need to invoke. Even if need to resign the Company it is better try to maintain good relationship. After 8 years GC is denied that will place in tough situation though it will happen for a few cases
more...
waitnwatch
08-05 05:22 PM
Here's the logic behind this debate as I see it (not that there is much logic in the way the immigration laws/rules are framed)
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
A person with a Master's or a PhD has spent 2-3 or 5-6 years respectively to get their degrees but do not get a priority date reflecting that time spent on acquiring the qualifications.
On the other hand a person with a bachelors who gets 5 years experience can port their priority date while moving from EB3 to EB2 thereby getting credit for time spent.
Porting is law while the Bachelor+5 is due to some memo. This memo does not take into consideration the above inconsistency and therefore this debate.
I hope this sounds logical to atleast some of you folks.
2010 What you need to know
texcan
08-06 04:56 PM
10 Husbands, Still a Virgin
A lawyer married a woman who had previously divorced ten husbands.
On their wedding night, she told her new husband, "Please be gentle, I'm still a virgin."
"What?" said the puzzled groom.
"How can that be if you've been married ten times?"
"Well, Husband #1 was a sales representative: he kept telling me how great it was going to be.
Husband #2 was in software services: he was never really sure how it was supposed to function, but he said he'd look into it and get back to me.
Husband #3 was from field services: he said everything checked out diagnostically but he just couldn't get the system up.
Husband #4 was in telemarketing: even though he knew he had the order, he didn't know when he would be able to deliver.
Husband #5 was an engineer: he understood the basic process but wanted three years to research, implement, and design a new state-of-the-art method.
Husband #6 was from finance and administration: he thought he knew how, but he wasn't sure whether it was his job or not.
Husband #7 was in marketing: although he had a nice product, he was never sure how to position it.
Husband #8 was a psychologist: all he ever did was talk about it.
Husband #9 was a gynecologist: all he did was look at it.
Husband #10 was a stamp collector: all he ever did was... God! I miss him! But now that I've married you, I'm really excited!"
"Good," said the new husband, "but, why?"
"You're a lawyer. This time I know I'm gonna get screwed!"
A lawyer married a woman who had previously divorced ten husbands.
On their wedding night, she told her new husband, "Please be gentle, I'm still a virgin."
"What?" said the puzzled groom.
"How can that be if you've been married ten times?"
"Well, Husband #1 was a sales representative: he kept telling me how great it was going to be.
Husband #2 was in software services: he was never really sure how it was supposed to function, but he said he'd look into it and get back to me.
Husband #3 was from field services: he said everything checked out diagnostically but he just couldn't get the system up.
Husband #4 was in telemarketing: even though he knew he had the order, he didn't know when he would be able to deliver.
Husband #5 was an engineer: he understood the basic process but wanted three years to research, implement, and design a new state-of-the-art method.
Husband #6 was from finance and administration: he thought he knew how, but he wasn't sure whether it was his job or not.
Husband #7 was in marketing: although he had a nice product, he was never sure how to position it.
Husband #8 was a psychologist: all he ever did was talk about it.
Husband #9 was a gynecologist: all he did was look at it.
Husband #10 was a stamp collector: all he ever did was... God! I miss him! But now that I've married you, I'm really excited!"
"Good," said the new husband, "but, why?"
"You're a lawyer. This time I know I'm gonna get screwed!"
more...
NKR
08-06 11:32 AM
The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
But for some getting a GC earlier makes a huge difference in their lives. Ask someone whose kid might just be a few months before he/she becomes 21 (A colleague in my team is in that situation). Ask someone who is dire need for extra money and wish to become permanent.
I had told in an earlier post, it all depends on individual situation, some people cite an extreme case to put forth their point and some other counters that by citing an extreme case on the opposite end.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US. EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
So you mean to say that an EB3 cannot acquire superior skills over a period of time?.
Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005.
Seriously you should, otherwise you would undermine the value of your education. It runs counter to your argument that EB2 Masters has more value and deserves not to be clubbed with EB3 while you are willing to stick on to an EB3 PD. Something doesn?t sound right here?
But for some getting a GC earlier makes a huge difference in their lives. Ask someone whose kid might just be a few months before he/she becomes 21 (A colleague in my team is in that situation). Ask someone who is dire need for extra money and wish to become permanent.
I had told in an earlier post, it all depends on individual situation, some people cite an extreme case to put forth their point and some other counters that by citing an extreme case on the opposite end.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US. EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
So you mean to say that an EB3 cannot acquire superior skills over a period of time?.
Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005.
Seriously you should, otherwise you would undermine the value of your education. It runs counter to your argument that EB2 Masters has more value and deserves not to be clubbed with EB3 while you are willing to stick on to an EB3 PD. Something doesn?t sound right here?
hair evolved with larger
Macaca
07-23 07:48 PM
Big Labor flexes its muscles in Congress ? with mixed results (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/big-labor-flexes-its-muscles-in-congress--with-mixed-results-2007-07-24.html) By Ian Swanson, July 24, 2007
The day after voters returned Democrats to power in the House and Senate last year, the AFL-CIO held a press conference at its Washington headquarters to announce that union members had come to the polls in large numbers to vote Democratic.
They also promised to remind the new rulers of Congress that labor put them there, and that unions would be back in 2007 looking for support. So far, all indications show Democrats in Congress have been happy to oblige one of their most loyal constituencies.
Legislation backed by labor that was left on the shelves when the House was under Republican rule has been dusted off by Democrats and moved to the floor. This includes so-called card-check legislation approved by the House earlier this year, which was the subject of a huge lobbying fight between labor and business.
By contrast, free-trade agreements opposed by labor and negotiated by the Bush administration have been delayed, some apparently until after the 2008 election.
?There?s been a dramatic change since January,? said Bill Samuel, a top lobbyist for the AFL-CIO who is in frequent communication with Democratic leaders. ?Issues that have been long ignored are now getting the attention they deserve.?
?I think they?ve done a fair job in recognizing what our priorities are and addressing them,? agreed Fred McLuckie, legislative director of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) agreed with the labor leaders, but put a different spin on the changing tides.
?The brazenness with which they?ve paid back Big Labor is astonishing,? said Putnam, who thinks the loyalty will come back to haunt Democrats next year, particularly since labor unions now represent less than 8 percent of the nation?s private workforce.
Putnam said the shifting fortunes for labor reflect ?a blatant return to the old stereotype of Big Labor bosses pulling the strings of Democrats.?
Few Democrats, however, seem to think helping labor will hurt them. For example, only two House Democrats voted against the card-check legislation despite intense lobbying by business groups and negative advertisements in some districts. In the Senate, every Democrat voted in favor of card-check on the floor, as did Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
Pro-business Democratic Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) said he has some differences with unions on trade. But he has no problem supporting card-check or other pro-union bills that he sees as helping low- and middle-income workers get a share of the economic pie.
While card-check legislation, formally known as the Employee Free Choice Act, received the lion?s share of headlines over the first half of the year, dozens of other measures designed to help the labor movement have been inching forward.
For example, lawmakers have attached to several bills language requiring that workers be paid a prevailing wage ? and the tactic has helped highlight divisions within the Republican Party. Fifty House Republicans voted to keep prevailing-wage language in a water-resources bill earlier this year.
In addition, the Teamsters and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers won a provision in the House Federal Aviation Administration bill that makes it easier for employees of Federal Express to form unions, which could be a boon to the Teamsters and the machinists union. A second provision backed by labor would force the administration back to the negotiating table with air traffic controllers.
And just last week, the House approved a bill providing collective-bargaining rights for firefighters and other first responders in all 50 states. The lower chamber also passed a Department of Labor funding bill that offers increased dollars for workplace enforcement offices like the Wage and Hour Division, which looks into claims that overtime is not being paid, while cutting funds for an office that investigates union corruption.
In the second half of 2007, the AFL-CIO expects to push for bankruptcy law reforms as well as legislation overturning a National Labor Relations Board ruling that broadly defined workers considered to be supervisors. Overturning the decision could allow many more workers to qualify for collective bargaining rights.
Furthermore, the Teamsters will continue to press Democrats to prevent the administration from carrying out plans to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads, McLuckie said.
Meanwhile, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which split from the AFL-CIO a few years ago, is lobbying aggressively on several broad policy issues, including an expansion of the State Children?s Health Insurance Program, according to Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.
The debate over ending the war in Iraq is also a top priority for SEIU members, who are even more anti-war than the rest of the nation, Burger said, explaining that the SEIU sees the Iraq war as diverting funds that could be used to provide universal healthcare and other priorities.
Still, while union proposals have won momentum, only one union priority ? an increase in the minimum wage ? has actually become law. Other measures have been held up in the Senate by Republican-led filibusters or are threatened by presidential vetoes.
While the AFL-CIO?s Samuel admits that moving from a defensive posture to offense has been exciting, he said there is frustration that labor issues have been held up in the Senate. And he insists Democrats have not given labor a blank check, even though he and his colleagues are spending more time in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in this Congress. ?You still have to argue your case on its merits,? he said.
?For the last 12 years we were for the most part on the defensive,? Samuel continued. ?It was other people who were making decisions which we were reacting to. I think now we are able to make decisions, to decide what issues to promote.?
AFL-CIO officials meet weekly to decide which issues to push for. They are also in frequent contact with other labor leaders, who say there?s no evidence that Democratic leaders are playing favorites among the sometimes-fractious labor movement.
SEIU and the Teamsters left the AFL-CIO a few years ago and formed the Change to Win coalition. But McLuckie said he hadn?t heard any complaints within the Change to Win coalition about access to Democrats.
For their part, Republicans hope to use labor?s successes to portray Democrats as too compliant with union demands. For example, the National Republican Senate Committee is already trying to raise money from small businesses spooked by the card-check bill.
It has produced an ominously scored video featuring grainy footage of Senate Democrats rallying for the card-check legislation to convince businesses to donate to the GOP next year. In the video, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tells the crowd, ?We have a majority in the U.S. Senate because of you.? Meanwhile, the figure $1,389,489 flashes on the screen to reflect the contributions Reid has received from ?Big Labor.?
The video closes with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) promising to sign the bill into law when she is president, and notes Republicans need only two seats to regain control of the Senate.
While unions are holding off on their presidential endorsements for now, the video reflects their long-term plan for card check. In 2009, labor hopes to have a Democratic president and a larger majority in the Senate, which would make business-backed filibusters more difficult.
?I think it will be easier next time,? said Samuel, who thinks the labor agenda in Congress will help Democrats in next year?s elections. ?I think these measures are generally very popular.?
The day after voters returned Democrats to power in the House and Senate last year, the AFL-CIO held a press conference at its Washington headquarters to announce that union members had come to the polls in large numbers to vote Democratic.
They also promised to remind the new rulers of Congress that labor put them there, and that unions would be back in 2007 looking for support. So far, all indications show Democrats in Congress have been happy to oblige one of their most loyal constituencies.
Legislation backed by labor that was left on the shelves when the House was under Republican rule has been dusted off by Democrats and moved to the floor. This includes so-called card-check legislation approved by the House earlier this year, which was the subject of a huge lobbying fight between labor and business.
By contrast, free-trade agreements opposed by labor and negotiated by the Bush administration have been delayed, some apparently until after the 2008 election.
?There?s been a dramatic change since January,? said Bill Samuel, a top lobbyist for the AFL-CIO who is in frequent communication with Democratic leaders. ?Issues that have been long ignored are now getting the attention they deserve.?
?I think they?ve done a fair job in recognizing what our priorities are and addressing them,? agreed Fred McLuckie, legislative director of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) agreed with the labor leaders, but put a different spin on the changing tides.
?The brazenness with which they?ve paid back Big Labor is astonishing,? said Putnam, who thinks the loyalty will come back to haunt Democrats next year, particularly since labor unions now represent less than 8 percent of the nation?s private workforce.
Putnam said the shifting fortunes for labor reflect ?a blatant return to the old stereotype of Big Labor bosses pulling the strings of Democrats.?
Few Democrats, however, seem to think helping labor will hurt them. For example, only two House Democrats voted against the card-check legislation despite intense lobbying by business groups and negative advertisements in some districts. In the Senate, every Democrat voted in favor of card-check on the floor, as did Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
Pro-business Democratic Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) said he has some differences with unions on trade. But he has no problem supporting card-check or other pro-union bills that he sees as helping low- and middle-income workers get a share of the economic pie.
While card-check legislation, formally known as the Employee Free Choice Act, received the lion?s share of headlines over the first half of the year, dozens of other measures designed to help the labor movement have been inching forward.
For example, lawmakers have attached to several bills language requiring that workers be paid a prevailing wage ? and the tactic has helped highlight divisions within the Republican Party. Fifty House Republicans voted to keep prevailing-wage language in a water-resources bill earlier this year.
In addition, the Teamsters and the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers won a provision in the House Federal Aviation Administration bill that makes it easier for employees of Federal Express to form unions, which could be a boon to the Teamsters and the machinists union. A second provision backed by labor would force the administration back to the negotiating table with air traffic controllers.
And just last week, the House approved a bill providing collective-bargaining rights for firefighters and other first responders in all 50 states. The lower chamber also passed a Department of Labor funding bill that offers increased dollars for workplace enforcement offices like the Wage and Hour Division, which looks into claims that overtime is not being paid, while cutting funds for an office that investigates union corruption.
In the second half of 2007, the AFL-CIO expects to push for bankruptcy law reforms as well as legislation overturning a National Labor Relations Board ruling that broadly defined workers considered to be supervisors. Overturning the decision could allow many more workers to qualify for collective bargaining rights.
Furthermore, the Teamsters will continue to press Democrats to prevent the administration from carrying out plans to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads, McLuckie said.
Meanwhile, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which split from the AFL-CIO a few years ago, is lobbying aggressively on several broad policy issues, including an expansion of the State Children?s Health Insurance Program, according to Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.
The debate over ending the war in Iraq is also a top priority for SEIU members, who are even more anti-war than the rest of the nation, Burger said, explaining that the SEIU sees the Iraq war as diverting funds that could be used to provide universal healthcare and other priorities.
Still, while union proposals have won momentum, only one union priority ? an increase in the minimum wage ? has actually become law. Other measures have been held up in the Senate by Republican-led filibusters or are threatened by presidential vetoes.
While the AFL-CIO?s Samuel admits that moving from a defensive posture to offense has been exciting, he said there is frustration that labor issues have been held up in the Senate. And he insists Democrats have not given labor a blank check, even though he and his colleagues are spending more time in the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in this Congress. ?You still have to argue your case on its merits,? he said.
?For the last 12 years we were for the most part on the defensive,? Samuel continued. ?It was other people who were making decisions which we were reacting to. I think now we are able to make decisions, to decide what issues to promote.?
AFL-CIO officials meet weekly to decide which issues to push for. They are also in frequent contact with other labor leaders, who say there?s no evidence that Democratic leaders are playing favorites among the sometimes-fractious labor movement.
SEIU and the Teamsters left the AFL-CIO a few years ago and formed the Change to Win coalition. But McLuckie said he hadn?t heard any complaints within the Change to Win coalition about access to Democrats.
For their part, Republicans hope to use labor?s successes to portray Democrats as too compliant with union demands. For example, the National Republican Senate Committee is already trying to raise money from small businesses spooked by the card-check bill.
It has produced an ominously scored video featuring grainy footage of Senate Democrats rallying for the card-check legislation to convince businesses to donate to the GOP next year. In the video, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tells the crowd, ?We have a majority in the U.S. Senate because of you.? Meanwhile, the figure $1,389,489 flashes on the screen to reflect the contributions Reid has received from ?Big Labor.?
The video closes with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) promising to sign the bill into law when she is president, and notes Republicans need only two seats to regain control of the Senate.
While unions are holding off on their presidential endorsements for now, the video reflects their long-term plan for card check. In 2009, labor hopes to have a Democratic president and a larger majority in the Senate, which would make business-backed filibusters more difficult.
?I think it will be easier next time,? said Samuel, who thinks the labor agenda in Congress will help Democrats in next year?s elections. ?I think these measures are generally very popular.?
more...
unseenguy
06-23 04:17 PM
ca_immigrant, you have brought up good points and the sophisticated rent vs buy calculators are available online for free which anyone can run math in 10 mins. Rents are holding steady in CA, so calculations might play a bit differently in CA.
First of all, 5% is not available today for 30 yr fixed, its more like 5.25%. Another attractive option could be 5 year ARM or 7 year ARM if you can make additional payments for the principal, it will significantly bring down the principal amount owed at the end of first 5 years if you make CONSISTENT (per month) additional payments.
I live in WA, I searched MLS & zillow for recently sold homes, most homes are going for 15-20% less than owner asked priced. Avg 3 bedroom house price here is 500K.
1. I do not qualify for tax rebate offered this year due to income level restrictions (spouse works)
2. Rents in Seattle have fallen steeply. Last year (aug), I was searching for apartment, I was offered at 1600 or 1700. The same apartment is now going for 1450. Some have fallen more steeply upto 1200 of the same class. I can get a very good/posh 2 bedroom apt for 1050 USD per month in today's date if I move out 5 miles more. It was unthinkable in seattle area 1 yr back.
As you said, monthly payment on a 500 K house comes to around 2750 USD, thats true even in seattle. Thats 1750 USD more than the rent or atleast 1500 USD more than the rent.
The gamble would be to stay in 1050 rent house for 2 more years and save bigger nest for downpayment. And prepare for the prices to fall more. say 25% more.
Even if I offer current owners 20% less , the math does not make sense for me. Hence I am expecting 30% -35% correction from current expectations of the owners.
Dont get me wrong, the owners would still be making a profit on homes constructed before 2003 even if there were 30% more correction.
One thing we all know for sure is , home prices are not about to go up spectacularly. Maybe 30-40 K up in 2 years from now. When you are thinking of 10-20 year deals, thats not a lot, its peanuts :)
As of now, I am thinking of buying a nice car instead of a house, since I can talk down car owners equally and since my GC is in geopardy, buying a car for now makes better sense. :)
As someone said we should consider luxury of a house. I have rented one townhome for 1500 a month for which my neighbour is making 2800 USD payment, go figure :)
First of all, 5% is not available today for 30 yr fixed, its more like 5.25%. Another attractive option could be 5 year ARM or 7 year ARM if you can make additional payments for the principal, it will significantly bring down the principal amount owed at the end of first 5 years if you make CONSISTENT (per month) additional payments.
I live in WA, I searched MLS & zillow for recently sold homes, most homes are going for 15-20% less than owner asked priced. Avg 3 bedroom house price here is 500K.
1. I do not qualify for tax rebate offered this year due to income level restrictions (spouse works)
2. Rents in Seattle have fallen steeply. Last year (aug), I was searching for apartment, I was offered at 1600 or 1700. The same apartment is now going for 1450. Some have fallen more steeply upto 1200 of the same class. I can get a very good/posh 2 bedroom apt for 1050 USD per month in today's date if I move out 5 miles more. It was unthinkable in seattle area 1 yr back.
As you said, monthly payment on a 500 K house comes to around 2750 USD, thats true even in seattle. Thats 1750 USD more than the rent or atleast 1500 USD more than the rent.
The gamble would be to stay in 1050 rent house for 2 more years and save bigger nest for downpayment. And prepare for the prices to fall more. say 25% more.
Even if I offer current owners 20% less , the math does not make sense for me. Hence I am expecting 30% -35% correction from current expectations of the owners.
Dont get me wrong, the owners would still be making a profit on homes constructed before 2003 even if there were 30% more correction.
One thing we all know for sure is , home prices are not about to go up spectacularly. Maybe 30-40 K up in 2 years from now. When you are thinking of 10-20 year deals, thats not a lot, its peanuts :)
As of now, I am thinking of buying a nice car instead of a house, since I can talk down car owners equally and since my GC is in geopardy, buying a car for now makes better sense. :)
As someone said we should consider luxury of a house. I have rented one townhome for 1500 a month for which my neighbour is making 2800 USD payment, go figure :)
hot The big fan up front.
obviously
08-05 08:16 PM
"Originally Posted by lfwf
I have seen you post before, and with this post you lost some of my respect. You need to be rational and coherent if you want to debate the issue. Not emotional and silly."
More hollow rhetoric from lfwf... someone that fails to see coherent logic and arguments made out in posts and instead claims that there is none :). Maybe, Inglis is the prablem, eh? LOL.
Obviously, lfwf's 'respect' is worth a lot ;)
I've gotten my days worth of laughs reading these protectionist jokers' weak arguments and empty threats of lawsuits.
LOL!
I have seen you post before, and with this post you lost some of my respect. You need to be rational and coherent if you want to debate the issue. Not emotional and silly."
More hollow rhetoric from lfwf... someone that fails to see coherent logic and arguments made out in posts and instead claims that there is none :). Maybe, Inglis is the prablem, eh? LOL.
Obviously, lfwf's 'respect' is worth a lot ;)
I've gotten my days worth of laughs reading these protectionist jokers' weak arguments and empty threats of lawsuits.
LOL!
more...
house The cowling in place;
dontcareanymore
08-07 05:21 PM
Now worst thing is that Lion can not change his job profile till he gets the green card. He will be forced to act like a monkey so that it matches with his monkey job profile mentioned in his PERM application. All he can hope for is to invoke AC21 after couple of years to join a new zoo, that too on a similar job profile. :D:D Gurus what are the Lion's options at this point of time?? :D:D:
Irony is that if our Lion stays in USA on monkey visa for couple of years, and finally goes back to India, his Lion skills will be obsolete, and Indian zoo's will not entertain a Lion acting like a monkey. Our poor Lion is totally doomed. :D:D
Or better yet ; Go to a Desi Zoo in US and they will be happy to process Lion visa even for a Monkey :):)
Irony is that if our Lion stays in USA on monkey visa for couple of years, and finally goes back to India, his Lion skills will be obsolete, and Indian zoo's will not entertain a Lion acting like a monkey. Our poor Lion is totally doomed. :D:D
Or better yet ; Go to a Desi Zoo in US and they will be happy to process Lion visa even for a Monkey :):)
tattoo complete its install.
panky72
09-27 11:07 PM
If you visit this website, you can read Obama's policies on legal Immigration reform. It looks like Obama and Joe Biden plan to fix the legal immigration system and improve processing speed due to bureaucratic delays. He also introduced the legislation to speed up FBI background checks.
Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
I found this on shusterman's regarding obama's views on immigration. Looks like he is all for family based immigration but no mention about employment based immigrants or green card backlogs.
http://shusterman.com/pdf/obama908.pdf
Source: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
I found this on shusterman's regarding obama's views on immigration. Looks like he is all for family based immigration but no mention about employment based immigrants or green card backlogs.
http://shusterman.com/pdf/obama908.pdf
more...
pictures cabin interior paint
sk2006
06-05 02:48 PM
This is a very healthy discussion!!.
My two cents.
Buying a house is the best decision no matter what, if you can get for a good price(price u can afford) at a GOOD LOCATION!!!. I think location is more important...
As far as real estate investment is concerned.. It is
LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION..
Nothing...else..!! .. Even if you are in H1B or GC if you know that u can stick to one job for a while and u get a house in a good location... this is the best time to invest!!
Partially true.
In good locations prices are falling slowly but that does not mean they can't fall as much as they have fallen in other areas.
The primary reason for the big boom in housing was not Rising incomes or rising affordability. It was not even Demand and Supply of Real Estate like may Real estate agents would tell you..
It was Demand and Supply of Easy Credit.
Days are easy credit are gone and we would not see it again atleast not for many many years to come. With Real wages falling and unemployment rising there is no way housing prices will rise any time soon. First they have to stop falling!
So buy a house if rent and mortgage(+tax+maintenace) are comparable and you plan to stay in the area for long time. And for next many years don't look at the value of your house on zillow.com
My two cents.
Buying a house is the best decision no matter what, if you can get for a good price(price u can afford) at a GOOD LOCATION!!!. I think location is more important...
As far as real estate investment is concerned.. It is
LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION..
Nothing...else..!! .. Even if you are in H1B or GC if you know that u can stick to one job for a while and u get a house in a good location... this is the best time to invest!!
Partially true.
In good locations prices are falling slowly but that does not mean they can't fall as much as they have fallen in other areas.
The primary reason for the big boom in housing was not Rising incomes or rising affordability. It was not even Demand and Supply of Real Estate like may Real estate agents would tell you..
It was Demand and Supply of Easy Credit.
Days are easy credit are gone and we would not see it again atleast not for many many years to come. With Real wages falling and unemployment rising there is no way housing prices will rise any time soon. First they have to stop falling!
So buy a house if rent and mortgage(+tax+maintenace) are comparable and you plan to stay in the area for long time. And for next many years don't look at the value of your house on zillow.com
dresses currently supplied by many
Macaca
12-28 06:54 PM
The India-U.S. Relationship in 2010 (http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/12/28/the-year-that-was-india-and-the-us-in-2010/) By Tripti Lahiri | IndiaRealTime
Indian and U.S. relations went through both highs and lows in 2010, with roadblocks on nuclear cooperation and outsourcing creating some rifts in a relationship that is strengthening overall, as U.S. President Barack Obama said on his first visit here in November.
Here are five India Real Time blogs that present a sense of the diversity of the political, economic and cultural ties between?yes, we have to say it??the world?s oldest democracy and the world?s largest democracy.?
Sure, some Americans still see Indians as job-stealers. During the Arkansas Democratic primary earlier this year, a group called Americans for Job Security tried to capitalize on that perception with an ad that had various Indian characters thanking candidate Bill Halter for sending them jobs. Many Americans, and not just those of Indian or Asian descent, found the ad a wee bit tasteless.
And sometimes India still feels on unequal footing with the U.S. The verdict this summer by a Bhopal court in the Union Carbide pesticide plant gas leak case of 1984 stirred up grievances India still harbors towards the United States from a time when the country wasn?t viewed as an emerging nation and had little ability to bargain with the American superpower.
This year seven former Indian executives of the now defunct Union Carbide India Ltd. were found guilty of negligence in connection with a disaster that killed thousands. No American executive stood trial and Union Carbide Corp. the parent company, never admitted negligence though it did agree to a $470 million settlement five years after the leak. The feeling that an American firm had got off lightly because it hailed from a country more powerful than India sometimes still rankles and set off a cry again this year to extradite then Union Carbide Corp. chair Warren Anderson, now in his eighties.
But couch potatoes in both countries can still share a laugh at and with each other. Following the theory that the best comedy comes from the things we really want to cry about, as Americans complained about job losses and Indian IT firms complained about a hike in skilled-worker visa fees, NBC waded into the fray with a sitcom called ?Outsourced.? Reviews for the show, which premiered in September, and comments from India Real Time readers , were mixed.
Culturally, the two countries exchanged some things. From motorcycles to Broadway-inspired theme parks, India drew a lot from the United States. Meanwhile, Indians are now providing suits to Obama and recipes to the rest of America. And at least one Indian-American came to greater prominence in the United States.
And the most powerful man in the world (or second-most, with China?s Hu Jintao apparently ahead this year) says the two countries have overcome the coldness of the past, when India aligned more closely to the former USSR. In his landmark address to Parliament Mr. Obama said that India and the U.S. ?have an historic opportunity to make the relationship between our two countries a defining partnership of the century ahead.? He also said the two countries must work together to create jobs, fight terror, promote democracy around the world.
Of course, in order to achieve all those things, India Real Time suggested that the two countries, like any couple that is in it for the long haul , must work out the kinks in their own relationship.
India U.S. Ties in 2010 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576046822308542558.html) By IndiaRealTime
Indian and U.S. relations went through both highs and lows in 2010, with roadblocks on nuclear cooperation and outsourcing creating some rifts in a relationship that is strengthening overall, as U.S. President Barack Obama said on his first visit here in November.
Here are five India Real Time blogs that present a sense of the diversity of the political, economic and cultural ties between?yes, we have to say it??the world?s oldest democracy and the world?s largest democracy.?
Sure, some Americans still see Indians as job-stealers. During the Arkansas Democratic primary earlier this year, a group called Americans for Job Security tried to capitalize on that perception with an ad that had various Indian characters thanking candidate Bill Halter for sending them jobs. Many Americans, and not just those of Indian or Asian descent, found the ad a wee bit tasteless.
And sometimes India still feels on unequal footing with the U.S. The verdict this summer by a Bhopal court in the Union Carbide pesticide plant gas leak case of 1984 stirred up grievances India still harbors towards the United States from a time when the country wasn?t viewed as an emerging nation and had little ability to bargain with the American superpower.
This year seven former Indian executives of the now defunct Union Carbide India Ltd. were found guilty of negligence in connection with a disaster that killed thousands. No American executive stood trial and Union Carbide Corp. the parent company, never admitted negligence though it did agree to a $470 million settlement five years after the leak. The feeling that an American firm had got off lightly because it hailed from a country more powerful than India sometimes still rankles and set off a cry again this year to extradite then Union Carbide Corp. chair Warren Anderson, now in his eighties.
But couch potatoes in both countries can still share a laugh at and with each other. Following the theory that the best comedy comes from the things we really want to cry about, as Americans complained about job losses and Indian IT firms complained about a hike in skilled-worker visa fees, NBC waded into the fray with a sitcom called ?Outsourced.? Reviews for the show, which premiered in September, and comments from India Real Time readers , were mixed.
Culturally, the two countries exchanged some things. From motorcycles to Broadway-inspired theme parks, India drew a lot from the United States. Meanwhile, Indians are now providing suits to Obama and recipes to the rest of America. And at least one Indian-American came to greater prominence in the United States.
And the most powerful man in the world (or second-most, with China?s Hu Jintao apparently ahead this year) says the two countries have overcome the coldness of the past, when India aligned more closely to the former USSR. In his landmark address to Parliament Mr. Obama said that India and the U.S. ?have an historic opportunity to make the relationship between our two countries a defining partnership of the century ahead.? He also said the two countries must work together to create jobs, fight terror, promote democracy around the world.
Of course, in order to achieve all those things, India Real Time suggested that the two countries, like any couple that is in it for the long haul , must work out the kinks in their own relationship.
India U.S. Ties in 2010 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576046822308542558.html) By IndiaRealTime
more...
makeup And with two tone gray leather
Macaca
12-30 07:11 PM
Judgment that risks tainting democracy (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article1018825.ece) By VINAY SITAPATI | The Hindu
One thousand three hundred and twenty days after he was first arrested, Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition against the Indian state. Narratives on his guilt portray him as an ?intellectual? coordinating Naxal attacks in the red corridor, just as narratives on his innocence are of a sainted doctor fingered by a vengeful state. But the only narrative that really matters is the legal case against him, and this in turn hinges on three distinct legal questions: Is the evidence against Dr. Sen enough to convict him? Are the laws applied to him fair? And finally, is the maximalist sentence (life imprisonment) justified?
Around a single event
The evidence against Dr. Sen centres on a single event. He is accused of having met a jailed Naxalite, Narayan Sanyal, 33 times and carried letters from him to a Naxalite, Piyush Guha. But Dr. Sen met Sanyal in Raipur Central Jail with the permission of the Chhattisgarh police; the jail superintendent who supervised the meetings told the Raipur sessions court that no letters were exchanged. At the other end of the ?crime?, Piyush Guha did not name him when he appeared before a magistrate. He is alleged to have implicated Dr. Sen while in police custody. But this is legally barred from being weighed as evidence, since all custodial confessions are presumed tainted with torture.
The central allegation against him is therefore tenuous at both ends. Other attempts to link him to Naxalites are individually trivial (or downright dubious, like an unsigned letter from the CPI-Maoists allegedly found in his house, but which is not part of the official seizure memo). But taken together they have managed to convince Justice B.P. Verma of Dr. Sen's role in aiding and abetting Naxal groups.
The second concern is the fairness of the laws used against Dr. Sen. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Sedition) is a colonial-era law that has been previously invoked against Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Since it is a serious offence with the possibility of life in jail, in the 1962 case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar the Supreme Court limited the definition of sedition to the ?tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.? Dr. Sen is convicted for acting as a letter courier between Naxalites; it is questionable if this ?act? falls within the definition of sedition.
The other laws that Dr. Sen has been convicted under, the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, make illegal a wide variety of actions that ?support? unlawful activities: taking part in meetings or harbouring a Naxalite. These laws have been invoked against grain merchants and cloth traders who unwittingly sold their wares to Naxalites. Taken together, what all these laws do is to broaden the scope of what ?guilt by association? means. Perhaps this is understandable in a State where Maoists are present in half of its 18 districts and requires an army of civilian supporters to sustain a war under forested cover. But fashioning a blunt legal tool to go after an elusive enemy enhances the risk of snaring innocents.
The final concern
The Congress party has declined to comment on the judgment, invoking the prerogative of an independent judiciary. It is no one's argument that the decision was politically determined. But political abuse includes the fairness of the laws formulated by the political class for judges to impose. After all, judicial independence must also consider the quality of laws that the Raipur sessions court had to enforce, and those laws define ?guilt by association? so broadly that they blur the line between innocent and guilty.
The final concern is that of punishment. Dr. Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiring to commit sedition. Sentencing ranges from three years to life in jail. Justifying the use of the maximalist sentence, Justice Verma's Hindi judgment points to ?the way that terrorists and Maoists are killing ... paramilitary forces ? and innocent Adivasis.? But surely there is a difference between CPI (Maoist) General Secretary Ganapati, a man with much blood on his hands, and a mere courier of letters between Naxalites? Even if Dr. Sen is guilty as charged, that charge is not of violence ? something he has repeatedly spoken out against. To club varying actions together defeats the purpose of flexibility in sentencing, which is after all to permit the judge to recognise degrees of motivations and culpabilities.
The Raipur sessions court verdict is only the quarterfinal. Indian law affords Dr. Sen one automatic right to appeal, and another at the discretion of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, given the visible disparity between the quality of allegations against him and the repercussions, the judgment is sure to provoke an outcry, if the national and international outrage over his two-year long arrest without bail is any indication (already Amnesty International has criticised the verdict).
The outcry will reverberate beyond one man. In 2009, a non-violent critic of the state was held guilty of sedition and sentenced to a lengthy spell in prison. That man's name is Liu Xiaobo, and the international focus on him dims the mandarin equivalent of India Shining. While the specific ?crimes? of the 2010 Nobel Prize winner vary from those of Dr. Binayak Sen, the life imprisonment given to the Chhattisgarh doctor will surely discredit the justifiable struggle against Naxalism much as Mr. Liu's incarceration discounts the distance China has travelled since Tiananmen Square. Apart from the irreparable harm to the life of an individual and his family, the judgment risks tainting Indian democracy itself.
The writer is a doctoral student working on law and politics in India
One thousand three hundred and twenty days after he was first arrested, Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition against the Indian state. Narratives on his guilt portray him as an ?intellectual? coordinating Naxal attacks in the red corridor, just as narratives on his innocence are of a sainted doctor fingered by a vengeful state. But the only narrative that really matters is the legal case against him, and this in turn hinges on three distinct legal questions: Is the evidence against Dr. Sen enough to convict him? Are the laws applied to him fair? And finally, is the maximalist sentence (life imprisonment) justified?
Around a single event
The evidence against Dr. Sen centres on a single event. He is accused of having met a jailed Naxalite, Narayan Sanyal, 33 times and carried letters from him to a Naxalite, Piyush Guha. But Dr. Sen met Sanyal in Raipur Central Jail with the permission of the Chhattisgarh police; the jail superintendent who supervised the meetings told the Raipur sessions court that no letters were exchanged. At the other end of the ?crime?, Piyush Guha did not name him when he appeared before a magistrate. He is alleged to have implicated Dr. Sen while in police custody. But this is legally barred from being weighed as evidence, since all custodial confessions are presumed tainted with torture.
The central allegation against him is therefore tenuous at both ends. Other attempts to link him to Naxalites are individually trivial (or downright dubious, like an unsigned letter from the CPI-Maoists allegedly found in his house, but which is not part of the official seizure memo). But taken together they have managed to convince Justice B.P. Verma of Dr. Sen's role in aiding and abetting Naxal groups.
The second concern is the fairness of the laws used against Dr. Sen. Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (Sedition) is a colonial-era law that has been previously invoked against Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Since it is a serious offence with the possibility of life in jail, in the 1962 case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar the Supreme Court limited the definition of sedition to the ?tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.? Dr. Sen is convicted for acting as a letter courier between Naxalites; it is questionable if this ?act? falls within the definition of sedition.
The other laws that Dr. Sen has been convicted under, the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, make illegal a wide variety of actions that ?support? unlawful activities: taking part in meetings or harbouring a Naxalite. These laws have been invoked against grain merchants and cloth traders who unwittingly sold their wares to Naxalites. Taken together, what all these laws do is to broaden the scope of what ?guilt by association? means. Perhaps this is understandable in a State where Maoists are present in half of its 18 districts and requires an army of civilian supporters to sustain a war under forested cover. But fashioning a blunt legal tool to go after an elusive enemy enhances the risk of snaring innocents.
The final concern
The Congress party has declined to comment on the judgment, invoking the prerogative of an independent judiciary. It is no one's argument that the decision was politically determined. But political abuse includes the fairness of the laws formulated by the political class for judges to impose. After all, judicial independence must also consider the quality of laws that the Raipur sessions court had to enforce, and those laws define ?guilt by association? so broadly that they blur the line between innocent and guilty.
The final concern is that of punishment. Dr. Binayak Sen has been sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiring to commit sedition. Sentencing ranges from three years to life in jail. Justifying the use of the maximalist sentence, Justice Verma's Hindi judgment points to ?the way that terrorists and Maoists are killing ... paramilitary forces ? and innocent Adivasis.? But surely there is a difference between CPI (Maoist) General Secretary Ganapati, a man with much blood on his hands, and a mere courier of letters between Naxalites? Even if Dr. Sen is guilty as charged, that charge is not of violence ? something he has repeatedly spoken out against. To club varying actions together defeats the purpose of flexibility in sentencing, which is after all to permit the judge to recognise degrees of motivations and culpabilities.
The Raipur sessions court verdict is only the quarterfinal. Indian law affords Dr. Sen one automatic right to appeal, and another at the discretion of the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, given the visible disparity between the quality of allegations against him and the repercussions, the judgment is sure to provoke an outcry, if the national and international outrage over his two-year long arrest without bail is any indication (already Amnesty International has criticised the verdict).
The outcry will reverberate beyond one man. In 2009, a non-violent critic of the state was held guilty of sedition and sentenced to a lengthy spell in prison. That man's name is Liu Xiaobo, and the international focus on him dims the mandarin equivalent of India Shining. While the specific ?crimes? of the 2010 Nobel Prize winner vary from those of Dr. Binayak Sen, the life imprisonment given to the Chhattisgarh doctor will surely discredit the justifiable struggle against Naxalism much as Mr. Liu's incarceration discounts the distance China has travelled since Tiananmen Square. Apart from the irreparable harm to the life of an individual and his family, the judgment risks tainting Indian democracy itself.
The writer is a doctoral student working on law and politics in India
girlfriend congrats from the other side
waitnwatch
05-24 12:03 PM
Communique,
I would like to differ on the point of keeping H1-B numbers constant. To hire a H1-B a company has to show that they didnot get a US citizen with even the minimal qualifications for that particular job. Also the salary for the job has to be certified by the Department of Labor as at least the market rate if not higher. Under this scenario why should there be this artificial and arbitrary limit. Again most of the numbers nowadays is being picked up by the consultants so if a regular company like say Caterpillar wants to hire an engineer the numbers are just not available.
While you do make a statement supporting no change in the numbers you justify your point by pointing to salary stagnation. Can you show a direct correlation between H1B and salary stagnation. I would more likely point to outsourcing as being more relevant to salary stagnation. If companies have a hard time hiring they would be more prone to outsourcing and it is always better to have a salary stagnated job in the US than not having the job at all.
Finally about Lou Dobbs..... I have much better use for my time than watching him. His journalism is worse than tabloid journalism though I have the suspicion that he may have an eye on joining the National Enquirer after immigration is done as he would have nothing more to say to his current audience.
My two cents!
I would like to differ on the point of keeping H1-B numbers constant. To hire a H1-B a company has to show that they didnot get a US citizen with even the minimal qualifications for that particular job. Also the salary for the job has to be certified by the Department of Labor as at least the market rate if not higher. Under this scenario why should there be this artificial and arbitrary limit. Again most of the numbers nowadays is being picked up by the consultants so if a regular company like say Caterpillar wants to hire an engineer the numbers are just not available.
While you do make a statement supporting no change in the numbers you justify your point by pointing to salary stagnation. Can you show a direct correlation between H1B and salary stagnation. I would more likely point to outsourcing as being more relevant to salary stagnation. If companies have a hard time hiring they would be more prone to outsourcing and it is always better to have a salary stagnated job in the US than not having the job at all.
Finally about Lou Dobbs..... I have much better use for my time than watching him. His journalism is worse than tabloid journalism though I have the suspicion that he may have an eye on joining the National Enquirer after immigration is done as he would have nothing more to say to his current audience.
My two cents!
hairstyles Will I ever finish this thing?
chanduv23
04-12 03:20 PM
Yes, we are all in trouble because of consultants. Nice attitude.
I can say that I am in trouble because of everyone else in the queue of 500,000 highly skilled H1 and L1 people waiting for GC. Everyone else other than me and my family is causing trouble for me.
If all others in the queue were to vanish or die somehow,my PD would become current and I can file for 485.
Isnt that the attitude of IEEE-USA. We are in trouble because of competition from Indian and Chinese professionals.
They have a problem with Indian and Chinese engineers whether they come here, or dont come here. They have problem with H1B, they have a problem if they dont come here and merely work on jobs in India and China that are outsourced from here to there.
Just like IEEE-USA has problem with existence of competition, you have problem with the existence of consultants because that sub-community within this community is also asking for Greencards. And your solution is to eliminate competition.
Consultants can say the same thing...that we are in trouble because of these perm-fulltime jobs holders who stick to one job for 10 years and we have a problem with that.
How can you justify, with reasonable objective arguments that perm-fulltime jobs holders should be ahead of the queue from consultants and they are more deserving candidates for Greencard than consultants? I am not a consultant myself but I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. Dont tell me crap that consultants pad their resumes. Everyone does it. Whether its consultants or perm-fulltime jobs holders, and whether its H1B or citizens, EVERYONE who is desperate for a job would pad his/her resume. You would do it too if it meant getting yourself away from filing bankruptcy.
I have worked in both capacities, as consultant and as FT. I did FT for 5 years and got fired and moved to consulting and am doing good here. So I am kinda balanced on this issue.
It is no one's fault. We all followed the system properly and did not break any law. So it does not make sense to blame felllow immigrants.
I can say that I am in trouble because of everyone else in the queue of 500,000 highly skilled H1 and L1 people waiting for GC. Everyone else other than me and my family is causing trouble for me.
If all others in the queue were to vanish or die somehow,my PD would become current and I can file for 485.
Isnt that the attitude of IEEE-USA. We are in trouble because of competition from Indian and Chinese professionals.
They have a problem with Indian and Chinese engineers whether they come here, or dont come here. They have problem with H1B, they have a problem if they dont come here and merely work on jobs in India and China that are outsourced from here to there.
Just like IEEE-USA has problem with existence of competition, you have problem with the existence of consultants because that sub-community within this community is also asking for Greencards. And your solution is to eliminate competition.
Consultants can say the same thing...that we are in trouble because of these perm-fulltime jobs holders who stick to one job for 10 years and we have a problem with that.
How can you justify, with reasonable objective arguments that perm-fulltime jobs holders should be ahead of the queue from consultants and they are more deserving candidates for Greencard than consultants? I am not a consultant myself but I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this. Dont tell me crap that consultants pad their resumes. Everyone does it. Whether its consultants or perm-fulltime jobs holders, and whether its H1B or citizens, EVERYONE who is desperate for a job would pad his/her resume. You would do it too if it meant getting yourself away from filing bankruptcy.
I have worked in both capacities, as consultant and as FT. I did FT for 5 years and got fired and moved to consulting and am doing good here. So I am kinda balanced on this issue.
It is no one's fault. We all followed the system properly and did not break any law. So it does not make sense to blame felllow immigrants.
gcisadawg
12-27 12:04 AM
Don't you think Pakistan already knows that?
Yes, you are right. Pakistan knows that. But our audience is not pakistan. It is US and other countries. Who comes to india when pak does nuclear sabre-rattling? It is US. We need to send that message clearly and forcibly to the world. The Clear message is " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
As to your second question, you never know. To be honest, I dont know...Musharraf started Kargil and they did not acknowledge even dead Pakistan soldiers. Sharif went to US and pleaded Clinton to stop the war.
I do believe ISI's footprint is there. ISI is built on the image of CIA during cold war. They are a pretty powerful bunch with one complete victory ( against Soviets) and two successful (atleast so far) distruptive operations in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Without the big brother ISI watching, these jihadists can not move around. But I do give the benefit of doubt to Zardari's govt. The poor guy has just lost his wife. He might not have signed off on this ops.
Yes, you are right. Pakistan knows that. But our audience is not pakistan. It is US and other countries. Who comes to india when pak does nuclear sabre-rattling? It is US. We need to send that message clearly and forcibly to the world. The Clear message is " Nukes dont impact our options. The decision to go to war or not is not impacted by the presence or absence of nukes"
Do you mean to say that the state and the government of Pakistan did this?
As to your second question, you never know. To be honest, I dont know...Musharraf started Kargil and they did not acknowledge even dead Pakistan soldiers. Sharif went to US and pleaded Clinton to stop the war.
I do believe ISI's footprint is there. ISI is built on the image of CIA during cold war. They are a pretty powerful bunch with one complete victory ( against Soviets) and two successful (atleast so far) distruptive operations in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Without the big brother ISI watching, these jihadists can not move around. But I do give the benefit of doubt to Zardari's govt. The poor guy has just lost his wife. He might not have signed off on this ops.
StuckInTheMuck
08-06 03:24 PM
haha haha..man, cant let this thread disappear!
bump bump!
\/\/ dump dump \/\/
bump bump!
\/\/ dump dump \/\/
0 comments:
Post a Comment