sanju
05-15 05:42 AM
hey guys,
M new to this. I have applied for a H1 B this year ....i went thru the pdf on bill S 1035 ...& it states the following:
Section 2(e) Prohibition of Outplacement
1. Employer cannot place, outsource, lease, or otherwise contract for the
placement of an employee on H-1B. (This prohibits any consulting work for
an employee on H-1B).
2. This applies to all the application filed after the enactment of this bill.
Does it mean that all existing consulting work will also be in danger??
YES
M a bit confused as point 2 states that it will be for all applications after the enactment of the bill. Does that affect H1-b holders frm this year itself??
YES
Durbin-Grassley going after 9 firms.
http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=6514384&nav=0w0v
U.S. Senators question companies about visas
Two US senators are questioning several companies about their use of a visa program for highly skilled workers. Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Dick Durbin of Illinois are focusing on nine companies -- several of them foreign-based. Those companies used nearly 20,000 of the 75,000 H-One-B visas that were available last year. H-One-B visas are for high-skilled workers and are heavily used in the high-tech industry. The industry has long complained that too few visas are available. Grassley and Durbin, both on the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, sent letters to the nine companies asking questions about visa use, wages and layoffs. The top users were identified with statistics from Citizenship and Immigration Services. The letters, posted on Grassley's Web site, were addressed to:
Infosys Technologies Limited in Freemont, California
Wipro Limited of Mountainview, California
Tata Consultancy Services Limited of Arlington, Virginia
Saytam Computer Services Limited of Andhra Pradesh, India
Patni Computer Systems of Mumbai, India
Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited of Mumbai, India
I-Flex Solutions of Mumbai, India
Tech Mahindra Americas of Englewood, Colorado and
Mphasis Corporation of Bangalore, India
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a letter from Sen. Durbin and Grassley to these companies
http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2007/05142007.pdf
M new to this. I have applied for a H1 B this year ....i went thru the pdf on bill S 1035 ...& it states the following:
Section 2(e) Prohibition of Outplacement
1. Employer cannot place, outsource, lease, or otherwise contract for the
placement of an employee on H-1B. (This prohibits any consulting work for
an employee on H-1B).
2. This applies to all the application filed after the enactment of this bill.
Does it mean that all existing consulting work will also be in danger??
YES
M a bit confused as point 2 states that it will be for all applications after the enactment of the bill. Does that affect H1-b holders frm this year itself??
YES
Durbin-Grassley going after 9 firms.
http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=6514384&nav=0w0v
U.S. Senators question companies about visas
Two US senators are questioning several companies about their use of a visa program for highly skilled workers. Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Dick Durbin of Illinois are focusing on nine companies -- several of them foreign-based. Those companies used nearly 20,000 of the 75,000 H-One-B visas that were available last year. H-One-B visas are for high-skilled workers and are heavily used in the high-tech industry. The industry has long complained that too few visas are available. Grassley and Durbin, both on the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, sent letters to the nine companies asking questions about visa use, wages and layoffs. The top users were identified with statistics from Citizenship and Immigration Services. The letters, posted on Grassley's Web site, were addressed to:
Infosys Technologies Limited in Freemont, California
Wipro Limited of Mountainview, California
Tata Consultancy Services Limited of Arlington, Virginia
Saytam Computer Services Limited of Andhra Pradesh, India
Patni Computer Systems of Mumbai, India
Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited of Mumbai, India
I-Flex Solutions of Mumbai, India
Tech Mahindra Americas of Englewood, Colorado and
Mphasis Corporation of Bangalore, India
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a letter from Sen. Durbin and Grassley to these companies
http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2007/05142007.pdf
wallpaper dresses LeBron James Shoes
conchshell
08-05 06:51 PM
By the time, the lion gets the GC, he might have forgot he was a lion, and even after getting GC, he will continue to act like monkey.
Yes ... this leads to a pale and worried Lion keep worrying that whether he should stay with the current zoo for n number of days before taking a new position at some other zoo.
Looks like a story plot for Madagascar III
Yes ... this leads to a pale and worried Lion keep worrying that whether he should stay with the current zoo for n number of days before taking a new position at some other zoo.
Looks like a story plot for Madagascar III
sc3
07-14 12:18 PM
Bear this in mind. We are not opposing because EB2 is getting the number, we are opposing because USCIS arbitrarily changed the law -- without any legislative approval. Remember, they changed the OPT rules and they are now facing lawsuit.
You seem to be saying that we are petty in making our demands, and also suggestion (I have got personal comments) that we are causing a rift among the team. I say NO. We are not causing the rift. You did that, we are just highlighting our plight.
You seem to be saying that we are petty in making our demands, and also suggestion (I have got personal comments) that we are causing a rift among the team. I say NO. We are not causing the rift. You did that, we are just highlighting our plight.
2011 Adidas Miami Heat Nba Lebron
Macaca
10-14 11:06 AM
Getting Around Rules on Lobbying: Despite New Law, Firms Find Ways To Ply Politicians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301275.html?hpid=topnews) By Elizabeth Williamson | Washington Post Staff Writer, October 14, 2007
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
In recent days, about 100 members of Congress and hundreds of Hill staffers attended two black-tie galas, many of them as guests of corporations and lobbyists that paid as much as $2,500 per ticket.
Because accepting such gifts from special interests is now illegal, the companies did not hand the tickets directly to lawmakers or staffers. Instead, the companies donated the tickets back to the charity sponsors, with the names of recipients they wanted to see and sit with at the galas.
The arrangement was one of the most visible efforts, but hardly the only one, to get around new rules passed by Congress this summer limiting meals, travel, gifts and campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies that employ them.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) found bipartisan agreement on maintaining one special privilege. Together they put language into a defense appropriations bill that would keep legal the practice of some senators of booking several flights on days they return home, keeping the most convenient reservation and dumping the rest without paying cancellation fees -- a practice some airlines say could violate the new law.
Senators also have granted themselves a grace period on requirements that they pay pricey charter rates for private jet travel. Lobbyists continue to bundle political contributions to lawmakers but are now making sure the totals do not trigger new public reporting rules. And with presidential nominating conventions coming next summer, lawmakers and lobbyists are working together to save another tradition endangered by the new rules: the convention party feting one lawmaker.
"You can't have a party honoring a specific member. It's clear to me -- but it's not clear to everybody," said Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate ethics committee. She said the committee is getting "these questions that surround the edges -- 'If it's midnight the night before,' 'If I wear one shoe and not the other.' "
Democrats touted the new ethics law as the most thorough housecleaning since Watergate, and needed after a host of scandals during 12 years of Republican rule. Prompted by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's wheeling and dealing and the jailing of three members of Congress on corruption charges in recent years, the law, signed by President Bush on Sept. 14, was heralded by congressional leaders as a real change in Washington's influence game.
But the changes have prompted anxiety about what perks are still permissible. In recent months, the House and Senate ethics committees have fielded more than 1,000 questions from lobbyists and congressional staffers seeking guidance -- or an outright waiver -- for rules banning weekend trips and pricey wedding gifts, five-course dinners and backstage passes.
Looking for ways to keep spreading freebies legally, hundreds of lobbyists have been attending seminars at Washington law firms to learn the ins and outs of the new law.
At a recent American League of Lobbyists briefing, Cleta Mitchell of the Foley & Lardner law firm said that while the law bans lobbyists from buying lawmakers or staffers a meal, it is silent on picking up bar tabs. A woman in the third row asked hopefully, "You can buy them as many drinks as you want, as often as you want?"
No, Mitchell said, not unless the drinkers are the lobbyist's personal friends, and she pays from her own pocket.
If that rule was clear to some, two charity dinners allowed hazier interpretations.
Most of the 40 lawmakers dining on red snapper ceviche and beef tenderloin at the recent Hispanic Caucus Institute gala at the Washington Convention Center got their tickets from corporations, said Paul Brathwaite, a principal with the Podesta Group lobbying firm.
Brathwaite said about a dozen of Podesta's corporate clients bought tables of 10 for $5,000 to $25,000 for the Hispanic dinner and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation gala over the past three weeks. The companies then gave the tickets back to the foundations -- along with lists of lawmakers and staff members they wanted to invite. Some lawmakers did buy their own tickets, Brathwaite said, but many did not.
The rules require that charity sponsors do the inviting and decide who sits where. But "at the end of the night, everyone is happy," said Hispanic Caucus Institute spokesman Scott Gunderson Rosa.
"The corporate folks want us at their tables, of course," said Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who sat at a Fannie Mae-sponsored table at the Hispanic dinner.
Another provision of the new ethics law bans House members from flying on corporate jets. But senators, including the half-dozen presidential candidates among them, can still do so. Previously they were required to reimburse plane owners the equivalent of a first-class ticket, but now they must pay charter rates, which can increase travel costs tenfold.
The Senate ethics committee decided not to enforce that rule for at least 60 days after it took effect Sept. 14, citing "the lack of experience in many offices in determining 'charter rates.' "
The decision surprised some Senate staffers, Mitchell said, one of whom e-mailed her to say, "Welcome to the world of skirting around the rules we pass."
"Breathtaking. . . . In my view, they're not complying with the plain language of the law," Mitchell said. "I think it should be easier for members of Congress to travel, not harder. But what I don't appreciate as a citizen is Congress passing something but then interpreting it so it doesn't mean what the law clearly says."
The law has dragged into view several such perks that members long enjoyed but didn't reveal -- until they sought exemptions to the new rules.
Lawmakers for years have booked several flights for a day when they plan to leave town. When they finish work, they take the most convenient flight and cancel the rest without paying fees, a privilege denied others. But after the new law passed, some airlines stopped the practice, worried that it violates the gift ban.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) appealed to the Senate ethics committee to allow multiple bookings. Then Reid and McConnell added language to the defense bill that, if it passes, would extend the perk to staffers, too.
New bans on corporate-paid fun could hit hardest at the 2008 presidential nominating conventions. The law prohibits parties honoring a lawmaker on convention days; some lobbyists say the wording means such parties before or after those days are okay. House and Senate members have asked the ethics committees for guidance.
"That's one of the issues that's going to need some clarification," said Senate ethics panelist Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), whose home state will host the Democrats in August.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are booking up Denver's trendy warehouse district and Minnesota's Mall of America, near the GOP convention site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, for the pre-convention weekends. Host committees for both conventions say they will honor state delegations, including members of Congress who take part.
"I think you'll see a lot of umbrella invitations," said Patrick Murphy, lobbyist for mCapitol Management, who is planning Democratic convention parties. "Invite 'Friends of Montana' and see who shows up."
One of the most fought-over parts of the law requires that lobbyists who bundle multiple campaign contributions totaling more than $15,000 file reports every six months. But lawyers say that a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton signals a way to avoid public reporting when that rule kicks in Jan. 1.
Female politicos have been e-mailing each other a slick online invitation to "Make History With Hillary," a summit and fundraiser on Wednesday. The invitation encourages women to bundle for Clinton by promising them online credit for each ticket they sell. Women who have already donated their legal individual limit of $2,300 cannot attend unless they bring in another $4,000.
"It's a universe of junior bundlers under the radar screen," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. For the lobbyists among them, the amounts are so small that "you don't have to worry about tracking them, and it would add up to a material sum over time" -- but less than the $15,000 limit.
If a lobbyist asked his advice on the practice, Gross said, "I'd say 'Go for it.' "
more...
damialok
03-28 01:18 PM
Thanks for explaining the terms. You can go over 80% on the first loan but the lender will ask for PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance). Which is around 1% of the loan. To skirt around it, mortgage brokers break up the loan into first and second(80%+10%+10% down). This avoids the PMI and helps the buyer qualify for a bigger loan/house. Also PMI premiums are not tax-deductible.
Macaca
05-02 05:45 PM
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.
more...
Macaca
05-12 05:47 PM
Get ready� Chinese investors are coming Latin America (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/11/2212567/get-ready-chinese-investors-are.html) By Andres Oppenheimer | Miami Herald
It�s no secret that China�s trade with the Americas has soared in recent years, but we are likely to see a major new phenomenon in coming years � an avalanche of Chinese foreign investments.
It has already started in Latin America, where China�s foreign investment more than doubled in 2010. And it�s beginning to take off in the United States, although in a smaller scale because of U.S. concerns over the potential national security threats of selling major corporations to Chinese investors.
According to several new studies, we will soon see Chinese firms buying increasingly more companies throughout the Americas, ranging from oil, minerals and other natural resources firms in Latin America to manufacturing plants in the United States. As China�s companies grow, so do their need to expand abroad, they say.
A newly released study by the Asia Society and the Woodrow Wilson International Center, entitled �An American open door?,� estimates that China�s worldwide direct foreign investments will rise from an accumulated $230 billion today to between $1 and $2 trillion by 2020. The figure does not include China�s purchases of government bonds, or passive investments in stocks and bonds.
Until now, China was virtually non-existent as a global foreign investor. While China accounts for 8 percent of global trade, it only accounts for 1.2 percent of the global stock of foreign investments. Its current foreign investments pale in comparison with the $4 trillion in U.S. investments abroad.
But that�s changing very fast. Unlike six years ago, when China�s Lenovo raised eyebrows worldwide when it bought IBM�s Personal Computers Division, such purchases are becoming increasingly common. Last year, China�s Sinopec oil company bought Brazil�s Repsol-YPF for $7.1 billion, and China�s CNOOC oil firm bought Argentina�s Bridas Corp. for $3.1 billion.
A study released last week by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) shows that China�s foreign direct investments in Latin America reached $15 billion last year, doubling the total of China�s accumulated investments in the region of the past 20 years.
In addition, China has announced it will invest $22.7 billion in Latin America and the Caribbean starting this year, the study says.
China�s investments in the United States have been much smaller, of about $5 billion last year, according to the Asia Society study. But that was a 130 percent increase over 2009, it says.
What�s moving China to invest in the Americas? I asked Alicia Barcena, head of the Santiago, Chile-based ECLAC.
First and foremost, the need to secure its supplies of oil, minerals, soybeans and other raw materials, she said. China is a major importer of Latin American primary products and wants to protect itself from big price increases or potential disruptions in the supply chain. So Chinese companies want to make the transition from importers to part-owners of the Latin American firms that produce the goods they are now buying.
Second, China�s companies are increasingly behaving like profit-driven Western firms: When faced with tariff barriers in big markets they want to get access, such as Brazil�s, they buy local companies to sell their goods within those countries.
Third, China�s labor costs are rising, as Chinese firms are raising wages. Just as Chinese companies have been going to Vietnam and other Asian countries to lower their production costs, they may soon do the same in Latin America.
�This trend of growing Chinese foreign investments in Latin America is likely to continue,� Barcena told me. �There has clearly been a policy change there, and the Chinese government is now encouraging foreign investments by Chinese firms.�
My opinion: China�s eruption as a major foreign investor in the Americas is a positive development, but brings along several problems that countries in the region will have to face.
China buys majority stakes in foreign companies, but makes it difficult for foreigners to buy Chinese companies, and sell in China. Also, China�s nearly exclusive focus on raw materials in Latin America threatens to turn countries in the region into extraction economies, delaying the development of high-tech industries.
And Chinese companies are not known to follow strict environmental or anti-corruption rules. Their arrival in the region will be a welcome phenomenon, but it will pose many challenges that countries should begin to prepare for as they roll out their red carpets to Chinese investors.
Now for the price of chasing Afghan shadows (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/583d1c2a-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LTeOmBcc) By David Pilling | Financial Times
Chinese and American madness (http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/12/chinese_and_american_madness) By Clyde Prestowitz | Foreign Policy
The S&ED No-Holds Barred: China�s Deplorable Human Rights and the Simple American People (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/11/the-sed-no-holds-barred-china%E2%80%99s-deplorable-human-rights-and-the-simple-american-people/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
Inouye�s Asia-Pacific Warning (http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/05/11/inouye%E2%80%99s-asia-pacific-warning/) By James Holmes & Toshi Yoshihara | The Diplomat
Hardy perennials block US-China light (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME13Ad02.html) By Jingdong Yuan | Asia Times
More Hopes Than Gains At U.S.-China Meetings (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/asia/11china.html) By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM | New York Times
Managing the China Challenge in Business (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0506_us_china_challenge_lieberthal.aspx) By Kenneth G. Lieberthal | The Brookings Institution
Hillary Clinton: Chinese System Is Doomed, Leaders on a 'Fool's Errand' (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/hillary-clinton-chinese-system-is-doomed-leaders-on-a-fools-errand/238591/) By Jeffrey Goldberg | The Atlantic
It�s no secret that China�s trade with the Americas has soared in recent years, but we are likely to see a major new phenomenon in coming years � an avalanche of Chinese foreign investments.
It has already started in Latin America, where China�s foreign investment more than doubled in 2010. And it�s beginning to take off in the United States, although in a smaller scale because of U.S. concerns over the potential national security threats of selling major corporations to Chinese investors.
According to several new studies, we will soon see Chinese firms buying increasingly more companies throughout the Americas, ranging from oil, minerals and other natural resources firms in Latin America to manufacturing plants in the United States. As China�s companies grow, so do their need to expand abroad, they say.
A newly released study by the Asia Society and the Woodrow Wilson International Center, entitled �An American open door?,� estimates that China�s worldwide direct foreign investments will rise from an accumulated $230 billion today to between $1 and $2 trillion by 2020. The figure does not include China�s purchases of government bonds, or passive investments in stocks and bonds.
Until now, China was virtually non-existent as a global foreign investor. While China accounts for 8 percent of global trade, it only accounts for 1.2 percent of the global stock of foreign investments. Its current foreign investments pale in comparison with the $4 trillion in U.S. investments abroad.
But that�s changing very fast. Unlike six years ago, when China�s Lenovo raised eyebrows worldwide when it bought IBM�s Personal Computers Division, such purchases are becoming increasingly common. Last year, China�s Sinopec oil company bought Brazil�s Repsol-YPF for $7.1 billion, and China�s CNOOC oil firm bought Argentina�s Bridas Corp. for $3.1 billion.
A study released last week by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) shows that China�s foreign direct investments in Latin America reached $15 billion last year, doubling the total of China�s accumulated investments in the region of the past 20 years.
In addition, China has announced it will invest $22.7 billion in Latin America and the Caribbean starting this year, the study says.
China�s investments in the United States have been much smaller, of about $5 billion last year, according to the Asia Society study. But that was a 130 percent increase over 2009, it says.
What�s moving China to invest in the Americas? I asked Alicia Barcena, head of the Santiago, Chile-based ECLAC.
First and foremost, the need to secure its supplies of oil, minerals, soybeans and other raw materials, she said. China is a major importer of Latin American primary products and wants to protect itself from big price increases or potential disruptions in the supply chain. So Chinese companies want to make the transition from importers to part-owners of the Latin American firms that produce the goods they are now buying.
Second, China�s companies are increasingly behaving like profit-driven Western firms: When faced with tariff barriers in big markets they want to get access, such as Brazil�s, they buy local companies to sell their goods within those countries.
Third, China�s labor costs are rising, as Chinese firms are raising wages. Just as Chinese companies have been going to Vietnam and other Asian countries to lower their production costs, they may soon do the same in Latin America.
�This trend of growing Chinese foreign investments in Latin America is likely to continue,� Barcena told me. �There has clearly been a policy change there, and the Chinese government is now encouraging foreign investments by Chinese firms.�
My opinion: China�s eruption as a major foreign investor in the Americas is a positive development, but brings along several problems that countries in the region will have to face.
China buys majority stakes in foreign companies, but makes it difficult for foreigners to buy Chinese companies, and sell in China. Also, China�s nearly exclusive focus on raw materials in Latin America threatens to turn countries in the region into extraction economies, delaying the development of high-tech industries.
And Chinese companies are not known to follow strict environmental or anti-corruption rules. Their arrival in the region will be a welcome phenomenon, but it will pose many challenges that countries should begin to prepare for as they roll out their red carpets to Chinese investors.
Now for the price of chasing Afghan shadows (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/583d1c2a-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LTeOmBcc) By David Pilling | Financial Times
Chinese and American madness (http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/12/chinese_and_american_madness) By Clyde Prestowitz | Foreign Policy
The S&ED No-Holds Barred: China�s Deplorable Human Rights and the Simple American People (http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2011/05/11/the-sed-no-holds-barred-china%E2%80%99s-deplorable-human-rights-and-the-simple-american-people/) By Elizabeth C. Economy | Council on Foreign Relations
Inouye�s Asia-Pacific Warning (http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/05/11/inouye%E2%80%99s-asia-pacific-warning/) By James Holmes & Toshi Yoshihara | The Diplomat
Hardy perennials block US-China light (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME13Ad02.html) By Jingdong Yuan | Asia Times
More Hopes Than Gains At U.S.-China Meetings (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/asia/11china.html) By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM | New York Times
Managing the China Challenge in Business (http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0506_us_china_challenge_lieberthal.aspx) By Kenneth G. Lieberthal | The Brookings Institution
Hillary Clinton: Chinese System Is Doomed, Leaders on a 'Fool's Errand' (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/hillary-clinton-chinese-system-is-doomed-leaders-on-a-fools-errand/238591/) By Jeffrey Goldberg | The Atlantic
2010 pictures lebron james miami
suavesandeep
06-26 04:25 PM
Sorry hpandey wasn't intentional :),
My data is restricted to bay area. You are definitely looking at least at 600k for a decent home in bay area. This is taking into account the 20% correction as of today.
But i would still think the thumb rule (Total Interest ~ Total Principal) would hold in your example too:
Loan Amount: 410K
Total Interest: 383K
Good figure to make 600K loan .. that must mean people are buying at least a 650,000 house across the whole of US . You are talking about prices going down across economy you should take the average home value also across US which is definately not 600K or else most of people will never be able to buy a house.
I am taking about a home of an average 450K ( even that is more than the US average ) and at least 10 % down.
I don't think even anyone here would buy a 600K house in this economy to say the least !
Lets stick to real world calculations.
My data is restricted to bay area. You are definitely looking at least at 600k for a decent home in bay area. This is taking into account the 20% correction as of today.
But i would still think the thumb rule (Total Interest ~ Total Principal) would hold in your example too:
Loan Amount: 410K
Total Interest: 383K
Good figure to make 600K loan .. that must mean people are buying at least a 650,000 house across the whole of US . You are talking about prices going down across economy you should take the average home value also across US which is definately not 600K or else most of people will never be able to buy a house.
I am taking about a home of an average 450K ( even that is more than the US average ) and at least 10 % down.
I don't think even anyone here would buy a 600K house in this economy to say the least !
Lets stick to real world calculations.
more...
gcdreamer05
03-23 02:02 PM
my only problem is Work contracts.
How am I supposed to get contracts of all clients.
My employer doesnt share saying its private and confidential..I worked for a top 5 Indian IT in the past..no way I can get those details..duh :confused:
hey buddy are they digging your case just because you worked for the top 5 indian IT and does it start with a "S*****" , just wondering are they digging up all those who worked for them?
How am I supposed to get contracts of all clients.
My employer doesnt share saying its private and confidential..I worked for a top 5 Indian IT in the past..no way I can get those details..duh :confused:
hey buddy are they digging your case just because you worked for the top 5 indian IT and does it start with a "S*****" , just wondering are they digging up all those who worked for them?
hair latest Nike LeBron shoes
file485
07-08 07:52 PM
this is so so jittery...
this is a post where they r actually checking the from and to date of the dependant's i94 out-of-status
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=190778
guys..who just posted before me...pls read the whole thread, her husband had already filed once for AOS and then they had asked for his W2's for which he dint have..they abandoned that AOS and now trying AOS thru the wife..so basically he is still in the records of INS..maybe he dint reply his RFE or god knows what database INS maintains..
this is a post where they r actually checking the from and to date of the dependant's i94 out-of-status
http://boards.immigrationportal.com/showthread.php?t=190778
guys..who just posted before me...pls read the whole thread, her husband had already filed once for AOS and then they had asked for his W2's for which he dint have..they abandoned that AOS and now trying AOS thru the wife..so basically he is still in the records of INS..maybe he dint reply his RFE or god knows what database INS maintains..
more...
bfadlia
01-08 11:07 AM
guys i give up..
i'm struggling with a conversation where people understand the opposite of what i post, or give red dots because they can't differentiate between what i say and what i quote from others..
i'm out of here.
i'm struggling with a conversation where people understand the opposite of what i post, or give red dots because they can't differentiate between what i say and what i quote from others..
i'm out of here.
hot lebron james miami heat pics.
msp1976
04-08 08:17 AM
The summary document says that Whistleblower protection does not protect immigration status. So the current language of "Whistleblower protection" has much new to offer because Whistleblower protection is already part of the federal law (outside of immigration act). Here is some info:
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/whistle.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
Yeah right....
If the whistleblower protection does not protect the non-immigrant status, nobody would blow THAT whistle, would they ??
I am amazed by the kind of circular logic these people concoct....
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/whistle.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
Yeah right....
If the whistleblower protection does not protect the non-immigrant status, nobody would blow THAT whistle, would they ??
I am amazed by the kind of circular logic these people concoct....
more...
house heat shoes. lebron james
alterego
09-27 10:39 AM
I wish Obama wins. His team has more clarity on many issues and he has the zeal like JFK for making things happen. But, a big but - I am very concerned about our Employment Based immigration. If he gets to win (I wish he does..as someone who want to see America regain it's global position not just with might but also being morally right), I am worried if it would be Sen. Durbin who will dictate the immigration policy.
I wish we get some clarity in this aspect. In the economic downturn, I wish to work more than I ever did and see that US comes out of recession fast. But for that I have to be inside the country first. I have to be given a fair chance to contribute to this economy first and I need to be treated with respect and honor.
Sen. Durbin's position on this issue and his closeness to Sen. Obama is certainly a cause for concern, however, one thing I have noticed over and over with Sen. Obama is that he is a cerebral pragmatist with a fairly decent judgement. He is not a locked in ideologue, when a rational argument is put to him he tends not to be dogmatic like the current president and instead will try to cut a deal.
To get the support of republican moderates in any CIR legislation pro business immigration policies will need to be included in an Obama administration. No doubt the legislation will include some H1b restrictions, but they may be more open to EB visa recapture etc. That will atleast get those in the 485 queue some relief. Noone can reason with the Sen. Sessions and Rep. Kings of the congress. The same group that is so ultra conservative that they basically openly revolted with their president on numerous issues including the current economic rescue package.
My fear with a Sen. McCain administration is that on the immigration issue, whatever his personal views, we will see another 4 yrs similar to the last 4 on immigration! He will get nowhere moving his party either. Pres. Bush is about as pro CIR as they come, he tried and tried very hard, but to no avail with the Congress. Even before the election, you can see the disagreements between McCain and the extreme right wing conservatives. Atleast with Obama, the scene will be shaken up, noone knows where it ends up, but atleast there is a chance the gridlock will be broken.
I wish we get some clarity in this aspect. In the economic downturn, I wish to work more than I ever did and see that US comes out of recession fast. But for that I have to be inside the country first. I have to be given a fair chance to contribute to this economy first and I need to be treated with respect and honor.
Sen. Durbin's position on this issue and his closeness to Sen. Obama is certainly a cause for concern, however, one thing I have noticed over and over with Sen. Obama is that he is a cerebral pragmatist with a fairly decent judgement. He is not a locked in ideologue, when a rational argument is put to him he tends not to be dogmatic like the current president and instead will try to cut a deal.
To get the support of republican moderates in any CIR legislation pro business immigration policies will need to be included in an Obama administration. No doubt the legislation will include some H1b restrictions, but they may be more open to EB visa recapture etc. That will atleast get those in the 485 queue some relief. Noone can reason with the Sen. Sessions and Rep. Kings of the congress. The same group that is so ultra conservative that they basically openly revolted with their president on numerous issues including the current economic rescue package.
My fear with a Sen. McCain administration is that on the immigration issue, whatever his personal views, we will see another 4 yrs similar to the last 4 on immigration! He will get nowhere moving his party either. Pres. Bush is about as pro CIR as they come, he tried and tried very hard, but to no avail with the Congress. Even before the election, you can see the disagreements between McCain and the extreme right wing conservatives. Atleast with Obama, the scene will be shaken up, noone knows where it ends up, but atleast there is a chance the gridlock will be broken.
tattoo images lebron james heat
sanju
08-06 06:16 PM
6hVp9t_13_g
more...
pictures makeup lebron james miami heat
conchshell
08-06 10:09 AM
All monkeys also interfiled and became lions.
This is too funny ... monkeys interfiling and becoming Lions :D:D
This is too funny ... monkeys interfiling and becoming Lions :D:D
dresses LeBron James warned that he
srr_2007
04-07 12:39 AM
You are wrong, see my post above. Even if you stay at same employer, your H1 wont be extended if you file for extension. If extension fails, its goodbye for employee and loss of employee and revenue for employer.
EVERYONE LOSES.
Thanks for the clarification.
EVERYONE LOSES.
Thanks for the clarification.
more...
makeup hot lebron james miami heat
alahiri
07-10 10:10 AM
What logiclife has written is well said .. but did we get a chance to articulate this in the radio itself? Or "Mikey" got all the air time?
girlfriend Miami Heat #6 LeBron James
Macaca
05-09 05:51 PM
After bin Laden, U.S. Will Look East (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/05/06/after_bin_laden_us_will_look_east_99510.html) By Daniel Kilman | German Marshall Fund
Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, precipitated an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. With Afghanistan beset by a resurgent Taliban, and Pakistan increasingly unstable, the United States subsequently doubled down in this troubled region even as the Asia-Pacific became the locus of global economic growth and great-power military competition. Although U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for years to come, bin Laden's death heralds the beginning of the end of America's "Af-Pak" fixation. Increasingly, the United States will look eastward; Europe should as well.
Many forget that, pre-September 11, America's strategic focus was gravitating toward Asia. Coming into office, President George W. Bush was determined to rethink how the United States managed China's rise, a development that posed a long-term challenge to American economic and military primacy. This determination was reinforced when a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. spy plane in April 2001, resulting in a short-lived crisis. However, the terrorist attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda redirected the Bush administration toward Afghanistan and the larger Muslim world. Although America remained active in the Asia-Pacific throughout President Bush's tenure, the primary focus of U.S. strategy lay elsewhere.
Like his predecessor, President Barack Obama entered the White House intending to prioritize the Asia-Pacific. Again, events intervened. To prevent the Taliban from solidifying control over large parts of Afghanistan, Obama authorized a surge of U.S. troops there and ratcheted up armed drone attacks against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet his commitment to reorienting the United States toward Asia appears to have never wavered. Prior to bin Laden's death, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told The New Yorker that the United States was "overweighted" in the Middle East and Afghanistan and "underweighted" in the Asia-Pacific.
The death of bin Laden in a shootout with U.S. special forces does not presage an imminent pullout from Afghanistan or a rapid drawdown in American assistance to Pakistan. The United States has committed itself to a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan and will retain a considerable military presence there in the years ahead. Terrorist networks that have metastasized within Pakistan over the past decade and now threaten the integrity of the state will not disband because of bin Laden's demise. Even if elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in hiding the leader of al Qaeda, the United States cannot risk lightly the collapse of a nuclear-armed state by cutting off foreign aid.
At the same time, the completion of America's original mission in Afghanistan that bin Laden's death symbolizes will allow for a strategy that increasingly reflects the Asia-Pacific geography of U.S. interests. This shift will not occur overnight. For the moment, the revolutions rocking the Arab world will absorb U.S. attention. Nor will this shift automatically substitute China for al Qaeda as America's animating enemy, a development some in China may fear. In fact, the outlines of a U.S. reorientation toward Asia are already clear. The United States will strengthen existing alliances and strategic partnerships, forge new ones, and link like-minded nations together. To reinforce its military presence in the region, the United States will retain permanent bases, negotiate agreements for temporary access to facilities, and deploy more of its naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific rim stretching from Japan and South Korea to Southeast Asia and the approaches to India. At the same time, the United States will pursue a reinvigorated trade agenda anchored by the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks that seek to lay the foundation for a free trade area spanning the Pacific Ocean. Lastly, Washington will continue to champion democracy and rule of law as universal norms that all countries in the region should embrace.
U.S. rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific will have significant repercussions for Europe. Over the past decade, Afghanistan has become a central theater for transatlantic security cooperation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will continue to operate in Afghanistan, but, in the future, the United States will increasingly look to Europe as a partner in Asia. Yet transatlantic cooperation in this region remains weak, and many in Europe continue to regard Asia primarily as a market rather than as the cockpit of international politics in the 21st century. This should change. Europe should anticipate America's eastward shift and begin to define a role in the Asia-Pacific that transcends trade.
During the second half of the 20th century, the United States and Europe, acting in concert, transformed what was then the world's most important region-the North Atlantic. If Europe can join the United States and refocus on the Asia-Pacific, the transatlantic partners can shape this century's most vital region as well.
Daniel M. Kliman is a Transatlantic Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Talking to China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08sun2.html) New York Times Editorial
Chinese investors still searching for U.S. welcome mat (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news/international/chinese_investors_america.fortune/index.htm) By Sheridan Prasso | Fortune
The U.S. must push back against China�s investment controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-push-back-against-chinas-investment-controls/2011/05/06/AFoRjRTG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Renren, China�s Facebook, sells shares on NYSE
But amid murky numbers and dubious accomplishments, is it really worth billions? (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/110504/renren-china-facebook-nyse)
By David Case | GlobalPost
Can China's billions spur the next big idea? (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/idINIndia-56786220110505) By Don Durfee and James Pomfret | Reuters
The Rights and Wrongs of China�s Aid Policy (http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRightsandWrongsofChinasAidPolicy_gsingh_040511) By Gunjan Singh | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
China sees bright side of elite exodus (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME05Ad01.html) By Wu Zhong | Asia Times
China Imposes Price Controls, Informally (http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/08/china-imposes-price-controls-informally/) By Gordon Chang | Forbes
Al Qaeda's attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, precipitated an unprecedented level of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. With Afghanistan beset by a resurgent Taliban, and Pakistan increasingly unstable, the United States subsequently doubled down in this troubled region even as the Asia-Pacific became the locus of global economic growth and great-power military competition. Although U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for years to come, bin Laden's death heralds the beginning of the end of America's "Af-Pak" fixation. Increasingly, the United States will look eastward; Europe should as well.
Many forget that, pre-September 11, America's strategic focus was gravitating toward Asia. Coming into office, President George W. Bush was determined to rethink how the United States managed China's rise, a development that posed a long-term challenge to American economic and military primacy. This determination was reinforced when a Chinese fighter jet rammed a U.S. spy plane in April 2001, resulting in a short-lived crisis. However, the terrorist attacks orchestrated by al Qaeda redirected the Bush administration toward Afghanistan and the larger Muslim world. Although America remained active in the Asia-Pacific throughout President Bush's tenure, the primary focus of U.S. strategy lay elsewhere.
Like his predecessor, President Barack Obama entered the White House intending to prioritize the Asia-Pacific. Again, events intervened. To prevent the Taliban from solidifying control over large parts of Afghanistan, Obama authorized a surge of U.S. troops there and ratcheted up armed drone attacks against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. Yet his commitment to reorienting the United States toward Asia appears to have never wavered. Prior to bin Laden's death, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon told The New Yorker that the United States was "overweighted" in the Middle East and Afghanistan and "underweighted" in the Asia-Pacific.
The death of bin Laden in a shootout with U.S. special forces does not presage an imminent pullout from Afghanistan or a rapid drawdown in American assistance to Pakistan. The United States has committed itself to a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan and will retain a considerable military presence there in the years ahead. Terrorist networks that have metastasized within Pakistan over the past decade and now threaten the integrity of the state will not disband because of bin Laden's demise. Even if elements of the Pakistani government were complicit in hiding the leader of al Qaeda, the United States cannot risk lightly the collapse of a nuclear-armed state by cutting off foreign aid.
At the same time, the completion of America's original mission in Afghanistan that bin Laden's death symbolizes will allow for a strategy that increasingly reflects the Asia-Pacific geography of U.S. interests. This shift will not occur overnight. For the moment, the revolutions rocking the Arab world will absorb U.S. attention. Nor will this shift automatically substitute China for al Qaeda as America's animating enemy, a development some in China may fear. In fact, the outlines of a U.S. reorientation toward Asia are already clear. The United States will strengthen existing alliances and strategic partnerships, forge new ones, and link like-minded nations together. To reinforce its military presence in the region, the United States will retain permanent bases, negotiate agreements for temporary access to facilities, and deploy more of its naval and air forces to the Indo-Pacific rim stretching from Japan and South Korea to Southeast Asia and the approaches to India. At the same time, the United States will pursue a reinvigorated trade agenda anchored by the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks that seek to lay the foundation for a free trade area spanning the Pacific Ocean. Lastly, Washington will continue to champion democracy and rule of law as universal norms that all countries in the region should embrace.
U.S. rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific will have significant repercussions for Europe. Over the past decade, Afghanistan has become a central theater for transatlantic security cooperation. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will continue to operate in Afghanistan, but, in the future, the United States will increasingly look to Europe as a partner in Asia. Yet transatlantic cooperation in this region remains weak, and many in Europe continue to regard Asia primarily as a market rather than as the cockpit of international politics in the 21st century. This should change. Europe should anticipate America's eastward shift and begin to define a role in the Asia-Pacific that transcends trade.
During the second half of the 20th century, the United States and Europe, acting in concert, transformed what was then the world's most important region-the North Atlantic. If Europe can join the United States and refocus on the Asia-Pacific, the transatlantic partners can shape this century's most vital region as well.
Daniel M. Kliman is a Transatlantic Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States
Talking to China (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08sun2.html) New York Times Editorial
Chinese investors still searching for U.S. welcome mat (http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/04/news/international/chinese_investors_america.fortune/index.htm) By Sheridan Prasso | Fortune
The U.S. must push back against China�s investment controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-must-push-back-against-chinas-investment-controls/2011/05/06/AFoRjRTG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
Renren, China�s Facebook, sells shares on NYSE
But amid murky numbers and dubious accomplishments, is it really worth billions? (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/110504/renren-china-facebook-nyse)
By David Case | GlobalPost
Can China's billions spur the next big idea? (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/idINIndia-56786220110505) By Don Durfee and James Pomfret | Reuters
The Rights and Wrongs of China�s Aid Policy (http://idsa.in/idsacomments/TheRightsandWrongsofChinasAidPolicy_gsingh_040511) By Gunjan Singh | The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
China sees bright side of elite exodus (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/ME05Ad01.html) By Wu Zhong | Asia Times
China Imposes Price Controls, Informally (http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/05/08/china-imposes-price-controls-informally/) By Gordon Chang | Forbes
hairstyles The first LeBron James shoe in
xyzgc
12-22 01:53 AM
It is one of the obvious facts that D-Company has financed and supported(ing) lot of terror activities in India. I'm not able to understand why the Indian government is not taking steps to crackdown their illegal empire in Bombay. If the funding is stopped there will be a huge decrease in terrorist activities.
Yes, India may not be able to go to war and catch Dawood in Pakistan but they can definitely start taking action against all the business and people supporting Dawood in Mumbai. I was surprised why nobody has talked or taken any action about this. Up to the time government start taking some sincere actions Indian people have to suffer like this.
Agreed, lot of issues are internal. There are internal enemies and external.
The govt is corrupt. What else can we say? Most of the elections are run on illegal money.
Believe me, friend, there is going to be another attack, in some other city probably, and strong-minded indian citizens are going to ignore it like its another mosquito bite.
If your parliament can be attacked and you can ignore it, you can perhaps survive anything.
Yes, India may not be able to go to war and catch Dawood in Pakistan but they can definitely start taking action against all the business and people supporting Dawood in Mumbai. I was surprised why nobody has talked or taken any action about this. Up to the time government start taking some sincere actions Indian people have to suffer like this.
Agreed, lot of issues are internal. There are internal enemies and external.
The govt is corrupt. What else can we say? Most of the elections are run on illegal money.
Believe me, friend, there is going to be another attack, in some other city probably, and strong-minded indian citizens are going to ignore it like its another mosquito bite.
If your parliament can be attacked and you can ignore it, you can perhaps survive anything.
PD_Dec2002
07-07 08:56 PM
Hi,
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
Sad to hear your story. Talk to an attorney ASAP. Maybe to several attorneys to get different opinions and perspectives. Time is of the essence in you case. Contact a financial planner/realtor as well to see what you can do about your house payments.
Good luck.
Regards,
Jayant
I applied for GC under schedule A in may06 .My husband filed as derivative.He received a notice of intent to denial last month .Reason being he did not have paystubs for a period of more than 6 months during 2000 and 2001.His employer at that time did not pay him even after he worked for 4 months then he took few more months to change his company(more than 180 days)In 2002 he went to India and came back .and in 2004 filed for a GC as primary petitioner and me as a derivative .last year he withdrew the petition after he received several RFE`S fearing the worst.Even though he no longer has GC filed as primary petitioner he received notice of intent to deny for the petion filed through me saying that his H1 was not legal as could`nt show proof for several months and that when he filed for AOS he used those years as work experience.
and now another problem is I applied for EAD in march and have not received new ead.my old ead expired 10 days ago.and now Iam not working.
We bought a house last year thinking that under schedule A we`ll get GC in no time.Now we know it is a terrible mistake.Now both of us can`t work and had to take my son out of daycare. and we have house payments to make.We put our house for sale weeks ago and so far no offers.I contacted local representative to expedite My EAD and also contacted USCIS to expedite it,
citing financial burden.We are spending sleepless nights and have no clue what to do for my EAD and his AOS.pLEASE HELP.
Did anyone face similar situation .Any suggestions are welcome.
Sad to hear your story. Talk to an attorney ASAP. Maybe to several attorneys to get different opinions and perspectives. Time is of the essence in you case. Contact a financial planner/realtor as well to see what you can do about your house payments.
Good luck.
Regards,
Jayant
BharatPremi
07-14 09:14 AM
Why is EB3 India unhappy?
The impression I am getting from all posts is that EB3 is unhappy because EB2 got 2 year advancement in dates. EB3 is unhappy not because of their own retrogression but because someone else is happy being current.
The reason is not justified. EB3 should be unhappy for its own retrogression and not because someone else in EB2 is current. I see a lot of EB3India guys waking up now to the reality and protesting just because EB2 is getting greencads. This approach is wrong. Where were all of you all these months when IV was asking letters for admin fixes? A lot of us were busy enjoying our EADs and suddenly everyone is woken up. Where were all these guys when visa bulletin came every month and dates did not move?
I would support an action item for us EB3 folks only when it is based on the genuine reasons of EB retrogression. If it is based on the reason of EB2 getting greencards and EB3 not getting greencards, it is a wrong immature reason and USCIS or any authority capable of decision making will not like it.
Do you have any idea what are you talking about and why are you talking about? In which year you entered into this GC hell queue? I would suggest you to go through last 8 years of EB category happenings and then you would realize why EB3-India are frustrated....I would generally write but before that I would think first and then write. Best Luck.
The impression I am getting from all posts is that EB3 is unhappy because EB2 got 2 year advancement in dates. EB3 is unhappy not because of their own retrogression but because someone else is happy being current.
The reason is not justified. EB3 should be unhappy for its own retrogression and not because someone else in EB2 is current. I see a lot of EB3India guys waking up now to the reality and protesting just because EB2 is getting greencads. This approach is wrong. Where were all of you all these months when IV was asking letters for admin fixes? A lot of us were busy enjoying our EADs and suddenly everyone is woken up. Where were all these guys when visa bulletin came every month and dates did not move?
I would support an action item for us EB3 folks only when it is based on the genuine reasons of EB retrogression. If it is based on the reason of EB2 getting greencards and EB3 not getting greencards, it is a wrong immature reason and USCIS or any authority capable of decision making will not like it.
Do you have any idea what are you talking about and why are you talking about? In which year you entered into this GC hell queue? I would suggest you to go through last 8 years of EB category happenings and then you would realize why EB3-India are frustrated....I would generally write but before that I would think first and then write. Best Luck.
