Wednesday, August 3, 2011

bar refaeli si 2008

images Bar Refaeli bar refaeli si 2008. And that 1 minute clip from SI
  • And that 1 minute clip from SI



  • 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!





    wallpaper And that 1 minute clip from SI bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli, si triste à Milan
  • Bar Refaeli, si triste à Milan



  • waitnwatch
    08-05 03:13 PM
    It is not the Law. It is just a guidance provide in one 2000 Memo by a USCIS director.

    Wondering whether the post bachelor 5 year experience for EB2 was also a memo. If so when was that memo written - before or after the Yates 2000 memo?





    bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli Scores SI
  • Bar Refaeli Scores SI



  • Legal
    07-10 09:54 AM
    ;)
    Actually this "slavery" terminology is good for us, we can strategically use this to promote legislation like SKIL among anti-immigrationists and Congressmen/ senators.

    ELIMINATING GC BACKLOGS WOULD END THIS SLAVERY....

    LEGAL IMMIGRANTS GETTING GC IN DUE TIME WOULD REDUCE H1 B SLAVERY





    2011 Bar Refaeli, si triste à Milan bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli - SI One Airplane
  • Bar Refaeli - SI One Airplane



  • cinqsit
    03-24 05:59 PM
    Thanks UnitedNations for this discussion.

    In the booming years of 99-00 you could see all these consulting companies having a ball. Personally I have seen people with no relevant skill set getting h1's approved in a totally unrelated job profile. I even have come across staffing companies who have hired recruiters as "business analyst's", now its highly unlikely that these companies could not find recruiters here. But the system was getting misused rampantly.
    I have had experience with companies who with collusion of someone inside a company
    "snagged" portion of revenue from a contract. It wasnt common for 3-4 companies to
    act as middleman's ("layers") the final employee who actually worked getting literally
    peanuts share of the contract amount. I think this still happens today from what I have heard from my friends.

    USCIS had to respond in someway or the other. I am happy that they did but on the other hand I feel sorry for their employees who are probably innocent "collateral damage" victims

    It makes me very uneasy as who knows what USCIS will come up with next. The longer our wait is there is a potential for more scrutiny and who knows what pitfall awaits us lurking somewhere where we least expect. Just because people misused the system we are all going to face the consequences.



    more...


    bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli Swimsuit 2007
  • Bar Refaeli Swimsuit 2007



  • greencardfever2007
    04-16 12:30 PM
    http://www.economonkey.com/2008/04/14/sirs/

    I am writing to enquire whether you have any vacancies on your strategic board for someone of my talents. I realise that it is a little unorthodox to apply �on spec� for such a high-ranking position within your organisation, but I believe I have the necessary skills to further increase the profits and assets of Big Bank Plc. In this letter I will attempt to demonstrate my knowledge of the challenges and opportunities in our marketplace.

    1) Who are our customers?

    I understand that our most lucrative customers are those with the least awareness of financial matters; indeed, the less numerate they are, the better. Rather like the dear old PM, in fact.

    If they don�t know the difference between APR and AER, if they fail to read the small print in their credit contracts - not that it matters, as I�m sure I have the necessary legal skills to make such text impenetrable - and if their limited attention is grabbed by an �introductory� rate, then they are exactly the kind of people we need to target.

    I think that if we closely follow that other highly successful model of commerce - drug dealing - we won�t go far wrong in attracting and retaining the right customer base.

    2) How do we get people to take on more debt?

    I�ve been thinking about this, since we need people to be in debt so that they pay us lots of interest. I believe the best way is to start with an asset class that everybody needs and arrange for its price to increase by far more than the general inflation rate. Then the people who want to buy the new, over-priced assets will have to take on far more debt than would otherwise have been the case.

    Of course, the people who bought the assets prior to the excessive price inflation wouldn�t be in debt, but I think we can get around that by encouraging them to take on larger loans for, say, holidays, new TVs, big cars, that sort of thing (maybe even encouraging them to buy more assets to loan to other people?), all while securing them against the now-increased �value� of their asset. We could describe these loans as �Asset Equity Release� or something; it sounds so much more friendly than �Borrowing a Lot of Money.�

    Ultimately this would mean that everyone is in far greater debt, paying us far more money, for exactly the same asset! Genius, eh?

    Oh. Hang on. That�s already been done with houses, hasn�t it?

    3) Social conscience.

    Every responsible company should have a social conscience, and Big Bank Plc is no different. We need to be in tune with the society in which we operate, sharing the values of our customers.

    Luckily that�s not too difficult; our customers are greedy and so are we! They want lots of money, right now. We want lots of money, but we can wait (that old �deferred gratification� thing).

    So we simply sell them the money to fulfil their greedy dreams, and they sign up for a lifetime of debt slavery to fulfil ours. Everyone�s a winner!

    4) Get-out.

    I have noticed that some of our customers have been attempting to escape from their obligations through IVAs, bankruptcy and so on. This really won�t do. Luckily we have a role model to follow here; America. The banking industry there successfully lobbied Congress to make it almost impossible to escape from credit card debt, even in bankruptcy.

    There�s much work to be done in the UK by comparison, but we�re getting there. Escape from student loan debt is almost impossible and an IVA won�t release people from mortgage debt. There�s still credit card debt, but at least we can now secure that on property (I love that one; we sell an unsecured loan at punitive rates, then secure it! They�d have been better off just getting a secured loan! How stupid are these people?).

    So, there�s just the problem of escape through bankruptcy, but I think we can work on that. Friends in government, nudge nudge, wink wink. Give me time�

    5) Our friends at Westminster.

    Speaking of government, I think our special relationship is going rather well, don�t you? They want a population that feels wealthy even though it isn�t (see number 2 above), that is unlikely to cause trouble (who can afford to go on strike when you have huge debts to service?) and that isn�t educated enough to understand what�s being done to them (have you seen the latest exam results?).

    Those are our goals too; it�s a marriage made in heaven. And if they want to rack up even more debt on the population�s behalf, we�re only too happy to oblige.

    We do need to be more careful at times, though. Our so-called competitor�s �employment� of that ex-Prime Minister so soon after leaving office was rather rubbing people�s faces in it, don�t you think? A few of the less stupid ones might start to put two and two together.

    6) Media

    Can we keep the mainstream and financial media �on-side�, thus keeping the population distracted by pointless celebrity gossip, �reality� TV programmes (oh, the irony), diversionary economic scare stories and back-to-back shows extolling the virtues of never-ending asset inflation (and with it, never ending debt)?

    Of course we can - we own most of them! And the government owns much of the rest. Anyway, people actually seem to want this stuff. Bread and circuses, I suppose.

    7) What happens if we run out of money?

    See number 5. There are plenty of options if we ever run into difficulties - direct government �loans� (rolled over ad infinitum), dropping the base rate below real inflation while raising lending rates, etc. - but they all boil down to one thing: take money from the tax-payer while using inflation to mask the theft. With a bit of luck we can even get the public to demand this action for us, with the help of the media.

    And anyway, we�re not actually lending real money, are we? It�s created from nothing at the point at which the loan is granted. So what do we have to lose?

    I look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,

    Mr Wanabe A Banker





    bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli Joanna Krupa
  • Bar Refaeli Joanna Krupa



  • bfadlia
    01-09 04:26 PM
    This is the simple logic everybody tried to convey to Refugee_now in 15 pages of this thread. But he don't understand or don't want to !!!!

    so.. by your logic, Al qaeda has declared war on the United states (they did, OBL issued that declaration some time in the late 90s) civilians die in each war, so alqaeda had every right to kill civilians in 9/11?
    Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.



    more...


    bar refaeli si 2008. 2009 SI Swimsuit Issue
  • 2009 SI Swimsuit Issue



  • Macaca
    03-27 08:14 AM
    Lobbying Is Lucrative. Sometimes Very, Very Lucrative (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032602027.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Tuesday, March 27, 2007

    Lobbyists, as they say, make the big bucks. That's why so many lawmakers, congressional staffers and political appointees move downtown when they leave government.

    So just how lucrative is it? Well, pretty lucrative. According to new data from the Center for Responsive Politics, 22 clients paid $1 million or more in lobby fees to individual lobbying firms last year.

    Three of the biggest payments went to the usual suspects: Patton Boggs, Hogan & Hartson and DLA Piper -- all major law firms. But two of the top five recipients were small shops you have probably never heard of: Canfield & Associates and New Frontiers Communications Consulting.





    2010 Bar Refaeli Scores SI bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli
  • Bar Refaeli



  • coolest_me
    08-07 01:52 PM
    :D:D:D Loving this thread :D:D:D

    -My Attempt .. One liners


    If you can stay calm, while all around you is chaos...then you probably haven't completely understood the seriousness of the situation.

    Doing a job RIGHT the first time gets the job done. Doing the job WRONG fourteen times gives you job security.

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.

    A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat.

    Plagiarism saves time.

    If at first you don't succeed, try management.

    Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether.

    TEAMWORK...means never having to take all the blame yourself.

    Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings, they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    Never! underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.

    We waste time so you don't have to.

    Hang in there, retirement is only thirty years away!

    Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker.

    A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all.

    When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break.

    INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY.

    Succeed in spite of management.

    Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment.



    more...


    bar refaeli si 2008. And here#39;s video from SI of a
  • And here#39;s video from SI of a



  • Macaca
    02-18 01:11 PM
    Mickey Goes to Washington (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302837.html) Lobbyists for America's richest mouse set out to persuade Congress to scare up $200 million to promote U.S. tourist destinations By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum | WP, Feb 17





    hair Bar Refaeli - SI One Airplane bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli Model Profile-SI
  • Bar Refaeli Model Profile-SI



  • gapala
    12-25 12:04 PM
    What a tiresome thread!!!

    Several years ago, people actually made an effort to make IV an organization representing all skilled workers, from all parts of the world. Now, immigration matters are totally irrelevant on the forums. Heck, forget about being an exclusively India focused forum, as this thread demonstrates, it is a venue to vent on matters even more narrowly focused - My religion, my sect, my opinion, my petty prejudices. If this is not irrelevant enough, we have enough threads on red dot-green dots to justify a whole separate category of forums :rolleyes:
    Anyway, it does a pretty good job of turning off people. I guarantee you this thread alone has contributed significantly in influencing many planning on attending the March rally to change their mind. It sure did mine.

    Friend,

    Even today, IV is an organization representing the skilled workers from all parts of the world and will remain so in future. Just because of this one thread, and your disagreement, if you start looking at the entire organization in a narrow way is not just. You also fail to notice that the terrorism is a global threat and it affects us and our families in different parts of the world. For years, people ignored this threat as it was not expressed openly in the civic societies around the world. Now, you can see people intimidate law enforcement, justice system and even constitutions of civic society. It has become open and exposed now. Did you see that some folks are hailing idiots who does cultureless acts as heros...

    You can choose to ignore this threat but I believe its worth a deliberation to be aware of the dangerous world that we live in. Note that except few baseless arguments on this thread, lot of the posts in this thread are very informative and based on the investigative reports. Lot of them are opinions of the individuals and they are worth too. If you are afraid that this will offend some one, Yes, this may / may not offend terrorists and their supporters. This sure should not offend the educated and skilled members of this organization.

    I would not blame the entire organization for just this thread as terrorism, violence and hostility, if escalated is threat to entire humanity be it in the name of religion or their perverted belief.



    more...


    bar refaeli si 2008. ar refaeli naked on bed
  • ar refaeli naked on bed



  • delax
    08-05 09:45 AM
    Not a good idea to go down this road.





    hot Bar Refaeli Swimsuit 2007 bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli gets
  • Bar Refaeli gets



  • dealsnet
    01-07 08:21 PM
    Our leaders have no guts to speak to these people.

    You know what is your problem?
    From Ottaman, Genghis khan, Temur, to recently Laden all did terrorism to innocent people. When any person or nation protect this terrorism, you guys calling them terrorist!! Bush senior and Bush junior punish terrorist act, you are calling them terrorist. When Israel give answer, you are calling terrorism. When Narendra Modi react against Muslim terrorism, you calling him Terrorist. You guys only like people who don't give answer like current Indian government.
    Now world has changed attitude. World has decided to compromise on Human right to fight with terrorism. Earlier only Israel has policy but after 911, many countries have policy not to negotiate with Plane Hijackers.

    Now read following Australian PM's statement and call him terrorist. You if don't change your mind set, one day you will find board at every country; "Muslims are not welcome"
    Read this Australian PM's bold statement.

    Prime Minister John Howard - Australia

    Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.


    Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'

    'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'

    'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society Learn the language!'

    'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

    'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

    'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

    'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'



    more...


    house Bar Refaeli Unveils bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Rafaeli: Bikini Pictures
  • Bar Rafaeli: Bikini Pictures



  • apt29
    07-29 03:36 PM
    I regret the day when Obama became the president, he is just another politician who does not give a damn about EB2,EB3....he is just worried about "re-uniting families" (aka supporter of illegal immigration)


    I am no supporter of either party. To be fair, the economy could have collapsed without him and most of us could have been back home by now.





    tattoo Bar Refaeli Joanna Krupa bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli Picture amp; Photo
  • Bar Refaeli Picture amp; Photo



  • nogc_noproblem
    08-06 06:28 PM
    Two cannibals are eating a clown. One says to the other, "Does this taste funny to you?"

    NO RED DOT (with comment - Racist Joke) FOR THIS JOKE PLEASE ;)



    more...


    pictures 2009 SI Swimsuit Issue bar refaeli si 2008. hot ar refaeli 2011 si. ar
  • hot ar refaeli 2011 si. ar



  • walking_dude
    09-29 12:42 PM
    Precisely my point! Majority of EB immigrants are pro-Democratic party and possible future contributors to Obama 2012 campaign.

    Why then should Obama support anti-EB measures that will hurt his chances in the future, when he'll get no benefits by supporting those measures?

    Hope better sense prevails!


    I got my green card earlier this year, and one of the first things that I did after getting it was contribute to Obama's primary campaign. Now I've been contributing to his election campaign (I'm sure that there's a public access site you can look up contribution at).

    .





    dresses Bar Refaeli gets bar refaeli si 2008. The Ultimate Sports Prediction
  • The Ultimate Sports Prediction



  • waitnwatch
    05-24 10:38 PM
    I agree. But lets not scare away people either by such open criticism and rudeness. If no one responds to such questions, then ppl will automatically start looking things up in this or other web-sites.

    -R

    you're right! I got a bit carried away given that the discussion in the thread was kind of intense at that moment. your point is taken.



    more...


    makeup And here#39;s video from SI of a bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli Unveils
  • Bar Refaeli Unveils



  • Macaca
    12-21 10:53 AM
    Bush boxed in his congressional foes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-congress21dec21,1,2311328.story) Democrats took the Hill but were stymied by a steadfast president By Janet Hook | LA Times, Dec 21, 2007

    WASHINGTON � Just over a year ago, a chastened President Bush acknowledged that his party had taken a "thumping" in the congressional elections, and he greeted the new Democratic majority at the weakest point of his presidency.

    But since then, Democrats in Congress have taken a thumping of their own as Bush has curbed their budget demands, blocked a cherished children's health initiative, stalled the drive to withdraw troops from Iraq and stymied all efforts to raise taxes.

    Rather than turn tail for his last two years in the White House, Bush has used every remaining weapon in his depleted arsenal -- the veto, executive orders, the loyalty of Republicans in Congress -- to keep Democrats from getting their way.He has struck a combative pose, dashing hopes that he would be more accommodating in the wake of his party's drubbing in the 2006 midterm voting.

    Bush's own second-term domestic agenda is a shambles: His ambitions to overhaul Social Security and immigration law are dead; plans to update his signature education program have foundered; few other initiatives are waiting in the wings.

    But on a host of foreign and domestic policy issues, backed by a remarkably disciplined Republican Party in the House and Senate, Bush has been able to confound Democrats. It has been a source of great frustration to the party that came to power with sky-high expectations and the belief it had a mandate for change. And it is a vivid reminder of how much clout even a weakened president can have -- especially one as single-minded as Bush.

    "We have custody of Congress, but we don't have control," said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village). "Bush has shown, time and again, that he's a very stubborn guy. November 2006 didn't change that."

    Many Republicans have been surprised and impressed with Bush's continuing power -- even when he has used it to ends they disagreed with.

    "At the beginning of the year, most of us viewed the president as having less control over the process than ever," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a moderate who voted against Bush on healthcare, the budget and other issues. "But this year, he realized more goals than in a lot of the years when he had Republicans controlling Congress."

    At a news conference Thursday after Congress adjourned for the year, Bush had kind words for much of Congress' work and did not gloat over his success in keeping Democrats' ambitions in check.

    "What ended up happening was good for the country," he said.

    Democrats blamed this year's congressional gridlock on Bush, but his inflexibility on key issues was just one factor.

    Republican lawmakers showed scant interest in compromise. Democrats were riven by internal divisions. And Bush did little to unite rather than divide the factions on Capitol Hill. He did not much resemble the kind of politician he was as governor of Texas, when he forged a strong relationship with the Democratic lieutenant governor.

    Immediately after the 2006 election, it looked as if Bush might offer Democrats an olive branch and set a more bipartisan tone. He let go controversial Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He called incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) at home on Christmas. After years of ignoring congressional Democrats, he began inviting them by the dozen to the White House to hear them out.

    But the honeymoon did not last long. Democrats were furious when, after an election they believed was a mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Bush in January announced a buildup. A few weeks later, he went around Congress and issued an executive order giving the White House greater control over the rules and policies issued by regulatory agencies. White House meetings with Democrats turned partisan -- and then petered out. Bush repeatedly reached for the bluntest of presidential tools -- the veto.

    His first veto this year nixed a war spending bill that included a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Democrats' promise to press the issue all year lost steam after testimony in September from the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, instilled confidence in Republicans whose commitment to the war had grown shaky. Without more GOP defections, Democrats in the Senate were powerless to undercut Bush's war policy.

    Bush also wielded his veto power to great effect on domestic issues.

    He blocked Democratic efforts to expand stem cell research, a popular bill that had broad bipartisan support. The failed effort to override that veto provided a window onto a dynamic that was key to Bush's source of strength throughout the year: Many moderate Republicans parted ways with the president on the stem cell override vote -- as they later did on his veto of the children's health bill -- but there were enough conservatives who agreed with him to sustain his vetoes.

    Bush issued a barrage of veto threats to curb Democrats' domestic spending plans -- an effort that helped him regain some favor among fiscal conservatives who had lambasted him for allowing the Republican-controlled Congress to jack up spending to record levels.

    "Fiscal conservatives can see the president getting stronger on spending this year than in the previous six years," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.

    Democrats had wanted to add $22 billion to Bush's funding request. But he drew a line in the sand and guarded it for months. He vetoed a bill packed with spending for education, health and other popular programs. The final budget approved this week adhered to his overall spending limit -- and dropped riders on abortion and other issues he objected to. And it included the money for the Iraq war with no strings attached.

    Bush also held the line against Democrats' efforts to raise taxes, which they proposed to offset the costs of new health spending, energy programs and a middle-class tax break. Faced with Bush's veto, Democrats could not enact taxes on such inviting targets as cigarettes, wealthy hedge-fund managers and big oil companies.

    Bush's Republican allies were almost giddy with their unexpected success.

    "Who would have thought a year ago that Democrats would have come down to the president's budget number, that we would be ending the year by funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we could complete the year without raising taxes on the American people?" said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And all despite having a Democrat majority in Congress."

    Heading into the 2008 elections, Democrats will have to keep their supporters from becoming demoralized over not being able to deliver more with their majority.

    "It's hard for them to understand, and it's even harder for us to live with," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

    But Democrats are trying to turn their tribulations into a campaign issue by telling voters that the party will not really have a working majority until they expand their Senate caucus from the current 51 to 60 -- the number they need to block GOP filibusters and other stalling tactics.

    The tag line on a fundraising pitch by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: "51 seats is not enough. Help us turn our country around."

    Acknowledging that GOP victories this year consisted simply of blocking Democrats, some Republicans say they will have to develop a more positive agenda to build a successful political brand. Said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), "The product we're selling is negative."





    girlfriend Bar Refaeli Picture amp; Photo bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli in French Elle…
  • Bar Refaeli in French Elle…



  • Macaca
    05-01 05:40 PM
    Why China�s Crackdown is Selective (http://the-diplomat.com/2011/04/28/why-china%E2%80%99s-crackdown-is-selective/) By Minxin Pei | The Diplomat

    For a one-party state that tolerates practically no open defiance of its authority, Beijing�s gentle handling of hundreds of striking truckers in Shanghai who had paralyzed operations at one of China�s largest container ports seems an anomaly. Instead of sending in riot police to break up the blockade last week, the authorities in Shanghai agreed to reduce fees levied on the truckers, who were angry over the charges and rising fuel prices.

    The outcome of this incident couldn�t be more different from another recent event: the arrest of Ai Weiwei, one of China�s most prominent political activists. Ai has repeatedly defied the ruling Communist Party and, despite his international stature, Beijing decided to put him behind bars, ignoring widespread international condemnation.

    The contrast between these two incidents raises an intriguing question: why does Beijing tolerate certain forms of protest, but represses others?

    One obvious reason is that it depends on the nature of the protest. As a rule, a frontal challenge to the authority of the Chinese Communist Party, as Ai�s activities embodied, practically guarantees a harsh response from the government. But protest inspired by specific economic grievances, such as truckers� ire over excessive fees, seems to fare better. In the eyes of the ruling party, the former constitutes an existential threat and so no concessions are seen as able to appease political activists rejecting the very legitimacy of the regime.

    In contrast, the discontent generated by well-defined economic grievances can be treated with specific concessions. One quote, allegedly from a sitting senior Politburo member, says it all: �What are the contradictions among the people?� the Politburo member supposedly asked. �(These contradictions) can all be solved by using renminbi.�

    But things are a little more complicated than this. The reality is that even when dealing with protests or riots fuelled by specific socioeconomic grievances, the behavior of the Chinese authorities isn�t always consistent. Sometimes, government officials pacify protesters through the use of the renminbi, while other times they mercilessly crush such protest.

    So how do we make sense of such apparent inconsistencies?

    It seems that the type of response to social protest�harsh or soft�depends on a complex mix of factors such as who the protesters are, the resources and organizational capacity at their disposal, the economic sectors in which they are located, and the social repercussions of their protest. Generally speaking, highly organized protesters (such as truck drivers, discharged soldiers and officers of the People�s Liberation Army, and taxi drivers) tend to fare better. They also possess resources that can be easily and effectively deployed. Taxi and truck drivers, for example, can use their vehicles to paralyze traffic and produce instantaneous and widespread social and economic disruptions.

    Former PLA servicemen, meanwhile, have a strong institutional identity and are well-connected with each other through ties forged during their military service. Research conducted by Chinese scholars shows that protests organized by former PLA servicemen tend to get the most attention�and the softest treatment�from the government. In contrast, protests by peasants are handled more harshly as they are less organized, possess few strategic assets, and have little impact beyond their villages.

    Another important factor is the political calculations of local officials. Despite the popular image of the Chinese state as a hierarchical, top-down system, there�s no uniform national manual for handling protests. This leaves a great deal of discretion at the hands of local officials, but it also places them in a political quandary. Whenever a mass protest erupts, local officials have to think and react fast, but deploying riot police and using force against protesters isn�t necessarily the preferred modus operandi since this could prompt an escalation in violence. Local officials who mishandle mass protests risk demotion or even dismissal, so they must calculate how to end such demonstrations peacefully and quickly, while ensuring that their actions won�t also encourage future protests. It�s a difficult balancing act.

    So what influences the political calculations of local officials?

    As I�ve said, it�s in large part the nature of the protest, the strength of the protesters, and the likely effects of the protest�all are critical variables. Local officials usually avoid using violence against protests inspired by economic discontent and organized by workers in strategic sectors (transportation and energy, for example). Another factor at play is simply the amount of renminbi available to local officials for buying off the protesters. In the case of striking truckers, the Shanghai municipal government, the wealthiest local jurisdiction in China, has plenty of money. But in poorer areas, the renminbi option just doesn�t exist.

    Another factor is media glare�the more media coverage (particularly international media coverage), the more constraints on local officials� use of force. Last, the location of the protest is key. When such protests happen in remote villages or towns, they are quickly and ruthlessly crushed. But when they occur in urban centres, the government (usually) responds more cautiously and gently.

    All this means that the happy ending for the striking truckers in Shanghai shouldn�t be taken as an encouraging precedent for workers in other sectors who might think the government will back down in the face of economic demands�however justifiable they might be.

    Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College





    hairstyles ar refaeli naked on bed bar refaeli si 2008. Bar Refaeli - Sports
  • Bar Refaeli - Sports



  • ujjwal_p
    01-06 09:33 PM
    Recently during Diwali celebration, one boy fired a rocket and it killed more than six people in Tamil Nadu. Offcourse this rocket was made in Sivakasi and it was an accident. It was a fire cracker. A simple fire cracker can make big accidents like this.

    But whole world is crying that Hamas fired 7000 rockets and killed innocent civilians and Isrealis are defending thier nation by killing thousands. What a crap man. You are condemning the killing of 4 Isrealis and not even bothered to feel about 600 innocent palestinians including school kids. What a hypocricy and what kind of human being you are?

    Hiding behind Civilian, hiding behind school kids, hiding in hospitals - Full of bullshit lies told by jewish owned medias like CNN and Fox. Have you ever heard from any moderate palestinians about thier plight? This is what those media feed us.

    Infact Isreal blocked medias including CNN from entering Gaza. Why? They don't want the world to watch their attrocities. Simple.

    I neither support Hamas nor justify their action. My point is, one nation is freely killing civilians and school kids, bombard schools, infrastructer, bomb goverment and civilian buildings, destroy roads and bridges, hospitals and destroying everything including their livelyhood and this world is watching silently. So called leaders of peaceful nations are encouraging this massacre. This is what troubles me.

    Its so pathetic and funny to see the world asking Hamas to stop firing and at the same time encouraging other side to kill more and more.

    Listen dude, I actually feel your frustration. A month and half back, I was going through the same feelings watching the Mumbai attacks unfold.

    Let's get to your arguments. First the Diwali incident. This is a lame comparison. That's an accident and you are comparing that against Hamas shooting rockets to kill and maime people. Accidents by children will happen in India in Diwali, in Karachi by another kid and also probably kids playing with guns and rockets in Gaza. So I'll ignore this one.

    Next, You believe we all are biased because of CNN and Fox and they are mouthpieces of a vast Jewish conspiracy. Ok, let's grant you that. How can you convince me that *you* are not being fed Arab and Muslim propaganda? I am not saying that they do, but the basic deal is : there is truth and there are versions. Maybe none of us know the truth, so don't go around blaming only one segment of the media because it's convenient to you. I actually go and read news from the media all over the world, be it Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Strait Times. I consider myself reasonably informed and have seen some bias everywhere.

    Second, I absolutely condone the loss of innocent lives. Please don't insult me by paraphrasing what I said. I know and love people from all over the world, including Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and don't need to hear stuff like this. However you cannot prove that Israelis are purposely targetting civilians. Also I don't think the Israelis are stupid enough to do something knowing the amount of bad press that action will get. Maybe it was collateral damage or maybe it was a mistake. But yes Israel should be asked to clarify this.

    I hate that innocent lives are being lost. My stomach churns when I see photos of little kids being ferried to hospitals in Gaza. It's a most terrible situation. But we have an extremely irresponsible government in Gaza. It's a bit like the Taliban governing Afghanistan. Look at the West Bank. Fatah/PA runs it and while there are still problems, atleast there is a certain calm there. Yes the issue of settlements is ongoing but it's a thousands time better problem to have than daily skirmishes or even worse like what's happening in Gaza. People can go about living their lives, doing business, going to school, things normal people should be expected to do etc.

    This is the world's biggest flashpoint and people like Hamas and Hezbollah or atleast elements in them ( i know hezbollah has a strong social and civic organization too) don't really help the situation.





    ArkBird
    05-01 01:42 PM
    By the way what is the actual status of this bill?





    lskreddy
    12-28 02:03 AM
    What about the lives of those 200 people who were killed? Please don't expense those 200 lives and other 100,000 lives in last 10 years

    The lives of those killed are surely very painful and it would demeaning to forget about (which I am sure India is guilty in hoards).

    It may seem like avenging their death by war is the path but if we do take that, what about the soldiers? They are someone's father, brother too. Just remember US Soldiers in Iraq.

    All I am hoping is before they take the war path, all options are expended. If the options are expended by now, and all the big think-tanks decide it is time, yes, by all means, go full throttle and put this to rest.



    No comments:

    Post a Comment