Macaca
02-13 09:42 AM
Lobbying and Legislation: Enacting Better Laws (http://www.policylink.org/AdvocatingForChange/Lobbying/Legislators.html) (courtesy krishna.ahd)
After you lay the foundation for your legislative efforts and assess the political landscape, your goal is to convince legislators to accept your position. Some activities, such as proposing legislation or amendments, meeting with legislators and their staff, and testifying at hearings, occur inside the halls of the legislature; other actions, such as letter writing, public demonstrations, and working with the media, are initiated outside the legislature to build public pressure and urge legislators to come over to your side. Always coordinate your actions inside and outside of the legislature to make sure you are consistent and achieve maximum effect.
Write letters, send faxes and e-mails, and phone legislators. Letters are definitely worth the time. Legislators know that each letter they receive represents several additional constituents who feel the same way but have not taken the time to write. That�s why, in addition to writing your own letter, you should get your partners and allies to write letters as well.
Be clear and concise. Keep your letter to one page, at most two, and address only one issue per letter, if possible. Clearly identify the bill you are writing about and the position you are urging (vote yes or no). Make two or three of your strongest arguments for or against the proposed legislation. Remember: Legislators receive many letters on many different issues; your letter should be easy to read and understand if you want any chance of grabbing their attention.
Identify yourself and your constituency. Say something about who you are and whom you represent; you want the legislator to understand that you are someone she or he should listen to. Give an example of a personal story�preferably from the legislator�s district�that shows how the bill affects real people and that the problem is not just an isolated incident. Legislators hear about what�s good and bad policy all the time; real-life experiences grab their attention.
Avoid using form letters whenever possible. Avoid them altogether if you cannot deliver extraordinary volume. Personal individually signed letters are far more effective. When you are soliciting letters from partners and allies, provide a sample with a request that they use it as a guide to writing a letter in their own words.
While letters tend to be most effective, you can also fax, phone, and e-mail your legislators. Usually, you use e-mails, faxes and phone calls right before a bill is coming up for a vote to remind legislators of the importance of their vote to you. If you are planning to organize a fax, phone, or e-mail chain, in which your partners and allies ask their constituents and supporters to take action, be sure to provide the contact information for the appropriate representative because the most effective contacts are those that come from legislators� own constituents. For more on e-mail advocacy see the Internet Advocacy section.
Meet with legislators. Face-to-face contact with legislators is key to humanizing the problem, demonstrating a commitment to solving it, and developing relationships for the long haul.
Organize a small, diverse group of participants, perhaps three to five people. Make sure at least some of them reside in the legislator�s district.
Select your best spokespersons and message. Choose someone who will appeal to the legislators you are trying to persuade.
Decide ahead of time how you will conduct the meeting. Who will introduce the participants? Lead the meeting? Close the meeting? What materials will you take to leave with the legislator at the end of the meeting?
Get to know legislators� staff. Legislators often rely heavily on the advice of key staff members. It is important to establish a good relationship with these staff members, make sure they have adequate information about your legislation, and try to learn from them any concerns you may need to address to keep your legislation moving forward. The staff will be your main point of contact if a legislator is unavailable or inaccessible.
For more tips on meeting with legislators, such as scheduling, preparing for, conducting, and following up after the meeting, see Tips on Meeting with Your Elected Officials (http://archive.aclu.org/action/lobby.html), and �Six Practical Tips on How to Lobby Your Legislator or Elected Official (http://www.democracyctr.org/resources/lobbying.html)� in Lobbying�the Basics.
Testify at hearings. This is not one of those times when you can wing it! Always be prepared before you give testimony on pending legislation.
Get a rough vote count of how legislators are likely to vote before you attend the hearing and try to find out about outstanding issues and concerns. Having this information will help you choose the best witnesses, know what points you need to emphasize in your testimony, and consider amendments you may need to offer or agree to.
Choose witnesses who will be credible and effective. Put together a combination of people directly affected by the legislation, experts, and individuals and organizations that represent legislators� constituents.
Write out your testimony in advance so that it is clear, concise, and persuasive. Include personal stories whenever possible to show how the issue affects real people. Prepare a summary of your testimony for distribution at the hearing to legislators, the media, and other attendees. Anticipate questions legislators might ask and plan how to respond.
Pack the legislative chambers with supporters and call the media. Wear buttons, T-shirts, or other identifying items to show legislators and the media the strength and presence of your support in the hearing room.
Have legislators who support your cause ask your opponents tough questions and make supportive statements on your behalf. You could offer to draft a list of questions or key points that you would like them to cover. Discuss in advance amendments that may be offered and the bottom line for any compromises.
Staging public protests or other public events. Consider organizing an event that energizes and mobilizes large numbers of supporters and captures legislators��and media�attention.
Public protests can sometimes turn up the heat on lawmakers to vote your way or at least think twice about siding with the opposition.
Holding a Lobby Day is an opportunity to mobilize large numbers of people to meet with multiple legislators in one day to show your legislative power and gain media attention. The day usually begins with training in lobbying skills and a teach-in on your issues, followed perhaps by a rally and news interviews, a couple of hours of meetings with legislators, and an end-of-day debriefing session for supporters.
Ignite Public Scrutiny. Elected officials care about their public image. They want to be portrayed favorably in the news. Develop a media strategy around your legislation that includes news conferences, letters to the editor, writing opinion editorials, or other media strategies that will put your issue in the public eye, maintain public scrutiny throughout the legislative process, provide a vehicle for keeping pressure on elected officials, turn up the heat on those who are against you, and applaud those who stick with you. For more tips on developing a media strategy see the Media Advocacy section.
Be persistent. Lobbying campaigns rarely come to a definitive end.
If your proposed legislation is defeated, there is frequently another opportunity to reintroduce it. Don�t be discouraged. Often it takes several tries to pass a measure, especially one that seeks to bring about an important change.
If you win, do not get complacent. Monitor implementation and make sure your legislation is fully funded. Look out for opposition attempts to undo or diminish your victory by trying to repeal your legislation, filing litigation to overturn it, or seeking regulations to significantly weaken its implementation.
After you lay the foundation for your legislative efforts and assess the political landscape, your goal is to convince legislators to accept your position. Some activities, such as proposing legislation or amendments, meeting with legislators and their staff, and testifying at hearings, occur inside the halls of the legislature; other actions, such as letter writing, public demonstrations, and working with the media, are initiated outside the legislature to build public pressure and urge legislators to come over to your side. Always coordinate your actions inside and outside of the legislature to make sure you are consistent and achieve maximum effect.
Write letters, send faxes and e-mails, and phone legislators. Letters are definitely worth the time. Legislators know that each letter they receive represents several additional constituents who feel the same way but have not taken the time to write. That�s why, in addition to writing your own letter, you should get your partners and allies to write letters as well.
Be clear and concise. Keep your letter to one page, at most two, and address only one issue per letter, if possible. Clearly identify the bill you are writing about and the position you are urging (vote yes or no). Make two or three of your strongest arguments for or against the proposed legislation. Remember: Legislators receive many letters on many different issues; your letter should be easy to read and understand if you want any chance of grabbing their attention.
Identify yourself and your constituency. Say something about who you are and whom you represent; you want the legislator to understand that you are someone she or he should listen to. Give an example of a personal story�preferably from the legislator�s district�that shows how the bill affects real people and that the problem is not just an isolated incident. Legislators hear about what�s good and bad policy all the time; real-life experiences grab their attention.
Avoid using form letters whenever possible. Avoid them altogether if you cannot deliver extraordinary volume. Personal individually signed letters are far more effective. When you are soliciting letters from partners and allies, provide a sample with a request that they use it as a guide to writing a letter in their own words.
While letters tend to be most effective, you can also fax, phone, and e-mail your legislators. Usually, you use e-mails, faxes and phone calls right before a bill is coming up for a vote to remind legislators of the importance of their vote to you. If you are planning to organize a fax, phone, or e-mail chain, in which your partners and allies ask their constituents and supporters to take action, be sure to provide the contact information for the appropriate representative because the most effective contacts are those that come from legislators� own constituents. For more on e-mail advocacy see the Internet Advocacy section.
Meet with legislators. Face-to-face contact with legislators is key to humanizing the problem, demonstrating a commitment to solving it, and developing relationships for the long haul.
Organize a small, diverse group of participants, perhaps three to five people. Make sure at least some of them reside in the legislator�s district.
Select your best spokespersons and message. Choose someone who will appeal to the legislators you are trying to persuade.
Decide ahead of time how you will conduct the meeting. Who will introduce the participants? Lead the meeting? Close the meeting? What materials will you take to leave with the legislator at the end of the meeting?
Get to know legislators� staff. Legislators often rely heavily on the advice of key staff members. It is important to establish a good relationship with these staff members, make sure they have adequate information about your legislation, and try to learn from them any concerns you may need to address to keep your legislation moving forward. The staff will be your main point of contact if a legislator is unavailable or inaccessible.
For more tips on meeting with legislators, such as scheduling, preparing for, conducting, and following up after the meeting, see Tips on Meeting with Your Elected Officials (http://archive.aclu.org/action/lobby.html), and �Six Practical Tips on How to Lobby Your Legislator or Elected Official (http://www.democracyctr.org/resources/lobbying.html)� in Lobbying�the Basics.
Testify at hearings. This is not one of those times when you can wing it! Always be prepared before you give testimony on pending legislation.
Get a rough vote count of how legislators are likely to vote before you attend the hearing and try to find out about outstanding issues and concerns. Having this information will help you choose the best witnesses, know what points you need to emphasize in your testimony, and consider amendments you may need to offer or agree to.
Choose witnesses who will be credible and effective. Put together a combination of people directly affected by the legislation, experts, and individuals and organizations that represent legislators� constituents.
Write out your testimony in advance so that it is clear, concise, and persuasive. Include personal stories whenever possible to show how the issue affects real people. Prepare a summary of your testimony for distribution at the hearing to legislators, the media, and other attendees. Anticipate questions legislators might ask and plan how to respond.
Pack the legislative chambers with supporters and call the media. Wear buttons, T-shirts, or other identifying items to show legislators and the media the strength and presence of your support in the hearing room.
Have legislators who support your cause ask your opponents tough questions and make supportive statements on your behalf. You could offer to draft a list of questions or key points that you would like them to cover. Discuss in advance amendments that may be offered and the bottom line for any compromises.
Staging public protests or other public events. Consider organizing an event that energizes and mobilizes large numbers of supporters and captures legislators��and media�attention.
Public protests can sometimes turn up the heat on lawmakers to vote your way or at least think twice about siding with the opposition.
Holding a Lobby Day is an opportunity to mobilize large numbers of people to meet with multiple legislators in one day to show your legislative power and gain media attention. The day usually begins with training in lobbying skills and a teach-in on your issues, followed perhaps by a rally and news interviews, a couple of hours of meetings with legislators, and an end-of-day debriefing session for supporters.
Ignite Public Scrutiny. Elected officials care about their public image. They want to be portrayed favorably in the news. Develop a media strategy around your legislation that includes news conferences, letters to the editor, writing opinion editorials, or other media strategies that will put your issue in the public eye, maintain public scrutiny throughout the legislative process, provide a vehicle for keeping pressure on elected officials, turn up the heat on those who are against you, and applaud those who stick with you. For more tips on developing a media strategy see the Media Advocacy section.
Be persistent. Lobbying campaigns rarely come to a definitive end.
If your proposed legislation is defeated, there is frequently another opportunity to reintroduce it. Don�t be discouraged. Often it takes several tries to pass a measure, especially one that seeks to bring about an important change.
If you win, do not get complacent. Monitor implementation and make sure your legislation is fully funded. Look out for opposition attempts to undo or diminish your victory by trying to repeal your legislation, filing litigation to overturn it, or seeking regulations to significantly weaken its implementation.
wallpaper love quotes for him
saravanaraj.sathya
08-08 10:39 AM
UnitedNations - You are simply amazing..I admire ur courage and feel more confident now. I think this thread has invaludable information so that people will be careful before giving any wrong information to USCIS and geting into to trouble later on.
Question-
--------------------
Whtz if some does not have pay stubs after filing I-485..Is that a problem atall? Does uscis check only for the records until I-485 is filed. Please let me know. Also can I work as an individual contractor on W-2?
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
Question-
--------------------
Whtz if some does not have pay stubs after filing I-485..Is that a problem atall? Does uscis check only for the records until I-485 is filed. Please let me know. Also can I work as an individual contractor on W-2?
Yes, that is correct.
I will give you what was asked for in my local office interview:
w2's tax returns from 1999 through 2006 to prove that I complied with my status upon each entry into USA.
I-134 affidavit of support
All passports
Updated and new G-325a (old one I had completed in 2003)
Letter from employer giving detailed job description; salary
last three months paystubs
Company two years of tax returns
Company two years of DE-6 (state unemployment compensation report which lists all employees names including mine and other names can be blacked out).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My situation; entered USA on TN back in July 1999
Last entry before filing I-485 in May 2003 was December 2002 (therefore, he should not have asked for w2's; paystubs prior to december 2002).
I-140 was filed in May 2003 but approved in April 2004. left sponsoring employer at end of 2004.
From Jan. 2005 listed one company and then from October 2005 to March 2007 showed that I was self employed.
Did not have any tax returns prepared or w2 for 2005 and 2006 and no three months of paystubs (self employed).
I was going to take another job offer with another company upon greencard approval; therefore; I gave that companies two year of tax returns but no DE-6 because I wasn't working with them yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When I gave updated g-325a; it shows me as being self employed. He immediately picked up on this. I told him that it was allowed according to May 2005 memo and that I was in a period of authorized stay by filing the 485 in May 2003 and I had an EAD card and it was unrestricted employment.
Also, informed him that I was not porting to self employment upon greencard approval but instead going to work for another company. I gave him company job offer letter; told him since I didn't start working with them yet; then paystubs were unnecessary and that de-6 was also unnecessary since I hadn't started to work with them.
He asked for tax returns and w2's from 2001. As I was giving it to him; I questioned him why he was asking for this; I told him that I only needed to prove status from date of last entry until filing 485. (december 2002 to may 2003). He didn't say anything to this.
He got to 2005 and 2006 and I told him I didn't have tax returns prepared yet and no w2 since I was self employed. He asked for extension from IRS; told him I didn't file extension because I didn't owe any taxes. He dropped the questioning right there.
He then said case is approved.
Now; he way overreached in what he was asking for; if I didn't know these immigration laws then maybe someone would have gotten paystubs made or did fake tax returns, etc., and if USCiS officer suspected something and asked for certified IRS transcripts or called the company then he would have nailed me. Essentially; he was almost trying to get me to fake these things even though they are not required.
Macaca
02-15 05:34 PM
San Francisco's Democrat (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303714722970265.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks) WSJ Editorial, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats appear to have decided that November's election is a distraction from their effort to simply pull the plug on a sitting President. How else to explain what is happening in the House this week?
Democrats voted yesterday, for the first time in decades, to hold two White House officials in contempt of Congress. Hours later it emerged that Ms. Pelosi has apparently decided not to vote on the warrantless wiretap bill passed by the Senate days ago. This means that the Protect America Act -- which conferred Congressional support to wiretapping suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- will expire at midnight today.
We admit to wondering earlier this week whether Congress's interrogating Roger Clemens was the best use of the Representatives' time. On the evidence, the country will be safer if the House takes up tilting at windmills.
Speaker Pelosi says that letting the Protect America Act evaporate is no big deal. But the Director of National Intelligence told Congress last summer that the Administration lost two-thirds of its terrorist-surveillance capacity after it agreed to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and a judge there required a finding of probable cause to listen in on terrorists abroad.
There are in fact enough Blue Dog Democratic votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which had Democratic support there as well. But Ms. Pelosi instructed House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvester Reyes to begin negotiations with the Senate on a compromise bill. This effectively tosses the entire surveillance program into a kind of limbo, with all players uncertain about its practical authority.
This was of a piece with the remarkable contempt vote against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers, which passed 223 to 32, as Minority Leader John Boehner led the Republican delegation out of the chamber. The pretext for this historic moment? The fight over the fired U.S. Attorneys. Remember that?
This is the scandal that vanished because there was nothing to it. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; he can fire any -- or even all -- of them if he sees fit. This nonscandal seemed to fade into the mists after it hastened the departure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ms. Pelosi asserts that this virtually never-used contempt vote is necessary to ensure "oversight" of the executive.
Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers, however, refused under orders from the President and on the advice of the Solicitor General, on the principle that the President's advisers should be free to give advice to the President without being called before Congress to explain themselves. Democratic Presidents to the horizon have made this claim.
Every time he speaks, Barack Obama promises to overcome "bitter partisanship and petty bickering." Good luck with that. The House Speaker from San Francisco is obviously running her own campaign to gain control of the White House. The needs of the party's Presidential candidates appear to be a distraction from this.
The House Strikes Back (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/02/15/BL2008021502107.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) By Dan Froomkin | washingtonpost.com, Feb 15
2011 Sweet Love Quotes #12
shuyaib
12-22 09:28 PM
Its a known tendency of hindu groups of radicalizing muslims, so much so that Jinnah took into consideration and formed pakistan.
Still the hindus will target an abominal act of 11 people and make a community of muslims, a country victim of their acts.
Yet, even if a hindu preaches infanticide of girls, he is not terrorist, a hindu scripture preaching burning alive of widows is not terrorist doctrine, a mythical god preaching murder of low caste for chanting holy rhymes is not a terrorist! Hail Ram!
India could fight british militantly under Subhash Chandra, and under Gandhi, and that is fight for freedom, yet Palestinians fighting for free country is terrorism! Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?
Still the hindus will target an abominal act of 11 people and make a community of muslims, a country victim of their acts.
Yet, even if a hindu preaches infanticide of girls, he is not terrorist, a hindu scripture preaching burning alive of widows is not terrorist doctrine, a mythical god preaching murder of low caste for chanting holy rhymes is not a terrorist! Hail Ram!
India could fight british militantly under Subhash Chandra, and under Gandhi, and that is fight for freedom, yet Palestinians fighting for free country is terrorism! Will the Aryans return the land to Dravidians now?
more...
Macaca
06-20 02:11 PM
Learning From Microsoft's Error, Google Builds a Lobbying Engine (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061902058.html) By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/) Washington Post Staff Writer, June 20, 2007
When it comes to lobbying, Google does not intend to repeat the mistake that its rival Microsoft made a decade ago.
Microsoft was so disdainful of the federal government back then that it had almost no presence in Washington. Largely because of that neglect, the company was blindsided by a government antitrust lawsuit that cost it dearly.
Mindful of that history, Google is rapidly building a substantial presence in Washington and using that firepower against Microsoft, among others.
Google is reaching beyond Washington, as well. To publicize its policy positions and develop grass-roots support, the company introduced the Google Public Policy Blog (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/) this week.
"We're seeking to do public policy advocacy in a Googley way," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs. "We want our users to be part of the effort."
In its first major policy assault on a competitor, Google's Washington office helped write an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department and other government authorities asserting that Microsoft's new Vista operating system discriminates against Google software. Last night, under a compromise with federal and state regulators, Microsoft agreed to make changes to Vista's operations.
Google credits Microsoft's missteps in the 1990s with helping it see the wisdom of setting up shop in Washington in a big way and using the many tools available in the capital, such as lobbying and lawyering, to get its way on major policy matters.
"The entire tech industry has learned from Microsoft," said Alan B. Davidson, head of Google's Washington office. "Washington and its policy debates are important. We can't ignore them."
Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Davidson, then a 37-year-old former deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was the search-engine company's sole staff lobbyist in Washington. As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress.
To change that, Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here -- more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office -- and is continuing to add people.
Its in-house talent includes such veteran government insiders as communications director Robert Boorstin, a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser in the Clinton White House, and Jamie Brown, a White House lobbyist under President Bush.
Google has also hired some heavyweight outside help to lobby, including the Podesta Group, led by Democrat Anthony T. Podesta, and the law firm King & Spalding, led by former Republican senators Daniel R. Coats (Ind.) and Connie Mack (Fla.). To help steer through regulatory approvals in its proposed acquisition of DoubleClick, an online advertising company, Google recently retained the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
"We've had to grow quickly because our company has grown so fast and the issues that impact the Internet have come into greater focus in recent years," Davidson said.
Google's path is not unlike the one eventually taken by Microsoft, which was essentially represented in Washington for a long time by a single lobbyist. For a couple of embarrassing years in the mid-1990s, Microsoft's primary lobbying presence was "Jack and his Jeep" -- Jack Krumholz, the software giant's lone in-house lobbyist, who drove a Jeep Grand Cherokee to lobbying visits.
But after the Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit in 1998, Microsoft under Krumholz began what was then considered the largest government-affairs makeover in corporate history. The company now has one of the most dominating, multifaceted, and sophisticated influence machines around -- one that spends tens of millions a year. Microsoft has 23 people working out of its government affairs office in Washington; 16 are lobbyists.
Google is not that big. But it is set to move from temporary space on Pennsylvania Avenue NW to new and larger digs on New York Avenue NW. The suite will include a large meeting area where the company plans to hold seminars about the Internet and high-tech issues.
To make friends on Capitol Hill, Google plans to initiate Google 101, a series of tutorials for congressional aides that will teach them how to use Google's search engine better and faster. The aides will learn, for example, how to do simple math by writing numbers in the proper order on Google's search line.
Google has gotten serious about Washington's money game. The company established a political action committee last year and raised $57,220. For the next election, the PAC already has nearly half that amount on hand and company executives expect its political donations to soar.
Google is also attracting attention in the presidential campaign. It is co-sponsoring two candidate debates (one Democratic and one Republican) and has already hosted four presidential contenders at its California headquarters: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Google executives are parading through Washington with some frequency and being well-received, thanks to the advance work of their capital-based staff. In just the past few weeks, Google executives testified to Congress on such issues as immigration (Google wants more highly educated immigrants to work in the United States) and the future of video (Google owns YouTube, the popular video Web site).
The company has peppered the Federal Communications Commission with recommendations on how to handle a major upcoming auction of telecommunications spectrum. Google Washington's Richard S. Whitt, a former head of regulatory affairs at MCI, helped write those suggestions, which the company hopes will enhance people's ability to access the Internet -- and Google.
As for the company's future in Washington, "I expect we will grow in all dimensions," Davidson said. "We're not finished yet."
When it comes to lobbying, Google does not intend to repeat the mistake that its rival Microsoft made a decade ago.
Microsoft was so disdainful of the federal government back then that it had almost no presence in Washington. Largely because of that neglect, the company was blindsided by a government antitrust lawsuit that cost it dearly.
Mindful of that history, Google is rapidly building a substantial presence in Washington and using that firepower against Microsoft, among others.
Google is reaching beyond Washington, as well. To publicize its policy positions and develop grass-roots support, the company introduced the Google Public Policy Blog (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/) this week.
"We're seeking to do public policy advocacy in a Googley way," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs. "We want our users to be part of the effort."
In its first major policy assault on a competitor, Google's Washington office helped write an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department and other government authorities asserting that Microsoft's new Vista operating system discriminates against Google software. Last night, under a compromise with federal and state regulators, Microsoft agreed to make changes to Vista's operations.
Google credits Microsoft's missteps in the 1990s with helping it see the wisdom of setting up shop in Washington in a big way and using the many tools available in the capital, such as lobbying and lawyering, to get its way on major policy matters.
"The entire tech industry has learned from Microsoft," said Alan B. Davidson, head of Google's Washington office. "Washington and its policy debates are important. We can't ignore them."
Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Davidson, then a 37-year-old former deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was the search-engine company's sole staff lobbyist in Washington. As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress.
To change that, Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here -- more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office -- and is continuing to add people.
Its in-house talent includes such veteran government insiders as communications director Robert Boorstin, a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser in the Clinton White House, and Jamie Brown, a White House lobbyist under President Bush.
Google has also hired some heavyweight outside help to lobby, including the Podesta Group, led by Democrat Anthony T. Podesta, and the law firm King & Spalding, led by former Republican senators Daniel R. Coats (Ind.) and Connie Mack (Fla.). To help steer through regulatory approvals in its proposed acquisition of DoubleClick, an online advertising company, Google recently retained the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
"We've had to grow quickly because our company has grown so fast and the issues that impact the Internet have come into greater focus in recent years," Davidson said.
Google's path is not unlike the one eventually taken by Microsoft, which was essentially represented in Washington for a long time by a single lobbyist. For a couple of embarrassing years in the mid-1990s, Microsoft's primary lobbying presence was "Jack and his Jeep" -- Jack Krumholz, the software giant's lone in-house lobbyist, who drove a Jeep Grand Cherokee to lobbying visits.
But after the Justice Department filed its antitrust lawsuit in 1998, Microsoft under Krumholz began what was then considered the largest government-affairs makeover in corporate history. The company now has one of the most dominating, multifaceted, and sophisticated influence machines around -- one that spends tens of millions a year. Microsoft has 23 people working out of its government affairs office in Washington; 16 are lobbyists.
Google is not that big. But it is set to move from temporary space on Pennsylvania Avenue NW to new and larger digs on New York Avenue NW. The suite will include a large meeting area where the company plans to hold seminars about the Internet and high-tech issues.
To make friends on Capitol Hill, Google plans to initiate Google 101, a series of tutorials for congressional aides that will teach them how to use Google's search engine better and faster. The aides will learn, for example, how to do simple math by writing numbers in the proper order on Google's search line.
Google has gotten serious about Washington's money game. The company established a political action committee last year and raised $57,220. For the next election, the PAC already has nearly half that amount on hand and company executives expect its political donations to soar.
Google is also attracting attention in the presidential campaign. It is co-sponsoring two candidate debates (one Democratic and one Republican) and has already hosted four presidential contenders at its California headquarters: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Google executives are parading through Washington with some frequency and being well-received, thanks to the advance work of their capital-based staff. In just the past few weeks, Google executives testified to Congress on such issues as immigration (Google wants more highly educated immigrants to work in the United States) and the future of video (Google owns YouTube, the popular video Web site).
The company has peppered the Federal Communications Commission with recommendations on how to handle a major upcoming auction of telecommunications spectrum. Google Washington's Richard S. Whitt, a former head of regulatory affairs at MCI, helped write those suggestions, which the company hopes will enhance people's ability to access the Internet -- and Google.
As for the company's future in Washington, "I expect we will grow in all dimensions," Davidson said. "We're not finished yet."
GCKaMaara
01-10 04:55 PM
First of all, thanks for converting my argument about Europeans and native peoples into Muslims and non-Muslims. Shows us where our respective prejudices and biases lie. I am very happy when my comments on any situation are turned into a broad 'us vs them' thing. It just shows us that our primitive and primal instincts from the time when we split from the apes are still alive and kicking in some people. Its pretty fascinating for me.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
You are pretty much right. Lets not combine "40 innocent children killed" with war. Even if it is war, it is a war crime. God bless soul of those kids.
About poisoning kids by extremists, I agree that they are poisoned from very childhood. But killing them is not a solution - never. If it is a problem with 1 or 2 persons, you can work on them and get them out of poisoned mind. Can't work on mass. Thats why B****ds who have their personal benefits associated, always associate these poisons with religion to expand their own empire. Misguided muslim people need to and will understand one day that they are breeding dangerous new generations and is hurting themselves.
Secondly there is a difference between military strikes (retaliatory or otherwise), and acts of massacres. Pretty much the same as there is a difference between military confrontation and ethnic cleansing. If you condone and defend the latter, then you are pretty much defending ethnic cleansing. Striking Hamas targets are military strikes. Holing up a hundred members of an extended family into a house, and then destroying the house is an act of massacre. When we defend acts like the latter one, we defend ethnic cleansing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/massacre-of-a-family-seeking-sanctuary-1297577.html
You are pretty much right. Lets not combine "40 innocent children killed" with war. Even if it is war, it is a war crime. God bless soul of those kids.
About poisoning kids by extremists, I agree that they are poisoned from very childhood. But killing them is not a solution - never. If it is a problem with 1 or 2 persons, you can work on them and get them out of poisoned mind. Can't work on mass. Thats why B****ds who have their personal benefits associated, always associate these poisons with religion to expand their own empire. Misguided muslim people need to and will understand one day that they are breeding dangerous new generations and is hurting themselves.
more...
rockstart
07-14 10:43 AM
Did you mentiopn like Phani_6 that your lawyer filed Eb3 on advice from DOL inspite of you qualifying for Eb2?
I already mailed the Letter to Visa Section, DOS with a request to allocate some Visa Number to EB-3(India) to help to reduce the wait time. Did not mention about EB-2 or any other thing. Just a Request for EB-3 (India).
I already mailed the Letter to Visa Section, DOS with a request to allocate some Visa Number to EB-3(India) to help to reduce the wait time. Did not mention about EB-2 or any other thing. Just a Request for EB-3 (India).
2010 cute love quotes him. in love
SunnySurya
12-19 10:11 PM
In my mind, if a group of people have blind faith on any thing then thats a religion. If the same faith is backed by hardcore facts and the proof could be produced to substantiate it then thats science.
God just happened to be entangled in the debate between blind faith and fact based faith.
What or who is god anyways, is he omnipotent or just someone who learns by trial and error. After all it took him 8 billion years to create this universe.
I beleive, God is anyone's last hope , a light at the end of the tunnel. We just have to make sure that light is not that of an oncoming train.
God just happened to be entangled in the debate between blind faith and fact based faith.
What or who is god anyways, is he omnipotent or just someone who learns by trial and error. After all it took him 8 billion years to create this universe.
I beleive, God is anyone's last hope , a light at the end of the tunnel. We just have to make sure that light is not that of an oncoming train.
more...
chanduv23
05-17 07:13 AM
Behave like a high skilled person. Do not use bad words just because someone is against your opinion. Again if you use everything is appilcable to you. That means you are losing track and you do not have valid argument. You do not have sense that this thread is not for discussion for gc. This thread is about the H1b issue and Durbin bill. This my last reply for you. I will ignore you hereafter if you behave like this. I wasted my time for replying you. So you also do not reply my arguments.
Look at the bigger picture, my dear friend. The biggest thing in life that drives a man's opinion is not education or skill or awareness, it is purely perception. A good example is of the man who shot his wife as soon as she opened the door for him and all the while he was thinking that there is an intruder at home. This was his perception.
A public system always has issues and loopholes and a business is created basic on public systems like h1b or GC etc.... thats how public systems are. You are no special. Take example of American Idol. No matter how good you are, you can be voted out. You are exactly in a public system. In a pubilc system everyone goes through something that is called reality check and this will happen to anyone. If rich people think their kids must never gop through this and protect them, at some stage they have to come in terms with reality.
I am in full support of American friends who lost their jobs, and I think we must do everything we can to help them get a job. But when it comes to businesses, the logic is different. They will try to get the best deal. Everyone knows the system and its loopholes and will do best to get more competitive and get better.
Open yourself up and come out of your narrow minded approach, you will see a different world.
One thing I noticed in likes of you. You people are jelous of desi consulting companies because of their misuse of loopholes and making great money and driving ferraris. Well, if you have an option to do that, you must and if you can you must, so many American people mix hands with desi body shops on partnerships and involve in this business. While an abuse of visa may affect you, you must work hard to stop that abuse. Just to protect your self interest you are blaming them, is not right.
Look at the bigger picture, my dear friend. The biggest thing in life that drives a man's opinion is not education or skill or awareness, it is purely perception. A good example is of the man who shot his wife as soon as she opened the door for him and all the while he was thinking that there is an intruder at home. This was his perception.
A public system always has issues and loopholes and a business is created basic on public systems like h1b or GC etc.... thats how public systems are. You are no special. Take example of American Idol. No matter how good you are, you can be voted out. You are exactly in a public system. In a pubilc system everyone goes through something that is called reality check and this will happen to anyone. If rich people think their kids must never gop through this and protect them, at some stage they have to come in terms with reality.
I am in full support of American friends who lost their jobs, and I think we must do everything we can to help them get a job. But when it comes to businesses, the logic is different. They will try to get the best deal. Everyone knows the system and its loopholes and will do best to get more competitive and get better.
Open yourself up and come out of your narrow minded approach, you will see a different world.
One thing I noticed in likes of you. You people are jelous of desi consulting companies because of their misuse of loopholes and making great money and driving ferraris. Well, if you have an option to do that, you must and if you can you must, so many American people mix hands with desi body shops on partnerships and involve in this business. While an abuse of visa may affect you, you must work hard to stop that abuse. Just to protect your self interest you are blaming them, is not right.
hair love quotes for him long
unitednations
08-14 09:17 PM
To United Nation
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
I don't see much of a problem because it was less then 180 days.
Although uscis sometimes asks for w2's in rfe's; lawyers shouldn't send them in proactively. If you are making too much in future base employment then it can be a problem. if you aren't making enough then it can cause status issues (the smart lawyers would use the w2's, tax returns, not to send them in but to see if there may be a problem in the future and try to remedy the situation now).
I know at least 25 people in the last month and a half who had status issues with unpaid time and their h-1b visas had expired. All of them went to Canada; stayed one or two days and re-entered and used auto revalidation to reset the 180 day clock.
I would tell them at high level what they needed to do but everyone is afraid of leaving the country and coming back in without a visa through canada; espeically when all their friends, relatives say not to do so. Depending on what language a person speaks; i would direct them to specific people who had done it so that they could get the most minute detail on how to do it; punjabi; telugu; hindi; gujarati, etc.
I never went out of usa in 7 yrs.My first company did not pay me for the first 3 months because I did not get my ssn no for 3 months so I was not employed.After 3 yrs I joined the cliant company,so he got angry and did not pay me for 15 days but I have proof of time sheets.He threatned me like suing etc... but he did not do .Now I applied for AOS but I did not sent the W2 paper for that problem period .I have sent my last three years of W2 papers as per Lawyer's request .Will there be a problem for the un paid days.?
I don't see much of a problem because it was less then 180 days.
Although uscis sometimes asks for w2's in rfe's; lawyers shouldn't send them in proactively. If you are making too much in future base employment then it can be a problem. if you aren't making enough then it can cause status issues (the smart lawyers would use the w2's, tax returns, not to send them in but to see if there may be a problem in the future and try to remedy the situation now).
I know at least 25 people in the last month and a half who had status issues with unpaid time and their h-1b visas had expired. All of them went to Canada; stayed one or two days and re-entered and used auto revalidation to reset the 180 day clock.
I would tell them at high level what they needed to do but everyone is afraid of leaving the country and coming back in without a visa through canada; espeically when all their friends, relatives say not to do so. Depending on what language a person speaks; i would direct them to specific people who had done it so that they could get the most minute detail on how to do it; punjabi; telugu; hindi; gujarati, etc.
more...
nogc_noproblem
08-06 12:14 PM
A man realizes he needs to buy a hearing aid, but he is unwilling to spend much money.
"How much do they run?" he asks the clerk.
"That depends," says the salesman. "They run from $2 to $2,000."
"Let's see the $2 model," the customer says.
The clerk puts the device around the man's neck. "You just stick this button in your ear and run this little string down to your pocket," he says.
"How does it work?" the customer asks.
"For $2, it doesn't work," the salesman replies. "But when people see it on you, they'll talk louder."
"How much do they run?" he asks the clerk.
"That depends," says the salesman. "They run from $2 to $2,000."
"Let's see the $2 model," the customer says.
The clerk puts the device around the man's neck. "You just stick this button in your ear and run this little string down to your pocket," he says.
"How does it work?" the customer asks.
"For $2, it doesn't work," the salesman replies. "But when people see it on you, they'll talk louder."
hot Love+quotes+for+him+from+her+heart Sad love poems, heart touching love
AbraKaDabra
11-15 10:56 AM
This guy changes sides based on the audience, check out his latest rhetoric, looks like he is feeling the heat from the results of the current elections:
...Zakaria refers to "CNN's Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes" and Jonathan Alter describes those who agree with me as "nativist Lou Dobbsians." But Alter and Zakaria are far too bright to not know better. I've never once called for a restriction on legal immigration -- in fact, I've called for an increase, if it can be demonstrated that as a matter of public policy the nation requires more than the one million people we bring into this country legally each year.....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html
...Zakaria refers to "CNN's Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes" and Jonathan Alter describes those who agree with me as "nativist Lou Dobbsians." But Alter and Zakaria are far too bright to not know better. I've never once called for a restriction on legal immigration -- in fact, I've called for an increase, if it can be demonstrated that as a matter of public policy the nation requires more than the one million people we bring into this country legally each year.....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html
more...
house Love+quotes+for+him+from+her+heart Life with you Stories, short love
snathan
01-06 05:15 PM
Didn't Narendra Modi followed the footstep of Isreali counterparts by killing innocents in Gujarat?
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
Modi is the need of the hour andnot Gandhi....Grow up man.
Its upto Indians to decide which type of leaders we need. Like Gandhi or Modi.
Modi is the need of the hour andnot Gandhi....Grow up man.
tattoo love quotes for him long
paskal
07-08 08:46 PM
I have been here 11 years. 4 different employers.
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
I have all my returns and W2's
why in the world would i keep every paystub?
makes no sense. of course little does.
UN thanks for the comments.
any predictions on where we are headed? my vested interest is in EB2 india...
btw why is everyone presuming that the 60,000 approvals went to India and China? EB3 ROW is retrogressed- all the extra numbers could have gone there. that would in any case be all the better for india/china in the longer term- the faster that backlog is finished, the greater the chance india/china lines will show meaningful movement.
also did you notice the cantwell-kyl compromise amendment in the failed CIR 2007 had a provision for 485 filing w/o visa numbers current?
more...
pictures short love quotes him.
mpadapa
08-05 10:39 AM
Rolling_Flood, great idea to benefit just U'r own GC cause. If you are positive about U'r logic why don't you go ahead and file a lawsuit. Looks like your true intention of creating this thread is to create a divide among IV members. Already members had a tough few weeks (in terms of unity) after the Aug bulletin. Now you are poking another rift.
The EB classification is for a future job. Since the person is qualified, he ports to EB2 midway so what. The GC is for a future job, and when the person gets his/her GC, he/she is qualified for that position at that time. So what is U'r logic??
If you want to truly fight the system them fight for a common basis for EB classification. There are cases where the same job title has been classified under all 3 categories. Example
Senior Programmer (say Bachelor's with 5 yrs exp)
Files under EB1 : because he/she came L1, qualification might be few yrs exp.
Files under EB2 : because he/she has 5 yrs of exp and the attorney was smart to classify it as EB2.
Files under EB3 : because of company policy or based on bad attorney advice (conservative approach).
The above example shows that if U'r company and attorney is smart U can get U'r GC faster.
If you are keen on doing a lawsuit why not
File one against USCIS for wasting thousands of visa's over the past few years, which is the source of this backlog.
Or file one against DOL for taking n number of years to get the LC done.
Or file one against 245 filers who clogged the USCIS system which is causing USCIS to be inefficient.
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
The EB classification is for a future job. Since the person is qualified, he ports to EB2 midway so what. The GC is for a future job, and when the person gets his/her GC, he/she is qualified for that position at that time. So what is U'r logic??
If you want to truly fight the system them fight for a common basis for EB classification. There are cases where the same job title has been classified under all 3 categories. Example
Senior Programmer (say Bachelor's with 5 yrs exp)
Files under EB1 : because he/she came L1, qualification might be few yrs exp.
Files under EB2 : because he/she has 5 yrs of exp and the attorney was smart to classify it as EB2.
Files under EB3 : because of company policy or based on bad attorney advice (conservative approach).
The above example shows that if U'r company and attorney is smart U can get U'r GC faster.
If you are keen on doing a lawsuit why not
File one against USCIS for wasting thousands of visa's over the past few years, which is the source of this backlog.
Or file one against DOL for taking n number of years to get the LC done.
Or file one against 245 filers who clogged the USCIS system which is causing USCIS to be inefficient.
Friends,
I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.
I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.
More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.
I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.
Thanks.
dresses siavaapebo: love quotes for
sanju
05-17 10:15 AM
I am not saying everyone else are less skilled that me. Read my posts please. Nor am I saying everyone are less honest than me. I am saying that people applying for an H-1B without having a FULL-TIME JOB from day 1 are DISHONEST.
I am saying that people applying for an H-1B without having a FULL-TIME JOB from day 1 are DISHONEST.
Why do I know that you do not work for a consulting company?
Conventional wisdom says, if someone is not doing what I am doing OR if someone doesn't think the way I think OR if someone doesn't look the way I look then there is something wrong with the other person. So just because you have a full time job, every consultant in the world has done a huge crime by being a CONSULTANT. If it was for you, you would propose a bill that all H-1B folks who were ever being CONSULTANTS should be hanged until death. Maybe we could pass a law to make CONSULTANT synonymous to 'SERIAL KILLER'. How does that sound???
I am saying that people applying for an H-1B without having a FULL-TIME JOB from day 1 are DISHONEST.
Why do I know that you do not work for a consulting company?
Conventional wisdom says, if someone is not doing what I am doing OR if someone doesn't think the way I think OR if someone doesn't look the way I look then there is something wrong with the other person. So just because you have a full time job, every consultant in the world has done a huge crime by being a CONSULTANT. If it was for you, you would propose a bill that all H-1B folks who were ever being CONSULTANTS should be hanged until death. Maybe we could pass a law to make CONSULTANT synonymous to 'SERIAL KILLER'. How does that sound???
more...
makeup Bob Ong Quotes About Love
Green_Always
06-08 08:06 PM
Wish you good luck to get Job quickly.
I think it really is a matter of personal choice. A house is much more than a mere investment. For people like us it adds another layer of complications
due to our status (or rather...lack of status).
We are in Bay Area (San Jose Metro area) and were paying around $2000 in rent. We just bought a condo where our payments (mortgage + Taxes + HoA) are going
to be around 2300. Hopefully we will be getting back around 400-500 in taxes and this makes it a good deal. However only 15 days after moving into our
new house, I was laid off and now our biggest concern is if I am not able to get a job in next few weeks and if we have to go back we will be almost
80k down the hole.
I think it really is a matter of personal choice. A house is much more than a mere investment. For people like us it adds another layer of complications
due to our status (or rather...lack of status).
We are in Bay Area (San Jose Metro area) and were paying around $2000 in rent. We just bought a condo where our payments (mortgage + Taxes + HoA) are going
to be around 2300. Hopefully we will be getting back around 400-500 in taxes and this makes it a good deal. However only 15 days after moving into our
new house, I was laid off and now our biggest concern is if I am not able to get a job in next few weeks and if we have to go back we will be almost
80k down the hole.
girlfriend roken heart quotes for him.
Macaca
03-04 07:13 AM
Some paras from The Power Player (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/citizen-k-street/chapters/introduction/index.html).
Cassidy helped invent the new Washington, which had made him seriously rich. His personal fortune exceeded $125 million. He and his original partner, whom he forced out of the firm 20 years earlier, devised a new kind of business, subsequently mimicked by many others. Their innovation was the first modern "earmarked appropriations" -- federal funds directed by Congress to private institutions when no federal agency had proposed spending the money. Over the subsequent three decades, the government dispensed billions of dollars in "earmarks," and lobbying for such appropriations became a booming Washington industry.
Cassidy may be the richest Washington lobbyist, but he is far from the best-known. Since a scandal erupted that bears his name, that title belongs to Jack Abramoff, the confessed felon, bribe-payer and tax evader who is now an inmate in the federal prison camp in Cumberland, Md. He is still cooperating in a widening federal probe of corruption on Capitol Hill.
Cassidy's is a subtler epic that probably reveals more about the culture of Washington, D.C. It, too, involves favors, gifts and contributions, but they are supplemented by the disciplined application of intellect, hard work, salesmanship and connections. In Cassidy's story, all these can influence the decisions of government to the benefit of private parties -- Cassidy's clients.
On a personal level, Cassidy's saga is a variation on the classic American myth: A determined man from nowhere accumulates great wealth and rises to the top. At different moments it evokes Charles Foster Kane, Jay Gatsby or a character from a Horatio Alger tale. Like them, Cassidy is a self-made man who fulfilled many of his most ambitious dreams. But material success has not pacified all of his personal demons. He is tough, temperamental, driven and, according to many around him, rather lonely.
Over the next five weeks, The Washington Post will tell Gerald Cassidy's story in a unique way. On Monday, the series will jump to the newspaper's Web site, washingtonpost.com, to begin a 25-chapter serial narrative that will describe how Cassidy built his business, how he made the deals that earned his millions, how he and his fellow-lobbyists influenced decisions of government and helped create the money-centric culture of modern Washington.
Cassidy's career has spanned an astounding boom in the lobbying business. When Cassidy became a lobbyist in 1975, the total revenue of Washington lobbyists was less than $100 million a year. In 2006 the fees paid to registered lobbyists surpassed $2.5 billion; the Cassidy firm's 51 lobbyists earned about $29 million. In 1975 the rare hiring of a former member of Congress as a lobbyist made eyebrows rise. Today 200 former members of the House and Senate are registered lobbyists. Two of them, tall, gregarious men named Marty Russo and Jack Quinn, work for Cassidy, and at the 30th birthday party they worked the crowd with relish.
Cassidy helped invent the new Washington, which had made him seriously rich. His personal fortune exceeded $125 million. He and his original partner, whom he forced out of the firm 20 years earlier, devised a new kind of business, subsequently mimicked by many others. Their innovation was the first modern "earmarked appropriations" -- federal funds directed by Congress to private institutions when no federal agency had proposed spending the money. Over the subsequent three decades, the government dispensed billions of dollars in "earmarks," and lobbying for such appropriations became a booming Washington industry.
Cassidy may be the richest Washington lobbyist, but he is far from the best-known. Since a scandal erupted that bears his name, that title belongs to Jack Abramoff, the confessed felon, bribe-payer and tax evader who is now an inmate in the federal prison camp in Cumberland, Md. He is still cooperating in a widening federal probe of corruption on Capitol Hill.
Cassidy's is a subtler epic that probably reveals more about the culture of Washington, D.C. It, too, involves favors, gifts and contributions, but they are supplemented by the disciplined application of intellect, hard work, salesmanship and connections. In Cassidy's story, all these can influence the decisions of government to the benefit of private parties -- Cassidy's clients.
On a personal level, Cassidy's saga is a variation on the classic American myth: A determined man from nowhere accumulates great wealth and rises to the top. At different moments it evokes Charles Foster Kane, Jay Gatsby or a character from a Horatio Alger tale. Like them, Cassidy is a self-made man who fulfilled many of his most ambitious dreams. But material success has not pacified all of his personal demons. He is tough, temperamental, driven and, according to many around him, rather lonely.
Over the next five weeks, The Washington Post will tell Gerald Cassidy's story in a unique way. On Monday, the series will jump to the newspaper's Web site, washingtonpost.com, to begin a 25-chapter serial narrative that will describe how Cassidy built his business, how he made the deals that earned his millions, how he and his fellow-lobbyists influenced decisions of government and helped create the money-centric culture of modern Washington.
Cassidy's career has spanned an astounding boom in the lobbying business. When Cassidy became a lobbyist in 1975, the total revenue of Washington lobbyists was less than $100 million a year. In 2006 the fees paid to registered lobbyists surpassed $2.5 billion; the Cassidy firm's 51 lobbyists earned about $29 million. In 1975 the rare hiring of a former member of Congress as a lobbyist made eyebrows rise. Today 200 former members of the House and Senate are registered lobbyists. Two of them, tall, gregarious men named Marty Russo and Jack Quinn, work for Cassidy, and at the 30th birthday party they worked the crowd with relish.
hairstyles Love in heart
gomirage
06-08 12:47 AM
It is very nice discussion.
I am in process of buying forclosure home in SUWANEE ( Atlanata) area. I based on my survey and research feel that I am getting good deal(175 K price for 2800 sqft, 2004).by th
Recently interest rates are gone up. Does any one has any idea that it will come down in a week or two due to possible federal intervention to keep houising going further down? can some one point to the relevant articles?
Also if you know this area and have any reference for the good lenders?
Also any points to keep in mind while buying foreclosure? apart from routine home inspection, termite inspection etc. Does survey is required for lot and property?
Also is it good to put higher down payment or not? How much is better to put, assuming no financial constrain. Is it wise to put 20% down or not? Is it wise to purchase points to get interest rates down?
Thanks for your continuing suggestions and discussions.
Interesting questions. What are your plans for buying the house ? Just looking to take advantage of the good deals ? Do you have the conditions and like the area to settle there 5-10 years ?
I am in process of buying forclosure home in SUWANEE ( Atlanata) area. I based on my survey and research feel that I am getting good deal(175 K price for 2800 sqft, 2004).by th
Recently interest rates are gone up. Does any one has any idea that it will come down in a week or two due to possible federal intervention to keep houising going further down? can some one point to the relevant articles?
Also if you know this area and have any reference for the good lenders?
Also any points to keep in mind while buying foreclosure? apart from routine home inspection, termite inspection etc. Does survey is required for lot and property?
Also is it good to put higher down payment or not? How much is better to put, assuming no financial constrain. Is it wise to put 20% down or not? Is it wise to purchase points to get interest rates down?
Thanks for your continuing suggestions and discussions.
Interesting questions. What are your plans for buying the house ? Just looking to take advantage of the good deals ? Do you have the conditions and like the area to settle there 5-10 years ?
NKR
12-24 10:58 AM
but if a muslim rebels in lack of justice and equality�
Thought I will stay out of this debate, but I couldn�t especially when innocents are getting killed�
In India, Muslims have their own justice system according to their beliefs. Government sponsors Haj pilgrimage to poor muslims. We treat Taj Mahal as our symbol of love, fair enough.
Abdul Kalam was the president of India, he is widely respected and all his lectures go full house even now.
According to forbes, Wipro�s CEO Azim Premji was rated the richest person in the country from 1999 to 2005. He is the richest Muslim enterpreneur of the world. Many Hindus are working in Wipro and are proud of it.
The three Khans in Bollywood are adored in India, Amir Khan�s Lagaan was India�s official entry for Oscars and now his �Taare Zameen Par� is this year�s official entry. We all will be happy if it wins.
Azharuddin was the captain of Indian cricket team, though he was associated with match fixing and selling his country�s pride in cricket, he still roams scotfree.
So where is the lack of justice and equality?. All the above chose to use the system wisely and prospered. They did not chose to lag behind and then rebel against the system.
Now, If you think whoever is sponsoring terrorism are doing it in Islam�s favor, you are dead wrong, they are doing it so that they can lead a lavish life in their fortified mansions, they continue to sponsor terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and what not�all at the expense of poor brainwashed people who are mere cannon fodders.
A poor person from Pakistan comes all over to Mumbai to carry terrorist activities and I do no understand how you can say that he is rebelling against lack of justice and equality in India. For one there is no lack of equality as mentioned above, second, who gave them authorization even if you all think there was one. That is our internal problem for crying out loud.
Even after showing proof that the captured terrorist was from Pakistan, they are back to their old lying game telling that the person�s name is not in their official records. What next, will they give that person�s dad to India to carry out DNA test?.. hell no, they will ask for DNA sample from India and say it did not match. Seems like the trait of lying and misleading the world is in their DNA.
Thought I will stay out of this debate, but I couldn�t especially when innocents are getting killed�
In India, Muslims have their own justice system according to their beliefs. Government sponsors Haj pilgrimage to poor muslims. We treat Taj Mahal as our symbol of love, fair enough.
Abdul Kalam was the president of India, he is widely respected and all his lectures go full house even now.
According to forbes, Wipro�s CEO Azim Premji was rated the richest person in the country from 1999 to 2005. He is the richest Muslim enterpreneur of the world. Many Hindus are working in Wipro and are proud of it.
The three Khans in Bollywood are adored in India, Amir Khan�s Lagaan was India�s official entry for Oscars and now his �Taare Zameen Par� is this year�s official entry. We all will be happy if it wins.
Azharuddin was the captain of Indian cricket team, though he was associated with match fixing and selling his country�s pride in cricket, he still roams scotfree.
So where is the lack of justice and equality?. All the above chose to use the system wisely and prospered. They did not chose to lag behind and then rebel against the system.
Now, If you think whoever is sponsoring terrorism are doing it in Islam�s favor, you are dead wrong, they are doing it so that they can lead a lavish life in their fortified mansions, they continue to sponsor terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and what not�all at the expense of poor brainwashed people who are mere cannon fodders.
A poor person from Pakistan comes all over to Mumbai to carry terrorist activities and I do no understand how you can say that he is rebelling against lack of justice and equality in India. For one there is no lack of equality as mentioned above, second, who gave them authorization even if you all think there was one. That is our internal problem for crying out loud.
Even after showing proof that the captured terrorist was from Pakistan, they are back to their old lying game telling that the person�s name is not in their official records. What next, will they give that person�s dad to India to carry out DNA test?.. hell no, they will ask for DNA sample from India and say it did not match. Seems like the trait of lying and misleading the world is in their DNA.
Macaca
02-16 09:38 AM
From Va. Bar Could Reverse Limits On Firms Hiring Legislators (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021502096.html).
RICHMOND -- The organization charged with regulating Virginia attorneys is pushing to erase an ethics rule that for a half-century has prohibited the state's legislators from being employed alongside lobbyists at the commonwealth's largest law firms.
The change, proposed by the Virginia State Bar's standing committee on legal ethics, could spark a bidding war among Richmond's leading law firms, which would be free to hire the speaker of the House of Delegates or the Senate floor leader even as their lobbyists prowl the halls of the General Assembly.
That has outraged some in the legislature, who say the move would create dangerous conflicts of interest for the lawmakers and the lobbyists. And they say it adds to a perception that the General Assembly is a good old boys' club where deals are cut behind closed doors instead of in public committee rooms.
RICHMOND -- The organization charged with regulating Virginia attorneys is pushing to erase an ethics rule that for a half-century has prohibited the state's legislators from being employed alongside lobbyists at the commonwealth's largest law firms.
The change, proposed by the Virginia State Bar's standing committee on legal ethics, could spark a bidding war among Richmond's leading law firms, which would be free to hire the speaker of the House of Delegates or the Senate floor leader even as their lobbyists prowl the halls of the General Assembly.
That has outraged some in the legislature, who say the move would create dangerous conflicts of interest for the lawmakers and the lobbyists. And they say it adds to a perception that the General Assembly is a good old boys' club where deals are cut behind closed doors instead of in public committee rooms.
No comments:
Post a Comment