Macaca
07-29 06:14 PM
Partisans Gone Wild (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701691.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter (neverett@princeton.edu) Washington Post, July 29, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
wallpaper Hairstyle
gc_chahiye
01-25 04:49 PM
Hi All,
My wife is currently working on H1B. She recently got her EAD through my GC application (I am the primary applicant). Can she use her EAD to work for her current company who is holding H1B?
Appreciate your response immediately
Thanks in Advance
yes, just fill out a new I-9, this time indicating that you are going to use your EAD.
My wife is currently working on H1B. She recently got her EAD through my GC application (I am the primary applicant). Can she use her EAD to work for her current company who is holding H1B?
Appreciate your response immediately
Thanks in Advance
yes, just fill out a new I-9, this time indicating that you are going to use your EAD.
sunny1000
12-20 06:33 PM
I have a work related travel (2 days max) coming up in January. Do I need a canadian visa. I am on AP and my US visa on my passport has expired. My H1 is valid till 2009 (not stamped on the passport).
My question is Do I need a canadian visa? Let me know if anyone had a similar experience.
Thanks
If you are from a country who is not exempt from a canadian visa (especially for work), you should definitely get one. your AP does not entitle to enter any other country other than the U.S.
My question is Do I need a canadian visa? Let me know if anyone had a similar experience.
Thanks
If you are from a country who is not exempt from a canadian visa (especially for work), you should definitely get one. your AP does not entitle to enter any other country other than the U.S.
2011 hair alba-hairstyle-updo.jpg
pappu
06-28 01:55 PM
Please do not post same question under multiple topics.
more...
ajaysri
06-08 12:43 PM
I have replied to my I-485 RFE and the case status on USCIS website has changed from "RFE sent..." to "On June 2, 2009, we received your response to our request for evidence. We will notify you by mail when we make a decision or if we need something from you...."
I am EB-3 India Oct 2004 PD. So not likely that my case status will change to "Approved" any time sooner. Do any one know if the status will change to any thing else before changing to "Approved" ? What I am trying to understand is if the case status will be updated on the website to state some thing that reflects that they accepted my answer in the RFE response.
Thanks,
AjaySri
I am EB-3 India Oct 2004 PD. So not likely that my case status will change to "Approved" any time sooner. Do any one know if the status will change to any thing else before changing to "Approved" ? What I am trying to understand is if the case status will be updated on the website to state some thing that reflects that they accepted my answer in the RFE response.
Thanks,
AjaySri
kpchal2
03-13 04:14 PM
Hi, I have my labor approved by Company A and I140 filed as soon as I got the labor. Before this I140 got approved I changed to Company B who filed for my labor and applied for I140 as soon as it got approved. My I140 with company B got approved and then the I140 with the old company A got approved 3 months later. Can I somehow get the old PD. Can some one who have been in similar situation or know some one in the similar situation answer this. I will be able to get a 2 year advance if this works out.
more...
GoneSouth
09-15 04:10 PM
Say, there seems to be some confusion over the which is the SKIL bill and which is the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA).
GovTrack lists the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act as S.2611, sponsored by Sen. Arlen Spector. This was the bill that the Senate passed on 05/25/06. OK easy enough.
If I do a search for securing knowledge innovation in GovTack, S.2691 pops up, sponsor Sen. John Cornyn. OK all good.
If I look up SKIL Bill on google though, immigration.about.com seems to think that the SKIL bill is S.2611. Possibly this one site is just confused?
GovTrack lists the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act as S.2611, sponsored by Sen. Arlen Spector. This was the bill that the Senate passed on 05/25/06. OK easy enough.
If I do a search for securing knowledge innovation in GovTack, S.2691 pops up, sponsor Sen. John Cornyn. OK all good.
If I look up SKIL Bill on google though, immigration.about.com seems to think that the SKIL bill is S.2611. Possibly this one site is just confused?
2010 loose updo hairstyles. formal
go_guy123
03-16 10:11 AM
UK to impose tax on all visa seekers
US also will slowly take this route I think.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Features/Visa/UK-to-impose-tax-on-all-visa-seekers/articleshow/4270275.cms
US already has far more tax levied on H1B in the form of training fees
1500$ and anti-fraud fees of 500$. Just that it is named differently.
US also will slowly take this route I think.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Features/Visa/UK-to-impose-tax-on-all-visa-seekers/articleshow/4270275.cms
US already has far more tax levied on H1B in the form of training fees
1500$ and anti-fraud fees of 500$. Just that it is named differently.
more...
logiclife
02-04 04:35 PM
Thanks a lot to all the volunteers working to spread the word and generate awareness.
--logiclife.
--logiclife.
hair updo hairstyles for medium
hsm2007
10-01 12:23 PM
Anyone?
more...
vayumahesh
11-08 04:39 PM
My I-140 got approved and priority date from EB3 got ported to EB2. I read in one of the forum threads that USCIS system would automatically identify that application is current and appropriate action will be taken. Also, I read about initiating interfile process of existing EB2 I-140 (current) with Pending I-485 application (under EB3). I am not sure whether I should wait few weeks before initiating interfile process.
I have given my biometrics in 2007 while filing I-485. Will USCIS send appointment for Biometrics again ?
I have given my biometrics in 2007 while filing I-485. Will USCIS send appointment for Biometrics again ?
hot Side parted hairstyle that
TheCanadian
09-21 03:20 PM
I can has grammar now?
more...
house messy up do hairstyles.
va_dude
07-09 03:27 PM
There is no change really for Advance Parole applicants.
The form 131 is used for more than just AP applicants, its used for refugees and re-entry permits too.
Read this from page 2 of that memo.
Q. Do the revised Form I-131 instructions require advance parole applicants to complete biometrics?
A. Applicants for advance parole are not required to submit biometrics at this time. An applicant for advance parole must continue to submit two identical color photographs of the applicant taken within 30 days of the filing of the Form I-131 application.
The form 131 is used for more than just AP applicants, its used for refugees and re-entry permits too.
Read this from page 2 of that memo.
Q. Do the revised Form I-131 instructions require advance parole applicants to complete biometrics?
A. Applicants for advance parole are not required to submit biometrics at this time. An applicant for advance parole must continue to submit two identical color photographs of the applicant taken within 30 days of the filing of the Form I-131 application.
tattoo low knotted hairstyle. her
cbpds
05-21 02:40 PM
Still waiting for a response, this is urgent situation for me,please reply
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
more...
pictures Becki Newton Hairstyles
ranand00
09-28 06:57 PM
Thanks for the reply.
I did and got my license renewed today
thanks
anand
I did and got my license renewed today
thanks
anand
dresses glamorize the hairstyle.
drirshad
04-07 12:30 PM
no news yet, i m kinda breaking ........
more...
makeup updo hairstyle Make a low
newuser
05-24 11:08 AM
There is already a thread opened by pappu.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4646
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4646
girlfriend An updo hairstyle done on
virens
12-09 01:54 AM
I got an email from USCIS saying my I-485 case is now transferred to National Benefits Centre and is now pending standard processing at a USCIS office.
I am travelling to India currently and plan to re-enter on AP.
I wanted to know if
1. anyone has any ideas as to what this really means, anyone received similar email, experiences?
My priority date is not current so are they pre-adjudicating my case or planning to send a RFE??
2. Should I take any specific steps while re-entering on AP?
Thanks
I am travelling to India currently and plan to re-enter on AP.
I wanted to know if
1. anyone has any ideas as to what this really means, anyone received similar email, experiences?
My priority date is not current so are they pre-adjudicating my case or planning to send a RFE??
2. Should I take any specific steps while re-entering on AP?
Thanks
hairstyles fact that great hairstyles
gimme_GC2006
08-15 09:14 PM
What? Just woke up?
There are already zillion threads on this topic..
buddy lookaround before creating thread
There are already zillion threads on this topic..
buddy lookaround before creating thread
kirupa
03-22 05:13 PM
Added!
Macaca
12-11 08:31 PM
Congress Has Been Stymied By Bush, Republicans (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-usa-congress.html) By REUTERS, December 11, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush wants it known the U.S. Congress has been asleep at the switch since Democrats took over in January. The only problem is that he and his fellow Republicans have flipped off the switch at nearly every turn, Democrats say.
"The end of 2007 is approaching fast and the new Congress has little to show for it," Bush told reporters in the White House Rose Garden last week.
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, was even less generous. "Nothing has been accomplished all year," he said.
As they excoriate political opponents, Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have successfully stopped most major Democratic initiatives this year.
They have staged an unprecedented number of "filibusters" in the Senate, where Democrats do not have a big enough majority to end debate. The few times that wasn't the case, Bush used his veto pen to kill Democrats' top priorities, like ending the Iraq war, expanding health care to children from low-income families and expanding stem cell research.
"Sadly, Republicans in Washington are determined to make this a 'no-can-do' Congress," Assistant Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said in his party's weekly radio address on Saturday.
With only a week or two remaining in the first half of 110th Congress that convened in January, there's a deflated feeling on Capitol Hill.
Democrats and Republicans complain not enough has been accomplished. The public seems to agree, with just one in five Americans approving of the job Congress is doing, even worse than the unpopular Bush's ratings.
The legislative deadlock might get even worse next year, as election campaigns for Congress and the presidency get into full swing.
Ethan Siegal of the Washington Exchange, a private group that tracks Congress, said of Republicans' opposition tactics: "The template for trying to get into power is to make sure the party in charge doesn't have many legislative successes."
But even many Republicans think accusations of a "do-nothing" Democratic Congress won't be enough for their party to win back their majority status in the November 2008 elections.
PROMISES KEPT?
Democrats quickly fulfilled many of their 2006 campaign promises, raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, implementing stalled recommendations of the commission that investigated the September 11 attacks and trying to stop ethics abuses that plagued Congress during years of Republican leadership.
Republicans blocked many other measures.
A top domestic priority -- reforming U.S. immigration law -- was buried by conservative Republicans in the House. On foreign affairs, Republicans killed repeated moves to bring combat in Iraq to an end, despite Americans' disenchantment with a war now in its fifth year. Anti-war feeling was a driving factor behind the Democrats' success in last year's elections.
Popular legislation to expand stem cell research to help cure diseases such as Parkinson's was vetoed by Bush, as was a bill to deliver health care to more children from low-income families.
More recently, the House passed an energy bill that would improve automobile fuel efficiency for the first time in 32 years but Senate Republicans, heeding a White House veto threat, stopped it.
And Bush has veto threats on the remaining bills to fund the government through next September.
He recently told Arkansas business leaders: "You're fixing to see what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington."
But despite the bluster, Bush and congressional Democrats are at odds over a relatively tiny slice, about $11 billion, of the nearly $3 trillion budget.
Negotiations between the two finally have begun, but a compromise -- some war funding coupled with some of the additional domestic spending Democrats want -- was showing signs of souring this week, again amid accusations of Republican sabotage. There's plenty of incentive for a deal though as neither side wants government shutdowns to begin if agencies run out of money this month.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush wants it known the U.S. Congress has been asleep at the switch since Democrats took over in January. The only problem is that he and his fellow Republicans have flipped off the switch at nearly every turn, Democrats say.
"The end of 2007 is approaching fast and the new Congress has little to show for it," Bush told reporters in the White House Rose Garden last week.
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, was even less generous. "Nothing has been accomplished all year," he said.
As they excoriate political opponents, Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have successfully stopped most major Democratic initiatives this year.
They have staged an unprecedented number of "filibusters" in the Senate, where Democrats do not have a big enough majority to end debate. The few times that wasn't the case, Bush used his veto pen to kill Democrats' top priorities, like ending the Iraq war, expanding health care to children from low-income families and expanding stem cell research.
"Sadly, Republicans in Washington are determined to make this a 'no-can-do' Congress," Assistant Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said in his party's weekly radio address on Saturday.
With only a week or two remaining in the first half of 110th Congress that convened in January, there's a deflated feeling on Capitol Hill.
Democrats and Republicans complain not enough has been accomplished. The public seems to agree, with just one in five Americans approving of the job Congress is doing, even worse than the unpopular Bush's ratings.
The legislative deadlock might get even worse next year, as election campaigns for Congress and the presidency get into full swing.
Ethan Siegal of the Washington Exchange, a private group that tracks Congress, said of Republicans' opposition tactics: "The template for trying to get into power is to make sure the party in charge doesn't have many legislative successes."
But even many Republicans think accusations of a "do-nothing" Democratic Congress won't be enough for their party to win back their majority status in the November 2008 elections.
PROMISES KEPT?
Democrats quickly fulfilled many of their 2006 campaign promises, raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, implementing stalled recommendations of the commission that investigated the September 11 attacks and trying to stop ethics abuses that plagued Congress during years of Republican leadership.
Republicans blocked many other measures.
A top domestic priority -- reforming U.S. immigration law -- was buried by conservative Republicans in the House. On foreign affairs, Republicans killed repeated moves to bring combat in Iraq to an end, despite Americans' disenchantment with a war now in its fifth year. Anti-war feeling was a driving factor behind the Democrats' success in last year's elections.
Popular legislation to expand stem cell research to help cure diseases such as Parkinson's was vetoed by Bush, as was a bill to deliver health care to more children from low-income families.
More recently, the House passed an energy bill that would improve automobile fuel efficiency for the first time in 32 years but Senate Republicans, heeding a White House veto threat, stopped it.
And Bush has veto threats on the remaining bills to fund the government through next September.
He recently told Arkansas business leaders: "You're fixing to see what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington."
But despite the bluster, Bush and congressional Democrats are at odds over a relatively tiny slice, about $11 billion, of the nearly $3 trillion budget.
Negotiations between the two finally have begun, but a compromise -- some war funding coupled with some of the additional domestic spending Democrats want -- was showing signs of souring this week, again amid accusations of Republican sabotage. There's plenty of incentive for a deal though as neither side wants government shutdowns to begin if agencies run out of money this month.
0 comments:
Post a Comment