NKR
10-03 04:09 PM
The choice between Obama and Mccain is not good and better but between worse and worst, or lesser of the two evils. Mccain might not do anything for us but he might not do anything bad either, with Obama\Dirbin CIR there is only bad and nothing good for EB.
Let us give Obama a chance and see what he does… We are already in deep shit and nothing worse can happen
Let us give Obama a chance and see what he does… We are already in deep shit and nothing worse can happen
wallpaper The Journeyman Project
alisa
12-26 11:16 PM
Wow!!
So, what exactly does the state and the country of Pakistan gain by starting a war with India?
In modern times, wars between nations are not started in days or weeks. Wars are not based on one event. There is a systematic three stage process to go to war and for a nation to convince the majority of the society/nation that the other guy is pure evil and your mortal enemy. Society in Pakistan is based on their haterade towards Indians. For many years children in Pakistan were taught that Indians are evil, their belief system is barbaric, and their existence means that Islam is in danger. That was the reason some of us saw posts on this forum talking about sati system in Hinduism or some others Pakistanis saying that Hindus are attacking Muslims in India, and then other Pakistanis talking about Modi, VHP and Bajrang Dal. The first step for creating a war involves propaganda within the population of the country that your enemy is evil. Pakistan has been doing this preparation very systematically for sometime.
Second stage to go to war involves finding a reason after the decision has been made to go to war. In this stage, one has to come up with a reason and then waits for the trigger to create the reason to go to war.
The third and final stage to go to war involves invoking the trigger, which will create a flash point for the war, and so the war begins. Mumabi was that trigger.
The reason why I am saying this is, because someone wrote on this form "don't be a war monger". You see, we are not creating a war. The war is being forced on us. To defend oneself is not "war mongering". Our willingness to live in peace and harmony should not become our weakness such that someone openly and deliberately attacks the population of our country. I do not hold any false sense of myth of nationalism hosting the flag. But when war is forced upon us, there is no way we can run away from it.
For a moment, just imagine, what would have happened if Mumbai attacks were done in China as "Beijing attack", or if Pakistani terrorists would have attacked Iran and they were "Tehran attack" or for that matter an attack on any country in Europe or say US. How will any other country China, Iran, UK, US, France, Germany, and score of other, how will these countries respond to the attacks like Mumbai attack? There is only one way to reply to such attacks. Respond swiftly and with full force. Personally, I believe that 30 days is too late to respond. I believe that response has to come before the ashes of the dead is still hot. Otherwise, justice hasn't served, because justice delayed is justice denied.
If the war begins, this will be my last post.
Adios
.
So, what exactly does the state and the country of Pakistan gain by starting a war with India?
In modern times, wars between nations are not started in days or weeks. Wars are not based on one event. There is a systematic three stage process to go to war and for a nation to convince the majority of the society/nation that the other guy is pure evil and your mortal enemy. Society in Pakistan is based on their haterade towards Indians. For many years children in Pakistan were taught that Indians are evil, their belief system is barbaric, and their existence means that Islam is in danger. That was the reason some of us saw posts on this forum talking about sati system in Hinduism or some others Pakistanis saying that Hindus are attacking Muslims in India, and then other Pakistanis talking about Modi, VHP and Bajrang Dal. The first step for creating a war involves propaganda within the population of the country that your enemy is evil. Pakistan has been doing this preparation very systematically for sometime.
Second stage to go to war involves finding a reason after the decision has been made to go to war. In this stage, one has to come up with a reason and then waits for the trigger to create the reason to go to war.
The third and final stage to go to war involves invoking the trigger, which will create a flash point for the war, and so the war begins. Mumabi was that trigger.
The reason why I am saying this is, because someone wrote on this form "don't be a war monger". You see, we are not creating a war. The war is being forced on us. To defend oneself is not "war mongering". Our willingness to live in peace and harmony should not become our weakness such that someone openly and deliberately attacks the population of our country. I do not hold any false sense of myth of nationalism hosting the flag. But when war is forced upon us, there is no way we can run away from it.
For a moment, just imagine, what would have happened if Mumbai attacks were done in China as "Beijing attack", or if Pakistani terrorists would have attacked Iran and they were "Tehran attack" or for that matter an attack on any country in Europe or say US. How will any other country China, Iran, UK, US, France, Germany, and score of other, how will these countries respond to the attacks like Mumbai attack? There is only one way to reply to such attacks. Respond swiftly and with full force. Personally, I believe that 30 days is too late to respond. I believe that response has to come before the ashes of the dead is still hot. Otherwise, justice hasn't served, because justice delayed is justice denied.
If the war begins, this will be my last post.
Adios
.
Macaca
04-03 08:22 AM
Soliciting for Good Citizens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201749_2.html), By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/jeffrey+h.+birnbaum/), Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Another backdoor lobbying technique (oops, I mean opportunity to celebrate and assist members of Congress) is to conspicuously contribute to a foundation that supports a congressional caucus.
Congress is filled with caucuses -- the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus, to name just a few. These are groups of like-minded lawmakers who meet regularly to discuss the subjects in which they have a common interest.
But, Washington being Washington, money quickly enters the equation. Some caucuses have foundations that help bankroll events.
The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, for instance, sponsors gatherings in conjunction with the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Its "supporters group" includes dozens of tech firms that lobby Congress intensely, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
The advisory committee's next large event is an April 25 "Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue." To pay the tab, its Web site lists "sponsorship opportunities," available for $500 to $5,000. A sampling (before it was apparently altered yesterday):
"Pens and other promotional items: Distribute pens with your logo to event attendees."
"Coffee breaks: We'll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area."
"Wi-Fi Hotspot: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor."
"Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner: End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.'s finest restaurants."
None of these constitute lobbying. Companies become sponsors "to prove that they are not only a thought leader in the space but also that they are a good corporate citizen," said Danielle Yates, the advisory committee's spokeswoman.
Oh.
Another backdoor lobbying technique (oops, I mean opportunity to celebrate and assist members of Congress) is to conspicuously contribute to a foundation that supports a congressional caucus.
Congress is filled with caucuses -- the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus, to name just a few. These are groups of like-minded lawmakers who meet regularly to discuss the subjects in which they have a common interest.
But, Washington being Washington, money quickly enters the equation. Some caucuses have foundations that help bankroll events.
The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, for instance, sponsors gatherings in conjunction with the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Its "supporters group" includes dozens of tech firms that lobby Congress intensely, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.
The advisory committee's next large event is an April 25 "Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue." To pay the tab, its Web site lists "sponsorship opportunities," available for $500 to $5,000. A sampling (before it was apparently altered yesterday):
"Pens and other promotional items: Distribute pens with your logo to event attendees."
"Coffee breaks: We'll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area."
"Wi-Fi Hotspot: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor."
"Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner: End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.'s finest restaurants."
None of these constitute lobbying. Companies become sponsors "to prove that they are not only a thought leader in the space but also that they are a good corporate citizen," said Danielle Yates, the advisory committee's spokeswoman.
Oh.
2011 From Journeyman Project 2:
Macaca
12-14 11:33 AM
The Delta House Congress (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010993) The politics of futile gestures, Dec 14, 2007
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part." To which Bluto, played by John Belushi, replies, "We're just the guys to do it." The movie ends by noting that Bluto becomes a Senator, so perhaps this explains the meltdown among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
As they careen toward the end of their first year in charge, Congressional leaders seem capable of nothing but futile gestures. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid failed once again to get enough votes for an energy bill, having refused to remove a $21.8 billion tax increase on energy that President Bush has promised to veto in any case. Mr. Reid was vowing to try again as we went to press.
Meanwhile, in Nancy Pelosi's House of self-inflicted pain, the Blutarsky strategy played out yesterday in one more hopeless attempt to pass a tax increase to "pay for" Alternative Minimum Tax relief. The Senate has already voted 88-5 against any such tax hike, so this House bill is dead before arrival. But Ms. Pelosi's troops are just the guys to do it anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Say what you will about Tom DeLay, at least he knew how to run the joint. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are letting their left-wing troops and interest groups run all over them, with the result that their signal achievement this year is a higher minimum wage. Considering most of their policy goals, this failure is good for the country. But the dysfunction amply shows that Democrats are attempting to govern with an agenda that is too far left even for many in their own party, never mind the country.
Start with trying to end the war in Iraq, which Democrats claimed was their mandate from voters last November. That was a misinterpretation of their victory, which had as much to do with GOP corruption and overspending. But Democratic leaders nonetheless wasted weeks and no fewer than 63 votes trying to impose withdrawal deadlines, strategy changes, and other war-fighting micromanagement on Mr. Bush. Their only achievement has been to reinforce their image of national-security weakness for opposing the Baghdad "surge" that has been such a success. Recall Mr. Reid's memorable declaration in April that "This war is lost."
Even today, Democrats are caught between their antiwar left, which wants more futile gestures, and Members from swing districts who want to fund the troops. Democrats have delayed funding for so long that the Pentagon is issuing furlough notices to 100,000 civilian employees so it can shuffle operations funding to keep the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in ammunition.
Then there's the AMT fiasco. Without action by Congress, that hated second tax system will engulf 22 million middle-class Americans next year, most of them in high-tax, largely Democratic states. Congress has already been so dilatory that the IRS has said it may have to delay tax-return processing that is supposed to start in January. But so determined are House Democrats to raise taxes on somebody, anybody, to "pay for" this relief that they are holding out for Senate Democrats to walk the tax plank with them. In the end the House will surely back down, but not before Ms. Pelosi has put her moderate Members on record as tax raisers. Bluto strikes again.
And don't forget the warrantless wiretap program against al Qaeda that expires early next year if Congress fails to act. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hardly dominated by hawks, passed a bipartisan bill in October. But it is now bogged down because Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy refuses to provide retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that cooperated with the U.S. government in the uncertain days after 9/11. The House bill is a similar bow to the ACLU, MoveOn.org and the party's antiwar left. If Republicans wanted to design a political battle that made Democrats look weak on security, they couldn't do it any better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We could keep calling this roll: farm subsidies that are as egregious as anything the DeLay Republicans passed, the Schip health-care bill and its budget gimmicks, eliminating secret ballots for union organizing, spending bills that keep courting vetoes because they exceed Mr. Bush's targets. On nearly every issue, Democrats have been intent not on getting something done but on making a stupid, futile gesture to please their base.
As for Mr. Bush, one lesson is that his veto strategy has been a political and policy success. Though widely called a lame duck, he continues to dominate the debate on security and defense. He is also on the cusp of controlling spending growth far better than he ever did when Republicans controlled Congress.
We hope GOP leaders on Capitol Hill don't give Democrats a last minute reprieve on spending in order to be able to collect their own "earmarks." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell looked shaky on that score earlier this week. The best GOP strategy is to put the responsibility to govern squarely on the Democratic majority, and support Mr. Bush's vetoes as a tool for improving policy. If Democrats keep following Delta House rules, Republicans will be back in the majority sooner than they ever imagined.
more...
milind70
07-10 12:55 AM
I have changed the H1b after my last entry to usa. My I-94 in passport and in the H1b approval notice numbers are not same. Out of all 10 digits only 6th digit is different. I think it is a typo by uscis. What should I do?? The difference is very hard to figure out that I noticed it only when I was filling out I-485 by myself.
Any suggestions
You can file Form I 102 with USCIS , if it is the mistake of USCIS there is no charge. If I 94 is mutilated,lost or stolen then u have to pay a fee for it.
I would suggest take an infopass appointment with local USCIS office and talk to a immgration officer he will be able to help you.
Any suggestions
You can file Form I 102 with USCIS , if it is the mistake of USCIS there is no charge. If I 94 is mutilated,lost or stolen then u have to pay a fee for it.
I would suggest take an infopass appointment with local USCIS office and talk to a immgration officer he will be able to help you.
Macaca
02-24 07:33 PM
Indian techie slams CNN Lou Dobbs (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/10-28a-04.asp)!, N. Sivakumar, October 28, 2004
In a book titled "Dude, did I steal your job? Debugging Indian Computer programmers", the author, an Indian software engineer, has slammed Lou Dobbs of CNN for calling the foreign high-tech workers as non-tax payers, and humiliating the enormous contributions of foreign high-tech workforce to the American economy.
"Foreign high-tech workers who come here on H-1B / L1 visas pay every tax that U.S. citizens do, including Social Security and Medicare. But if they return to their homeland, then they will not get any benefits from these programs. The recent recession cost the United States more than half a million foreign high-tech workers who had to return home after paying all these taxes. In fact, Americans owe them money"
The author writes.
"The ignorance to mention the stupendous contributions of immigrant high-tech workers was the primary cause for the anti-Indian atmosphere which is seen among computer professionals lately. Unfortunately, neither the media nor the public understand the foreign high-tech workforce. The net result: those who supported the foreign high-tech worker programs have taken a back seat to play safe, and Indians and others who came here on visas, and worked their butts off to make this country prosper are named 'slaves', 'dummies', and 'enemies'. writes the author, N.Sivakumar.
The book also claims that bringing in foreign high-tech workforce at the right time was the primary reason for America's stupendous high-tech success, and gives statistics and evidence to prove that hadn't America acted quickly, the Europeans would have taken over the software dominance.
The book also outlines the life, struggle and achievements of Indian programmers in America with entertaining facts, and is a prime discussion topic in many anti-outsourcing and immigration websites lately.
In a book titled "Dude, did I steal your job? Debugging Indian Computer programmers", the author, an Indian software engineer, has slammed Lou Dobbs of CNN for calling the foreign high-tech workers as non-tax payers, and humiliating the enormous contributions of foreign high-tech workforce to the American economy.
"Foreign high-tech workers who come here on H-1B / L1 visas pay every tax that U.S. citizens do, including Social Security and Medicare. But if they return to their homeland, then they will not get any benefits from these programs. The recent recession cost the United States more than half a million foreign high-tech workers who had to return home after paying all these taxes. In fact, Americans owe them money"
The author writes.
"The ignorance to mention the stupendous contributions of immigrant high-tech workers was the primary cause for the anti-Indian atmosphere which is seen among computer professionals lately. Unfortunately, neither the media nor the public understand the foreign high-tech workforce. The net result: those who supported the foreign high-tech worker programs have taken a back seat to play safe, and Indians and others who came here on visas, and worked their butts off to make this country prosper are named 'slaves', 'dummies', and 'enemies'. writes the author, N.Sivakumar.
The book also claims that bringing in foreign high-tech workforce at the right time was the primary reason for America's stupendous high-tech success, and gives statistics and evidence to prove that hadn't America acted quickly, the Europeans would have taken over the software dominance.
The book also outlines the life, struggle and achievements of Indian programmers in America with entertaining facts, and is a prime discussion topic in many anti-outsourcing and immigration websites lately.
more...
Macaca
08-01 08:24 PM
House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.
The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."
"What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."
The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.
Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.
But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.
The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.
"These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.
House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.
Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.
House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.
"Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.
Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.
"You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.
Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.
"In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.
It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.
And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.
At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.
2010 Journeyman Project Trilogy COMPLETE in box with original disc sleeve
BumbleBee
03-24 02:41 PM
Again, I am not the one you should be asking to define "full-time" and "temp" type jobs. Ask USCIS or DOL or whoever is going to adjudicate your green card.
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bac7d92e8003f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : What is an H-1B?
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant classification used by an alien who will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
As per USCIS, H1B is for temporary job
I am simply saying that if USCIS has made a distinction between perm job and temp job, AND if they feel that consulting job is of temp type, someone along the line has dropped the ball and missed this. They also missed the fact that the employee needs to work at the LCA specified location. They also missed (or circumvented) that benching is not allowed.
You can blame anyone and everyone for it. Maybe the immigration attorneys were the ones that should have warned both the employers and employees that consulting jobs do not fit the H-1B requirement. Maybe USCIS was sleeping all the while and suddenly they decided to start enforcing this. But the fact that they can ALL-OF-A-SUDDEN claim that H-1B visa is for permanent jobs only, AND that employees need to stay in the LCA location means that our lawyers, employers, and employees were incompetent in their judgment and did not do their due diligence to protect against potential audits and queries.
I am telling you the same thing I told the other guy .... you don't need to give me justifications.
Just hope that USCIS will buy your story!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=bac7d92e8003f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=1847c9ee2f82b010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
Q : What is an H-1B?
The H-1B is a nonimmigrant classification used by an alien who will be employed temporarily in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability.
As per USCIS, H1B is for temporary job
more...
leoindiano
03-24 08:57 AM
Thanks for your insight. Its about time most of us here understand not to take immigration rules lightly, and I've been preaching this for the longest time already!
People here had their own justification about "consulting". Well, this is what they get for exploiting loopholes.
Dear Sledge_hammer,
Dont just hammer around. The people who are doing consulting is not doing it out of their choice. It is the economy it forced some of us into consulting (fulltime to the company we work for but work for a client). In 2001, when we came out of school and tech bubble burst, there was no fulltime jobs, we were forced to do consulting. Some of my freinds who graduated in 2000 got into microsoft, oracle, cisco who didnt had damn good GPA. The guys who had 4.0 GPA and graduated a semester later didnt get those offers, coz bubble burst by that time.
I am forced to tell you that the guys who are doing fulltime jobs working in same technology and same companies and doing same thing everyday are by no means smarter than the consultants who work in different industries, different technologies and enjoy their work. I would challenge the guys to come out and find a job faster than a consultant with same amount of experience.
Luck By Chance doesnt give them a right to cry foul on consultants everyday....I am really sorry if i hurt anybodys feelings. I was forced by some of our fellow members. You have lot of other things to talk about. Dont blame consultants for your misery. If you are destined to suffer, you will suffer one or other way.
I would advice all FTE's to be prepared for unexpected twists and turns in bad economy.
People here had their own justification about "consulting". Well, this is what they get for exploiting loopholes.
Dear Sledge_hammer,
Dont just hammer around. The people who are doing consulting is not doing it out of their choice. It is the economy it forced some of us into consulting (fulltime to the company we work for but work for a client). In 2001, when we came out of school and tech bubble burst, there was no fulltime jobs, we were forced to do consulting. Some of my freinds who graduated in 2000 got into microsoft, oracle, cisco who didnt had damn good GPA. The guys who had 4.0 GPA and graduated a semester later didnt get those offers, coz bubble burst by that time.
I am forced to tell you that the guys who are doing fulltime jobs working in same technology and same companies and doing same thing everyday are by no means smarter than the consultants who work in different industries, different technologies and enjoy their work. I would challenge the guys to come out and find a job faster than a consultant with same amount of experience.
Luck By Chance doesnt give them a right to cry foul on consultants everyday....I am really sorry if i hurt anybodys feelings. I was forced by some of our fellow members. You have lot of other things to talk about. Dont blame consultants for your misery. If you are destined to suffer, you will suffer one or other way.
I would advice all FTE's to be prepared for unexpected twists and turns in bad economy.
hair The Journeyman Project 2:
sumanitha
12-22 07:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VORdATj6s4w&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=zakir+naik+2008&emb=0&aq=1&oq=zakir+nai
more...
sledge_hammer
06-27 09:17 AM
hpandey,
Excellent points!
Hirala/puddonhead,
You guys are still going by popular news article and media hype. You fail to understand the ground reality. I bought my house last year in a great school district. I used to pay $1,250 rent for a single bedroom condo of 800 sq ft. I could have as well flushed that money down the toilet. My house now is 1600 sq ft living area + completed basement + garage + deck, all for $2,500 (mortgage + insurance + tax). I'm in the 30% tax bracket and I know I'll get a huge tax benefit. My quality of life has been great with the addition of space in my dwelling.
I'll have to reiterate - do not generalize your opinions. What's happening in Detriot is NOT happening everywhere!
EDIT: The rent in my area for my home is of course not $2,500 but between $1,800 to $1,900. After tax deduction I'll be paying the same amount (or a tiny bit more) as a renter. If my home apprecites, I gain, if it doesn't, I DON'T lose anything. But I were a renter, my loss is guaranteed!
Thank you Mr. Hiralal for your condensending post . Your trying to explain it slowly will not make your argument strong.
I am not trying to justify my homeownership to you or anyone else here. I am just presenting the real facts that apply to my case. I did not buy a house to get rich neither would I become rich if I rented.
I bought a house only a few months back and not in the real estate bubble time. I have paid a good price for it and my mortage is the same as my rent . The house has four times the area of the apartment I used to rent and is in a very very good area . So why should I go on renting.
Anyway my primary reason to buy was for my 2 year old who ( and my family ) need more space to live rather than a cramped two bedroom apartment. I don't know about you but I have spent 9 years in this country . GC is no where in sight. Waiting for GC and wasting valuable years of your life living in a rented accomodation don't make sense to me when you can get a nice big house for your family at a very good price and low mortgage .
Maybe you believe all these media articles but these are written for a broad view.
Everyone is unique and every situation is unique. There are a lot of places in US where the prices did not fall that much and there are some place where they are in fact rising now .
Mortgage rates are low now as are the home prices after correction but what about mortgage rates two years from now ? I can't predict if the home prices will go down or not since that depends on the location but I can say this for sure that mortgage rates will go up .
Homeowners like me don't have our heads stuck in the sand as you say - I spent a good two years 2007 and 2008 making calulations , waiting for the right time and finding a good valued house at a good mortgage rate.
We are not as stupid as you think.
Thank you .
Excellent points!
Hirala/puddonhead,
You guys are still going by popular news article and media hype. You fail to understand the ground reality. I bought my house last year in a great school district. I used to pay $1,250 rent for a single bedroom condo of 800 sq ft. I could have as well flushed that money down the toilet. My house now is 1600 sq ft living area + completed basement + garage + deck, all for $2,500 (mortgage + insurance + tax). I'm in the 30% tax bracket and I know I'll get a huge tax benefit. My quality of life has been great with the addition of space in my dwelling.
I'll have to reiterate - do not generalize your opinions. What's happening in Detriot is NOT happening everywhere!
EDIT: The rent in my area for my home is of course not $2,500 but between $1,800 to $1,900. After tax deduction I'll be paying the same amount (or a tiny bit more) as a renter. If my home apprecites, I gain, if it doesn't, I DON'T lose anything. But I were a renter, my loss is guaranteed!
Thank you Mr. Hiralal for your condensending post . Your trying to explain it slowly will not make your argument strong.
I am not trying to justify my homeownership to you or anyone else here. I am just presenting the real facts that apply to my case. I did not buy a house to get rich neither would I become rich if I rented.
I bought a house only a few months back and not in the real estate bubble time. I have paid a good price for it and my mortage is the same as my rent . The house has four times the area of the apartment I used to rent and is in a very very good area . So why should I go on renting.
Anyway my primary reason to buy was for my 2 year old who ( and my family ) need more space to live rather than a cramped two bedroom apartment. I don't know about you but I have spent 9 years in this country . GC is no where in sight. Waiting for GC and wasting valuable years of your life living in a rented accomodation don't make sense to me when you can get a nice big house for your family at a very good price and low mortgage .
Maybe you believe all these media articles but these are written for a broad view.
Everyone is unique and every situation is unique. There are a lot of places in US where the prices did not fall that much and there are some place where they are in fact rising now .
Mortgage rates are low now as are the home prices after correction but what about mortgage rates two years from now ? I can't predict if the home prices will go down or not since that depends on the location but I can say this for sure that mortgage rates will go up .
Homeowners like me don't have our heads stuck in the sand as you say - I spent a good two years 2007 and 2008 making calulations , waiting for the right time and finding a good valued house at a good mortgage rate.
We are not as stupid as you think.
Thank you .
hot The Journeyman Project 2:
kotlareddy
07-19 02:38 PM
UN, you are genius in immigarion matteres and better than any of this screwed up attorneys, Pls help this community as much as you can. I didn't come across any one close to you in immigration matters
more...
house The Journeyman Project
puddonhead
06-26 10:38 PM
Home size may be smaller, but the land (plot) also got smaller...
So the point is that it is pointless to compare median home prices.
If you want to do the comparison - Case Shiller is a better bet. It tracks the sale prices of the same homes. Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-Shiller_index)
Case Shiller Index in
1987: 62.03
2006 Q2 (Peak of the bubble): 189.93
Increase - 306% over 20 years - i.e. 4.5% compounded (assuming annual compounding - less with contineous compounding).
Compare that with other investment vehicles (e.g. the stock index) - and tell me who would have more net worth - the one who invested in a house or the one who kept investing every month in the stock market.
So the point is that it is pointless to compare median home prices.
If you want to do the comparison - Case Shiller is a better bet. It tracks the sale prices of the same homes. Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-Shiller_index)
Case Shiller Index in
1987: 62.03
2006 Q2 (Peak of the bubble): 189.93
Increase - 306% over 20 years - i.e. 4.5% compounded (assuming annual compounding - less with contineous compounding).
Compare that with other investment vehicles (e.g. the stock index) - and tell me who would have more net worth - the one who invested in a house or the one who kept investing every month in the stock market.
tattoo The Journeyman Project:
unitednations
03-25 02:56 PM
I heard from the grapevine that UNITEDNATIONS will be the next USCIS chief - so folks better behave with him or he wil report ya all :D :D :D :D
I know you are kidding; however, you only get selected for such positions as long as your idealogy is in line with what they want.
I know you are kidding; however, you only get selected for such positions as long as your idealogy is in line with what they want.
more...
pictures journeyman project,
desi3933
08-06 12:43 PM
Don't worry there is no solid basis for the lawsuit. Only lawsuit that can be filled , if at all, is BS+5 , which is USCIS ineterpretation of Advance degree equivalent.
Source: A reputed lawyer known to us all on this forum.
Mode of consultation: E-mail
Next course of action: Unknown. But folks with US Masters or higher please PM me...
Here is the relevant portion from 8 C.P.R. � 204.5(k)(2). This is the reason, in my opinion, why any lawsuit against BS+5 has not much merit value.
If you would like to read about related case, refer to this pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/err/B5%20-%20Members%20of%20the%20Professions%20holding%20Ad vanced%20Degrees%20or%20Aliens%20of%20Exceptional% 20Ability/Decisions_Issued_in_2005/NOV152005_02B5203.pdf
============================================
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
(k) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability.
(1) Any United States employer may file a petition on Form I-140 for classification of an alien under section 203(b)(2) of the Act as an alien who is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. If an alien is claiming exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business and is seeking an exemption from the requirement of a job offer in the United States pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act, then the alien, or anyone in the alien's behalf, may be the petitioner.
(2) Definitions. As used in this section:
Advanced degree
means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
======================================
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
Source: A reputed lawyer known to us all on this forum.
Mode of consultation: E-mail
Next course of action: Unknown. But folks with US Masters or higher please PM me...
Here is the relevant portion from 8 C.P.R. � 204.5(k)(2). This is the reason, in my opinion, why any lawsuit against BS+5 has not much merit value.
If you would like to read about related case, refer to this pdf
http://www.uscis.gov/err/B5%20-%20Members%20of%20the%20Professions%20holding%20Ad vanced%20Degrees%20or%20Aliens%20of%20Exceptional% 20Ability/Decisions_Issued_in_2005/NOV152005_02B5203.pdf
============================================
Sec. 204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
(k) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of exceptional ability.
(1) Any United States employer may file a petition on Form I-140 for classification of an alien under section 203(b)(2) of the Act as an alien who is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. If an alien is claiming exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business and is seeking an exemption from the requirement of a job offer in the United States pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act, then the alien, or anyone in the alien's behalf, may be the petitioner.
(2) Definitions. As used in this section:
Advanced degree
means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree.
======================================
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
dresses The Journeyman Project 3:
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.
more...
makeup The Journeyman Project:
anandrajesh
01-28 12:16 PM
Why should anybody listen to this guy? This guy doesnt really represent the facts.
The fact is that he is against IMMIGRATION of any form. I am sure he denies the fact that fore-fathers were immigrants and came from a distant land.
The fact is that he is against IMMIGRATION of any form. I am sure he denies the fact that fore-fathers were immigrants and came from a distant land.
girlfriend The Journeyman Project 2:
kuhelica2000
12-18 05:38 PM
For your kind information, Bangladesh is not an Islamic Republic. Nor is Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia. These are muslim majority countries but not islamic republics. These countries don't even have sharriah law; ironically india has sarriah law.
[QUOTE=addsf345;306838]by your explanation, what should hindus in india do? they were attacked, temples destroyed, forcefully converted, killed, lost land to islamic republics like pakistand and bangladesh??? Please read this on wikipedia...Thankfully not whole world thinks like you do.
[QUOTE=addsf345;306838]by your explanation, what should hindus in india do? they were attacked, temples destroyed, forcefully converted, killed, lost land to islamic republics like pakistand and bangladesh??? Please read this on wikipedia...Thankfully not whole world thinks like you do.
hairstyles The Journeyman Project is
gsc999
08-15 12:41 PM
A comprehensive look at Lou Doub, his past, his present and his future ( ;-) please see quote below for future...)
"CNN president Jonathan Klein refused The Nation's requests for an interview, but he has told the New York Times that "Lou's show is not a harbinger of things to come at CNN."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/eviatar
"CNN president Jonathan Klein refused The Nation's requests for an interview, but he has told the New York Times that "Lou's show is not a harbinger of things to come at CNN."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/eviatar
nogc_noproblem
08-22 03:08 PM
One day, a teacher, a garbage collector, and a lawyer all died and went to heaven.
St. Peter was there, having a bad day because heaven was getting crowded. When they got to the gate, St. Peter informed them that there would be a test to get into Heaven: They each had to answer a single question.
To the teacher, he said, "What was the name of the ship that crashed into an iceberg and sunk with all its passengers?"
The teacher thought for a second, and then replied: "That would have been the Titanic, right?" St. Peter let him through the gate.
Next, St. Peter turned to the garbage man, and figuring that heaven didn't really need all the stink that this guy would bring in, decided to make the question a little harder. "How many people died on the ship?"
The garbage man guessed 1228, to which St. Peter said, "That happens to be right. Go ahead."
St. Peter then turned to the lawyer. "What were their names?"
St. Peter was there, having a bad day because heaven was getting crowded. When they got to the gate, St. Peter informed them that there would be a test to get into Heaven: They each had to answer a single question.
To the teacher, he said, "What was the name of the ship that crashed into an iceberg and sunk with all its passengers?"
The teacher thought for a second, and then replied: "That would have been the Titanic, right?" St. Peter let him through the gate.
Next, St. Peter turned to the garbage man, and figuring that heaven didn't really need all the stink that this guy would bring in, decided to make the question a little harder. "How many people died on the ship?"
The garbage man guessed 1228, to which St. Peter said, "That happens to be right. Go ahead."
St. Peter then turned to the lawyer. "What were their names?"
Macaca
02-22 11:39 AM
Lou Dobbs makes 6+ Mils and gives his opinions on the best news network at close to prime time. We are rotting in retrogression. Most of us are tiger on IV forums but can not even wimper on non-IV forums.
The utility of these opinions on IV forums is debatable, at best. However, It will help us if we can convince others that they are not getting the facts from Lou Dobbs and give them the facts.
Please post fact based opinions at non-IV forums.
The utility of these opinions on IV forums is debatable, at best. However, It will help us if we can convince others that they are not getting the facts from Lou Dobbs and give them the facts.
Please post fact based opinions at non-IV forums.
No comments:
Post a Comment