krishna_brc
06-20 11:33 PM
Marriage based green card for persons already in the US (http://www..com/greencard/familybasedimmigration/persons-in-us.html)
wallpaper with the tattoo design .
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
mrdelhiite
02-26 11:34 AM
yes if u do a h1 transfer (and invoke AC21)..
-M
-M
2011 celtic tribal tattoo
vivache
03-21 06:42 PM
I'm on Eb3 and have my I-140 cleared.
I'm planning to switch jobs .. so I can get on Eb2 and use the priority date of this I 140.
What info do I need to pass to my next company if I want to use this priority date (Filed in July 2002)?
I'm planning to switch jobs .. so I can get on Eb2 and use the priority date of this I 140.
What info do I need to pass to my next company if I want to use this priority date (Filed in July 2002)?
more...
lvaka
05-27 01:26 PM
What will the answer to the question Current immigration status while filing EAD electonically, i am on EAD rite now and i have never used my advance parole.* Pls help..
Use "PAR-Parolee" option
Use "PAR-Parolee" option
fatboysam
10-29 03:25 AM
On my last exit from USA , I was not carrying original i797 so I gave photocopy of i94, I am returning back to USA now, what shall I do ? Now I have the originals too..
Please suggest
Thanks
Please suggest
Thanks
more...
Blog Feeds
09-08 07:20 PM
The most frequent question that we receive is �How do I choose a good immigration attorney?� Our response is �Why settle for �good�? Read on. There are websites for finding excellent hotels, wonderful restaurants and great physicians. How about a site for choosing an attorney? See http://www.avvo.com During the past year, Avvo has emerged as the premier site for selecting an attorney. Avvo, short for avvocaat (Italian for attorney), is gaining not only in popularity but in usefulness. Great immigration attorneys will tell you that by the time 30% of potential clients consult with them, some incompetent attorney or �consultant�...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/09/let-avvo-help-you-select-a-great-immigration-attorney.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/09/let-avvo-help-you-select-a-great-immigration-attorney.html)
2010 Tribal Tattoo Designs.
ragool25
11-07 07:24 PM
Hi Legal Attorney's,
I am looking for Lawyer who can process & Handle my case from A-Z from B2 Visa to F1 Visa.
I am in US now, I have a valid I-20 from a accredited University, and my B2 visa valid until Feb'2, 2011, I am from India & Single.
I want a legal Professional to proceed my case with best service charge in the market.
My email Address: ragool@live.com
If any Legal professionals Interested and able to handle my case, Please email me with contact details with service charge.
I will get to back to you asap.
Looking forward to hearing from someone here in Immmigration voice
Thanks
Ragool.
I am looking for Lawyer who can process & Handle my case from A-Z from B2 Visa to F1 Visa.
I am in US now, I have a valid I-20 from a accredited University, and my B2 visa valid until Feb'2, 2011, I am from India & Single.
I want a legal Professional to proceed my case with best service charge in the market.
My email Address: ragool@live.com
If any Legal professionals Interested and able to handle my case, Please email me with contact details with service charge.
I will get to back to you asap.
Looking forward to hearing from someone here in Immmigration voice
Thanks
Ragool.
more...
obelix
06-15 03:04 PM
Thanks.
hair Cross Tattoo Tribal. cross
paskal
03-01 09:06 PM
/\/\/\/\/\/\
more...
felix31
01-16 10:11 PM
if you already have a prospective employer who will sponsor you, just fill out everything and have your lawyer ship the application april 1st.
hot hot tribal cross tattoos.
rathodman
05-05 11:53 AM
Hi,
My H1B transfer from Company A to B is denied on 04/22/2010 and currently I am working for Company B. Company B is planning to apply for MTR. Now I am getting offer from Company C. My questions are:
1) Is it possible to get H1B transfer on premium processing approved from Company C with EOS (Extension of Status)? Do I need to apply for transfer or New H1B with Company C?
2) Can MTR affect the new H1B transfer to Company C?
Will appreciate your quick response and thanks a lot for your great help.
Thanks,
My H1B transfer from Company A to B is denied on 04/22/2010 and currently I am working for Company B. Company B is planning to apply for MTR. Now I am getting offer from Company C. My questions are:
1) Is it possible to get H1B transfer on premium processing approved from Company C with EOS (Extension of Status)? Do I need to apply for transfer or New H1B with Company C?
2) Can MTR affect the new H1B transfer to Company C?
Will appreciate your quick response and thanks a lot for your great help.
Thanks,
more...
house Get Over 1000 Tribal Tattoo
askreddy
08-07 10:53 AM
.....
tattoo tribal cross tattoo designs
Blog Feeds
10-21 02:10 PM
I'm glad to see Immigration Voice weighing in on this one. Under some of the versions of health care reform proposals being considered by Congress, legal immigrants could be excluded for five years before they can access the Medicaid and insurance subsidies despite the fact that they pay taxes, are abiding by all of our laws and are often making critical contributions to the success of this country.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/legal-immigrants-could-be-in-limbo-under-health-care-reform-proposals.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/10/legal-immigrants-could-be-in-limbo-under-health-care-reform-proposals.html)
more...
pictures Cross With Wings Tribal Tattoo
klixerklox
12-11 01:20 AM
Hi,
My details:
- Bsc Computers (3 yrs) + MBA (2 yrs)
- GC - EB3, Oct 2003.
- Applied for 9th Year H1B in October. (H1B Visa expired in Oct)
- EAD and AP approved.
- Just got CRIS email of I140 & 485 denial notices (waiting for the USCIS letter for reasons).
- Previous company closed down and I had given Experience letter from a colleague, who is now on H4.
Questions?
1. Am I out of status already due to denial notices?
2. Will I get an H1B Extension?
3. If my lawyer decides to file an MTR, will I be allowed to work until my EAD/H1B is valid.
My details:
- Bsc Computers (3 yrs) + MBA (2 yrs)
- GC - EB3, Oct 2003.
- Applied for 9th Year H1B in October. (H1B Visa expired in Oct)
- EAD and AP approved.
- Just got CRIS email of I140 & 485 denial notices (waiting for the USCIS letter for reasons).
- Previous company closed down and I had given Experience letter from a colleague, who is now on H4.
Questions?
1. Am I out of status already due to denial notices?
2. Will I get an H1B Extension?
3. If my lawyer decides to file an MTR, will I be allowed to work until my EAD/H1B is valid.
dresses with cross. tribal tattoo
glus
12-18 09:17 AM
Short term disability usually is not considered a Public Charge. This is because they are usually carried by private insurance or state agencies and not federal ones. However, I would check if one can claim SDI under CA law if one is not a Permanent Resident or a U.S. Citizen.
more...
makeup Tribal Cross Tattoos
godbole_sanjaya
01-15 09:02 AM
Subject: Guidance about GC Vs. Canada
Hello,
I have my EB3 filed with PD=Apr-2006. I dont see anything happening for next 6-8 years, and hence, I am also applying for Canada's PR. Probably, 2 yrs from now, I would move into Canada on PR and stay there for 3 yrs for citizenship.
With this in mind, should I go ahead for CP or I-485?
Thanks in advance for your valuable guidance.
Hello,
I have my EB3 filed with PD=Apr-2006. I dont see anything happening for next 6-8 years, and hence, I am also applying for Canada's PR. Probably, 2 yrs from now, I would move into Canada on PR and stay there for 3 yrs for citizenship.
With this in mind, should I go ahead for CP or I-485?
Thanks in advance for your valuable guidance.
girlfriend hot tribal tattoo wings. cross
samin
03-13 05:54 PM
My sister's H1B petition was approved on 2008 and she was unable to travel US for the past 1.5 year.
She is working in a MNC company in India. Now, she came to US on her B1 visa 1.5 month back. Meanwhile, she got an offer from a client in US and she want takeover the new job on her approved H1.
So, can you please let me know whether the employer (whoever filed my sister's h1) can file the H1B amenment while she in US with B1 visa and having H1B approved petition? If so, how many days she has to wait to get the approved amenment to start her work at client place? The employer is going to do the premium payment so that can we assume the amenment will be approved for sure?.
The LCA is really required for H1amenment? Please advice. This is really urgent.
Thanks in advance.
She is working in a MNC company in India. Now, she came to US on her B1 visa 1.5 month back. Meanwhile, she got an offer from a client in US and she want takeover the new job on her approved H1.
So, can you please let me know whether the employer (whoever filed my sister's h1) can file the H1B amenment while she in US with B1 visa and having H1B approved petition? If so, how many days she has to wait to get the approved amenment to start her work at client place? The employer is going to do the premium payment so that can we assume the amenment will be approved for sure?.
The LCA is really required for H1amenment? Please advice. This is really urgent.
Thanks in advance.
hairstyles cross tattoo images
varesident
01-07 11:37 AM
I am planning to visit India soon. I have my AP and an expired F1 visa.
I haven't been to India since I got my H1 approved; so I don't have an H1 visa stamp on my passport at all. My I-797 is approved until 2010.
Can you please advise if I should get my passport stamped with my H1 or should I be ok with my AP?
Thanks.
I haven't been to India since I got my H1 approved; so I don't have an H1 visa stamp on my passport at all. My I-797 is approved until 2010.
Can you please advise if I should get my passport stamped with my H1 or should I be ok with my AP?
Thanks.
Administrator2
08-04 04:05 PM
Bumping this thread (on request)
chandanmonu
08-14 01:16 AM
I have B1 visa and and right now I am in US on client support.
I want to get into a College for further studies for which I am unaware of the legal formalities to be completed.
I already have a letter of internship with a US company and the college is giving me a letter for change of status i-20.
As far as the immigration goes for change of status of visa, it says that I need to go out of the country and then come back, with stamped as 'intent to study'. So is it really required?
However still it is confusing for me as to what other formalities are to be completed regarding the same.
I want to get into a College for further studies for which I am unaware of the legal formalities to be completed.
I already have a letter of internship with a US company and the college is giving me a letter for change of status i-20.
As far as the immigration goes for change of status of visa, it says that I need to go out of the country and then come back, with stamped as 'intent to study'. So is it really required?
However still it is confusing for me as to what other formalities are to be completed regarding the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment