Thursday, June 30, 2011

selena gomez who says video stills

images hot selena gomez who says selena gomez who says video stills. selena gomez who says album
  • selena gomez who says album



  • H1B-GC
    02-21 03:41 PM
    An Avg. American gives an Damn to this 1/2 ton Polar Bear. When the Former CNN President Kicked this Polar Bear out of CNN in 2000, he Started advising the Fortune 100 Companies to Outsource Jobs to cut Costs in his new Job Profile and now he calls them Benedict Arnold.What a sick Mind he has!!





    wallpaper selena gomez who says album selena gomez who says video stills. says video stills. selena
  • says video stills. selena



  • NKR
    08-05 04:34 PM
    Instead of getting emotional if we look at the point Rolling_Flood is trying to make, it makes perfect sense.

    I don't see why there are so many angered arguments...

    1. EB2/EB3 is decided by Job Profile - correct. Its always option to say NO if your employer is filing it in EB3. My previous company wanted to file my labor in EB3, I said NO and left them. Filed in EB2 with new employer.

    Its easy to be sympathetic with people whose employer filed them in EB3, but remember they always had option to say NO.

    2. If someone have EB3 priority date before other guy who filed EB2 from beginning, the porting EB3 to EB2 and getting ahead of EB2 guy is grossly incorrect. I can't believe USCIS lets this happen.

    If someones job profile was eligible for EB3 only when they filed and now fits in EB2, they should file fresh application based on EB2 job profile.


    Looking at previous trashing of thread opener, I am expecting lots of reds - so go ahead but that not going to change the truth.


    No, I will not waste time on giving you a red, looks like you are someone who wants to stoke more fire. Your new PD with only this post shows your true colors (red or green or whatever you call it)





    selena gomez who says video stills. dresses selena gomez who says
  • dresses selena gomez who says



  • HawaldarNaik
    12-26 07:14 PM
    I beleive enough is enough ( after saying no for years, i am now convinced), that the only way, i repeat, the only way to put an end to this is a Full Fledged WAR....otherwise they will keep on bleeding us like 26/11.
    We all know that they are nothing but a bunch of paper tigers and will go to any extent to harm India, but now the time is up with regards India's Patience.
    By not taking this step will make us sitting ducks for the next stage of attacks that will strike our cities.....
    If Indira Gandhi was alive (quoted by Priyanka Gandhi her grand daughter), she would have...taken decisive and clear cut action by now...and given a fitting reply.....
    The whole world is backing us and watching....Can India take action against all these atrocities happening for years now....or shall we just sit back and keep putting 'pressure' (which has been going on for a month now with no corrective action from the other side).
    Also no economic relations or cricket or entertainment relations (like a entertainment major did they cut off relations)......do not give an INCH.....boy oh boy....enough is enough.......after 26/11....i truly beleive so otherwise they will come up with more sinister plots....

    Even Mahatma said, if by being non violent the opponent feels you are a coward...then stand up....and give a fitting reply (something to that effect)





    2011 says video stills. selena selena gomez who says video stills. dress. who says selena
  • dress. who says selena



  • akred
    06-25 03:51 PM
    2. Bubble began forming around 2000 to 2002 depending on the area.

    Small correction here. Nationwide, the last bottom was around 1991 and prices began to rise everywhere in 1996. When I bought my first home in 2001, I remember wondering if it was the wrong time to buy since prices had already been rising for 5 years and had been rising for closer to 10 years where I was buying.



    more...


    selena gomez who says video stills. says+selena+gomez+pictures
  • says+selena+gomez+pictures



  • Macaca
    12-30 07:04 PM
    India expects quick solution to Iran payments issue (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53843720101230) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters

    India will try to resolve a payments dispute with Iran when their central banks meet on Friday to keep oil shipments flowing from the Islamic Republic without backtracking on a move praised by the United States.

    The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said last week deals with Iran must be settled outside a long-standing Asian Clearing Union (ACU) system and Iran has refused to sell oil under the new rules, threatening about $12 billion a year of exports.

    The White House, which wants governments to stop dealing with Iran because of its nuclear programme, on Wednesday praised the RBI's move, which comes less than two months after President Barack Obama visited India.

    But India, Asia's third-largest economy, buys more than 400,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Iran -- about 13 percent of total imports for the fast-growing economy.

    Without a solution, its refiners would need to find alternative sources of oil at a time that international crude prices are near two-year highs and the country's inflation rate is painfully high and rising.

    "We are working on an alternate settlement mechanism. It is being discussed at length with the Ministry of Finance and a solution will be found in the course of the next few days," Indian Oil Secretary S. Sundareshan said on Thursday.

    Both the Indian government and the RBI, which has so far acted unilaterally in the ACU, suggested it was a broader problem, stepping back from a move which seemed allied to the United States and targeting Iran.

    "The Asian Clearing Union mechanism ... is under some stress and RBI wants to make changes," Sundareshan said.

    FINE-TUNING, NOT SEA CHANGE?

    "Iran is an international problem. We have to find out a solution. Please understand it is not India's problem, it is not Iran's problem," RBI Deputy Governor K.C. Chakrabarty told reporters in Bangalore on Thursday.

    Among options to rescue oil trade between the two near neighbours is settlement in Indian rupees, similar to South Korea's method of payment to Iran in Korean won, or another currency outside the dollar and the euro of the old mechanism.

    "It can be any currency. It could be yen or (Iran's) local currency," Sundareshan said.

    Analysts and political observers said India was fine-tuning its stance with an eye to ensuring its access to much-needed oil and protecting its interests in the region and the Middle East.

    India, which has U.S. backing for its bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, has voted against Iran on its nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency while Iran has made statements supporting an insurgency in Indian Kashmir.

    "India is seeing itself as a 'major responsible power' and it is aiming to be in concert with the other major responsible powers like the U.S., European Union, Russia and China," said Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation think tank.

    Former Indian foreign secretary and a former ambassador to the United States, Lalit Mansingh, said India wanted Iran to understand it had "a nuanced position".

    "We have been saying, don't force us to make a choice. But if it comes to a choice, we have far more at stake with the U.S. than with Iran," he added.

    But India, seen alongside China as an engine to pull the western world out of economic idling, has no desire to be seen by neighbours as playing a U.S. tune.

    "America should not read too much into this. India is not an ally, in the sense it has not signed from A to Z. On nuclear issues, it can go with the U.S., but on energy it will go with Iran," said P.R. Kumaraswamy, head of West Asian studies at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University.



    Iran, India oil row escalates; c.bankers to meet (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-53831720101229) By Nidhi Verma and Ratnajyoti Dutta | Reuters
    India Joins U.S. Effort to Stifle Iran Trade (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576046893652486616.html) By JAY SOLOMON And SUBHADIP SIRCAR





    selena gomez who says video stills. pictures Selena Gomez Actress
  • pictures Selena Gomez Actress



  • walking_dude
    08-05 10:19 AM
    Guys,

    Ever wondered why a lawsuit never got filed against Labor Substitution, or stealing of EB Gcs by nurses, or against the discriminatory country quotas?

    Simple, you need an Immigration Attorney to file the case. The same AILA cardholding person who is expecting a windfall profit out of interfiling/PD porting. I am interested to see the immigration attorney who is willing to sacrifice profit for principle. It would be a first in history if that happen!!

    Good luck to everyone willing to participate in this wild goose chase. I guess you guys have too much money in bank to spend over such a mission impossible. If only you'd contribute equally to IV campaigns...



    more...


    selena gomez who says video stills. +says+selena+gomez+album+
  • +says+selena+gomez+album+



  • xyzgc
    12-23 01:50 PM
    I am sure that once muslim community or for that matter any community prospers the radicalism reduces. Unfortunately the religious muslim leaders dont want the community to get educated, prosper and westernized because than they would loose control..its precisely for this reason that the religious leaders of this community have for centuries scared the followers of the community with gods wrath if they changed. The Muslim religion has to become progressive and moderate.

    About the terrorism was thinking what options does India have to fight against this. Yes military action definitely is an option but it does more harm to India than to Pakistan. Attacking Pakistan, India has a lot to loose while Pakistan has nothing loose. It would make Pakistan from a failing state to a failed state, but would put India years behind as far as economy is concerned and create the biggest headache for India for decades to come. A military confrontation and weakening of Pakistan’s military establishment would let Pakistan slip fully into the hands of Religious fanatics and produce million more terrorist who will be a long-term headache for India.

    If one back goes back in the history, Pakistan has lost a lot more than India in the last three wars, and that is the only reason why the establishment in Pakistan including the Military has preferred encouraging and sponsoring cross border terrorism which is of very little cost to Pakistan but a constant headache to India. India has lost more from these terrorist attacks including Kargil war than they would if they had gone through a one time direct confrontation. I personally feel that if India does decide to go in for a military confrontation it has to be long term strategy to occupy the country and wipe out terrorism and help to nurture the economy so that prosperity and wealth creation takes a front seat and religion moves low in the peoples priority. In fact if Pakistan can ever have a strong economy and strong democracy, I am sure the country will move towards a moderate religious society. Lets face it, man is a very selfish being, it will never put its personal prosperity at stake for a larger cause even it that happens to be religion. An example of this is the Middle East Kingdom where the monarchs including the common folk is very possessive about personal wealth and will go to any extent to preserve it.

    The only way this can ever happen is by a willing global coalition, which is ready to be there for a long haul and not by India alone. If India did do a quick military action and left the country, Pakistan would move to become another Afghanistan creating the biggest headache for India for decades and decades to come and effectively dragging Indian economy and prosperity.

    Its sad that India let this headache linger on for so long, had it taken remedial action by taking control of complete kashmir and installing a pro Indian govt in 1971 we would not be confronting an nuclear dragon with very little option to fight it.

    Very good post. The main intent behind terrorist acts is to disrupt the Indian economy.

    Like some one has so consistently maintained - our leaders have committed several mistakes in the past.

    1. Our leaders easily conceded to the demand for a separate country of Pakistan. This has only alienated Hindus and Muslims but has potentially put nuclear arsenal in the hands of the terrorists.

    2. Ok, there was a separation but was the separation clean? The terrorists have just mixed in with the Mumbai crowd. Do they even need to leave Mumbai for Karachi? There are enemies internal and external. 154 millions muslims. Are they all terrorists? Absolutely not.
    But even if there is 1% who have to do anything with terrorism - its trouble and lots of it.

    3. When we had multiple chances to occupy the country, we backed off and retreated.Instead if we had marched all the way to Islamabad, taken out the military dictators and set the country on a path of democracy and economic progress - you would have Pakistani economy flourishing and not living off the IMF, the American and the Asian Bank's doles. We would have seen TCS, Wipro, Infosys, Satyam counterparts in Pakistan.Anything wrong with that? Its finally the same race and the people....

    4. The congress party created vote banks by appeasing muslims. Instead of this kind of appeasement (very similar to appeasements to backward class), if we had created uniform laws, the entire community would havebeen absorbed into the mainstream. Instead, we are ourselves responsible for pampering and alienating them. Its the most unfortunate.





    2010 dresses selena gomez who says selena gomez who says video stills. hot selena gomez who says
  • hot selena gomez who says



  • Macaca
    05-12 05:53 PM
    A Right of All Citizens
    Why naturalized Americans should be allowed to run for president. (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/88161/obama-birther-constitution-natural-citizens-president)
    By Randall Kennedy | The New Republic

    The controversy over President Barack Obama�s birth certificate reveals that more is wrong with the United States than the presence of demagogues, bigots, and cranks. After all, the foundation of the birthers� allegation was the Constitution of the United States, specifically Article II, which declares that �[n]o person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.� That provision invidiously discriminates against the many Americans (nearly 17 million in 2009) who were born abroad and have become naturalized citizens. Few people have realistic prospects of winning the country�s top elective office whatever their background. But excluding certain citizens from consideration based merely on nativity is unjust and self-destructive. It makes second-class citizens of naturalized citizens by suggesting that they are somehow not as American and not as trustworthy as �real� Americans who are native-born. It also deprives the United States of putting to use at the apex of government the manifold talents of all American citizens.

    The natural-born citizen requirement received little attention at the constitutional convention of 1787. Historians trace it to a recommendation made to George Washington by John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. �Permit me to hint,� Jay remarked in a letter, �whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor evolve on, any but a natural-born Citizen.� In other words, some in the founding generation feared that the foreign-born might retain a secret or latent loyalty to their land of birth. Another fear was that European powers might insinuate within the new republic agents who would rise to power, subvert the young democracy, and reimpose monarchy. The �general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners � will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesmen,� Justice Joseph Story declared in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. �It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.�

    Whether or not this absolute bar based on nativity made sense at the founding, it is now dangerously unfair and unwise. It stigmatizes all immigrants, expressing in the fundamental law of the United States a judgment that they are irremediably flawed, forever cast under a pall of increased suspicion, perpetually labeled as less fully American than fellow citizens who happen to have been native-born. Idolatry of place of birth is a rank superstition. Nativity indicates nothing about a person�s willed attachment to a nation, a polity, or a way of life. Nativity denotes an accident of fate over which an individual has no control.

    Many continue to believe that, at least with respect to the presidency, being born abroad, no matter what one�s contribution to the country, raises a sufficient question to warrant ineligibility. �I don�t think it is unfair to say the president of the United States should be a native-born citizen,� Senator Dianne Feinstein declared several years ago at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee devoted to considering a proposal to amend the natural-born citizen exclusion. �Your allegiance is driven by your birth.�

    Feinstein�s intuition is wrong. On the one hand, there are the numerous examples of immigrants who, having chosen to become citizens, have poured their all into the development and defense of this country�including about 700 persons, born abroad, who have been awarded the nation�s highest military award for bravery, the Medal of Honor. On the other hand, there are native-born Americans who have disgraced themselves and endangered their neighbors by despicable acts of betrayal. One thinks here of Robert Hanssen, the CIA double-agent; Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber; and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban soldier. Defenders of the exclusion of foreign-born citizens sometimes express fear of a �Manchurian Candidate,� alluding to the novel by Richard Condon and two spinoff films that portray the danger posed by brainwashed officials who rise to high positions. But the exclusionists seem to forget that the fictional characters to whom they refer were American-born.

    The natural-born exclusion fetishizes nativity. When it comes to assessing loyalty, what should matter is indicia of demonstrated allegiance. But, even if one attaches significance to the socialization that a person experiences growing up, a focus on mere nativity is misleading. As noted by Sarah Helene Duggin and Mary Beth Collins in their excellent 2005 Boston University Law Review article, �Natural Born� in the USA,� under our current rule, �An infant born in one of the fifty states but raised in a foreign country by non-United States citizens could serve as President, while a foreign born child adopted by United States citizens at two months of age and raised in the United states would not be eligible to become President.�

    The Constitution�s invidious discrimination against immigrants is constantly overlooked. In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, proclaimed that, in America, �it doesn�t make any difference where you were born.� Obviously, though, that was and is erroneous. Because of the natural-born exclusion, Schwarzenegger could never hope to be president since he was born in Austria. Other prominent Americans who have similarly been disqualified from the presidency include John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; and Lowell Weicker, former United States Senator. There are many good reasons why former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger should never have been considered for the presidency; that he was born in Germany should not have been one of them.

    In 2008, in a speech entitled �The America We Love,� then-Senator Barack Obama asserted that an �essential American idea� is the belief that �we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will.� What he stated should be an essential idea and practice. If it was, we would have been spared the depressing furor over his birth certificate because where he was born would be irrelevant to assessing his fitness for the presidency.

    Writing in the Constitution�s bicentennial year, William Safire declared that the �blatantly discriminatory eligibility clause is a blot on the national escutcheon and an anachronistic offense to conscience.� Why, he asked, �do we allow Jay�s outmoded suspicion to dry up our talent pool and insult our most valuable imports?� Why, indeed? We ought to amend the Constitution by removing the natural-born citizenship requirement. We ought to free the American people to decide whom they want as their president. Place of birth should pose no bar.

    Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of The Persistent Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency (Pantheon Books, August 2011)


    What Mr. Obama can do to further immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-mr-obama-can-do-to-further-immigration-reform/2011/05/05/AFzt8fsG_story.html) The Washington Post Editorial
    Can Business Change the Immigration Debate? (http://blogs.cfr.org/oneil/2011/05/11/can-business-change-the-immigration-debate/) By Shannon K. O'Neil | Council on Foreign Relations
    Get moving on immigration reform (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-immigration-20110512,0,5217717.story) Los Angeles Times Editorial
    The state of play on immigration reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-state-of-play-on-immigration-reform/2011/05/09/AFR5sPrG_blog.html) By Ezra Klein | Washington Post
    Obama's Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism (http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/12/obamas_immigration_reform_vision_clouded_by_cynici sm_109830.html) By Mark Salter, RealClearPolitics
    Citizen children and life under the radar (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-yoshikawa-immigration-20110512,0,6784773.story) By Hirokazu Yoshikawa | Los Angeles Times
    Immigration reform and border security: Obama's standards (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0510/Immigration-reform-and-border-security-Obama-s-standards) CS Monitor Editorial



    more...


    selena gomez who says video stills. selena gomez who says video
  • selena gomez who says video



  • qasleuth
    03-23 04:51 PM
    Wow...that is a pretty harsh list. Is it possible for you to politely point out that you need to prove legal status from your last entry into the country on H1B and not go all the way back to 2000 giving contracts and all ?

    OK..people..the END OF SPECULATION..

    I got the email..here are the details asked for..

    and It appears, the email (@dhs.gov) came from someone who was working in the local office where our file is sitting..


    1. current resume
    2. copy of degree(s)
    3. W2s since 2000
    4. information relating to your first entry into the United States with your H1B visa (copy of I-94, copy of passport � admission stamp and biographic page, etc)
    5. date of initial employment in the United States (per our conversation this was through XXX Company for a contract with ABC Inc)
    6. copy of income tax returns from 2000 to the present (all that are available)
    7. copies of work contracts since 2000


    Now..should I send or hire a lawyer..what should be the best course..I have all details..except..work contracts from previous employers..currents one I can get

    Any suggestions please?:mad:





    hair dress. who says selena selena gomez who says video stills. selena gomez who says music
  • selena gomez who says music



  • ohpdfeb2003
    06-27 01:35 PM
    Right, you pay for what you called "service", which is what your landlord is providing. And you pay him to let you stay in his house, which means YOU my friend are paying more than 80% of HIS mortgage. At the end of his mortgage, all his tenants would have collectively chipped in to pay more than 80% of HIS mortage and he has a house at the end of it all. What do YOU have? Zero, zilch, nada!

    No true in most cases espcially where housing is not affordable, is there a rule anywhere that tenants have to chip in 80%. There are several foolish housing investors, that I know of right now who arent even making 50% of their mortgage.

    If landlords are doing so well then who are the people undergoing foreclousures and bankruptices that we hear about :D

    Historically over a 30 year period, housing doesnt even return inflation adjusted value of money.

    What does a renter have in the end? He had the diversified returns from the downpayment money he has invested else where and difference between rent and mortgage compounded every month.

    Money paid as interest is the "service" cost of the money being loaned to you. You are paying so that you can live in the house you did NOT pay full cash for.

    My interest in a year is 2 times more than the standard deduction. I don't have a business yet, but when I start one, I'm going to have more deductions. Do the math!

    not forever, only the first few years. you will have to revert to standard deduction, that samething that renter's get years down the line.

    Right goahead and deduct your business expense from your personal tax return, IRS will pay you a visit:p



    more...


    selena gomez who says video stills. selena gomez who says music
  • selena gomez who says music



  • logiclife
    04-12 04:54 PM
    Many/most of us here have worked like crazy dogs most of lives, followed the rules, and played by the book. "Everyone" does not have your cavalier attitude towards truth.

    My problem is not with consultants or nurses or doctors or magicians or whoever else is in line. My problem is with those who claim to be legal aliens but who routinely break the rules (by indulging in kickback schemes like splitting their salary with their employer).

    IV is a community of/for legal aliens wanting to become legal immigrants. Rule-breakers and others don't belong here; just because one hasn't been caught cheating the system doesn't mean one is legal.

    There are thousands of real estate agents who charge 3% commission for sale of homes. Buyer's agent gets 3% and seller's agent gets 3%. It takes a total of 6% in commissions of real estate agents when you sell your house.

    Of those 3% commission that each agents get, the pass on 1% to the agency. Like if a Remax or century 21 agent gets $3000 in commission, he/she has to give $1000 to the agency and keep $2000.

    SO going by that principle, "kickbacks" as you would call it, would not be legal? Right?

    Everywhere, a portion of revenue, if the employee generates revenue for the employer goes to employer. That's how employer keeps his lights on and feeds his/her family.

    Now there are some who exploit this to their advantage. And that should be fixed. One way to fix it is to limit certain holds and loosen the grip of employers on the greencards petition of employees. Completely destroying the consulting business is not the answer to that as this bill tries to do.

    If you are working "Like a dog" then you should get paid overtime for anything beyond 40 hours. Its a part of negotiation and its your responsibility to negotiate that with your employer before joining the project.





    hot says+selena+gomez+pictures selena gomez who says video stills. pictures selena gomez who says
  • pictures selena gomez who says



  • sanju
    12-17 04:05 PM
    Since everyone is posting what they want, I guess I can also just post anything here....



    GAWilA_mkoQ




    .



    more...


    house selena gomez who says video selena gomez who says video stills. selena gomez who says video
  • selena gomez who says video



  • Macaca
    12-27 06:59 PM
    India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu

    In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.

    Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.

    The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.

    Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.

    Reforms

    Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.

    The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.

    What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.

    The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.

    A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.

    Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.

    As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”

    The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.

    U.S. is the prime mover

    In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.

    Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.

    The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.

    Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.

    What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.

    Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.

    To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.

    Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.

    K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar





    tattoo pictures Selena Gomez Actress selena gomez who says video stills. Sami Selena Gomes Cute
  • Sami Selena Gomes Cute



  • anai
    12-18 11:47 AM
    .... someone comes into your house, occupies it, kills your family, your brothers and sisters in front of you and kicks you out of your home and you are seeing no hope of justice... you wont stand outside your home sending flowers like munna bhai's gandhigiri.. trust me you will become a terrorist.

    Well, all of the above were done to Kashmiri Pandits by terrorists. Yet we don't find any terrorists among the Pandits, who are the real victims of the Kashmir situation.

    Stop trying to find excuses for terrorism. Stop this perverted sympathy for terrorists.



    more...


    pictures +says+selena+gomez+album+ selena gomez who says video stills. tattoo says video stills.
  • tattoo says video stills.



  • gc4me
    12-17 03:57 PM
    Is it 200 not 2000 :D

    People like Antulay are real traitors of India. Who know they may be taking instructions from Pakistan ISI? Such people go unpunish is the main reason India was slave for 2000 years.





    dresses pictures selena gomez who says selena gomez who says video stills. Selena Gomez on “Who Says”
  • Selena Gomez on “Who Says”



  • Macaca
    12-26 08:37 AM
    Freshmen Padding Their Independence (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/25/AR2007122500994.html?hpid=sec-politics) Procedural Votes Become Safe Nays By Paul Kane | Washington Post, Dec 26, 2007

    Half a dozen freshman Democrats took to the House floor one late-October morning to cast their lot with Republicans.

    Their actions went unpunished by the Democratic leadership that day, as they have on many other occasions in recent weeks. The symbolic gesture -- casting nay votes on approving the House Journal, essentially the minutes of the previous day -- would have no bearing on the leadership's agenda.

    While they overwhelmingly support that agenda, the bloc of freshmen has begun casting votes against such minor procedural motions in an effort, Democratic sources and Republican critics say, to demonstrate their independence from their leadership. The number of votes that the potentially vulnerable newcomers to Capitol Hill cast against House leaders is tallied and watched closely by interest groups and political foes.

    Such is the political life of many of the 42 freshman House Democrats, a sizable number of them moderates and conservatives who must straddle the fence between supporting their party's interests and distancing themselves from a mostly liberal leadership as they gear up for their first reelection battle next fall.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other members of the party's leadership are happy to tolerate the independence on procedural matters. Less than three hours after opposing the late-October journal vote, the same six freshmen sided with Pelosi as Democrats tried, and failed, to override President Bush's veto of a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years, legislation that Pelosi has called her "crown jewel."

    "I'm viewed as an independent. I'm viewed as a conservative Democrat," said Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.), the first freshman to regularly oppose his party's leadership on the journal vote.

    Like several others, Altmire offered no explanation for voting against all but one of 18 roll calls on the routine measure, adding that he had no "pre-planned" rationale for the votes. "I'm certainly not going to win or lose my reelection based on my journal votes," he said.

    But the first reelection campaign in his conservative-leaning western Pennsylvania district could be a tough one. Bush won there by a comfortable nine percentage points in 2004. Districts such as Altmire's fueled the Democratic takeover of the House last year. They are blue-collar in attitude and red-hued in politics, particularly on issues such as abortion and gun rights.

    Dubbed the "majority makers" by Pelosi's leadership team, the freshmen have become a major front in the Democrats' battle to sustain and expand their majority next fall.

    Stuart Rothenberg, an independent analyst and author of the Rothenberg Political Report, said Republican hopes for shrinking the Democratic majority begin with what he calls "snapback candidates," who rode into office under the last election cycle's optimal conditions for Democrats and now face their first reelection contests.

    Protecting the 42 freshman Democrats, the largest partisan class since 73 Republicans took office in 1994, has been the top priority for key Democratic strategists such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). The freshmen get special treatment from leaders, including a weekly meeting with Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.). And they receive frequent advice on how to vote from Emanuel and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

    Seven of the rookies have more than $1 million in cash on hand, and according to Rothenberg, more than half are in safe positions to win reelection. In addition, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee holds a more than 11-to-1 cash advantage over its Republican counterpart, a potential financial backstop for endangered freshmen.

    But the political environment has turned toxic in recent months as Democrats have been stymied in their effort to take Congress in their self-proclaimed new direction. Opinion polls show public approval ratings for Congress mired in the 20s, considerably lower than Bush's rating.

    In recent months, Democrats in battleground districts have been criticized by Republicans, who have tried to paint them as close to the new House leadership.

    "While these Democrats might claim to be independent voices for their districts, the differences between them and Nancy Pelosi are purely aesthetic," said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. This year, the GOP committee launched a Web site to track the percentage of votes that 28 of the freshmen cast with Pelosi, whom Republicans say will be a polarizing figure in conservative districts next fall.

    That is why procedural votes are important to freshmen, according to Democratic aides. House Republicans this year turned to a procedure known as a "motion to recommit," offering what is typically a routine method of sending bills back to committee as politically charged amendments. With a wink and a nod from Emanuel and Hoyer, some endangered freshmen frequently vote with Republicans on tricky GOP motions to keep their votes from being used against them in 30-second campaign sound bites.

    Some freshman Democrats have taken the idea of voting against their party leadership on procedural votes one step further, opposing mundane matters such as the journal vote.

    Altmire has sided with the opposition in 17 of 18 journal roll calls this year. Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) has cast 15 votes with the GOP. In the spring, only a few freshmen voted against the journal, but one recent vote drew 13 freshmen in opposition, and in another, 11 voted nay. Now a half-dozen or more regularly oppose whenever a roll call is held.

    Democratic leaders acknowledge that they have encouraged the freshmen to sometimes vote with Republicans on politically difficult issues, but deny that they have had any input on the Congressional Record votes.

    "We've given them very simple advice: Make sure you vote your district," Van Hollen said.

    As a result, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), for example, has one of the lowest party-unity voting scores -- less than 84 percent -- of any House Democrat, according to washingtonpost.com's congressional database. The average House Democrat has voted with the majority on 92.5 percent of all votes.

    "They're trying to create separation. Our guys did it in '95 and '96," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), a member of the GOP class of 1994.

    At the time, freshman Republicans saw congressional popularity plummet during a budget fight that led to a series of federal government shutdowns. Fearful of being tied closely to then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), many freshmen also began voting no on the journal in a similar effort to distance themselves.



    more...


    makeup selena gomez who says video selena gomez who says video stills. selena gomez who says video
  • selena gomez who says video



  • bajrangbali
    06-07 01:08 PM
    5% per month is easily attainable with some options strategies. But not everyone has the temperament/stomach/psyche for active trading.

    Investment strategies of any kind - options, stocks, etfs failed miserably in the past couple of years. I dont think that argument stands well to justify against buying a house.

    Active trading is a double edged sword, if you lose you lose big..if you win..you bet even bigger..show me one ETF or mutual fund which did not lose money in this market. People are calculating how small they lost compared to their competitors.

    Also, timing the market is very dangerous...maybe even worse than buying a house in boom-time..those who made money in bull run or by betting against in bear run, most will agree there is no such thing as free-ride..you win some, you lose some..same logic some of the other posters tried to convey for buying a house..

    Risk is a risk no matter how we spin it...all those who have invested heavily in indian real-estate took risk as well..rates are flat now..granted we are comparing a developing market with a mature market..

    end of the day everyone is trying to make good of their investment with as little risk as possible...when it comes to home..family, kids adds into the equation...

    I would gladly lose 40-50K on a bad decision on house where I lived for many years with my family than invest in uncertain market and make bad decision there and lose it all on paper...ANYDAY

    I guess everyone atleast most learnt a lesson with this recession...every recession teaches control..i bet those of us who are here during the previous recesison agree..we all came out with something positive out of it upon survuval..

    Buying beyond the means is gone...now people are down to earth and making choices within their means...that is a positive take from this meltdown

    To take this thread further, posters who are looking to close the deal or negotiating or closed can post the info regarding location, price, lenders, agents which would help others who want to get in..





    girlfriend Sami Selena Gomes Cute selena gomez who says video stills. selena gomez who says video.
  • selena gomez who says video.



  • knowDOL
    07-15 12:40 PM
    If you are that kind of person who was out of job and not got paid in bench, then go back to your country and don't go against law and get a bad name for all of us who are here legally on everyday for for last 7 -8 years and trying to get GC legally. There are many companies out there who want us in top positions. Just because of GC or EAD it is stalling. If you pay your attorny fee or H1B fee that is your status and do not attribute it to everyone. My company of 54 strength has 15-20 H1Bs and company runs on these individuals. Its been like that from 7 years. Companies hires people and concentrates on product because of the great billing rate H1B's get and because of the great work we do for clients, clients are ready to pay higher $ per hour. Give me your company name and we will make sure to destroy all these chota mota companies who make employees pay H1b fees and do not pay in bench. One fine day, it will anyway happen. In this country, no one can escape long not abiding law.

    Let us be honest. A lot of us who came through body shops had to pay lawyer fee or had to take a cut in pay. Many of us had to sit in the bench for a long time with out pay. At the end of the day, not all of us are the best and the brightest but we are ready to work harder than the average Joe. With or without us this country will go forward. We are here to get a greencard and to become part of the melting pot. Please admit it my friends. I fully understands why many Americans are against us. We simply take their job. Then we insult them. Then we say, if we go back the American economy will go to hell. The companies are here for cheap labor. The congressmen who support them are the biggest receivers of their contribution. That is the reality. Let us not forget that. :D





    hairstyles selena gomez who says music selena gomez who says video stills. 2011 selena gomez who says
  • 2011 selena gomez who says



  • gc28262
    03-24 07:30 PM
    There are two service centers that process h-1b's. California and vermont.

    Vermont was very, very easy in the past. Now; they want contract and purchase order with end client. If somehow you can get it then they want detailed duties to see if job requires a degree. it is difficult to get a purchase order/letter from end client let alone a detailed job description/duty. If you can't get one and they ask in an rfe; they are denying it.

    If you can get one; they are stating duties aren't specialized enough to determine job requires a degree OR they think the company is going to further outsource the candidate.

    California is along similar lines but they only deny if they think the contract/purchase order is from the middle man.

    Big problem is verrmont changed their expectations midstream. California has been pretty consistent the last few years and they haven't changed much in how they look at h-1b's.

    Isn't the employee-employer relationship between employee and the consulting company ?
    Why should USCIS get into the details of how the companies conduct their business ( like asking for client letters etc ) ?
    Is USCIS supposed to do this?





    gc_check
    04-08 06:45 PM
    Hi pitha,

    Thanks for posting this info. Could you please share the source of this information?

    None of us should take this bill lightly. There is a saying - "one should never watch sausage or law being made". The guys who vote on the bills, in most instances, don't actually know what they are voting on. Most lawmakers may vote in favor of this bill as the anti-lobby is warpping this bill around a message "this bill is to enhance protections for American workers, so are you going to vote against American workers?" As such most lawmakers could vote in favor of this bill. The current environment is very dangerous where most people watch news in the sound-bites and half of the Senate is running for President. In such an environment, if you ask Obama, Hilary, Dodd, McCain etc., they are all likely to vote in favor of this bill, without going into the nuances and actual implications of this bill. None of these guys would want to be headlines saying something like �Obama is against American Works�. No one will actually care to look at the long term implication of such a bill whereby most of the IT jobs will be outsourced.

    From tomorrow, we should all email and inform everybody that we can, including our employers. What is the direction from IV core? We are all waiting for the matching orders��.

    There was some discussion about H1B Program in CNN's Lou Dobbs program today and not surprised, as usual it was all against H1B... He had people form Programmers Guild speak and they mentioned about this Durbin-Grassley Bill and he also mentioned that in the house a similar Bill will be introduced by Congressman Bill Pascrell.
    http://www.pascrell.house.gov/
    Looks like, the Anit-Immigration / Anti- H1B/L1 are executing an already well planned strategy. We need to do something on this� else as someone wrote in some forum; this will be a slow-bleed and will eventually kill the h1b program. Now or never, we need to join hands and have to do what is possible to assist the core and ourselves.





    logiclife
    06-01 06:09 PM
    The culture of rant, the tendency of being angry at all times has landed success to many broadcast journalists, authors and politicians.

    On the right:

    Rush Limbaugh.
    Bill O Reilly.
    Sean Hannity.
    Ann Coulter(not a journalist but close).

    On the left:

    Howard Dean.
    Al Sharpton.

    It seems that the more angry you are, the more successful you are. What surprises me is the Republicans control the congress and the white house and still, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs etc. are angry at all times. They are angry if Bill Clinton is President. They are angry if George Bush is president. They are angry when Democrats win, they are angry even if republicans win. They are just angry and they want everyone else to be angry. Probably, there is a secret key to ratings success written somewhere in a secret book in a secret library that these guys have read. And that books says "Make thy audience mad at someone and thou shalt see success in thy Neilson ratings".



    No comments:

    Post a Comment