cfa
05-16 08:42 PM
Any cfas here?. I am looking for some advice on the sponsorship. Please post if you are knowledgeable about cfa program. thanks
wallpaper Cute Basketball hoop Vector
GayatriS
06-22 04:58 PM
Yes, I read this article and wanted to read more so I searched for the study this refered to. Here is a link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991327
I think everyone must read this study.
Gayatri
I think everyone must read this study.
Gayatri
rajeshj_18
09-28 11:52 PM
Hi,
My fiance has filed for h1 extension. we will be travelling to india for marriage by dec. since petition papers are not expected to come by December, i was thinking if the following can be done
1. she comes along with me under h4 visa.
2. once petion paper comes, her visa status changes from h4 to h1 and then she can continue her job.
is this possible?
will h1 visa processing continue to happen when one comes to US under H4 visa.
kindly suggest.
Thanks.
My fiance has filed for h1 extension. we will be travelling to india for marriage by dec. since petition papers are not expected to come by December, i was thinking if the following can be done
1. she comes along with me under h4 visa.
2. once petion paper comes, her visa status changes from h4 to h1 and then she can continue her job.
is this possible?
will h1 visa processing continue to happen when one comes to US under H4 visa.
kindly suggest.
Thanks.
2011 Free asketball clipart of
loku
12-28 11:54 AM
Please let me know!!
more...
ashutosa
08-01 12:12 AM
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would really appreciate if you can help on the question below.
1) My wife changed her last name after our wedding.
2) She got it updated on new passport, I-20 and SSN.
Now, we are planning to travel to India. She has her old as well as new passport .. and the F1 visa and I-94 is still at the old passport.
My question is: Does she need to get her F1 stamped again in order to get the updated name on her new passport?
I would greatly appreciate your fast response.
Thanks,
-Ashu
I would really appreciate if you can help on the question below.
1) My wife changed her last name after our wedding.
2) She got it updated on new passport, I-20 and SSN.
Now, we are planning to travel to India. She has her old as well as new passport .. and the F1 visa and I-94 is still at the old passport.
My question is: Does she need to get her F1 stamped again in order to get the updated name on her new passport?
I would greatly appreciate your fast response.
Thanks,
-Ashu
BABU79
09-28 05:57 PM
I have an Indian passport and currently working in USA on L1B visa. Before leaving India I initiated the process of getting permanent residence visa from Australia and while I was in USA I got the AU Independent (Migrant) Visa (Subclass 175) visa approved and it was stamped on my passport by the AU embassy in Washington DC.
My queries are:
- I am planning to go for a vacation to India very soon. While returning to USA will it be a problem with my Indian passport having both USA L1B visa and AU migrant visa.
- For the initial entry to AU, I want to go there next year only for a week directly from USA. Will it be a issue for me to enter the US in my return trip
Your advice on this will be very helpful.
My queries are:
- I am planning to go for a vacation to India very soon. While returning to USA will it be a problem with my Indian passport having both USA L1B visa and AU migrant visa.
- For the initial entry to AU, I want to go there next year only for a week directly from USA. Will it be a issue for me to enter the US in my return trip
Your advice on this will be very helpful.
more...
bank_king2003
01-22 12:45 PM
Dear Attorney,
i would like to join a very good opportunity on EAD but have one concern shown below.
"a person has a valid ead/ap and he is gone outside the country for some work purpose and uscis denies his 485 in an illegal way like for eg: (denying AOS applications that have been pending more than 180 days when an employer revokes an I-140). how will he enter USA then ??
can he file MTR when he is outside the US with the help of a lawyer ?"
Your advice will help me alot and would be really appreciated!!!!
Thanks,
i would like to join a very good opportunity on EAD but have one concern shown below.
"a person has a valid ead/ap and he is gone outside the country for some work purpose and uscis denies his 485 in an illegal way like for eg: (denying AOS applications that have been pending more than 180 days when an employer revokes an I-140). how will he enter USA then ??
can he file MTR when he is outside the US with the help of a lawyer ?"
Your advice will help me alot and would be really appreciated!!!!
Thanks,
2010 asketball hoop
Blog Feeds
01-07 12:40 PM
The annual Consumer Electronics Show kicks off this week in Las Vegas. This is the gadget wonderland I've attended for the last several years. Due to my father's illness, I decided to skip this year's show. But I'm avidly watching online for announcements of the year's best new innovations. The show is put on by the Consumer Electronics Association and they've recently launched "The Innovation Movement" which seeks to encourage public policies that foster innovation and promote prosperity. The movement embraces a lot of issues and I'm pleased to see liberalizing immigration policies in the technology sector among the issues...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/consumer-electronic-association-warns-against-restricting-the-movement-of-global-talent.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/consumer-electronic-association-warns-against-restricting-the-movement-of-global-talent.html)
more...
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
hair Royalty-free clipart picture
pkvenu
01-05 05:50 PM
Hi,
I am currently building a application in silverlight 3 where i do a search for a you tube video and it returns me with a set of videos. I then play the video by embedding the flash player with a HTML-Placeholder in silverlight 3.
Problem:
I want to determine the end of the flash file and call a c# function (which will play the next video). I don't know how to archive this.
Any Help with this is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Pawan
I am currently building a application in silverlight 3 where i do a search for a you tube video and it returns me with a set of videos. I then play the video by embedding the flash player with a HTML-Placeholder in silverlight 3.
Problem:
I want to determine the end of the flash file and call a c# function (which will play the next video). I don't know how to archive this.
Any Help with this is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Pawan
more...
saimrathi
08-17 03:00 PM
THere is already a thread on this http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12512
hot Classroom Clipart : Free
dan19
01-12 07:11 PM
I know people with such extension. They didn't have any problem for visa or travel.
more...
house Basketball clip art
iamsachin
11-06 01:54 PM
I applied for my EAD and AP extension on AUG 17 2009 and my EAD was expiring on AUG 29th 2009. While my wifes EAD and AP got approved, I had an RFE as I had not sent the recent photographs so I sent that and the receipt date for that was OCT 9 2009.
I continued working and got paid, after speaking to friends I realized, getting paid on a Expired EAD is not right.
I have taken a infopass to discuss this with USCIS to get an update.
One more point I wanted to make was that my payroll company doesn't know about this and doesn't care. But if I bring it up then .they might immediately terminate my employment.
How do I fix this? Please suggest.
I continued working and got paid, after speaking to friends I realized, getting paid on a Expired EAD is not right.
I have taken a infopass to discuss this with USCIS to get an update.
One more point I wanted to make was that my payroll company doesn't know about this and doesn't care. But if I bring it up then .they might immediately terminate my employment.
How do I fix this? Please suggest.
tattoo clipart basketball goal.
Blog Feeds
02-15 09:30 PM
Shortly after we published our last post on January 29, entitled, �Is it Time for an End to the H-1B Protectionist Restrictions Applicable To TARP Recipients?�, USCIS issued guidance on precisely the issue that the post raised; that is, �whether the companies who received TARP funds, but have since repaid them to the government, are still restricted by the H-1B dependent rules?� It would be a bit presumptuous on our part to surmise that USCIS policymakers are readers of this blog -- it�s much more likely that this guidance was issued in anticipation of the impending H-1B filing season rapidly...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/02/uscis-advises-that-banks-repaying-tarp-are-freed-of-h1b-filing-restrictions.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/h1bvisablog/2010/02/uscis-advises-that-banks-repaying-tarp-are-freed-of-h1b-filing-restrictions.html)
more...
pictures Basketball clip art
hebron
09-15 12:56 PM
Would the receipt notice of H1-B extension contain the case number that I can use to check the status on USCIS website?
dresses hair clipart basketball hoop
chanduv23
03-21 08:24 PM
Join IV-NY (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/immigrationvoiceny) mailing list. Please promote this group and add more members
more...
makeup paper with asketball hoop
kisana
07-25 03:53 PM
Hi,
I was working on H1B till one month back, recetly I joined permanent position on EAD. I need to renew my wifes EAD. Though I dod not need it but for driving license they want some immigration document, so I am planning to e-file for my wife's EAD. I have couple of questions
1. There is question for Current Immigration status. I belive since I mobved to EAD my wif's status is AOS pending. But from the option I do not see any option near to that. What should be right choice. It is not a manadatory field can I leave it blank.
2. There is question for Provide information regarding eligibility status. What should i put there , I am thginking to keep AOS Pending.
3. Somebody told me that I can not e-file for my wife.
Gurus please suggest. I am waiting for your responses.
I was working on H1B till one month back, recetly I joined permanent position on EAD. I need to renew my wifes EAD. Though I dod not need it but for driving license they want some immigration document, so I am planning to e-file for my wife's EAD. I have couple of questions
1. There is question for Current Immigration status. I belive since I mobved to EAD my wif's status is AOS pending. But from the option I do not see any option near to that. What should be right choice. It is not a manadatory field can I leave it blank.
2. There is question for Provide information regarding eligibility status. What should i put there , I am thginking to keep AOS Pending.
3. Somebody told me that I can not e-file for my wife.
Gurus please suggest. I am waiting for your responses.
girlfriend Royalty-Free Vector Clip Art
leoindiano
11-02 04:58 PM
I worked with Romy Kapoor and Ashish Sharma, both are good.
Romy's firm now merged with some international law firm called Adorno.
Kapoor & Associates: Atlanta Immigration Attorney and Orlando Immigration Attorney (http://www.kapoorlaw.com/)
google for sharmas firm.
Romy's firm now merged with some international law firm called Adorno.
Kapoor & Associates: Atlanta Immigration Attorney and Orlando Immigration Attorney (http://www.kapoorlaw.com/)
google for sharmas firm.
hairstyles asketball hoop clip art.
joo
03-23 12:08 PM
Has anyone travel to london Can anyone suggest which is the best airport transfers
I heared of some
http://www.airportransfers.net
http://www.ncc24hr.com
http://www.minicabsbytext.com/
Any Suggestion Remarks about the price reliability?
I heared of some
http://www.airportransfers.net
http://www.ncc24hr.com
http://www.minicabsbytext.com/
Any Suggestion Remarks about the price reliability?
mifan
06-05 11:36 PM
Last year I signed affidavit of support forms for my parents and they are already got their immigrant visa. One of my friends needs my help to sign affidavit of support for his brother. My question is how many affidavit of supports one can sign for different people? What are my liabilities if his brother later do some thing wrong in USA?
Thanks
Thanks
textus
01-19 12:52 PM
Hi Guys:
I'm in a process of transfering my H1B to a new employer. I've already hired a lawyer and paid him his fee. The lawyer spoke to my employer and everything was going fine. Now, my new employer tells me that his company "froze hiring" untill further notice !?!
I'm wondering
1. Is my employer lying and why?
2. Can I somehow make my employer pay me back the money I already paid to the lawyer?
I'm in a process of transfering my H1B to a new employer. I've already hired a lawyer and paid him his fee. The lawyer spoke to my employer and everything was going fine. Now, my new employer tells me that his company "froze hiring" untill further notice !?!
I'm wondering
1. Is my employer lying and why?
2. Can I somehow make my employer pay me back the money I already paid to the lawyer?
No comments:
Post a Comment