panky72
06-23 10:52 AM
Where can I do status checking? At what site?
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/caseStatusSearchDisplay.do;jsessionid=cabgStG5cPwU Jh4hj71Qr
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/caseStatusSearchDisplay.do;jsessionid=cabgStG5cPwU Jh4hj71Qr
wallpaper light bulb to oil lamp
mjawadkhatri
07-11 07:15 AM
i want to show that pic the value of textbox.text
for example
my pic location is file///e:/pic/1.jpg and user type in textbox "1" then show pic 1.jpg and user type "2" show pic 2.jpg.
how i do this???
for example
my pic location is file///e:/pic/1.jpg and user type in textbox "1" then show pic 1.jpg and user type "2" show pic 2.jpg.
how i do this???
glus
08-18 02:16 PM
hi,
As far as I know you do not need to get a new visa stamping. At least, it was like that when I was on F-1. What you need to re-enter is to have I-20 from new school. Check with the school's international students adviser.
As far as I know you do not need to get a new visa stamping. At least, it was like that when I was on F-1. What you need to re-enter is to have I-20 from new school. Check with the school's international students adviser.
2011 Simple lamps of RCAC with
bskrishna
12-04 11:30 AM
I have appeared for interviews in toronto. They have not looked at my pay stubs in detail. The most they would go is to check if you are still employed with the same firm. Again, this said each case is different. Stuff like Employer reputation, qualification etc., surely helps.
more...
GIC
01-25 04:24 PM
Anybody used Silvergate Evaluations Inc for educational evaluation? Please post your advice/experience.
Thanks
GIC
Thanks
GIC
Macaca
07-29 06:14 PM
Partisans Gone Wild (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701691.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter (neverett@princeton.edu) Washington Post, July 29, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
A funny thing is happening in American politics: The fiercest battle is no longer between the left and the right but between partisanship and bipartisanship. The Bush administration, which has been notorious for playing to its hard-right base, has started reaching across the aisle, with its admirable immigration bill (even though it failed), with its new push for a diplomatic strategy toward North Korea and Iran, and above all with its choice of three seasoned moderates for important positions: Robert M. Gates as defense secretary, John D. Negroponte as deputy secretary of state and Robert B. Zoellick as World Bank president.
On the Democratic side, the opening last month of a new foreign policy think tank, the Center for a New American Security, struck a number of bipartisan notes. The Princeton Project on National Security, which I co-directed with fellow Princeton professor John Ikenberry, drew Republicans and Democrats together for more than 2 1/2 years to discuss new ideas, some of which have been endorsed by such presidential candidates as John McCain, a Republican, and John Edwards, a Democrat. Barack Obama is running on a return to a far more bipartisan approach to policy and a far less partisan approach to politics. (Full disclosure: I have contributed to Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns.)
In short, some sanity may actually be returning to American politics. Perhaps the most interesting development is the belated realization by the Bush administration that its insistence on an ABC ("anything but Clinton") policy has proved deeply damaging.
But the predominant political reaction to this modest outbreak of common sense has been virulent opposition, from both right and left. The true believers in the Bush revolution are furious. John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded the alarm in February with a broadside against the agreement that the State Department and its Asian negotiating partners had reached with North Korea, warning President Bush that it contradicted "fundamental premises" of his foreign policy. Next came yet another intra-administration battle over Iran policy, with David Wurmser, a top vice presidential aide, telling a conservative audience in May that Vice President Cheney believed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strategy of at least talking with Iranian officials about Iraq was failing.
From the left, many progressives have responded to the foreign policy failures of the Bush administration by trying to purge their fellow liberals. Tufts professor Tony Smith published a blistering essay on Iraq in The Washington Post several months ago, attacking not neoconservative policymakers but liberal thinkers who had, he argued, become enablers for the neocons and thus were the real villains. More recently, the author Michael Lind wrote in the Nation that the "greatest threat to liberal internationalism comes not from without -- from neoconservatives, realists and isolationists who reject the liberal internationalist tradition as a whole -- but from within." He singled out Ikenberry, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, James Lindsay of the University of Texas at Austin and me. These "heretics," he said, "are as dangerous as the infidels." Heretics? Infidels? Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.
In the blogosphere, pillorying Hillary Clinton is a full-time sport. Her slightest remark, such as a recent assertion that the country needs a female president because there is so much cleaning up to do, elicited this sort of wisdom: "Hillary isn't actually a woman, she's a cyborg, programmed by Bill, to be a ruthless political machine." Obama has come in for his share of abuse as well. His recent speech to Call to Renewal's Pentecost conference, in which he urged Democrats to recognize the role of faith in politics, earned him the following comment from the liberal blogger Atrios: "If . . . you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing." Left-liberal blog attacks on moderate liberals have reached the point where "mainstream media" bloggers such as Joe Klein at Time magazine are wading in to call for a truce, only to get lambasted themselves.
Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.
It's time, then, for a bipartisan backlash. Politicians who think we need bargaining to fix the crises we face should appear side by side with a friend from the other party -- the consistent policy of the admirably bipartisan co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Candidates who accept that the winner of the 2008 election is going to need a lot of friends across the aisle -- not least to get out of Iraq -- should make a point of finding something to praise in the other party's platform. And as for the rest of us, the consumers of a steady diet of political vitriol, every time we read a partisan attack, we should shoot -- or at least spam -- the messenger.
Partisans Gone Wild, Part II: Web Rage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301083.html) By Anne-Marie Slaughter, August 3, 2007
more...
Macaca
08-15 07:28 PM
Honest and Open Thievery (http://www.reason.com/news/show/121947.html) The limits of Congress's ethics reforms By Jacob Sullum, August 15, 2007
In a letter posted at Congress.org, a constituent praises Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) for his "brilliant intellect." As evidence, Mitchell's admirer cites the congressman's vote for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
The margin by which the act passed�411 to 8 in the House, 83 to 14 in the Senate�takes some of the shine off Mitchell's brilliance. Still, he's probably smart enough to realize what his colleagues evidently understand: Congress's new honesty and openness are not what they're cracked up to be.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires that special appropriations added by individual legislators be listed in an online database at least 48 hours before they come to a vote. Critics such as Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) complained bitterly about a loophole: Congressional leaders can certify that a bill contains no earmarks, and there's no way to challenge that determination.
A deeper problem is that publicity does not deter wasteful, parochial spending that legislators want to publicize. Consider what happened last month when Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) challenged a $100,000 appropriation for a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The earmark's sponsor, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), defended the honor of Leavenworth County, bragging that "we probably have more prisons...than any other county in the United States." She indignantly added that "the local residents are proud of their heritage and rightly so," since Leavenworth has hosted the likes of George "Machine Gun" Kelly and Nazi spy Fritz Duquesne.
The House approved Boyda's earmark by a vote of 317 to 112. Later she told The New York Times, "Democracy is a contact sport, and I'm not going to be shy about asking for money for my community."
So far this year the Democratic House has approved spending bills that include some 6,500 earmarks, not quite keeping pace with the Republicans' record of nearly 16,000 in 2005 but more than twice the whole-year total of a decade ago. Far from shaming legislators into fiscal restraint, the Times reports, "the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members' clout" and "intensified competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving."
Congressional shamelessness likewise may undermine the goals of the new Senate ban on anonymous holds. A hold occurs when a senator refuses to let a bill or nomination proceed by unanimous consent, thereby requiring the measure's supporters to muster 60 votes to allow consideration of the measure.
Holds obviously can be used for purposes that offend supporters of limited government�to extort pork, for example, or obstruct fiscal reform. But any tool that blocks legislation is apt to do more good than harm. Notably, the hold's defenders include fiscal conservatives such as Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as well as big spenders such as Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).
Still, it's hard to find fault with the new requirement that senators publicly identify themselves and state their reasons when they block legislation. We just shouldn't expect too much as a result of this openness. As with earmarks, legislators don't try to hide their actions when they're proud of them, even if they shouldn't be. Interestingly, no one put a secret hold on the secret hold ban.
Transparency may also prove overrated as a way of preventing lobbyists from influencing legislators by arranging campaign contributions. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires public disclosure of "bundles" totaling $15,000 or more in a six-month period. Like the new attention to earmarks, highlighting these donations may simply spur competition, as K Street's denizens strive to keep up with their neighbors.
Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.
In a letter posted at Congress.org, a constituent praises Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) for his "brilliant intellect." As evidence, Mitchell's admirer cites the congressman's vote for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
The margin by which the act passed�411 to 8 in the House, 83 to 14 in the Senate�takes some of the shine off Mitchell's brilliance. Still, he's probably smart enough to realize what his colleagues evidently understand: Congress's new honesty and openness are not what they're cracked up to be.
The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires that special appropriations added by individual legislators be listed in an online database at least 48 hours before they come to a vote. Critics such as Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) complained bitterly about a loophole: Congressional leaders can certify that a bill contains no earmarks, and there's no way to challenge that determination.
A deeper problem is that publicity does not deter wasteful, parochial spending that legislators want to publicize. Consider what happened last month when Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) challenged a $100,000 appropriation for a prison museum near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The earmark's sponsor, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), defended the honor of Leavenworth County, bragging that "we probably have more prisons...than any other county in the United States." She indignantly added that "the local residents are proud of their heritage and rightly so," since Leavenworth has hosted the likes of George "Machine Gun" Kelly and Nazi spy Fritz Duquesne.
The House approved Boyda's earmark by a vote of 317 to 112. Later she told The New York Times, "Democracy is a contact sport, and I'm not going to be shy about asking for money for my community."
So far this year the Democratic House has approved spending bills that include some 6,500 earmarks, not quite keeping pace with the Republicans' record of nearly 16,000 in 2005 but more than twice the whole-year total of a decade ago. Far from shaming legislators into fiscal restraint, the Times reports, "the new transparency has raised the value of earmarks as a measure of members' clout" and "intensified competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving."
Congressional shamelessness likewise may undermine the goals of the new Senate ban on anonymous holds. A hold occurs when a senator refuses to let a bill or nomination proceed by unanimous consent, thereby requiring the measure's supporters to muster 60 votes to allow consideration of the measure.
Holds obviously can be used for purposes that offend supporters of limited government�to extort pork, for example, or obstruct fiscal reform. But any tool that blocks legislation is apt to do more good than harm. Notably, the hold's defenders include fiscal conservatives such as Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as well as big spenders such as Robert Byrd (D-W.V.).
Still, it's hard to find fault with the new requirement that senators publicly identify themselves and state their reasons when they block legislation. We just shouldn't expect too much as a result of this openness. As with earmarks, legislators don't try to hide their actions when they're proud of them, even if they shouldn't be. Interestingly, no one put a secret hold on the secret hold ban.
Transparency may also prove overrated as a way of preventing lobbyists from influencing legislators by arranging campaign contributions. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requires public disclosure of "bundles" totaling $15,000 or more in a six-month period. Like the new attention to earmarks, highlighting these donations may simply spur competition, as K Street's denizens strive to keep up with their neighbors.
Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.
2010 Oil Lamp/Season#39;s Background
h_shaik
10-17 12:04 PM
Hi,
I have two H1bs. I was working on first H1 till 02/2007 , i moved to second H1from 03/2007 . I am planning to go back to my first H1b which is valid till 03/2008.
Is moving back and forth on these two valid H1 is possible? If so what steps i need to follow.
Help is appritiated.
Regards.
I have two H1bs. I was working on first H1 till 02/2007 , i moved to second H1from 03/2007 . I am planning to go back to my first H1b which is valid till 03/2008.
Is moving back and forth on these two valid H1 is possible? If so what steps i need to follow.
Help is appritiated.
Regards.
more...
quizzer
09-12 02:32 PM
Hi,
I have applied for I-140 in Oct 2006 and hvn't recd I-140 yet (Nebraska)
My 485/EAD checks got encashed today. My questions is do I need I-140 before FP or EAD card.
thanx
RJ
EB2 or EB3??? Did you see any LUD on ur I140 lately?
I have applied for I-140 in Oct 2006 and hvn't recd I-140 yet (Nebraska)
My 485/EAD checks got encashed today. My questions is do I need I-140 before FP or EAD card.
thanx
RJ
EB2 or EB3??? Did you see any LUD on ur I140 lately?
hair Olive oil lamps last several
p_t_smiles
August 10th, 2005, 08:23 AM
Not sure how the the quality is because I had to resize it in order to upload it. Comments?
more...
Blog Feeds
06-09 02:10 PM
My friend John Lamb in Nashville blogs today about ICE's Hutto detention center where whole families are jailed while awaiting deportation. I'm reminded of Charles Dickens' tales of debtors prisons in Victorian England where "lawbreakers" who violated British laws relating to debt were jailed right along with their spouses and children. It's hard for me to tell the difference. I don't know that I blame CCA, the contractor that runs the center. Nor do I necessarily blame ICE which is simply carrying out their mission. The country's policymakers carrry responsiblity - senior DHS officials, White House officials, members of Congress,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/is-it-right-to-detain-children.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/is-it-right-to-detain-children.html)
hot Make a nice swimming oil lamp
Blog Feeds
02-17 09:20 AM
From the Houston Chronicle: More Texas voters think unauthorized immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States � through either a path to citizenship or work visas � than favor deporting them, according to a new Houston Chronicle/San Antonio Express-News poll. The poll showed that 38 percent of respondents favoring deportation � drawing the most support of the three options offered. Twenty-nine percent favored a way for unauthorized immigrants to attain citizenship, while 23 percent supported work visas.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/texans-tend-to-favor-immigration-reform.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/02/texans-tend-to-favor-immigration-reform.html)
more...
house of the kerosene lamp?
ameerka_dream
04-04 01:11 PM
^^^^^^^^^^bump^^^^^^^^^^
tattoo Oil lamp #39;Lighthouse#39;
viva
01-25 09:27 PM
why do u want to move to europe? states is fairly good country.
more...
pictures plated kerosene oil lamp
Kale
03-15 04:16 AM
this link is not working ..Do you have another ?
dresses Menu Lighthouse Oil Lamp, 65cm
pappu
09-14 06:34 PM
DO NOT POST MEDIA LEADS ON THE FORUM PLEASE.
This is a request to every member working very hard in the media campaign and state chapters. If you get a response from any reporter for a media interview, DO NOT post the details on the forum. Please be alert if you find someone posting such message and immediately have that deleted.
If you get a media lead immediately send an email with information about the media lead to --- media at immigrationvoice.org
By sharing sensitive information on the open forum please understand that you maybe destroying the hard work of everyone in the media effort. It takes lot of effort to get media stories. Each of our member is a PR agent for us and we have a well planned strategy to help this entire community and get the immigration issues solved.
Thanks
This is a request to every member working very hard in the media campaign and state chapters. If you get a response from any reporter for a media interview, DO NOT post the details on the forum. Please be alert if you find someone posting such message and immediately have that deleted.
If you get a media lead immediately send an email with information about the media lead to --- media at immigrationvoice.org
By sharing sensitive information on the open forum please understand that you maybe destroying the hard work of everyone in the media effort. It takes lot of effort to get media stories. Each of our member is a PR agent for us and we have a well planned strategy to help this entire community and get the immigration issues solved.
Thanks
more...
makeup Mystery Wood Oil Lamp
akash_chopda
09-28 03:06 PM
Thank you!
My husband will go to india, so he will no longer on status, right ? if my H4 to F1 transfer is in progress, then can i stay in USA ?
My husband will go to india, so he will no longer on status, right ? if my H4 to F1 transfer is in progress, then can i stay in USA ?
girlfriend Oil Lamp: This actual brass
boldm28
06-13 12:20 PM
Thanks appreciate it
hairstyles OIL LAMP
perm2gc
01-12 03:59 PM
Saves so much time and head aches
chotu ustad
08-22 02:12 PM
Hi! My drivers license has expired which was issued in Indianapolis, and I renewed the drivers license at Indianapolis which I could not get transferred to Florida ( no mail forwarding). Now question is, I want to renew new drivers license from Florida, will there be any problem if I use my old H-1B which was issued at Indianapolis, although I have shifted to Florida in a new job where my old H-1B transfer is till under process? what will the implications of using the old H1B?( I am still getting paid from my old employe)r
kumar1
10-29 01:45 PM
Racist Lou Dobbs should get a free copy of it. We should all get together sometime and burn copies of his book Exporting America.
can somebody please post this on the forum. thanks
can somebody please post this on the forum. thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment