gregspirited
08-27 11:15 AM
This is related to the experience letter and PERM.
I have been working with my current employer for last 3 years in software engineering role. Now I'm planning to move to program management role and planning to apply PERM from this new role.
1. To get experience letter for PERM, can I use the experience gained in my current company. What are the chances of AUDIT if I do so?
2. With my previous employer (3 yrs back) I worked in software and consulting role. Does this experience suffice for my PERM in program management role...Is it something the lawyer has to worry and not me..
Any answers are appreciated..Thanks in advance for the reply.
I have been working with my current employer for last 3 years in software engineering role. Now I'm planning to move to program management role and planning to apply PERM from this new role.
1. To get experience letter for PERM, can I use the experience gained in my current company. What are the chances of AUDIT if I do so?
2. With my previous employer (3 yrs back) I worked in software and consulting role. Does this experience suffice for my PERM in program management role...Is it something the lawyer has to worry and not me..
Any answers are appreciated..Thanks in advance for the reply.
wallpaper Mark Zuckerberg Eduardo
vicky007
06-06 03:16 PM
Is it possible? Pro-active Finger-Printing without appointment letter.
I have done my FP on March 1st 2005, since the validity is now expired, i called the VSC to enquire when and if i will be getting another FP notice soon.She told me that i can contact the local ASC(Application service centre) and go for the Finger-printing without any formal Notice/Appointment Letter.
Has anybody done this? ie has anybody done Pro-active finger-printing without appointment letter? Please reply.
Regards.
I have done my FP on March 1st 2005, since the validity is now expired, i called the VSC to enquire when and if i will be getting another FP notice soon.She told me that i can contact the local ASC(Application service centre) and go for the Finger-printing without any formal Notice/Appointment Letter.
Has anybody done this? ie has anybody done Pro-active finger-printing without appointment letter? Please reply.
Regards.
TheCanadian
03-14 02:49 AM
Damn, that's good for fingerprinting.
2011 mark zuckerberg friend eduardo
Dreamflower
05-14 03:19 PM
Hello All,
My employer is planning to apply for my Green card (labor) next month. My employer has multiple work locations. My employer is going to apply the green card from Washington DC office location but I stay in Delaware and work from Delaware Office Location.
1. Will this impact the process in any way?
2. Do I have to move to Washington DC office to work at any point during the Green Card process? If yes, please let me know at what stage?
3. And if I have to move to Washington DC office to work then do I have to move to stay in Washington DC or can i still stay in Delaware and work from Washington DC?
Appreciate the help!
My employer is planning to apply for my Green card (labor) next month. My employer has multiple work locations. My employer is going to apply the green card from Washington DC office location but I stay in Delaware and work from Delaware Office Location.
1. Will this impact the process in any way?
2. Do I have to move to Washington DC office to work at any point during the Green Card process? If yes, please let me know at what stage?
3. And if I have to move to Washington DC office to work then do I have to move to stay in Washington DC or can i still stay in Delaware and work from Washington DC?
Appreciate the help!
more...
Bark
03-22 09:34 AM
My apologies for posting this to the wrong section of the forum. Hopefully you will forgive a newbie. Bark
mrajatish
01-29 06:59 PM
Guys,
I am trying to arrange "Meet the Senators/Congressmen Drive" in Washington State. We already have a few volunteers, mostly from the eastside of Seattle. I am looking for a couple more people to help us in our efforts. Please feel free to contact me at 425-996-1021 to discuss this.
Thanks,
Raj
I am trying to arrange "Meet the Senators/Congressmen Drive" in Washington State. We already have a few volunteers, mostly from the eastside of Seattle. I am looking for a couple more people to help us in our efforts. Please feel free to contact me at 425-996-1021 to discuss this.
Thanks,
Raj
more...
apb
08-30 06:41 PM
If there is a anti immigration material in any website, instead of pointing a link to it, it is better to copy paste the content here. This way we can avoid HITs to the website. The reverse could be done for pro-immigrant news/articles etc where the link will help us to post comments on the news website directly.
Of course there are some sites where registration is required and you can copy the content in that case for the benefit of others.
Of course there are some sites where registration is required and you can copy the content in that case for the benefit of others.
2010 Eduardo Saverin#39;s Facebook
lotta
07-18 11:43 PM
My mother is a GC holder since 91. I came to US in 2002 on F1 and then H1 and now GC.
Will the fact that my mom was a GC holder and I did not use that impact my GC? I have answered all the questions correctly(true i mean) always.
Please answer.
Thanks,
Jo.
Nope, it should not.
Will the fact that my mom was a GC holder and I did not use that impact my GC? I have answered all the questions correctly(true i mean) always.
Please answer.
Thanks,
Jo.
Nope, it should not.
more...
pezz77
03-06 10:34 PM
I received my approval documents yesterday and today I noticed that my name is different from that displayed on my passport and previous H-1B approval.
I have a two-part last name and only the first part is displayed. Will this become an issue? The attorney tried to brush it off and said that the name was the same as the one on the petition (which of course he filled, so I don't know why he used this as an excuse).
I'd like to know if I need to do something about it. I don't want to have problems when exciting the country.
Any advice will be appreciated.
I have a two-part last name and only the first part is displayed. Will this become an issue? The attorney tried to brush it off and said that the name was the same as the one on the petition (which of course he filled, so I don't know why he used this as an excuse).
I'd like to know if I need to do something about it. I don't want to have problems when exciting the country.
Any advice will be appreciated.
hair mark zuckerberg and eduardo
Hydra
09-02 02:41 PM
Hi people :angel: , i'm new of this site so i would like you see my new and first stamp for kirupa!
Please tell me what do you think about !!!
...Lot of Thanks ! :thumb:
Please tell me what do you think about !!!
...Lot of Thanks ! :thumb:
more...
Esherido
07-11 04:20 PM
Awesome! I love colors and the picture of him. Like the price too, 5K.
hot Eduardo Saverin, far left
chanduv23
09-14 04:58 PM
Believe in yourself that you can make up your mind
more...
house Mark Zuckerberg
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
tattoo Eduardo Saverin: Co-founder of
salvador marley
05-01 10:18 PM
lets forget that one then :)
more...
pictures mark zuckerberg sean parker
setpit_gc
04-17 01:10 PM
All,
Do I need to send the following documents for AP renewal?.
1. H1B or H4
2. EAD
Thanks
Do I need to send the following documents for AP renewal?.
1. H1B or H4
2. EAD
Thanks
dresses The money, Mark promised,
bodhiquest
08-08 02:32 AM
Hello
I am in AOS with priority date of EB2 Dec 2006. We are moving out of USA due to spouse getting a job outside of USA. If we want to retain our priority date and green card, what are we supposed to do before and after we leave USA?
In case we want to make temporary visits to the USA, do we have to apply for visitor visa? I am assuming that we will not have AP since we are not inside USA. Will we even get a visitor/business visa since we have an immigrant visa which is pending with USCIS?
Thanks for your help in advance.
I am in AOS with priority date of EB2 Dec 2006. We are moving out of USA due to spouse getting a job outside of USA. If we want to retain our priority date and green card, what are we supposed to do before and after we leave USA?
In case we want to make temporary visits to the USA, do we have to apply for visitor visa? I am assuming that we will not have AP since we are not inside USA. Will we even get a visitor/business visa since we have an immigrant visa which is pending with USCIS?
Thanks for your help in advance.
more...
makeup images mark zuckerberg and
kedrex
10-10 06:49 PM
I was wondering if this recession could turn out to be a silver lining for those of EB2-I,C who manage to survive it. Come to think of it, with all these job losses theres bound to be a downturn in hiring - resulting in lesser number of EB1 and EB2 ROW applications. This means more could overflow to EB2 I and eventually EB3 (I,C and ROW) survivors will benefit to.
Although we also need to remember that the H1B quota will still get filled up on Apr 1 - recession or not. So don't really know how this would turn out.
What are your opinions folks?
Although we also need to remember that the H1B quota will still get filled up on Apr 1 - recession or not. So don't really know how this would turn out.
What are your opinions folks?
girlfriend Are Mark Zuckerberg And Eduardo Saverin Friends
krishna_brc
08-09 10:13 AM
if PD is not current in VB? One has to wait till PD is current to file 485....
Yes, we have to wiat till PD is current to file 485
Yes, we have to wiat till PD is current to file 485
hairstyles Mark ผู้ก่อตั้งเฟซบุ้ค
Macaca
02-17 04:53 PM
Judiciary Committee (http://judiciary.senate.gov/)
Sub-committee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship (http://judiciary.senate.gov/subcommittees/110/immigration110.cfm)
Jurisdiction
Immigration, citizenship, and refugee laws
Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the immigration functions of the U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
Oversight of the immigration-related functions of the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Department of Labor
Oversight of international migration and refugee laws and policy
Private immigration relief bills.
Democratic Members
Edward M. Kennedy (http://kennedy.senate.gov/), MA (Chair)
Joseph R. Biden, Jr (http://biden.senate.gov/)., DE
Dianne Feinstein (http://feinstein.senate.gov/), CA
Charles E. Schumer (http://schumer.senate.gov/), NY
Richard J. Durbin (http://durbin.senate.gov/), IL
Republican Members
John Cornyn (http://cornyn.senate.gov/), TX (Ranking Member)
Charles E. Grassley (http://grassley.senate.gov/), IA
Jon Kyl (http://kyl.senate.gov/), AZ
Jeff Sessions (http://sessions.senate.gov/), AL
Senior Staff
Bill Yeomans, Democratic Chief Counsel
Reed O'Connor, Republican Chief Counsel
Press Contact Information (http://judiciary.senate.gov/press.cfm)
Judiciary Committee Hearings (http://judiciary.senate.gov/schedule.cfm)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2555), February 28, 2007, 10:00 AM
Strengthening American Competitiveness for the 21st Century (http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2007_03_07/2007_03_07.html), March 7, 9:30 a.m
Written Testimony of William H. Gates (http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2007_03_07/Gates.pdf)
Sub-committee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship (http://judiciary.senate.gov/subcommittees/110/immigration110.cfm)
Jurisdiction
Immigration, citizenship, and refugee laws
Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the immigration functions of the U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Directorate of Border and Transportation Security
Oversight of the immigration-related functions of the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Department of Labor
Oversight of international migration and refugee laws and policy
Private immigration relief bills.
Democratic Members
Edward M. Kennedy (http://kennedy.senate.gov/), MA (Chair)
Joseph R. Biden, Jr (http://biden.senate.gov/)., DE
Dianne Feinstein (http://feinstein.senate.gov/), CA
Charles E. Schumer (http://schumer.senate.gov/), NY
Richard J. Durbin (http://durbin.senate.gov/), IL
Republican Members
John Cornyn (http://cornyn.senate.gov/), TX (Ranking Member)
Charles E. Grassley (http://grassley.senate.gov/), IA
Jon Kyl (http://kyl.senate.gov/), AZ
Jeff Sessions (http://sessions.senate.gov/), AL
Senior Staff
Bill Yeomans, Democratic Chief Counsel
Reed O'Connor, Republican Chief Counsel
Press Contact Information (http://judiciary.senate.gov/press.cfm)
Judiciary Committee Hearings (http://judiciary.senate.gov/schedule.cfm)
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2555), February 28, 2007, 10:00 AM
Strengthening American Competitiveness for the 21st Century (http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2007_03_07/2007_03_07.html), March 7, 9:30 a.m
Written Testimony of William H. Gates (http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2007_03_07/Gates.pdf)
Blog Feeds
08-07 09:40 AM
Here's another article discussing the embarrassment that is CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight. I don't need to elaborate on that, but the more interesting part of this article is a discussion of why CNN is so reluctant to fire him. Apparently, it's more fear of Dobbs going to Fox and worry about Dobbs using his radio show to bash CNN. But is this really so valid? Dobbs' ratings are down 20% this year. Fired anchors jump networks all the time. Some do better at their new digs. Others fade in to further obscurity. And CNN is bashed daily both on Fox...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/ap-dobbs-becoming-publicity-nightmare-for-cnn.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/ap-dobbs-becoming-publicity-nightmare-for-cnn.html)
skc526
02-01 04:46 PM
I just came back from India with my H1 visa expired and my wife had a valid H4 visa until May. At the port of entry, Immigration officer told me that since she is on my dependent visa, she had to enter on AP also. so both of us used AP though she had a valid visa
No comments:
Post a Comment