abdev
07-14 06:34 AM
Here is the link
Visa Bulletin for August 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5092.html)
Visa Bulletin for August 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5092.html)
wallpaper ig sean my last cover.
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
malibuguy007
10-01 07:41 PM
Please help with funding when you get your issue resolved
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21817
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21817
2011 Brown appears on quot;My Last,quot;
Blog Feeds
03-21 09:30 AM
The Highway Patrol officer pulls over a speeder on the freeway. It's a young woman in a Red Camaro. "Do you know how fast you were going?", he questions her. "I don't know, officer", she stammers. "I'm late for a job interview, and I wasn't paying a lot of attention. I'm really sorry." "Not as sorry as I am" replies the officer, who takes out his pistol, and shoots each of her tires. "If I ever catch you speeding again, I'll shoot you!" Then he arrests her and takes her to jail. Did this really happen? Of course not! In...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/03/they-shoot-speeders-dont-they.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2010/03/they-shoot-speeders-dont-they.html)
more...
GCBy3000
06-09 10:14 AM
We have to have a seperate thread for new members right in the home page section along with other important links.
Also if the new members find some time to go through the website mosf of their doubts will get cleared.
Also if the new members find some time to go through the website mosf of their doubts will get cleared.
a_to_z_gc
06-14 07:54 PM
No that's not the case, there are stringent reqmts for proof of Date of Birth. Passport is not one of them...
Please check other forums where this has been discussed..
I think a passport can be used to show the birth date.
Please check other forums where this has been discussed..
I think a passport can be used to show the birth date.
more...
mna123
07-30 05:37 PM
I am stuck out side of US for my name check for last 9 months. I have approved I 140. is there any way I can file my I 1485 and Advance parole or any thing to get back into US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
Some one has told me that I can use consular processing but have no idea about that.
Please help me and let me know what are possible options for me to return to US.
2010 Big Sean – My Last ft. Chris
dealsnet
04-15 04:11 PM
She come her on H4, because her husband is here. She can come here again on H4, if H1 is denied. Why she is staying in India, if her family is here ?
What is the reason for denial ?.
If it is because of education, chances are less to get approval again.
Otherwise try another company.
What is the reason for denial ?.
If it is because of education, chances are less to get approval again.
Otherwise try another company.
more...
vivache
09-28 12:51 AM
Need to fill the I-134 for my mother in law and father in law
Does one form suffice .. or do I need to fill two forms?
thanks
Does one form suffice .. or do I need to fill two forms?
thanks
hair “My Last” f/ Chris Brown
vxg
10-12 02:58 PM
Why is this thread not showing in most recent threads on main page? something wrong with the website?
more...
rajeshkrv
02-17 02:45 PM
thanks satish. that was informative
hot Big Sean follows up his Chris
itsmesabby
12-11 11:04 AM
Hi All,
Would anyone know how much time does it take for one to get a new SSN ? If someone is coming from India, how much time they should wait after entering the US before they apply for the SSN ?
Thanks,
itsmesabby
Would anyone know how much time does it take for one to get a new SSN ? If someone is coming from India, how much time they should wait after entering the US before they apply for the SSN ?
Thanks,
itsmesabby
more...
house ig sean my last lyrics.
sameplace
02-27 01:12 PM
Hi, I have exactly the same question. Anybody has any idea on it? Thanks!!
tattoo “My Last” f/ Chris Brown
chanukya
08-08 10:53 AM
FAQ's---AC21--Check this link out
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html
http://www.murthy.com/news/UDac21qa.html
more...
pictures ig sean my last lyrics.
prajwal123
01-08 04:09 PM
Hi,
If names are intercahnged it has to be corrected. It MAY create problems When Name goes for FBI Clearance. Better do it..
If names are intercahnged it has to be corrected. It MAY create problems When Name goes for FBI Clearance. Better do it..
dresses HONEST TRUTH: Big Sean#39;s
arnab221
06-19 07:35 PM
Please post your source of information before you launch an endless thread of speculation ..
more...
makeup DOWNLOAD BIG SEAN FEAT CHRIS
blog30
08-03 04:39 PM
Hello,
My I-140 has been received by USCIS in December 2008. I have just got my approval notice.
Does anybody know if I can fill an I-485 for my son, who turned 21 in May 2008?
Thanks
My I-140 has been received by USCIS in December 2008. I have just got my approval notice.
Does anybody know if I can fill an I-485 for my son, who turned 21 in May 2008?
Thanks
girlfriend Kelly Rowland and Big Sean
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
hairstyles Big Sean x Chris Brown – My
vikki76
06-23 02:05 PM
needhelp, I just sent you a PM. Pl. Check
diptam
06-29 09:08 AM
1) If A# is not available so we need to populate it with I-94# ? I got
this weird idea from Point 10 of I-765 form where it says A# or I-94#
Of course in other places it just asks A# ( specially in I-131 form)
2) For I-131 there are lot of doubts - want to double check
a) Class of Admission - ?
b) A# is the very first Information sought !!
c) Date of Intended Departure and Expected length of Trip
d) For how many Trips you intend to use
3) In G-325A Bigraphic form also at the end - it again asks for
ALIEN REGISTRATION NUMBER - what is the that ??
Thanks,
Diptam
this weird idea from Point 10 of I-765 form where it says A# or I-94#
Of course in other places it just asks A# ( specially in I-131 form)
2) For I-131 there are lot of doubts - want to double check
a) Class of Admission - ?
b) A# is the very first Information sought !!
c) Date of Intended Departure and Expected length of Trip
d) For how many Trips you intend to use
3) In G-325A Bigraphic form also at the end - it again asks for
ALIEN REGISTRATION NUMBER - what is the that ??
Thanks,
Diptam
Dhundhun
06-11 12:49 PM
My attorney is asking $500 for filing both EAD and AP as filing fee. So was wondering how difficult it is to file by my self. Does anyone has expereince filing for renewal.?
You could refer http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18737
You could refer http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18737
No comments:
Post a Comment