images Christina Aguilera Arrested 
christina aguilera 2011
wallpaper christina aguilera 2011
Christina Aguilera Hair 2011
Christina Aguilera 2011
2011 Christina Aguilera Hair 2011
Christina Aguilera on the
more...
christina aguilera 2011 march. Christina+aguilera+2011+
Christina Aguilera 2011 Photo
more...
Christina Performs @ 2011
2010 Christina Aguilera 2011
Christina Aguilera Arrested
more...
Christina @ 2011 Super Bowl
hair Christina Aguilera on the
Christina Aguilera#39;s Style:
more...
Christina Aguilera Zuhair
hot christina aguilera 2011 march. Christina+aguilera+2011+
christina aguilera 2011 fat.
more...
house christina aguilera 2011 weight
christina aguilera 2011 golden
tattoo Christina Aguilera 2011 Photo
Christina Aguilera covers
more...
pictures Christina Performs @ 2011
christina aguiliera
dresses christina aguilera 2011 fat.
Christina Aguilera and Matt
more...
makeup Christina @ 2011 Super Bowl
christina aguilera 2011 weight
girlfriend Christina Aguilera covers
Christina Aguilera music video
hairstyles Christina Aguilera Zuhair
Christina Aguilera Zuhair
gsc999
05-31 07:45 PM
CNN is taking a big chance by trying to be like FOX. CNN will continue to loose viewership with such economic/ social/ culturally xenophobic news reportage.
American Senate did a great job by being so unyielding to the protectionists.
At the same time it is interesting to note the perceptible loss of self-confidence in this protectionist lobby. Are we witnessing a paradigm shift in America? Capitalism takes back seat and the country becomes more socialist like western European contries e.g. France and Germany. With the loomimg baby-boomer retirement a couple of years away this might very well be it.
Globalization trend will intensify. China and Taiwan are already the manufacturing hubs of the world, couple of more years of such unfair treatment of trendsetting immigrants in US and its all history for the knowledge workers here. Former communist countries like Russia and China become truly Capitalist while America becomes socialist driven by the likes of Lou Doubs who is couching his real agenda behind a facade of being a middle-class messiah.
American Senate did a great job by being so unyielding to the protectionists.
At the same time it is interesting to note the perceptible loss of self-confidence in this protectionist lobby. Are we witnessing a paradigm shift in America? Capitalism takes back seat and the country becomes more socialist like western European contries e.g. France and Germany. With the loomimg baby-boomer retirement a couple of years away this might very well be it.
Globalization trend will intensify. China and Taiwan are already the manufacturing hubs of the world, couple of more years of such unfair treatment of trendsetting immigrants in US and its all history for the knowledge workers here. Former communist countries like Russia and China become truly Capitalist while America becomes socialist driven by the likes of Lou Doubs who is couching his real agenda behind a facade of being a middle-class messiah.
wallpaper christina aguilera 2011
Macaca
05-16 05:51 PM
Future Tense
Are the United States and China on a collision course? (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87879/united-states-china-diplomacy-taiwan)
By Aaron Friedberg | The New Republic
In October 2008, a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers�with the United States�s financial system seemingly about to buckle and Washington in desperate need of cash to prevent a total economic collapse�a State Department official contacted his Chinese counterpart about China buying U.S. securities. To his surprise, the Chinese, who had previously displayed an insatiable appetite for U.S. Treasury bills, suddenly balked at lending a hand. The reason, the Chinese official said, was the recent announcement of an impending sale of U.S. armaments to Taiwan.
This not-so-subtle threat, detailed in a memo released by Wikileaks, turned out to be a bluff, but it signaled a striking shift in the tone and content of Chinese foreign policy. Over the course of the past two years, Beijing has adopted a more assertive posture in its dealings with Washington, as well as with many of America�s allies in Asia. Among other things, China has threatened for the first time to impose sanctions on U.S. companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan; intensified its claims to virtually all of the resource-rich South China Sea; and conducted its largest-ever naval exercises in the Western Pacific.
America�s �China hands� have long attributed any tensions between the two countries to misunderstandings or readily correctable policy errors. But with the passage of time it has become increasingly apparent that the differences between China and the United States spring from deeply rooted sources and aren�t likely to be resolved anytime soon. Indeed, as recent events suggest, it appears that the two nations are in for a long, tense, perhaps even dangerous struggle. And, most disconcerting of all, it�s a struggle in which, at least for the moment, China seems to be gaining the upper hand.
If you look back over the last 2,500 years�from the days of Athens and Sparta through the cold war�there has inevitably been mistrust, rivalry, and often open conflict between leading global powers and rising states that seek to displace them. In these scenarios, the leading power has wanted to preserve its privileges, while fearing that emerging challengers would seek to overturn the international order that it dominates. Rising powers, for their part, chafe at hierarchies of influence that were put in place when they were relatively weak.
Much of the tension in today�s U.S.-China relationship is a reflection of this familiar dynamic. But this tension is exacerbated by an additional factor that has only sometimes been present in great power rivalries of the past: deep ideological differences. One often hears it said that, because China is no longer truly a communist country, ideology has ceased to be a factor in its relations with the United States. This misses the point. Today�s Chinese leaders may no longer be anti-capitalist Marxists but they govern as Leninists and, as such, are determined to preserve the Communist Party�s exclusive monopoly on political power. China�s rulers see the United States as intent on spreading its brand of democracy to every corner of the earth. For their part, the American people continue to eye with suspicion a regime they see as repressive and autocratic. Ideology may not be sufficient, in itself, to provoke conflict between the United States and China, but it aggravates and amplifies the geopolitical tensions between the two.
This backdrop of great power rivalry and sharp ideological disagreement helps to explain U.S. policies toward China and Chinese policies toward the United States. In contrast to the cold war strategy of containment, America�s strategy for dealing with China has never been codified in official documents or given a name. But over the past two decades, roughly the same strategy has been employed by both Republicans (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Democrats (Clinton and now Obama). Broadly speaking, the aim has been to discourage Beijing from seeking to challenge America�s interests and those of our allies in Asia, while at the same time nudging China toward democracy. To accomplish these ends, American policymakers have employed a dual approach. On the one hand, they have sought extensive economic and diplomatic engagement with China. The hope has been that these interactions will �tame� China by giving it a stake in the existing international order�and, over the long run, encourage the growth of a middle class and the spread of liberal values, thereby pushing the country gently and indirectly down the path toward democracy. At the same time, Washington has worked to preserve a balance of power in East Asia that is favorable to its interests and those of its allies. This began in earnest following the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-1996, when Beijing test-fired missiles in an attempt to influence the outcome of Taiwanese elections, and the Clinton administration dispatched two aircraft carriers in response. Since then, the United States has taken steps to strengthen its military capabilities in the region, while solidifying bonds with partners old (South Korea, Japan, Australia) and new (India).
China�s strategy for dealing with the United States developed somewhat more deliberately. In the wake of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, China�s leaders recognized that the previous rationale for cooperation with the United States no longer applied. They feared that, having toppled one communist giant, the Americans would turn their attention to the other. Surveying the scene in 1991, Deng Xiaoping circulated a brief memo to his top party colleagues. The essential message of the so-called �24 Character Strategy� was that China had little choice but to �hide its capabilities and bide its time.� That meant avoiding confrontation with other states, especially the United States, while working to build up all aspects of its power�economic, military, technological, and political.
Recently, Chinese foreign policy has taken on a more assertive tone; but its overall aims have not changed much in two decades. Above all, the current regime wants to preserve indefinitely the Chinese Communist Party�s grip on political power; it seeks, in effect, to make the world safe for continued CCP rule. In part for this reason, China�s leaders want to restore their country to its place as the preponderant regional power. This requires reducing the influence of the United States in East Asia, constricting its presence, and perhaps eventually extruding it from the region. Chinese officials allude to this objective with varying degrees of subtlety. When I worked in the Bush administration from 2003 to 2005, I had several conversations with Chinese diplomats in which they said, almost in passing, that, while the United States might be a Pacific power, it was, of course, not an Asian power. Rather more bluntly, in 2007, a Chinese admiral reportedly told his American counterpart that their two countries should divide the Pacific between them, with China taking everything west of Hawaii.
Are the United States and China on a collision course? (http://www.tnr.com/article/world/magazine/87879/united-states-china-diplomacy-taiwan)
By Aaron Friedberg | The New Republic
In October 2008, a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers�with the United States�s financial system seemingly about to buckle and Washington in desperate need of cash to prevent a total economic collapse�a State Department official contacted his Chinese counterpart about China buying U.S. securities. To his surprise, the Chinese, who had previously displayed an insatiable appetite for U.S. Treasury bills, suddenly balked at lending a hand. The reason, the Chinese official said, was the recent announcement of an impending sale of U.S. armaments to Taiwan.
This not-so-subtle threat, detailed in a memo released by Wikileaks, turned out to be a bluff, but it signaled a striking shift in the tone and content of Chinese foreign policy. Over the course of the past two years, Beijing has adopted a more assertive posture in its dealings with Washington, as well as with many of America�s allies in Asia. Among other things, China has threatened for the first time to impose sanctions on U.S. companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan; intensified its claims to virtually all of the resource-rich South China Sea; and conducted its largest-ever naval exercises in the Western Pacific.
America�s �China hands� have long attributed any tensions between the two countries to misunderstandings or readily correctable policy errors. But with the passage of time it has become increasingly apparent that the differences between China and the United States spring from deeply rooted sources and aren�t likely to be resolved anytime soon. Indeed, as recent events suggest, it appears that the two nations are in for a long, tense, perhaps even dangerous struggle. And, most disconcerting of all, it�s a struggle in which, at least for the moment, China seems to be gaining the upper hand.
If you look back over the last 2,500 years�from the days of Athens and Sparta through the cold war�there has inevitably been mistrust, rivalry, and often open conflict between leading global powers and rising states that seek to displace them. In these scenarios, the leading power has wanted to preserve its privileges, while fearing that emerging challengers would seek to overturn the international order that it dominates. Rising powers, for their part, chafe at hierarchies of influence that were put in place when they were relatively weak.
Much of the tension in today�s U.S.-China relationship is a reflection of this familiar dynamic. But this tension is exacerbated by an additional factor that has only sometimes been present in great power rivalries of the past: deep ideological differences. One often hears it said that, because China is no longer truly a communist country, ideology has ceased to be a factor in its relations with the United States. This misses the point. Today�s Chinese leaders may no longer be anti-capitalist Marxists but they govern as Leninists and, as such, are determined to preserve the Communist Party�s exclusive monopoly on political power. China�s rulers see the United States as intent on spreading its brand of democracy to every corner of the earth. For their part, the American people continue to eye with suspicion a regime they see as repressive and autocratic. Ideology may not be sufficient, in itself, to provoke conflict between the United States and China, but it aggravates and amplifies the geopolitical tensions between the two.
This backdrop of great power rivalry and sharp ideological disagreement helps to explain U.S. policies toward China and Chinese policies toward the United States. In contrast to the cold war strategy of containment, America�s strategy for dealing with China has never been codified in official documents or given a name. But over the past two decades, roughly the same strategy has been employed by both Republicans (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Democrats (Clinton and now Obama). Broadly speaking, the aim has been to discourage Beijing from seeking to challenge America�s interests and those of our allies in Asia, while at the same time nudging China toward democracy. To accomplish these ends, American policymakers have employed a dual approach. On the one hand, they have sought extensive economic and diplomatic engagement with China. The hope has been that these interactions will �tame� China by giving it a stake in the existing international order�and, over the long run, encourage the growth of a middle class and the spread of liberal values, thereby pushing the country gently and indirectly down the path toward democracy. At the same time, Washington has worked to preserve a balance of power in East Asia that is favorable to its interests and those of its allies. This began in earnest following the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-1996, when Beijing test-fired missiles in an attempt to influence the outcome of Taiwanese elections, and the Clinton administration dispatched two aircraft carriers in response. Since then, the United States has taken steps to strengthen its military capabilities in the region, while solidifying bonds with partners old (South Korea, Japan, Australia) and new (India).
China�s strategy for dealing with the United States developed somewhat more deliberately. In the wake of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, China�s leaders recognized that the previous rationale for cooperation with the United States no longer applied. They feared that, having toppled one communist giant, the Americans would turn their attention to the other. Surveying the scene in 1991, Deng Xiaoping circulated a brief memo to his top party colleagues. The essential message of the so-called �24 Character Strategy� was that China had little choice but to �hide its capabilities and bide its time.� That meant avoiding confrontation with other states, especially the United States, while working to build up all aspects of its power�economic, military, technological, and political.
Recently, Chinese foreign policy has taken on a more assertive tone; but its overall aims have not changed much in two decades. Above all, the current regime wants to preserve indefinitely the Chinese Communist Party�s grip on political power; it seeks, in effect, to make the world safe for continued CCP rule. In part for this reason, China�s leaders want to restore their country to its place as the preponderant regional power. This requires reducing the influence of the United States in East Asia, constricting its presence, and perhaps eventually extruding it from the region. Chinese officials allude to this objective with varying degrees of subtlety. When I worked in the Bush administration from 2003 to 2005, I had several conversations with Chinese diplomats in which they said, almost in passing, that, while the United States might be a Pacific power, it was, of course, not an Asian power. Rather more bluntly, in 2007, a Chinese admiral reportedly told his American counterpart that their two countries should divide the Pacific between them, with China taking everything west of Hawaii.
like_watching_paint_dry
08-11 11:47 AM
I agree with yabadaba. We should also send feedback to CNN about the lies Lou Dobbs is perpetuating on national TV.
Go here http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?7 to give feedback about Lou Dobbs.
This is what I wrote:
Please try to use your own language, otherwise they will ignore the emails as form letters, but try to cover all the points. Later I think we should contact other News outlets and point out the incompetence
also send it to a competitor network and to a show which competes with Dobbs.
Go here http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?7 to give feedback about Lou Dobbs.
This is what I wrote:
Please try to use your own language, otherwise they will ignore the emails as form letters, but try to cover all the points. Later I think we should contact other News outlets and point out the incompetence
also send it to a competitor network and to a show which competes with Dobbs.
2011 Christina Aguilera Hair 2011
Refugee_New
01-06 02:27 PM
Refugee_New,
It all depends on people's mind. You don't need to answer me, and I am sure you are pure by heart as my many muslim friends.
It depends where your bias is. Are you (you means in general people, not you particularly) biased to religion or you are biased to humanity! When a christian or hindu gets killed, if it doesn't pain you as much when a muslim gets killed, you are more biased towards religion.
People are biased towards religion often shelter under humanity sentences to prove their point. But quite ofter they become onesided. Like People were igniting fire crackers in Pakistan when Mumbai massacre happened. When one of them gets killed, they shout on name of humanity.
My sympathies are with poor innocent kids of palestine got killed.
But people should come out and unshelter terrorists who live in civilian facilities. Same as Dawood & Azhar Masood. People want to harbour them but them if other country takes military action to capture them and some civilians killed because they were in civilian area, it is bad to shout on name of humanity. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THEY ARE REALLY NOT INNOCENT.
It pained me a lot when terrorist struck Mumbai and i did condemn the mindless killing just like fellow Indian and Indian Muslim. Don't you think Muslims in India united and showed their unity and condemned Pakistan?
Don't compare terrorists like Dawood and Masood Azhar with those who are elected democratically by people of their nation.
It all depends on people's mind. You don't need to answer me, and I am sure you are pure by heart as my many muslim friends.
It depends where your bias is. Are you (you means in general people, not you particularly) biased to religion or you are biased to humanity! When a christian or hindu gets killed, if it doesn't pain you as much when a muslim gets killed, you are more biased towards religion.
People are biased towards religion often shelter under humanity sentences to prove their point. But quite ofter they become onesided. Like People were igniting fire crackers in Pakistan when Mumbai massacre happened. When one of them gets killed, they shout on name of humanity.
My sympathies are with poor innocent kids of palestine got killed.
But people should come out and unshelter terrorists who live in civilian facilities. Same as Dawood & Azhar Masood. People want to harbour them but them if other country takes military action to capture them and some civilians killed because they were in civilian area, it is bad to shout on name of humanity. BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THEY ARE REALLY NOT INNOCENT.
It pained me a lot when terrorist struck Mumbai and i did condemn the mindless killing just like fellow Indian and Indian Muslim. Don't you think Muslims in India united and showed their unity and condemned Pakistan?
Don't compare terrorists like Dawood and Masood Azhar with those who are elected democratically by people of their nation.
more...
Macaca
08-17 09:12 PM
Dem majority triggers mixed results for K St. (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dem-majority-triggers-mixed-results-for-k-st.-2007-08-15.html) By Jim Snyder and Jeffrey Young | The Hill, August 15, 2007
Patton Boggs appears likely to continue as the reigning king of K Street with a revenue growth of nearly 9 percent, according to mid-year lobbying reports filed to Congress Tuesday.
The law firm earned nearly $19.4 million from lobbying as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, or LDA, for the first half of 2007, versus the $17.8 million it took in during the first six months of 2006. The firm finished first in the revenue race in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Elsewhere along Washington’s lobbying corridor, though, results were decidedly more mixed. While several firms reported revenue growth, a number have yet to shake off the doldrums of the last half of 2006, when legislative activity dropped off as members left town to campaign for the midterm election.
For example, Cassidy & Associates reported a slight dip in revenues in 2007. It reported $12.3 million for mid-year 2007 versus the $12.6 million the firm reported a year ago.
Van Scoyoc Associates, another big earner, reported flat revenues. Hogan & Hartson, a top 10 earner, reported a slight dip (see chart, P 9).
The LDA numbers were due Tuesday, and several big names did not have their revenue totals ready by press time. These firms include Dutko Worldwide, which generated more than $20 million in lobbying revenues last year.
(The figures will be added to the chart online at thehill.com as they become available.)
The firms that did well attribute their success in part to the new Democratic majorities.
Perhaps the biggest success story so far is Ogilvy Government Relations. The newly bipartisan firm, which was formerly all-Republican and known as the Federalist Group, reported mid-year totals of $12.4 million, versus the $6.8 million it reported for the first six months of 2006.
“We have added talented Democrats that have contributed significant value to our clients and the firm,” said Drew Maloney, a managing director at Ogilvy and a former aide to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
Although the switch to bipartisan seems to have been a good one, the firm’s success can largely be attributed to one client. Blackstone Group, which is lobbying against a proposed tax hike on private equity firms, has paid Ogilvy $3.74 million so far this year. Blackstone paid Ogilvy just $240,000 for all of 2006.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a perennial top five earner, also grew. The firm reported mid-year totals of $15.2 million, compared to $13.3 million during the first half of 2006.
Joel Jankowsky, who runs Akin Gump’s policy practice, said Democrats have been good for his firm’s bottom line.
“The change in Congress has increased activity on a variety of issues and that has spawned more work,” Jankowsky said. Akin Gump now counts 186 clients versus the 165 clients it had at the end of last year.
Barbour Griffith & Rogers and K & L Gates’s policy group each also reported a slight growth over their revenue totals of a year ago.
Even firms that did less well were optimistic business was beginning to pick up, even though Democrats have sought to change the cozy relationships between lawmakers and lobbyists through new gift and travel limitations and other rules.
Gregg Hartley, vice chairman and chief operating officer for Cassidy, said the firm’s business was rebounding from a slow 2006.
“I see us on the way back up,” he said.
The Cassidy figure does not include revenues reported by its affiliate, the Rhoads Group, which reported an additional $2.2 million in revenue.
Van Scoyoc Associates, another top five firm, reported Tuesday that it made $12.5 million this year, roughly the same it reported during the comparable period a year ago.
“We held pretty even in a very difficult environment and I would consider that a pretty successful first half,” said Stu Van Scoyoc, president of the firm.
Scandals have made it a difficult political environment for lobbyists and clients have moved cautiously because of uncertainty about new congressional earmarking rules, Van Scoyoc said.
The LDA filings paint only part of the picture of these firms’ performances. Many of the large and mid-sized firms have lucrative lines of business in other areas.
Firms like Patton Boggs and Akin Gump that operate large legal practices are also benefiting from the more active oversight of the Democratic-led Congress, for example.
Democrats have held an estimated 600 oversight and investigation hearings so far, and many clients under the microscope have sought K Street’s counsel.
“The overall congressional activity is through the charts,” said Nick Allard, co-chairman of Patton Boggs’s public policy department.
“Lobbying reports are up, but they are just part of what we do, and underestimate what is probably a historic level of activity in Congress and as such a historic level of representation of clients before Congress,” Allard said.
The investigations also often lead to new legislation, which further drives business to K Street.
The LDA numbers also do not capture work done under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which is reported separately. Most public relations and federal marketing work, both of which are growing revenue streams for many firms, are also not reported under LDA.
Cassidy, for example, made an additional $1.4 million from FARA, public relations and federal marketing, Hartley said. Van Scoyoc also will report at least $300,000 in FARA revenue.
Moreover, the LDA itself provides firms with wide latitude in how they define lobbying activities, and thus what revenue must be accounted for in their semiannual filings.
While some firms blamed stagnant revenues on the unfavorable (and, they add, unfair) scrutiny the lobbying industry has received from the Jack Abramoff scandal, most lobbyists don’t see the recently passed lobbying/ethics bill as a threat to their businesses.
Patton Boggs’s Allard, for instance, believes the new rules may benefit firms with legal practices and larger lobbying firms that may be better equipped to manage the intricacies of the new law.
“The need for public policy advocacy doesn’t go away,” he said. Firms that relied on relationships, however, may well be hurt. Potential clients are “are not going to go for the quick fix or silver bullet or glad-handing,” Allard said.
Lobbyists will have to report more frequently. The new law requires filing quarterly rather than semi-annually.
The continued focus on earmarks, though, may eventually hurt firms that have built their practice around appropriations work, said Hartley.
“There is a potential for a dramatic impact on that part of the lobbying industry,” said Hartley.
Cassidy was once just such a firm. Until recently, as much as 70 percent of Cassidy’s lobbying revenue came from appropriations, but a four-year restructuring effort has dropped that figure to 51 percent, Hartley said.
Now 67 percent of new business is tied to non-appropriations work, he added.
The Democratic takeover of Congress also spawned a growth in all-Democratic lobbying firms.
Elmendorf Strategies, founded by Steve Elmendorf, reported revenues of nearly $1.9 million, despite having just three lobbyists. Elmendorf is a former chief of staff to House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) and is a sought-after party strategist. His firm is six months old and has 19 clients.
The firm Parven Pomper Schuyler reported revenues of $750,000 in part by targeting business-friendly Blue Dog Democrats. Scott Parven said the firm has 13 clients. It recently signed on to lobby for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The contract was not included in its mid-year filing.
K Street's Top Firms (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/k-streets-top-25-2007-08-15.html) By Jim Snyder and Jeffrey Young | The Hill August 15, 2007
Patton Boggs appears likely to continue as the reigning king of K Street with a revenue growth of nearly 9 percent, according to mid-year lobbying reports filed to Congress Tuesday.
The law firm earned nearly $19.4 million from lobbying as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, or LDA, for the first half of 2007, versus the $17.8 million it took in during the first six months of 2006. The firm finished first in the revenue race in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Elsewhere along Washington’s lobbying corridor, though, results were decidedly more mixed. While several firms reported revenue growth, a number have yet to shake off the doldrums of the last half of 2006, when legislative activity dropped off as members left town to campaign for the midterm election.
For example, Cassidy & Associates reported a slight dip in revenues in 2007. It reported $12.3 million for mid-year 2007 versus the $12.6 million the firm reported a year ago.
Van Scoyoc Associates, another big earner, reported flat revenues. Hogan & Hartson, a top 10 earner, reported a slight dip (see chart, P 9).
The LDA numbers were due Tuesday, and several big names did not have their revenue totals ready by press time. These firms include Dutko Worldwide, which generated more than $20 million in lobbying revenues last year.
(The figures will be added to the chart online at thehill.com as they become available.)
The firms that did well attribute their success in part to the new Democratic majorities.
Perhaps the biggest success story so far is Ogilvy Government Relations. The newly bipartisan firm, which was formerly all-Republican and known as the Federalist Group, reported mid-year totals of $12.4 million, versus the $6.8 million it reported for the first six months of 2006.
“We have added talented Democrats that have contributed significant value to our clients and the firm,” said Drew Maloney, a managing director at Ogilvy and a former aide to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
Although the switch to bipartisan seems to have been a good one, the firm’s success can largely be attributed to one client. Blackstone Group, which is lobbying against a proposed tax hike on private equity firms, has paid Ogilvy $3.74 million so far this year. Blackstone paid Ogilvy just $240,000 for all of 2006.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a perennial top five earner, also grew. The firm reported mid-year totals of $15.2 million, compared to $13.3 million during the first half of 2006.
Joel Jankowsky, who runs Akin Gump’s policy practice, said Democrats have been good for his firm’s bottom line.
“The change in Congress has increased activity on a variety of issues and that has spawned more work,” Jankowsky said. Akin Gump now counts 186 clients versus the 165 clients it had at the end of last year.
Barbour Griffith & Rogers and K & L Gates’s policy group each also reported a slight growth over their revenue totals of a year ago.
Even firms that did less well were optimistic business was beginning to pick up, even though Democrats have sought to change the cozy relationships between lawmakers and lobbyists through new gift and travel limitations and other rules.
Gregg Hartley, vice chairman and chief operating officer for Cassidy, said the firm’s business was rebounding from a slow 2006.
“I see us on the way back up,” he said.
The Cassidy figure does not include revenues reported by its affiliate, the Rhoads Group, which reported an additional $2.2 million in revenue.
Van Scoyoc Associates, another top five firm, reported Tuesday that it made $12.5 million this year, roughly the same it reported during the comparable period a year ago.
“We held pretty even in a very difficult environment and I would consider that a pretty successful first half,” said Stu Van Scoyoc, president of the firm.
Scandals have made it a difficult political environment for lobbyists and clients have moved cautiously because of uncertainty about new congressional earmarking rules, Van Scoyoc said.
The LDA filings paint only part of the picture of these firms’ performances. Many of the large and mid-sized firms have lucrative lines of business in other areas.
Firms like Patton Boggs and Akin Gump that operate large legal practices are also benefiting from the more active oversight of the Democratic-led Congress, for example.
Democrats have held an estimated 600 oversight and investigation hearings so far, and many clients under the microscope have sought K Street’s counsel.
“The overall congressional activity is through the charts,” said Nick Allard, co-chairman of Patton Boggs’s public policy department.
“Lobbying reports are up, but they are just part of what we do, and underestimate what is probably a historic level of activity in Congress and as such a historic level of representation of clients before Congress,” Allard said.
The investigations also often lead to new legislation, which further drives business to K Street.
The LDA numbers also do not capture work done under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which is reported separately. Most public relations and federal marketing work, both of which are growing revenue streams for many firms, are also not reported under LDA.
Cassidy, for example, made an additional $1.4 million from FARA, public relations and federal marketing, Hartley said. Van Scoyoc also will report at least $300,000 in FARA revenue.
Moreover, the LDA itself provides firms with wide latitude in how they define lobbying activities, and thus what revenue must be accounted for in their semiannual filings.
While some firms blamed stagnant revenues on the unfavorable (and, they add, unfair) scrutiny the lobbying industry has received from the Jack Abramoff scandal, most lobbyists don’t see the recently passed lobbying/ethics bill as a threat to their businesses.
Patton Boggs’s Allard, for instance, believes the new rules may benefit firms with legal practices and larger lobbying firms that may be better equipped to manage the intricacies of the new law.
“The need for public policy advocacy doesn’t go away,” he said. Firms that relied on relationships, however, may well be hurt. Potential clients are “are not going to go for the quick fix or silver bullet or glad-handing,” Allard said.
Lobbyists will have to report more frequently. The new law requires filing quarterly rather than semi-annually.
The continued focus on earmarks, though, may eventually hurt firms that have built their practice around appropriations work, said Hartley.
“There is a potential for a dramatic impact on that part of the lobbying industry,” said Hartley.
Cassidy was once just such a firm. Until recently, as much as 70 percent of Cassidy’s lobbying revenue came from appropriations, but a four-year restructuring effort has dropped that figure to 51 percent, Hartley said.
Now 67 percent of new business is tied to non-appropriations work, he added.
The Democratic takeover of Congress also spawned a growth in all-Democratic lobbying firms.
Elmendorf Strategies, founded by Steve Elmendorf, reported revenues of nearly $1.9 million, despite having just three lobbyists. Elmendorf is a former chief of staff to House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) and is a sought-after party strategist. His firm is six months old and has 19 clients.
The firm Parven Pomper Schuyler reported revenues of $750,000 in part by targeting business-friendly Blue Dog Democrats. Scott Parven said the firm has 13 clients. It recently signed on to lobby for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The contract was not included in its mid-year filing.
K Street's Top Firms (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/k-streets-top-25-2007-08-15.html) By Jim Snyder and Jeffrey Young | The Hill August 15, 2007
gg_ny
02-21 03:00 PM
This guy Dobbs, claims to know everything that's wrong with congress, the laws, the trade agreements, and all he does is preach. Why doesnt he run for congress and fix things he thinks are so easy to fix. If he is so smart and able, then he should really run for congress and do what he thinks his right.
The reality is... the chamber of House is no CNN studio. If a trust-fund, Preppie kid like him went to Congress, he wouldnt last a week.
Wonder why he is not questioned, ridiculed or targetted by other TV standups or show masters. The truth is, Dobbs has a following - people who would like to hear again and again what they want to hear and CNN knows it. Even if he is spilling BS, at some point, repetetion may make it sound like " oh, there is something in what he says" attitude, mainly because of familiarity by that repetetion itself. Maybe he will end up a Congressman or a clown instead, the fact is, he can elicit attention of a few millions -by his talk show and write-ups. From McCain to Romney, Sen. Clinton to Bush, if people see the quick policy/face changes among the politicians and compare with some stray ---- like Dobbs saying (barking) the same thing over and over again, there is a chance that he might end up scoring more in popularity than the president.
The reality is... the chamber of House is no CNN studio. If a trust-fund, Preppie kid like him went to Congress, he wouldnt last a week.
Wonder why he is not questioned, ridiculed or targetted by other TV standups or show masters. The truth is, Dobbs has a following - people who would like to hear again and again what they want to hear and CNN knows it. Even if he is spilling BS, at some point, repetetion may make it sound like " oh, there is something in what he says" attitude, mainly because of familiarity by that repetetion itself. Maybe he will end up a Congressman or a clown instead, the fact is, he can elicit attention of a few millions -by his talk show and write-ups. From McCain to Romney, Sen. Clinton to Bush, if people see the quick policy/face changes among the politicians and compare with some stray ---- like Dobbs saying (barking) the same thing over and over again, there is a chance that he might end up scoring more in popularity than the president.
more...
cpolisetti
04-18 06:09 PM
I don't believe votes such as this are scientific. Also only people who like the opinion given by him watches the show, so everyone knows it will be biased.
Anyway I did vote NO.
Lou Dobbs at CNN is doing a quick vote to justify his oppinions against amnesty. So far, the majority of the vote is "against" rather than "for". I myself am not a big fan of the proposal becauses it deminishes efforts put in by legal immigrats like ourselves but regardless consider it necessary for us to support as it currently is the only bill alive including retrogression relief along with amnesty.
Media generates publicity by twisting a small fraction of reality. Imagine what Lou would say if he gets a unanimous vote against amnesty. I am sure he will make the best of it to promote negativism towards any relief efforts regardless of it being amnesty or retrogression relief. Please go to the URL below and cast your support vote!
Question: Do you believe Congress should first demand that our borders and ports be secured before taking up immigration reform?
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Anyway I did vote NO.
Lou Dobbs at CNN is doing a quick vote to justify his oppinions against amnesty. So far, the majority of the vote is "against" rather than "for". I myself am not a big fan of the proposal becauses it deminishes efforts put in by legal immigrats like ourselves but regardless consider it necessary for us to support as it currently is the only bill alive including retrogression relief along with amnesty.
Media generates publicity by twisting a small fraction of reality. Imagine what Lou would say if he gets a unanimous vote against amnesty. I am sure he will make the best of it to promote negativism towards any relief efforts regardless of it being amnesty or retrogression relief. Please go to the URL below and cast your support vote!
Question: Do you believe Congress should first demand that our borders and ports be secured before taking up immigration reform?
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
2010 Christina Aguilera 2011
ssa
06-25 03:47 PM
You just gave an example of a guy who owns his own house.
And who was rich first and does not consider his house as an investment!
And who was rich first and does not consider his house as an investment!
more...
H1B-GC
02-23 10:35 AM
As the Article says,Lou Dobb defends Legal Immigration in an Interview with Newsweek which is total Crap . He Attacked H1B Program on his Daily Show and the Guest was no Doubt Kim Berry to give his Input. These things make everyone laugh at Lou Dobbs , the Lofer.
hair Christina Aguilera on the
jkays94
06-01 01:28 PM
jkays
my comment was all tongue in cheek. My only point is that Lou comes off as more conservative than Shaun Hannity and isn't that something.
Its all about the $$ and competition with other networks which are giving CNN a run for its money. So much so it makes sense for CNN not to talk about money matters but topics that appeal to ultra conservative audiences. Dobbs in particular appears willing to go to any lower level to get his points across. And yes, you are right he does use FAIR, NumbersUSA and the Heritage Foundation as his sources for "statistics" and guests on his show.
Dobbs's immigration reporting marked by misinformation, extreme rhetoric, attacks on Mexican president, and data from organization linked to white supremacists (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605240011)
Additional links on the supremacist (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?xpicked=3&item=12) citation as a source by Dobbs :
Link 1 (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BlogBox/12), Link 2 (http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/052106.htm#052306)
CNN's Dobbs, Christian Science Monitor cited dubious Heritage Foundation study on immigration (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250014) - This is the same study that Jeff Sessions presented to the Senate.
my comment was all tongue in cheek. My only point is that Lou comes off as more conservative than Shaun Hannity and isn't that something.
Its all about the $$ and competition with other networks which are giving CNN a run for its money. So much so it makes sense for CNN not to talk about money matters but topics that appeal to ultra conservative audiences. Dobbs in particular appears willing to go to any lower level to get his points across. And yes, you are right he does use FAIR, NumbersUSA and the Heritage Foundation as his sources for "statistics" and guests on his show.
Dobbs's immigration reporting marked by misinformation, extreme rhetoric, attacks on Mexican president, and data from organization linked to white supremacists (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605240011)
Additional links on the supremacist (http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?xpicked=3&item=12) citation as a source by Dobbs :
Link 1 (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BlogBox/12), Link 2 (http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/052106.htm#052306)
CNN's Dobbs, Christian Science Monitor cited dubious Heritage Foundation study on immigration (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250014) - This is the same study that Jeff Sessions presented to the Senate.
more...
styrum
08-11 12:02 PM
great find yabadaba. Thanks. I have sent this link to someone who can do some data analysis in our favor. However we are looking for EB GC data.
do you/anyone know of any data sources for EB greencard applications on USCIS site/someone has already done stat research based on uscis data?
The USCIS's "Yearbook of Immigration Statistics" is a valuable source of info in any immigration debate!
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/index.htm
One can catch on lies a lot of anti-immigration jerks and even the USCIS themselves using their very own data! You can clearly see how the number of employment based Green cards changed, for example, how sharply it dropped in 2003 for some reason (not in 2002 which could be explained by 9/11!). They have no explanation for this. Apparently they were told to do so. The sabotage is obvious. There are more interesting facts there. Say, one can check if a particular country really has contributed too many immigrants in the last years to be excluded from the GC lottery or not, while another country is for some (political) reason still eligible despite it exceeded the limit.
do you/anyone know of any data sources for EB greencard applications on USCIS site/someone has already done stat research based on uscis data?
The USCIS's "Yearbook of Immigration Statistics" is a valuable source of info in any immigration debate!
http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/index.htm
One can catch on lies a lot of anti-immigration jerks and even the USCIS themselves using their very own data! You can clearly see how the number of employment based Green cards changed, for example, how sharply it dropped in 2003 for some reason (not in 2002 which could be explained by 9/11!). They have no explanation for this. Apparently they were told to do so. The sabotage is obvious. There are more interesting facts there. Say, one can check if a particular country really has contributed too many immigrants in the last years to be excluded from the GC lottery or not, while another country is for some (political) reason still eligible despite it exceeded the limit.
hot christina aguilera 2011 march. Christina+aguilera+2011+
NKR
08-06 11:32 AM
The reason i haven't done that is because i personally do not think that getting a GC couple of years earlier is going to make my life any different than it currently is.
But for some getting a GC earlier makes a huge difference in their lives. Ask someone whose kid might just be a few months before he/she becomes 21 (A colleague in my team is in that situation). Ask someone who is dire need for extra money and wish to become permanent.
I had told in an earlier post, it all depends on individual situation, some people cite an extreme case to put forth their point and some other counters that by citing an extreme case on the opposite end.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US. EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
So you mean to say that an EB3 cannot acquire superior skills over a period of time?.
Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005.
Seriously you should, otherwise you would undermine the value of your education. It runs counter to your argument that EB2 Masters has more value and deserves not to be clubbed with EB3 while you are willing to stick on to an EB3 PD. Something doesn�t sound right here�
But for some getting a GC earlier makes a huge difference in their lives. Ask someone whose kid might just be a few months before he/she becomes 21 (A colleague in my team is in that situation). Ask someone who is dire need for extra money and wish to become permanent.
I had told in an earlier post, it all depends on individual situation, some people cite an extreme case to put forth their point and some other counters that by citing an extreme case on the opposite end.
Shady means or non-shady means, EB2 means that u have superior qualifications and you are more desirable in the US. EB3 means there are a lot like u, so u gotta wait more. Period.
So you mean to say that an EB3 cannot acquire superior skills over a period of time?.
Now, i haven't applied for GC through my employer yet, but if i apply, it would most likely be EB1 or 2, and would love to port my PD of 2005.
Seriously you should, otherwise you would undermine the value of your education. It runs counter to your argument that EB2 Masters has more value and deserves not to be clubbed with EB3 while you are willing to stick on to an EB3 PD. Something doesn�t sound right here�
more...
house christina aguilera 2011 weight
unitednations
07-17 12:08 PM
UN..
from your experience...
I would like to file for my GC filed thru my ex-employer in 2003, i140 also is approved and hoping the dates might be current in October.
I know it is safest route to join the ex-employer before filing 485,but I am not sure if he has a project around that time for me. The HR is always ready to give the required employment letter to hire me as a full time employee once I get my permanent residence card.
Now, my question is it safe to take this route, cos once we get the EAD and advance parole we will start using them with the spouse starting to work(so no more H4 status etc)..or any hitches as to during the interview will we have a hard time as to why I was not employed during 485 stage etc..
All the cases I see is people r filing 485 working with the current employer and plan to change jobs after 6 months..but my case is different..
Have you seen/known anyone getting GC without working for the sponsoring employer during time time of filing 485..?
I am of the opinion that one should stay on h-1b as long as possible. As you can see a lot of people have started to go through their status issues. If one starts using EAD and employer revokes 140 then you will be in big problems.
Yes; I do know people who got greencard based on future base employment. Before Jan., 2005 it was an automatic interview if a person wasn't working with the petitioning employer when they filed the 485. However; now it doesn't cause an automatic interview.
When USCIS asks for tax returns/w2's in their RFE; they are checking whether you maintained status and also whether it is reasonable that you will be taking the job. That is; if you are currently employed with company a and your w2 is $120,000 but you are getting greencard through company b and the offered wage is $80,000 then uscis will question your intention.
from your experience...
I would like to file for my GC filed thru my ex-employer in 2003, i140 also is approved and hoping the dates might be current in October.
I know it is safest route to join the ex-employer before filing 485,but I am not sure if he has a project around that time for me. The HR is always ready to give the required employment letter to hire me as a full time employee once I get my permanent residence card.
Now, my question is it safe to take this route, cos once we get the EAD and advance parole we will start using them with the spouse starting to work(so no more H4 status etc)..or any hitches as to during the interview will we have a hard time as to why I was not employed during 485 stage etc..
All the cases I see is people r filing 485 working with the current employer and plan to change jobs after 6 months..but my case is different..
Have you seen/known anyone getting GC without working for the sponsoring employer during time time of filing 485..?
I am of the opinion that one should stay on h-1b as long as possible. As you can see a lot of people have started to go through their status issues. If one starts using EAD and employer revokes 140 then you will be in big problems.
Yes; I do know people who got greencard based on future base employment. Before Jan., 2005 it was an automatic interview if a person wasn't working with the petitioning employer when they filed the 485. However; now it doesn't cause an automatic interview.
When USCIS asks for tax returns/w2's in their RFE; they are checking whether you maintained status and also whether it is reasonable that you will be taking the job. That is; if you are currently employed with company a and your w2 is $120,000 but you are getting greencard through company b and the offered wage is $80,000 then uscis will question your intention.
tattoo Christina Aguilera 2011 Photo
singhsa3
10-01 05:10 PM
God knows what in store for us. Nothing except our determination is in our favor.
more...
pictures Christina Performs @ 2011
mariner5555
04-20 01:04 AM
since nothing much is happening - I thought that I would post this - seems like a worst case scenario -but who knows ..some of his predictions have already come true ..this was interview on mar 24.
---------
Q. Where are home prices going?
A. Two years ago, I predicted home prices would fall cumulatively 20%, but now I believe it will be at least 30%.
With a 20% fall in home prices, about 16 million households are under water. They have negative equity, which means the value of their homes is below the value of their mortgages. With a 30% drop in prices, you have 21 million households that are in negative equity. And since the mortgages are no-recourse loans, essentially they can walk away.
Even if only half of the 16 million households were to walk away, that alone could lead to losses for the financial system of $1 trillion. Even a 20% drop in home values may imply losses of $1 trillion that are not priced into the market today. So that's the floor. Again, it could be higher — as much as $2 trillion — if prices fall 30% and more people walk.
Q. You are predicting problems in commercial real estate, which we haven't seen yet. When do you expect the crisis to hit?
A. The same kind of reckless lending practices that occurred in subprime also occurred in commercial real estate — things like really high loan-to-value ratios and inflated estimations of how much rent would increase. If you look at the CMBX index (which tracks bonds backed by real estate loans), the spreads imply a huge number of defaults on existing commercial real estate loans. More important, the market for new commercial real estate loans is totally frozen, like the one for subprime new originations.
Q. But when will this happen?
A. That shoe has not dropped yet. But I expect the severe recession in residential housing will lead to a severe recession in commercial real estate. The reason is simple: If you go west, you have entire ghost towns outside of Phoenix, Las Vegas and throughout California. Who is going to be building new shopping centers, shopping malls, offices and stores where you have ghost towns? Also, there has been a lot of commercial real estate activity in the last couple of years, including a huge increase in retail capacity at a time of consumer-led recession. So, I expect [a commercial real estate] collapse will occur in the next few quarters.
Q. How bad will things get?
A. I would argue this is the worst financial crisis the U.S. has had since the Great Depression. We haven't seen this type of real financial turmoil for the last 70 years. Of course, it's not going to be as bad as the Great Depression. But this isn't your typical run-of-the-mill recession that in the last two episodes lasted only eight months with a minor contraction in output. This is going to last at least 12 months and more likely 18 months, which is something we haven't seen in decades.
Q. So you expect the economy to start turning around in mid-2009?
A. The real economic activity, yes. But some parts of the system are going to be in a severe contraction for much longer; home prices are going to keep falling for another three years, in my view. And the financial mess is going to take years to clean up.
-----------------------------
---------
Q. Where are home prices going?
A. Two years ago, I predicted home prices would fall cumulatively 20%, but now I believe it will be at least 30%.
With a 20% fall in home prices, about 16 million households are under water. They have negative equity, which means the value of their homes is below the value of their mortgages. With a 30% drop in prices, you have 21 million households that are in negative equity. And since the mortgages are no-recourse loans, essentially they can walk away.
Even if only half of the 16 million households were to walk away, that alone could lead to losses for the financial system of $1 trillion. Even a 20% drop in home values may imply losses of $1 trillion that are not priced into the market today. So that's the floor. Again, it could be higher — as much as $2 trillion — if prices fall 30% and more people walk.
Q. You are predicting problems in commercial real estate, which we haven't seen yet. When do you expect the crisis to hit?
A. The same kind of reckless lending practices that occurred in subprime also occurred in commercial real estate — things like really high loan-to-value ratios and inflated estimations of how much rent would increase. If you look at the CMBX index (which tracks bonds backed by real estate loans), the spreads imply a huge number of defaults on existing commercial real estate loans. More important, the market for new commercial real estate loans is totally frozen, like the one for subprime new originations.
Q. But when will this happen?
A. That shoe has not dropped yet. But I expect the severe recession in residential housing will lead to a severe recession in commercial real estate. The reason is simple: If you go west, you have entire ghost towns outside of Phoenix, Las Vegas and throughout California. Who is going to be building new shopping centers, shopping malls, offices and stores where you have ghost towns? Also, there has been a lot of commercial real estate activity in the last couple of years, including a huge increase in retail capacity at a time of consumer-led recession. So, I expect [a commercial real estate] collapse will occur in the next few quarters.
Q. How bad will things get?
A. I would argue this is the worst financial crisis the U.S. has had since the Great Depression. We haven't seen this type of real financial turmoil for the last 70 years. Of course, it's not going to be as bad as the Great Depression. But this isn't your typical run-of-the-mill recession that in the last two episodes lasted only eight months with a minor contraction in output. This is going to last at least 12 months and more likely 18 months, which is something we haven't seen in decades.
Q. So you expect the economy to start turning around in mid-2009?
A. The real economic activity, yes. But some parts of the system are going to be in a severe contraction for much longer; home prices are going to keep falling for another three years, in my view. And the financial mess is going to take years to clean up.
-----------------------------
dresses christina aguilera 2011 fat.
amsgc
08-06 11:21 PM
.
more...
makeup Christina @ 2011 Super Bowl
vivid_bharti
06-23 03:47 PM
I'm surprised nobody is even considering the other aspect i.e. the pleasure to live in your own house. We people are living in US in a small sized appt. while we bought houses in India, which is on rent. You will never know the pleasure of living in your own space...
girlfriend Christina Aguilera covers
xyzgc
12-27 12:25 AM
So what in your opinion is the reason for the state and the government of Pakistan to provoke India, with the risk of starting a war with India that Pakistan cannot win, at a time when the economy is in a very very bad shape and there are multiple insurgencies and regular suicide attacks within Pakistan?
You do have a valid point. Pakis would be insane to indulge in proxy wars at this time - when their pants are around their ankles.
But surely you are well-aware that they have done it in the past and now its all back firing!
The killer bees they nutured are coming back and biting them. And what are they doing to stop them from biting Indians? Nothing!
That is the problem. Which is why Indians need to raid these terrorist camps. Because Paki govt is not doing its job to control the very monster they created.
You do have a valid point. Pakis would be insane to indulge in proxy wars at this time - when their pants are around their ankles.
But surely you are well-aware that they have done it in the past and now its all back firing!
The killer bees they nutured are coming back and biting them. And what are they doing to stop them from biting Indians? Nothing!
That is the problem. Which is why Indians need to raid these terrorist camps. Because Paki govt is not doing its job to control the very monster they created.
hairstyles Christina Aguilera Zuhair
sayantan76
12-29 11:20 PM
I agree with you. British occupied USA and India at around same time (1600) and USA got it's independence by 1789 and we had to wait until 1947. UK was very badly hurt post second world war and had to borrow money heavily from USA to pay for veterans and keep war time employment rates. Clement Atlee in his wisdom thought that UK can not maintain it's empire any longer and let go of colonies. Winston Churchill was opposed to this but could not prevail over Atlee. I admire Mahatma immensely. But let us not kid ourselves that we got independence solely based on peaceful independence struggle. To all those peaceniks, if you think non-violence is such a great weapon, why can't we scratch the whole army and use that massive defence budget for something else? If we are maintaining an army, we are going to use it some time.
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
at the risk of adding to this "no longer relevant" thread - there is a huge difference between US and India gaining independence.....in case of the former - it was some Britishers now settled in America fighting other Britishers (loyalists to the throne) for autonomy and independence......
India was perhaps the first successful example of natives gaining independence from a colonial European power....
also - to brush up on some more history - India was not occupied in 1600 - actually East India Company was established in that year.....the real establishment and consolidation of territorial control happened between two historical events (Battle of Plassey in 1757 and Sepoy Mutiny in 1857).....if we consider the 1757 date as start of colonization in true earnest - then India was independent in 190 years (1947 - 1757) against your calculation of 189 years for USA (as per your post - 1789-1600) - so not bad for a mostly non-violent struggle :-)
Also - one of the reasons Atlee thought it was too expensive to maintain colonies was because of all the Quit India and Civil Disobedience type regular movements -these movements took much political and military bandwidth that Britain simply did not have after the war.....if maitaining a colony was easy sailing - i doubt Britain would have given it up easily and we have to credit the non-violent movements for helping India becoming a pain in the neck for Britain......
qplearn
11-15 11:09 AM
This guy changes sides based on the audience, check out his latest rhetoric, looks like he is feeling the heat from the results of the current elections:
...Zakaria refers to "CNN's Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes" and Jonathan Alter describes those who agree with me as "nativist Lou Dobbsians." But Alter and Zakaria are far too bright to not know better. I've never once called for a restriction on legal immigration -- in fact, I've called for an increase, if it can be demonstrated that as a matter of public policy the nation requires more than the one million people we bring into this country legally each year.....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html
Actually Lou Dobbs is attempting to paint a picture in which Dems who have won support his stand. Fact is that Dems have won, thanks to Lou Dobbs, because they were OPPOSED to his stand. Perhaps a desperate attempt to save his job at CNN :)
...Zakaria refers to "CNN's Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes" and Jonathan Alter describes those who agree with me as "nativist Lou Dobbsians." But Alter and Zakaria are far too bright to not know better. I've never once called for a restriction on legal immigration -- in fact, I've called for an increase, if it can be demonstrated that as a matter of public policy the nation requires more than the one million people we bring into this country legally each year.....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html
Actually Lou Dobbs is attempting to paint a picture in which Dems who have won support his stand. Fact is that Dems have won, thanks to Lou Dobbs, because they were OPPOSED to his stand. Perhaps a desperate attempt to save his job at CNN :)
h1techSlave
12-26 01:38 PM
A full fledged war between India and Pakistan is very very unlikely.
