Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
wallpaper Selena Gómez y Justin Bieber
axl271
06-23 11:50 AM
I was laid off in early April, and the employer told me that they would revoke my H1B 30 days later (early May).
Now finally I get a job offer. The new employer can start to work on my h1b now, but the starting date will be late July.
I have an EAD right now based on my approved 140 and pending 485 (>=180days)
I talked with my attorney, and he said I would definitely have to go back to re-activate my H1B abroad, so I should use EAD instead of doing H1B.
Is it true that I have to go abroad to re-activate my h1B? I saw some people transferred sucessfully
Any thoughts? Thank you very much.
Now finally I get a job offer. The new employer can start to work on my h1b now, but the starting date will be late July.
I have an EAD right now based on my approved 140 and pending 485 (>=180days)
I talked with my attorney, and he said I would definitely have to go back to re-activate my H1B abroad, so I should use EAD instead of doing H1B.
Is it true that I have to go abroad to re-activate my h1B? I saw some people transferred sucessfully
Any thoughts? Thank you very much.
Blog Feeds
08-24 02:00 PM
When she and her husband called me, she thought that she qualified for benefits under CSPA. Initially, I was skeptical. In every seminar regarding the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) that I have presented on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), my mantra has always been, if you marry, you lose whatever benefits you gained under CSPA. Still I listened to what she had to say, and in the end, I agreed with her. She and her husband were both physicians, born in India and trained in the U.S. They both would have qualified for permanent residence in...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/08/cspa-for-married-couples.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/carlshusterman/2009/08/cspa-for-married-couples.html)
2011 fotos de selena gomez y justin
saurav_4096
06-03 10:27 AM
Dear Core Team,
What is IV's stand on people still stuck in LC backlog in PEBC/DEBC, There are applications pending there since 2001/2002. If this becomes law that I-140 filed after May 2007 will be rejected then the biggest impact will be on such people as even labor is not cleared and even after waiting for so long they will lose everything.
Saurav
What is IV's stand on people still stuck in LC backlog in PEBC/DEBC, There are applications pending there since 2001/2002. If this becomes law that I-140 filed after May 2007 will be rejected then the biggest impact will be on such people as even labor is not cleared and even after waiting for so long they will lose everything.
Saurav
more...
sufiyan_ansari
03-28 08:38 AM
At runtime or in Expression Blend?
Thank God Kirupa u replied... pheww...
Yep at Runtime and in Expression Blend..
Desc: I have a listbox populated with 100x100 images... i want to drag it from here and drop in onto an InkCanvas where i have drawn something.
Eg: I have drawn a house and i want to drop an image that describes the colour that must be filled. Hence the images wd be bold colour boxes that would indicate a colour.
Plz help :puzzle:
Thank God Kirupa u replied... pheww...
Yep at Runtime and in Expression Blend..
Desc: I have a listbox populated with 100x100 images... i want to drag it from here and drop in onto an InkCanvas where i have drawn something.
Eg: I have drawn a house and i want to drop an image that describes the colour that must be filled. Hence the images wd be bold colour boxes that would indicate a colour.
Plz help :puzzle:
tcsonly
07-23 12:02 PM
^^^
more...
satyasrd
09-18 11:01 AM
Hi,
My kid brother (15 years old and US Citizen) lives in India with my parents. They are quite elderly now to take care of him and we were thinking of bringing him to US legally to live with us. We want to adopt him so that he can have a good lifestyle here and have no issues legally in future. Is there anyone who has gone through similar case before ? Also, I wanted to ask if there are any attorneys that specialize in cases like these ? If so please let me know and I would like to hold a consultation asap.
Thank you for reading.
My kid brother (15 years old and US Citizen) lives in India with my parents. They are quite elderly now to take care of him and we were thinking of bringing him to US legally to live with us. We want to adopt him so that he can have a good lifestyle here and have no issues legally in future. Is there anyone who has gone through similar case before ? Also, I wanted to ask if there are any attorneys that specialize in cases like these ? If so please let me know and I would like to hold a consultation asap.
Thank you for reading.
2010 justin bieber y selena gomez
JBattwann
12-17 06:54 PM
hi all,
I've found myself in abit of a predicament. My application for H1B extension is still pending (filed in September) and all I have right now is a Notice of Action from the immigration department.
While waiting, I have been laid off this week... I intend to return back to my home country before my last day (Dec 31).
My question is: Would I be able to make a round trip? That is to say, come back to the US on a tourist visa a week after I got home? I need to come back to sell what I own here and settle other things.
A friend told me that it is better to overstay for however long (maybe an extra week, I don't plan on too long) I need to get my things in order than try to take the chance of coming back. What do you think?
I appreciate any advice you can give.
James
I've found myself in abit of a predicament. My application for H1B extension is still pending (filed in September) and all I have right now is a Notice of Action from the immigration department.
While waiting, I have been laid off this week... I intend to return back to my home country before my last day (Dec 31).
My question is: Would I be able to make a round trip? That is to say, come back to the US on a tourist visa a week after I got home? I need to come back to sell what I own here and settle other things.
A friend told me that it is better to overstay for however long (maybe an extra week, I don't plan on too long) I need to get my things in order than try to take the chance of coming back. What do you think?
I appreciate any advice you can give.
James
more...
martinvisalaw
02-23 06:01 PM
I assume that your girlfriend is a US citizen. See here for the permanent residence (PR) procedure: Family-based Marriage Immigration categories - Elaine Martin Attorney (http://martinvisalaw.com/family_lpr.html). Getting married or starting the PR process should not affect your company's L-1 extension petition.
hair justin bieber y selena gomez
immivoice123
01-12 10:54 AM
technically you r eligible for 3 years
more...
natrajs
08-13 10:23 PM
My I - 140 was filed in TSC and approved and I-485 also sent to TSC
hot justin bieber y selena gomez
anand_bbb
04-13 08:47 AM
Hi
I am on H1B visa and married to a mexican citizen for past 2 years. we both have been living in mexico for past 2 years ( i am working as an Expat). 4 years ago my wife was in US on a Tourist visa and attended community school to learn English. she left the country in 6 months but while re-entering she mentioned her going to school to the agent upon which they processed a expedited removal and put a 5 year ban. She will complete her 5 years in Feb 2012. We are going to have a baby soon and would like to move to US next year after her 5 years are complete. i want to apply for a H4 visa for my wife and my baby. Will her expedited removal cause a problem with H4 application? thanks in advance.
I am on H1B visa and married to a mexican citizen for past 2 years. we both have been living in mexico for past 2 years ( i am working as an Expat). 4 years ago my wife was in US on a Tourist visa and attended community school to learn English. she left the country in 6 months but while re-entering she mentioned her going to school to the agent upon which they processed a expedited removal and put a 5 year ban. She will complete her 5 years in Feb 2012. We are going to have a baby soon and would like to move to US next year after her 5 years are complete. i want to apply for a H4 visa for my wife and my baby. Will her expedited removal cause a problem with H4 application? thanks in advance.
more...
house Justin Bieber аnԁ Selena
boston_gc
04-14 06:39 PM
Does anyone know when house/senate going to take any action on EB retrogression? Or may be my guess is as good as anyone's??
tattoo Beso de Justin Bieber y Selena
Macaca
09-27 05:46 PM
Bill Would Protect Frosh on Immigration (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_30/news/20086-1.html) By Jennifer Yachnin | ROLL CALL STAFF, September 20, 2007
House Democratic leaders are drafting a resolution designed to inoculate freshman lawmakers on the issue of immigration, despite concerns from within their own Caucus about reopening debate over the contentious topic.
According to several freshman Democratic lawmakers in attendance at a weekly breakfast meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Members were told to prepare statements on the resolution, which will endorse laws already on the books that prevent illegal immigrants from participating in taxpayer-funded programs, such as Social Security or food stamps.
In a draft of the resolution obtained by Roll Call, the measure expresses the sense of the House "with respect to the importance of upholding federal immigration laws and ensuring the integrity and security of the borders of the United States."
In addition to the language on public benefits, the draft resolution also contains provisions calling on the executive branch to enforce laws on voter fraud and border security.
But one House lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said some senior Members have objected to the proposal over concerns that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to limit the scope of the debate. The House largely abandoned plans to pursue a comprehensive immigration reform bill earlier this year after the Senate failed to cut off debate on its own version of the legislation, effectively killing the bill.
Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) began work on the resolution earlier this month in response to repeated Republican efforts to force votes on immigration on the House floor through the use of procedural amendments.
"We're trying to figure out a way we can do this and maintain party unity on the motions ... without making it a crisis," said one Democratic lawmaker, who is a member of the Whip operation.
Although one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified since plans have not been finalized, said the measure could move to the floor as early as next week, a House leadership aide said it is unlikely to be that soon.
To date, Democratic leaders have not demanded that Members vote against all motions to recommit - a procedural tool that can be used by the minority party immediately before a vote on final passage of a bill - unless the amendment contains language that would shelve the legislation.
"I've resisted motions to recommit unless they're substantive and then I'll vote for them," explained Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a freshman lawmaker who has faced attacks from the National Republican Congressional Committee for votes against some GOP-authored amendments on immigration.
"It's frustrating to me," Walz added, criticizing the amendments as political footballs. "I'm appreciative that our leadership lets us vote accordingly."
But that policy led to some confusion on the House floor in early August during a vote on a GOP-authored amendment to the Agriculture spending bill to prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing certain federally funded programs, with nearly 20 Democrats initially voting in favor of the proposal.
Republicans allege that the Democratic majority mishandled that vote, resulting in the defeat of the measure. GOP leaders assert that a tied 214-214 vote - rending a defeat - announced by the Speaker Pro Tem was inaccurate and that the motion had in fact passed 215-213 as Republicans changed their votes.
But Democrats dispute that version of events, noting that their own Members were changing votes on the House floor, resulting in the final tally of 212-216.
The dispute prompted the establishment of a select committee to investigate the vote, which is scheduled to hold its first meeting this morning, and produce an interim report Sept. 30.
Republican Rep. Tom Price (Ga.), who has sponsored similar amendments addressing the use of federal funds to assist illegal immigrants, including a measure that failed Tuesday night on a federal housing bill, expressed interest in the Democratic proposal.
"I'd love to be able to talk with them about it and work on it," Price said. He could not say whether such a measure would deter him from offering such amendments in the future without seeing the details of the bill.
"When I talk to folks at home they want to know why we're not including this language on every single piece of legislation," he added.
House Democratic leaders are drafting a resolution designed to inoculate freshman lawmakers on the issue of immigration, despite concerns from within their own Caucus about reopening debate over the contentious topic.
According to several freshman Democratic lawmakers in attendance at a weekly breakfast meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Members were told to prepare statements on the resolution, which will endorse laws already on the books that prevent illegal immigrants from participating in taxpayer-funded programs, such as Social Security or food stamps.
In a draft of the resolution obtained by Roll Call, the measure expresses the sense of the House "with respect to the importance of upholding federal immigration laws and ensuring the integrity and security of the borders of the United States."
In addition to the language on public benefits, the draft resolution also contains provisions calling on the executive branch to enforce laws on voter fraud and border security.
But one House lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said some senior Members have objected to the proposal over concerns that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to limit the scope of the debate. The House largely abandoned plans to pursue a comprehensive immigration reform bill earlier this year after the Senate failed to cut off debate on its own version of the legislation, effectively killing the bill.
Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) began work on the resolution earlier this month in response to repeated Republican efforts to force votes on immigration on the House floor through the use of procedural amendments.
"We're trying to figure out a way we can do this and maintain party unity on the motions ... without making it a crisis," said one Democratic lawmaker, who is a member of the Whip operation.
Although one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified since plans have not been finalized, said the measure could move to the floor as early as next week, a House leadership aide said it is unlikely to be that soon.
To date, Democratic leaders have not demanded that Members vote against all motions to recommit - a procedural tool that can be used by the minority party immediately before a vote on final passage of a bill - unless the amendment contains language that would shelve the legislation.
"I've resisted motions to recommit unless they're substantive and then I'll vote for them," explained Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a freshman lawmaker who has faced attacks from the National Republican Congressional Committee for votes against some GOP-authored amendments on immigration.
"It's frustrating to me," Walz added, criticizing the amendments as political footballs. "I'm appreciative that our leadership lets us vote accordingly."
But that policy led to some confusion on the House floor in early August during a vote on a GOP-authored amendment to the Agriculture spending bill to prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing certain federally funded programs, with nearly 20 Democrats initially voting in favor of the proposal.
Republicans allege that the Democratic majority mishandled that vote, resulting in the defeat of the measure. GOP leaders assert that a tied 214-214 vote - rending a defeat - announced by the Speaker Pro Tem was inaccurate and that the motion had in fact passed 215-213 as Republicans changed their votes.
But Democrats dispute that version of events, noting that their own Members were changing votes on the House floor, resulting in the final tally of 212-216.
The dispute prompted the establishment of a select committee to investigate the vote, which is scheduled to hold its first meeting this morning, and produce an interim report Sept. 30.
Republican Rep. Tom Price (Ga.), who has sponsored similar amendments addressing the use of federal funds to assist illegal immigrants, including a measure that failed Tuesday night on a federal housing bill, expressed interest in the Democratic proposal.
"I'd love to be able to talk with them about it and work on it," Price said. He could not say whether such a measure would deter him from offering such amendments in the future without seeing the details of the bill.
"When I talk to folks at home they want to know why we're not including this language on every single piece of legislation," he added.
more...
pictures justin bieber y selena gomez
Macaca
02-19 01:35 PM
Some paras from Almost Everyone Lies, Often Seeing It as a Kindness (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021800915.html).
The perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby goes to the jury this week. The case speaks to several issues -- how the Bush administration deals with critics of the war in Iraq, and the games that Washington's reporters and politicians play with each other. As far as the jury is concerned, however, the case is about only one thing: lying.
One particularly well-qualified witness on this subject was not called by either the prosecution or the defense, so today we cross-examine Robert Feldman ourselves. Feldman is a social psychologist at the University of Massachusetts who studies lying in everyday life, and his findings are just the kind of thing that Libby's lawyers could have pounced on.
Feldman's experiments show that stern-faced judicial proceedings about perjury are as remote from the realities of human behavior as President Bush is from the Nobel Peace Prize. For one thing, lying plays a more complex role in human relationships than the black-and-white legal view recognizes. It is also so commonplace in everyday life that putting people on trial for lying is somewhat like putting them on trial for breathing.
Experiments have found that ordinary people tell about two lies every 10 minutes, with some people getting in as many as a dozen falsehoods in that period. More interestingly -- and Libby might see this as the silver lining if he is found guilty -- Feldman also found that liars tend to be more popular than honest people. (Ever notice how popular politicians somehow change their minds on controversial issues such as the war in Iraq at the exact moment that public opinion on those issues changes?)
The perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby goes to the jury this week. The case speaks to several issues -- how the Bush administration deals with critics of the war in Iraq, and the games that Washington's reporters and politicians play with each other. As far as the jury is concerned, however, the case is about only one thing: lying.
One particularly well-qualified witness on this subject was not called by either the prosecution or the defense, so today we cross-examine Robert Feldman ourselves. Feldman is a social psychologist at the University of Massachusetts who studies lying in everyday life, and his findings are just the kind of thing that Libby's lawyers could have pounced on.
Feldman's experiments show that stern-faced judicial proceedings about perjury are as remote from the realities of human behavior as President Bush is from the Nobel Peace Prize. For one thing, lying plays a more complex role in human relationships than the black-and-white legal view recognizes. It is also so commonplace in everyday life that putting people on trial for lying is somewhat like putting them on trial for breathing.
Experiments have found that ordinary people tell about two lies every 10 minutes, with some people getting in as many as a dozen falsehoods in that period. More interestingly -- and Libby might see this as the silver lining if he is found guilty -- Feldman also found that liars tend to be more popular than honest people. (Ever notice how popular politicians somehow change their minds on controversial issues such as the war in Iraq at the exact moment that public opinion on those issues changes?)
dresses Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
kirupa
09-13 02:26 AM
This thread is designed to help collect discussion on the Simple Page Navigation (http://www.kirupa.com/windowsphone/simple_page_navigation.htm) tutorial.
Feel free to drop in :)
Cheers,
Kirupa :mario:
Feel free to drop in :)
Cheers,
Kirupa :mario:
more...
makeup tattoo Beso de Selena Gómez y
sdckkbc
03-23 06:24 PM
I have I-140 approved from my old employer. My new employer is starting my PERM. We plan to port my old priority date. My question is at what stage of GC process from new emplyer can the old priority date be proted - PERM, I-140 or I485?
girlfriend justin bieber y selena gomez
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.
hairstyles Beso de Justin Bieber y Selena
ameryki
10-15 11:22 PM
Wife need to go to India for emergency. Advance Parole expired. Can she already leave while I apply AP now ? Or does she have to be in country until we get it ? Can i apply now and send it to her once i get it here ?
How much time normally it takes if we apply now ?
she has to be in country until she gets it
How much time normally it takes if we apply now ?
she has to be in country until she gets it
Mark101
05-03 07:56 AM
Hi,
My situation -
I am a homemaker on H4 since 2007. ( My husband on H1 ).
Doing MS on H4 ( with few credits still to go )( not full time ).
H4 is due stamping ( Already extended till 2012 ).
Objective -
- To be on F1, to utilize CPT / OPT.
QUESTIONS -
QUESTION - - Which one is better H4 to F1 in US via change of status - I-539 ( BUT That
way i had to face the consulate again for F1 stamping ( Also, very few
credits are left with my MS as in now ))
OR
Directly F1 Visa stamping at
US consulate in India ( It'll be surely fast, that way i won't have to go back for stamping with very few credits left ) ?
My situation -
I am a homemaker on H4 since 2007. ( My husband on H1 ).
Doing MS on H4 ( with few credits still to go )( not full time ).
H4 is due stamping ( Already extended till 2012 ).
Objective -
- To be on F1, to utilize CPT / OPT.
QUESTIONS -
QUESTION - - Which one is better H4 to F1 in US via change of status - I-539 ( BUT That
way i had to face the consulate again for F1 stamping ( Also, very few
credits are left with my MS as in now ))
OR
Directly F1 Visa stamping at
US consulate in India ( It'll be surely fast, that way i won't have to go back for stamping with very few credits left ) ?
kirupa
05-10 03:22 PM
Your post is extremely scarce on details :) What exactly are you trying to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment