IllinoisDave

Of course, we could all just join the PRO-GUN LOBBY in the TC with their campaign to influence (spam) a Cook County election Jeez. What have I been missing over there? I better go see.

I agree 100% Smitty. And I'm not advocating the US barge in with troops. It IS about getting China to put political pressure on Sudan because they may be able to do something. If they would try, then a military solution of any kind could possibly be avoided. This thread was about George Clooney advocating that and somehow turned into a screed against the UN and the usual Hollywood bashing for no other reason than it's Hollywood. I'm a little tired,frankly, of people using "Hollywood" as a convenient scapegoat for society's ills. Please believe me, I'm not trying to start a fight. However: You fail to address the horrors of UN intervention across the world. The best-meaning attempts to help people turn into the worst abuses of power and corruption. But when I point that out, you just dismiss me as cynical. That's why I cannot get behind movements like this. They seem to be emotion-based, rather than a rigorous attempt to intervene at the minimum necessary to help people get started on fixing their own problems. In my study of history, it seems clear that imposing a solution from the outside (which you are advocating) makes things worse 95% of the time. Human interactions are as complex as biological ecologies, and intervention should be just as cautious. Or else you end up causing more suffering than you save. If that's cynical, so be it. First of all, please go back through my posts and find where I advocated sending in UN troops. I've mentioned the UN a total of once up to now. That was in my previous post referring to your anti-UN screed. (now it's four, counting the three in this paragraph) I started out advocating for George Clooney and other's right to use their celebrity/fame/pull or whatever to draw attention to the role China could possibly play in pressuring Sudan to do something about the Darfur crisis. And yes, I believe it is a crisis, as do many others. Only after you suggested that China's method,which by the way had been to do absolutely nothing while reaping huge economic benefits, doesn't hurt either, did I even hint at intervention by anyone other than China and by any means other than economic pressure. YOU brought up the UN and then proceeded into an unsolicited diatribe against it. Now it would be disingenuous of me to not acknowledge that one possible interventionist scenario would be to have the UN get involved. But up to now, I've the only specific suggestion I've talked about is China's putting political and/or economic pressure on Sudan. So let's talk about the UN. The main reason I didn't address your "horrors" is that I do tend to tune out the tired old anti-UN mantra put forth by people like John Bolten and Fox News, just as I tend to tune out the same sort of thing about the "evil Hollywood types" that I hear so often from some of the same people. So while I may be guilty of not addressing what you call "the horrors" of UN missions, you're equally as guilty of cherry-picking the negatives and ignoring the positives. The UN has bungled some missions,some badly. Has it been poorly run at times in the past? Sure. But they're far from the abject failure you portray them as. Here is a link to an article addressing that along with a short quote from the article that says it better than I can. It's from 2005 so the numbers may have changed but the gist is still relevant I think: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20...z1e24water.html "The problem is that we tend to remember failures and discount success. We remember Rwanda and forget successful operations in El Salvador, Mozambique and Nambia. We focus on Kosovo, where the U.N. mission met stiff resistance, and forget Cyprus, where the United Nations has preserved the peace since 1964. We remember the disaster in Somalia and forget the mission in Kashmir, where the "blue hats" of the United Nations have played a role in keeping the peace between the nuclear powers of India and Pakistan since 1949. Today, there are 18 peacekeeping missions in the world with more requests for new missions than the United Nations can handle. If U.N. peacekeeping has failed, why does this demand exist?" I agree with you that outside intervention should not be entered into lightly and only as a last resort. But even if your 95% figure is accurate, that leaves 5%. I would suggest that estimates of upwards of 200,000 dead and 2.5 million driven from their homes http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/11/africa/11darfur.php qualifies Darfur for that 5%. EDIT: This response to AM took me awhile to write. While doing so, quite a few people posted, including Carl in an attempt to steer back on topic. I agree with him and part of my post addresses that. The rest was not an attempt to ignore Carl, just to respond to AM.

I agree 100% Smitty. And I'm not advocating the US barge in with troops. It IS about getting China to put political pressure on Sudan because they may be able to do something. If they would try, then a military solution of any kind could possibly be avoided. This thread was about George Clooney advocating that and somehow turned into a screed against the UN and the usual Hollywood bashing for no other reason than it's Hollywood. I'm a little tired,frankly, of people using "Hollywood" as a convenient scapegoat for society's ills.

As usual you make very strong points AM. But I do think you're last paragraph wraps things up a little too simply. Do you not think the non-Arabs who are the target of the Gov't/Jangaweed want their situation straightened out? Do you really think they have the ability/resources to straighten it out themselves? The vast majority of those victims are simple farmers/herders who have very little with which to defend themselves against the government-backed Jangaweed militias. Should the rest of the world continue to just sit by again and take your non-interventionist stance while ethnic cleansing takes place on a massive scale? I don't know. Who speaks for the "rest of the world"? And what exactly does the "rest of the world" want done? Because I'm thinking that letting a bunch of UN bureaucrats trade food for sex won't help the Sudanese that much. Or sending in UN troops that help as much as the Danish troops did when they stood by and allowed hundreds of Muslim to be slaughtered while they stood by...that didn't do much good, either. That's the problem, in my opinion: There's too much of "do something!", and not enough consideration of what that something really should be. Millions of people die every year. I'm thinking (although I could be wrong), that more people die in car accidents in the US in one year than of violence in the Sudan. That doesn't mean that I think we should do nothing until we solve the car accident problem. What I mean is that the only way we could eradicate car accidents would be to completely outlaw cars. So what do you want to do to stop violence in Sudan? Outlaw freedom of speech of assembly? Imposing Drop a hydrogen bomb? Either solution is a little extreme. Let's say you're right and the people want help...what price are they willing to pay to get help? Martial law for 2 decades? Even greater dependency on Europe's social welfare system? The collapse of their economy? The rise of an even worse dictator? You cannot guarantee that these things won't happen, because unintended consequences happen all the time. Who decides all this? The "rest of the world"? US urban area academics and entertainers? Belgium? Are the Sudanese begging George Clooney (Pleaese, Obi-George Ke-Clooney, you're our only hope!) to help? Or is he assuming an awful lot? I vote the latter. I'm old enough now to be suspicious of anyone who claims there is a crisis but expects other people to take the risks and pay the price. I'll consider it a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis act like it's a crisis. When George Clooney stands in front of a tank, I'll take him seriously. When he gives enough of his own money so that he has to live off of $50k a year, I'll take him seriously. Let me repeat that for emphasis: When everyone who says something must be done is willing to risk their own safety/security (instead of someone else's), then I'll believe it's a big deal. I'm not advocating non-intervention. I'm advocating personal responsibility and clear objectives and methods to reach those objectives for clear and finite reasons. And then doing what needs to be done without worrying about what anyone else thinks, says, or does. I think that's sorely lacking in this situation. Well, you're entitled to your cynicism. Good luck with that.

Congrats! Doesn't sound like it was too painful.

What about when they go TO China? They still go through the citizen's line right? Sure ... into and out of China as they are Chinese citizens with Chinese passports ... I do the Laowei lines. Thought so. Thanks Jim.

I called the USCIS and asked if a spouse is required to fill out a G-28 if he prepared the Green Card packet on his wife抯 behalf. The USCIS representative stated "the G-28 is only needed if a lawyer or company is hired to represent the applicant during the filing process, there is no need for a spouse to fill out and submit a G-28" They're right. It's not required. But later on, if you want to inquire about her case, you may have problems. The G-28 makes you her legal rep. and thus entitled to all the info she is. Unless the policy has completely changed. I haven't seen that in writing anywhere.

What about when they go TO China? They still go through the citizen's line right?

As usual you make very strong points AM. But I do think you're last paragraph wraps things up a little too simply. Do you not think the non-Arabs who are the target of the Gov't/Jangaweed want their situation straightened out? Do you really think they have the ability/resources to straighten it out themselves? The vast majority of those victims are simple farmers/herders who have very little with which to defend themselves against the government-backed Jangaweed militias. Should the rest of the world continue to just sit by again and take your non-interventionist stance while ethnic cleansing takes place on a massive scale?

Well, Dave, we KNOW what the problem is. It's the same one we are ALL facing around the world, in about 95% of all the conflicts out there. Why blame China? It's happening where China isn't even involved. I guess you could argue that this is the price the Chinese have to pay for being a world power now, but we still wouldn't be addressing the the real issue. It wasn't so long ago that China was 'third world'. They've done a good job of solving many of their own problems and have many more to come. Darfur isn't really one of them, is it? Our new president, whether it be Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, John Sidney McCain or someone else, should make a top level visit to China a top priority, hopefully to discuss a joint strategy. Best get on board together now because neither China nor the U.S. can go it alone on this one. This isn't about the other conflicts, this is about Darfur only. Didn't say we should blame China. George Clooney didn't say we should blame China. The point he and many others is making is that very few countries have the kind of influence with the Sudanese government that China does. China is in this unique situation because of their EXTENSIVE business dealings with them. Agreed that the next president should make China a/the top priority foreign policy-wise. That president won't be in office til Jan. of '09. Can't hurt to try and nudge China to try to do something in the meantime. Especially when so many lives are at stake NOW. OK, nobody 'blames' China, but the implicit threat is that China's Olympics may be sullied if China doesn't 'do something' about Darfur. I don't see that they have any more responsibility than anyone else does. That's all I'm saying. First Spielberg, now Clooney. Who's next? Maybe 'blame' isn't the right word, but somebody is thinking China has some responsibility. My point is that these people are messing with something that is very, very important to China, a country that recently emerged from third world status. I think the level of insensitivity is extreme and I'm wondering why China is the target. Maybe pressuring some other entity that has more direct ties to the ongoing genocide/religious war would be more justified and more productive? Just a thought... The reason people are putting pressure on China is because THEY CAN, precisely because the Olympics is very,very important to China. Up to now,China has been fairly insulated from outside pressure. They haven't really cared what the rest of the world thought or did because they really didn't have to. They didn't need the outside world (the West at least) for much of anything other than to buy their cheaply produced products. And they figured out long ago that the West's hunger for those cheap products overwhelmed any reluctance to buy from China based on their politics or human rights record. As everyone here knows, China is not stupid. But now they want to be seen in a positive light and be embraced by the rest of the world and want to use the Olympics to help accomplish that. Rightly or wrongly, some believe that one price you pay for being accepted onto the world stage is doing what you can to help end things like genocides in places like Darfur. The opportunities for the rest of the world to use leverage against China come few and far between. The Olympics happens to be one of those times. A simple Google search will show the extent to which China has sold arms to Sudan, bought their oil and protected them from any sanctions at the UN. They've done this while basically turning a blind eye to what's happening in Darfur, at least until very recently. It's all about the money. China has little interest in Sudan's politics and treatment of the people in Darfur. All they want is the money and oil to continue to flow. Can't blame them for that. In that respect they're not much different from us. Pressure from the US and other countries has had little effect on the Sudanese when it comes to Darfur. The killing just continues. The gov't sponsored Jangaweed continue to rape,pillage and murder. Many see the Chinese as the last chance to put any real pressure on them to stop it. That's why China is under pressure to do something now. They trade heavily with them. They are the last best chance to put pressure on them. They happen to be hosting the next Olympics. They have an incentive to get into the good graces of the rest of the world. So some see the confluence of these factors as a rare opportunity to pressure China to join with the rest of the civilized world and try to stop this genocide. Is it fair to China? I don't necessarily disagree with you Mike that it may not be. Is it insensitive? I don't think so given the stakes. Is it China's responsibility alone? No, of course not. But they happen to be the entity with the most potential to do some good. The good news is that the pressure has actually started to have some effect. China is slowly starting to change their stance on the issue. As we all know, change in China is slow. Those asking them to move faster know there isn't much time left.

Ken and Yirong and family. I'm so sorry to hear of Gerald's passing. You have our deepest sympathy. I wasn't involved in CFL for most of his Ski's time here but felt I knew him based on the admiration shown to him by the long-time members here. He obviously had a great impact on his both families, yours and ours. He will be greatly missed. Our thoughts are with your family. Dave and Christine

I believe as long as you disclose the fact in your filings that you met on the site you should be ok.

Well, Dave, we KNOW what the problem is. It's the same one we are ALL facing around the world, in about 95% of all the conflicts out there. Why blame China? It's happening where China isn't even involved. I guess you could argue that this is the price the Chinese have to pay for being a world power now, but we still wouldn't be addressing the the real issue. It wasn't so long ago that China was 'third world'. They've done a good job of solving many of their own problems and have many more to come. Darfur isn't really one of them, is it? Our new president, whether it be Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, John Sidney McCain or someone else, should make a top level visit to China a top priority, hopefully to discuss a joint strategy. Best get on board together now because neither China nor the U.S. can go it alone on this one. This isn't about the other conflicts, this is about Darfur only. Didn't say we should blame China. George Clooney didn't say we should blame China. The point he and many others is making is that very few countries have the kind of influence with the Sudanese government that China does. China is in this unique situation because of their EXTENSIVE business dealings with them. Agreed that the next president should make China a/the top priority foreign policy-wise. That president won't be in office til Jan. of '09. Can't hurt to try and nudge China to try to do something in the meantime. Especially when so many lives are at stake NOW.

We just went throught it. We got EAD/AP just about a month after biometrics. Didn't need them as GC came in just under two months.

Illinois corn in March??? Oh yeah global warming... You did say 2014. Illinois could have beachfront property on the Gulf of Mexico by then.

Nice place Rog. We're in. We'll bring corn on the cob.

It's that ton of money.............. Nope...it's because he was right. Also, Richard Gere is permanently banned from China for telling the truth....something that some people do not want to know anything about. Welcome to Candle Liuling. Way to jump right in with your first post.

Thank you.

I don't have my I-134 right in front of me but I believe we checked "Do not intend" as I believe this is refers to other visa applicants besides K-1/K-3. I could be wrong though. My wife's looking for our form at home now. I'll update when she finds it. Edit: Ok, I was right and wrong. We didn't check either box. We put "N/A K-1 visa process for permanent resident." I assume this pertains to K-3 as well. If not, someone (Dan or David) will correct me.

Maybe the Cubs could win the Chinese version of the World Series.

CONGRATS!! Welcome to the 21 month club.

Because when Im in China,its Mel Gibson/Tom Cruise/George Clooney they say I look like. Always one of those guys. Its not just me I bet.

Can you do them from China to US? If so wouldn't this solve the age old question of how to get RMB to the US? I must be missing something. It sounds to easy. Ya know i never though of this. But i Don't think so, Only for the reason i do not have access to the BANK OF CHINA wire transfer service. But i like that idea< maybe something to look into? I knew it was too good to be true. Thanks Mike.

Can you do them from China to US? If so wouldn't this solve the age old question of how to get RMB to the US? I must be missing something. It sounds to easy.

Interesting article on hukous. Gives some insight into what they mean. It's three pages. The numbers at the bottom are easy to miss. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-03...ent_6513573.htm