Tahoma

On a mac it's option+e (then sometimes e again)

Thanks hxxrmonkey...i was wondering about that.

Hi,

I haven't received the USEM appointment letter(hardcopy) yet.

Is the confirmation email enough to present to the guard during my interview?

Thanks for the advice Phil.

Yes, it is DS 157. Thanks for the correction. Wow, she just left it blank or did she just leave the date blank?

Also, When I print the DS 156 form, the 3rd page generated a barcode. On this page, there are also items # 30- 31(Additional visits to the us, additional visa issuances), is it ok that they are also blank or do I have to put NONE?

Will try to upgrade my acrobat and hope it will work.

~Baby

Congrats to you and Ruby.

You can get NBI clearance without police clearance.

Police clearance takes 2 working days for processing and requires Bgy clearance, cedula and 2x2 photos.

I tried to fill up the DS156K form but it wont accept any characters. Why is this so?

Is handwritten accepted?

I have no problem filling up the DS 156 and DS 157.

Also, did you put the exact date(mm-dd-yy) of your education history on DS 156 form? I cant recall the exact date of the schoolyear. I can only remember the month & year.

Any advice?

~Baby

Dear Tom,

We are very, very sorry for your loss.

Please allow yourself to grieve and take each day one day at a time.

We sincerely wish you peace and healing.

Hello there! We received the mail from the US Embassy the other day. We haven’t scheduled our interview appointment yet. My fiancé plans to call them tomorrow.

I want to ask, are we the one who choose the date or is it the people from the US embassy?

God bless us all!!!

Hello Guys!

Did you already schedule for an interview?... I am going to schedule mine on March 18 so that I can really walk by that time. I have my cast removed on my foot but I can't step it yet, need 2 more weeks from now.

Anyway! Good luck to all of us!

I called the embassy last night and scheduled an interview for my fiancee. The embassy (the call center) will tell you which dates and times are open, and you choose the day and the time that you want. I chose the last available appointment on February 23 for my fiancee's interview. Surprisingly, there was a appointment open as early as February 6.

The very best of luck to everyone...malapit na!!!

~ pangga

Thank you.

John Rockefeller did not provide a product that everyone needed at a "price that couldn't be competed with". He simply refused to compete. Instead, he drove any potential competition out of the market before they could even begin to compete. For example, if a competitor tried to ship their product by railroad, Rockefeller would either buy the railroad (and not allow his competitor to use it), or he would threaten to pull his business from the railroad. Also, any threat of competition would be met by his product's price cuts (to a point of selling below cost) until the competitor was driven out of business. Then he would raise his prices again. He (and the other robber barons) had a whole bag of dirty tricks.

Aye, that is pretty much what I recall reading in American Economic History in college.

Careful AJ...Matt tells me we are talking about market theory and not Econ.

Great, articulate posts, Matt and pangga! Although I don't agree with your Libertarian views, Matt - you certainly have a good grasp of what you are talking about.

Thanks MF.......care to join the debate?

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed as well. This is proof (as if any was needed) that free markets are not self-regulating or self-correcting.

Of course they are self regulating. But coercive intervention has impeded the natural flow of the market. Reagan wasn't pro-market, not at all. He brokered just as much intervention as any other president.

So long as the government cannot control every purchase of every consumer, the intervention of man cannot overcome the basic laws of economics.

The natural inclination of a "free" market leads to a single individual (or corporation) controlling an entire industry (or more). If it were not for government intervention, the Rockefeller family today would control the entire petroleum industry in the USA (and perhaps beyond), all the way from the oil wells to your gas tank. You would pay any price they charged you since there would be no competition.

Also, how does price fixing fit into the idea of a "self-regulating free market"? If you eliminate the competition, is it still a free market?

You are completely wrong. Cartelization and monopolization could never exist on a free market, as there are no government regulations that could bar entry into market competition. A producer would be checked by the natural fact that if he skyrocketed prices, then another entreprenuer would clearly be able to enter the market and do it for less. Free market competition forges and establishes the lowest possible prices for consumers.

Regulation allows businesses to pander to the government to cheat the system. Just as when Wal-Mart so "graciously" decided to lobby and push to raise the Minimum Wage, this wasn't a selfless act of charity, but rather, Wal-mart knew that raising the wage would raise the costs of it's competitors; Costs that Walmart could afford, but Mom 'n Pop stores could not.

As I pointed out, monopolization can (and has) existed in a free market. The only thing "wrong" is your assumption that government regulation is the only issue here. The prohibitive amount of capital necessary for a competitor to enter the market would (and has) prevented competition. Standard Oil of the late 1800's is a good example of precisely that. Even if a competitor would have been financially capable of entering the market, what is to prevent them from price fixing? Where is the competition there? Are you suggesting that we return to the days of unfettered, unregulated predatory capitalism?

No one is saying that prices must (or will) skyrocket in a monopoly. However, using your logic, a monopoly can exist if prices don't skyrocket...because of a lack of competition, people can be overcharged as long as they are not overcharged too much. Hence, people are not getting the lowest price in a free market.

Another problem I have with your Econ 101 analysis of "free" markets is that your theories don't appear to take into account social considerations. Are you giving your blessing to sweatshops, child labor, an 80 hour work week, and polluting the environment? These are all products of a free market.

Your Walmart example doesn't hold water either. The fact of the matter (to anyone who has been paying any attention whatsoever to Walmart) is that after decades of lobbying against raising the minimum wage, Walmart underwent a deathbed conversion only because they saw the handwriting on the wall regarding the inevitability of Congress raising the minimum wage. At that point, they simply tried to get a bit of positive PR for themselves by supporting a bill they couldn't stop. If Walmart thought that raising the minimum wage was good for their business, why did they fight it for so long? Instead, they would have been advocating for it long ago. Or, maybe you think that they just woke up one day and discovered a new business strategy.

When monopolization occurs within the economy, and if predatory price fixing occurs, as you suggest, this creates an aggregate demand. This demand is realized by entreprenuers, and ultimately the prospect for profit persuades the redirection of capital to such fields. Lack of capital to enter is largely irrelevant, as a successful entreprenuer would likely be able to find a lender who would fund the entrance, especially if the lender sees the prospect for success, as he would given the demand. Now this is only if the company is demanding a price higher than believed could be provided. The truth is, the only way you can decide if you are being overcharged as a consumer, is if someone can provide it at a lower price, other than that, it's unquantifiable speculation.

The case of Standard Oil, is a little bit different. Rockefeller was a very successful businessman in the free-market. He provided a product that everyone needed at a price that couldn't be competed with, which explains why the less efficient oil companies ran to government, crying of predatory "anti-competitive" practices. Rockefeller was only successful because we made him that way through our economic actions. No one could compete with such low prices, plain and simple.

Predatory price fixing through collusion of competitors is as outlandish as NFL teams scoring points for each other during the SuperBowl. Additionally, if two or more companies attempt to cartelize through price fixing, as I've explained, this would be seen as a demanded opportunity by a prospective entreprenuer.

In regards to your social considerations, that appeared to be missing from my "Econ101" theory or the market, as you so condescendingly put, (which is irrelevant, as we are not talking basic econ theory, but market competition), each and every business thrives due to our individual actions within the economy. If nobody shopped at Wal-Mart, they would quickly go out of business, but people keep going there. That's the way the market rewards a good business. Now, I wouldn't personally purchase products that were made due to child exploitation, and I really doubt many consumers consciencely would. Hypothetically, If I was a business and I was competing with a company that employed child labor exploitively, then I would definitely take advantage of letting every consumer know of this damaging fact about my competitor. Ultimately competition among business naturally discourages activities which could lower their profits and sales.

Your Wal-Mart theory of them just trying to get some "good PR" is ridiculously naive. Considering that Wal-Mart was paying higher than the current National average minimum wage at the time, the lobbying that they did to raise the minimum wage wouldn't affect them whatsoever, but would destroy some of their competitors, who would see their prices rise to uncompetitive rates due to the increased wage. As a consumer, a companies "wage rate" wouldn't influence my decision to purchase from them whatsoever. Quality and price concern me as a consumer. You need to look behind the smoke and mirrors. There's more to it, than just "good PR".

Matt, you are entitled to your own opinions. However, you are not entitled to your own facts. John Rockefeller did not provide a product that everyone needed at a "price that couldn't be competed with". He simply refused to compete. Instead, he drove any potential competition out of the market before they could even begin to compete. For example, if a competitor tried to ship their product by railroad, Rockefeller would either buy the railroad (and not allow his competitor to use it), or he would threaten to pull his business from the railroad. Also, any threat of competition would be met by his product's price cuts (to a point of selling below cost) until the competitor was driven out of business. Then he would raise his prices again. He (and the other robber barons) had a whole bag of dirty tricks. This is how a "free" market operates outside of text books.

As for your assertion that lack of capital is "largely" irrelevant and an entrepreneur is "likely" be able to find a lender in order to enter a field (note that we are not talking about a business, but an entire industry), you seem to be hedging your argument. I don't blame you, because the fact is that Rockefeller was rich enough that he could squash any and all competition without resorting to competing against them. Can you imagine how much capital would be needed to come into the market if you were planning on competing against an entire industry...from the oil wells all the way through the refining stage to (and including) the gas stations? Rockefeller had a unassailable monopoly for a very simple reason...the free market could not provide enough capital to challenge him. How does unlimited wealth which prevents competition fit into your free market model?

And you completely sidestepped my questions about Walmart. How about their deathbed conversion? What do you attribute that to? Why do they routinely fight minimum wage increases? Is it possible that they fight them because they believe in a slippery slope idea of wage increases? I noticed you used the misleading assertion about Walmart paying higher than the current "national average minimum wage". This is entirely misleading because each and every state sets it's own minimum wage, with the federal minimum wage acting as simply the floor for minimum wage. Walmart does not pay Washington State's minimum wage (well above the federal minimum wage) to all of their workers in states where the state minimum wage is lower, especially the states where the minimum wage is down to the federal minimum wage level. They pay as little as they can in any particular state. Further, you don't say anything about starting wages. The idea that Walmart is driving Mom and Pop out of business through higher wages is ignoring the relevant factors. Nowhere do you talk about economies of scale and the fact that Walmart is big enough to dictate their product costs to the manufacturer. Nowhere do you talk about Walmart abandoning their "Buy American" philosophy in order to chase the cheapest labor costs to the sweatshops of Third-World countries.

I applaud you for having a social conscience regarding child labor. However, there are many more labor issues involved with sweatshop labor than just child labor. Environmental concerns are also a major issue. The free market does not address the issues of labor exploitation and pollution. People knowingly buy products that come from manufacturers that abuse labor and pollute the environment. Does it make it any better if people choose not to look at where their product come from? Instead of businesses capitalizing on these issues, they simply join the rush to those countries which have the cheapest labor and the laxest environmental laws.

Also, maybe you could give me a real-world example of where collusion to fix prices has raised demand and led to competitors entering the market. History must be full of gilded-age examples of price fixing and the resulting market adjustment. Of course, that subject could bring up another inconvenient problem with the very foundation upon which your free market theory rests...the market concept of perfect information...another concept that exists only in text books. While you are at it, maybe your market theory will explain why people and businesses don't always act rationally. This free market stuff is yesterday's news.

Mabuhay mga kababayan! Does someone has an idea how many days or weeks will it take until my fiancee will receive the visa packet from us embassy? I received a letter from NVC yesterday and was advised that our case will be forwarded to usem mla within a week. Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

Hi joshifruiti...

Congratulations!!! Since you have already received a letter from the NVC, that means your K-1 Visa application is on it's way to the American Embassy in Manila. You should start calling the Embassy any day now to find out if they have received your application, and if they have entered it into their system yet. Once they have entered it into their system, you (the petitioner) should make an interview appointment.

The people you talk to at the Embassy are very nice and helpful. All you have to do is to tell them your MNLxxxxxx case number (you will find your case number on your NVC letter), your name, your fiancee's name, her address, and maybe a bit more information. Then they will tell you if they received your application and entered it into their system. If they have done so, you can go ahead and make the interview appointment.

You will want to have the beneficiary get her medical exam completed about a week before the interview.

Also, the petitioner will need to send the beneficiary his I-134 form and all of the supporting papers for the I-134. The beneficiary will need all of the I-134 papers at the interview.

The beneficiary needs to gather her papers too. She will need her CENOMAR, NBI, and other papers for the interview. Please read the above links carefully so you don't forget anything.

We are at the same place in the process that you are. It is really exciting! Good luck to all of us!

~ pangga

I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider myself to be fully cured.

That was a long time ago, anyway.

Any tips? I'm still working on it.

The first step is: recognizing you have a problem.

The next step is to start a social services claim so everyone else can pay for your problem.

If you get turned down, don't fret, there are lawyers who are professionals at getting your case approved with the help of Doctor-friends.

Thats how it works.

It's a good thing that I'm wearing my decoder ring today so that I can translate Danno-speak into English:

> Don't get help for your problem since you don't want to be a burden to taxpayer Danno.

> Go out and destroy more lives until you get caught and thrown into jail.

> Taxpayer Danno is OK with paying the $30,000 (or so) per year to keep you locked up for the next ten or twenty years.

> Taxpayer Danno will throw a public defender into the deal for you.

> Taxpayer Danno always watches out for the taxpayer.

> To those whose lives have been destroyed...I'm sure taxpayer Danno has a brilliant plan for you.

Did I mention that Danno pays taxes?

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed as well. This is proof (as if any was needed) that free markets are not self-regulating or self-correcting.

Of course they are self regulating. But coercive intervention has impeded the natural flow of the market. Reagan wasn't pro-market, not at all. He brokered just as much intervention as any other president.

So long as the government cannot control every purchase of every consumer, the intervention of man cannot overcome the basic laws of economics.

The natural inclination of a "free" market leads to a single individual (or corporation) controlling an entire industry (or more). If it were not for government intervention, the Rockefeller family today would control the entire petroleum industry in the USA (and perhaps beyond), all the way from the oil wells to your gas tank. You would pay any price they charged you since there would be no competition.

Also, how does price fixing fit into the idea of a "self-regulating free market"? If you eliminate the competition, is it still a free market?

You are completely wrong. Cartelization and monopolization could never exist on a free market, as there are no government regulations that could bar entry into market competition. A producer would be checked by the natural fact that if he skyrocketed prices, then another entreprenuer would clearly be able to enter the market and do it for less. Free market competition forges and establishes the lowest possible prices for consumers.

Regulation allows businesses to pander to the government to cheat the system. Just as when Wal-Mart so "graciously" decided to lobby and push to raise the Minimum Wage, this wasn't a selfless act of charity, but rather, Wal-mart knew that raising the wage would raise the costs of it's competitors; Costs that Walmart could afford, but Mom 'n Pop stores could not.

As I pointed out, monopolization can (and has) existed in a free market. The only thing "wrong" is your assumption that government regulation is the only issue here. The prohibitive amount of capital necessary for a competitor to enter the market would (and has) prevented competition. Standard Oil of the late 1800's is a good example of precisely that. Even if a competitor would have been financially capable of entering the market, what is to prevent them from price fixing? Where is the competition there? Are you suggesting that we return to the days of unfettered, unregulated predatory capitalism?

No one is saying that prices must (or will) skyrocket in a monopoly. However, using your logic, a monopoly can exist if prices don't skyrocket...because of a lack of competition, people can be overcharged as long as they are not overcharged too much. Hence, people are not getting the lowest price in a free market.

Another problem I have with your Econ 101 analysis of "free" markets is that your theories don't appear to take into account social considerations. Are you giving your blessing to sweatshops, child labor, an 80 hour work week, and polluting the environment? These are all products of a free market.

Your Walmart example doesn't hold water either. The fact of the matter (to anyone who has been paying any attention whatsoever to Walmart) is that after decades of lobbying against raising the minimum wage, Walmart underwent a deathbed conversion only because they saw the handwriting on the wall regarding the inevitability of Congress raising the minimum wage. At that point, they simply tried to get a bit of positive PR for themselves by supporting a bill they couldn't stop. If Walmart thought that raising the minimum wage was good for their business, why did they fight it for so long? Instead, they would have been advocating for it long ago. Or, maybe you think that they just woke up one day and discovered a new business strategy.

Thank you very much.

St. Mary's in Quezon City will conduct the seminar and will release the certificate, but I still have to go to the CFO Manila for the sticker?

or

I can complete all my CFO document at St. Mary's ??

Thanks for the advice.

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed as well. This is proof (as if any was needed) that free markets are not self-regulating or self-correcting.

Of course they are self regulating. But coercive intervention has impeded the natural flow of the market. Reagan wasn't pro-market, not at all. He brokered just as much intervention as any other president.

So long as the government cannot control every purchase of every consumer, the intervention of man cannot overcome the basic laws of economics.

How is a free market self-regulating if, for example, there are no anti-trust laws and no price-fixing laws to intervene? The natural inclination of a "free" market leads to a single individual (or corporation) controlling an entire industry (or more). If it were not for government intervention, the Rockefeller family today would control the entire petroleum industry in the USA (and perhaps beyond), all the way from the oil wells to your gas tank. You would pay any price they charged you since there would be no competition.

Also, how does price fixing fit into the idea of a "self-regulating free market"? If you eliminate the competition, is it still a free market?

everyones panties get tied up in knots in a bad economy and start finger pointing...

Its a joke to think somehow todays recession has to do with liberals in the 70's

In Australian and British Commonwealth terms generally, neo-liberalism is what we in the USA would call conservatism. And I agree with the Australian PM that the conservative ideology whose ascendence Reagan and Thatcher brokered is the proximate cause of today's economic crisis and that the dominant market ideology is greed dressed up as economic philosophy.

Agreed. The neo-liberal economic philosophy is the economic philosophy which has been promoted by conservatives for almost 30 years now. It was heavily promoted in the USA by Milton Friedman and his Chicago school of economics. Indeed, it is leading us into a second gilded age.

The data from both the Census Bureau and the Secretary of the Senate are based on gender without regard to job position, experience, or education that could be factors in pay.

Show me the stats where Obama paid a male staffer more than a female that held an equal position and offered equal experience and qualifications. Short of that, the report is worthless. Which, considering the source, isn't all that surprising.

Agreed..."where's the beef"? I don't think those statistics will be forthcoming anytime soon. In the meantime, equal pay for equal work is a good law, and the "last paycheck" rule makes perfect sense.

When I'm in serious mosquito country, I start the day wearing one type of repellant. Then, in the afternoon, I switch to another brand of repellant. That way, the skeeters don't get used to any one repellant (if there is such a thing).

I usually carry three types of repellant. The strongest one is called "Jungle Juice" from Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI). I believe it is close to 100% DEET. It works well. I also carry a mild citronella spray for when the mosquitos are not too bad.

Wearing a mosquito net over a hat (with a brim) works the best to keep the mosquitos away from your face and neck. That way, you keep the DEET away from your eyes and nose.

I agree with the poster about wearing long pants and a long-sleeve shirt (and you should spray repellant on them). A mosquito net at night is a great idea too.

They say to avoid wearing any scents from cologne, perfume, soap, shampoo, deodorant, etc., as they attract mosquitos.

The thickest, most vicious, most relentless mosquitos ever: Alaska

~ pangga

The flag is displayed with the blue field on top in times of peace, and with the red field on top in times of war.

Thank you very much pangga for your contribution. That is something I never would have thought of, had you not brought the subject to mind. We know about flying the US flag upside down, to signify distress, but a symmetrical layout allows you to signify something else when the flag is inverted. Blue for peace, red for war. Do you know if the war flag has been displayed since WWII?

--Bullwinkle

I'll have to look for more info. I remembered this one too because sometimes, me and my fiance will discuss some history of the Phils too and I am amazed by his knowledge about it. I told him, I really didnt like History subject during High school because our teacher only required us to memorize dates and names. It felt so boring...haha.

~Baby

That's great Mae. Goodluck on your medical and interview.

Congrats...

Hi skparker...

I recently ordered my tax transcripts from the IRS. I can't remember exactly how long it took the transcripts to land in my mailbox, but I believe that it was about a week or so. I think the IRS plays it safe by telling you that it will take 30 days. Then, when you receive the transcripts in only one week, it makes the IRS look very efficient.

I ordered my tax transcripts for tax years 2005, 2006, and 2007...just to play it safe.

It sounds like you have everything else in order regarding your financial papers. How about the letter from your employer? Bank statements might also help. Good luck to you...hang in there...

~ pangga