Main Exhibits

Does anyone know of any small fashion Trade or convention shows coming up in Philidelphia? I know that Philidelphia, Pa and Atlantic City, NJ hosts a number of Urban designer trade shows or clothing conventions similar to the Magic Convention in Las Vegas, but there are many smaller ones that are less advertised. Does anyone know of any or point me in the right direction. Thanks

Fashion Trade shows - When and where in UK? I am looking to find some Fashion Trade Fairs where I can purchase designerwear direct from labels. can you tell me when and where I could find these?

What should I wear to a Fashion Trade Show? I am going to the Stylemax show at the Merchandise Mart in Chicago this weekend. It will be booths with all sorts of different fashion lines represented. I have never been before... what should I wear? Casual? Dressy? I'm not sure!

What to wear at Fashion and Apparel trade show business or casual? Should look like your going to a corp meeting or where nice casual outfit with the option of sneaker. :-)

Has anyone ever been to the MAGIC apparel trade/fashion show in Las Vegas before? let me know

Where can I find the best wedding accessories and kikay fashion accessories in the Philippines? I have a limited budget for m upcoming events regadring wedding accessories, fashion shows and trade show events. So I need options on different price ranges of diferent suppliers of fashion accessories.

Clothing Line / Brand about 100th question asked about this? Also Fashion Trade Show!!!? Ok i was just wondering i would say im about maybe 65% done with making a couple of shirts. Like i have the designs all finished and everything... But i was wondering if Screen printing is the best way to get these shirts made... Like is screen printing the same way that big name companys have there shirts made. Or is there a better way to do it. I also want to ask if anyone has any info about the Fashion tradeshow in las vegas. Ok thats all And Thank You for ur Answers

how to select buyers from trade show? We are about to show our fashion items on trade show but its our first time to show. we don't want to sell to everybody but we would like to sell to the retailers who can present our brand. how do we select buyers? when somebody come up and how should we assess the buyer if she/he is good choice for our brand? what questions do we ask to make sure we can sell to them? do we need to actually visit their shop before making an offer? can anyone help and give some details please?

On Becoming a Fashion Designer...? I currently live in Germany. I was in the military and I got out but my husband is still in until the end of this year. When we move back home to Texas I will be attending Texas Women's University for a degree in fashion design. During this time I will be working on small lines to sell on Etsy.com. Just to put my self out there and for the love of design. After college I will be looking for a job in the industry while working on my own line. I am hoping to sell to boutiques and do trade shows and fashion shows while working etc. It is not my dream to become a FAMOUS fashion designer. I just want to become a designer and be able to make a decent living. I know fashion design it is VERY hard work and its not as glamours as people think it is. I am not in it for the glamour I truly just love to design. I have been reading up on fashion design, sewing, sketching and the business aspects of doing your own line. I was wondering if my plan for the future sounds like a good plan so far?

I do fashion shows to benefit different charities. Any recommendations for getting sponsors in San Diego, CA? Sweatte Models have fashion shows to benefit charities. We have an event coming up on June 7th to benefit Make-A-Wish. We are currently looking for sponsors for our fashion show. The sponsors get advertisement in our program and have your company mentioned in our ads in all the local newspapers and our radio ads for our event, where we would mention all of our sponsors. I have different sponsor packages which will help our cause and help the company advertise. I am also seeking items for our silent auction before the fashion show. Any suggestions for marketing or trading services for advertisment would be great, too. I am in San Diego, CA. I would appreciate any ideas or contacts you could help me out with. Thank you so much. I just want this to raise as much money for Make-A-Wish as possible. I think all those people are so brave. I just want give them something special. Thanks again!

How do I start an online fashion store? I want to eventually start my own online fashion store. How do I build relationships with brands/vendors so I can sell their merchandise on my site? For example, I would like to sell Nike shoes or a clothing brand like LAMB on my site. How would I go about getting their merchandise on my site? I know I would have to attend trade shows, however you have to be in the industry to gain access to these shows. Any advice???

How do I go about being a Buyer for Fashion Retailers or Fashion Boutiques? I was wondering how to get a start into the Fashion Buying world in the U.S. Today I interviewed for a Merchant Technology Assistant job with Macy's West in San Francisco. I'm thinking that's a good way to get my foot in the door. Although, it might take awhile to work my way up and actually be involved in the decision making process (and traveling to trade shows or abroad) since Macy's is a large retailer. So, do any of you guys have any other suggestions on how to get a fashion buying job? Or where would be a good start? I do have previous retail experience and I have a Bachelor's Degree. Any help is much appreciated! Thanks :) EDIT: Where else would be good places to look for entry-level positions within Fashion Buying??

how are trade shows and trade publications alike? for fashion merchandising class.

Who decides what the fashion trends will be for each comming season ? When do we see it reflected in stores ? Also, how can I understand timing of Runway shows, followed by trade shows and then see everything in stores and magazines ?. How does the entire fashion cycle works. Please help urgently ! Thank you yahoo.

Where on-line can i buy tickets for London Fashion week? I've tried ticket master. I would really love to see a catwalk show of a top designer. I've found tickets for London Fashion weekend at the Natural History Museum but it looks like it might be a bit like a trade show and all the designers are high street. Has anybody been? What's it like? Thanks x

How do I find and get in touch with fashion/fashion accessories manufacturers? Or info about trade shows around the USA If you have info about both let me know thanks. Or if you have a suggestion of another site or another forum that I should go on to find this out, let me know thanks.

first time trade show, should I ask deposit from buyers? or how? I am going to exhibit our fashion accessories on a trade show for the first time. If customers place orders with me then how should i ask them to pay? I mean I'd like to ask them to pay a deposit because otherwise I wouldn't have enough money to buy the material and to manufacture them. Do sellers normally ask for a deposit? if yes how many percent is appropriate? otherwise what do other sellers normally do? I heard some sellers don't even ask buyers to pay anything, they just let the buyers to sign a paper and then start to produce for them, finally after few weeks when the shipment is ready they ask the buyer to pay. But I don't think I can do this because if i get lots of orders then I wouldn't have enough cash to produce them. and also if some customers just cancel the orders then it would be a big loss for me as we are a new business. Please anyone advise? Thanks a lot! Just to add some more details: our products are leather goods(bags and cases), they are usually quite expensive to produce, does anyone have similar experience at exhibiting leather goods?

Fashion/Textile Factory Trade Fair? Hi im looking to go to a trade fair of some sort where i can find manufactoring factories where you can go up to them and talk to them about making my clothes. Whats the best show to go to for this in the uk please?

Is fashion design really a profession? I enjoy fashion. I'm not fat as I eat healthy and I enjoy the gym and sports. I think I'm fairly attractive but I look at fashion shows and most of their models seem to look as if they have rickets with sticking out bones and bandy legs. What I was wondering is if fashion designers are really a trade or a profession? If dressing women is their trade, then why can they not manage to design clothes on anything but a straight up and down coat hanger? Why should I be told by them how I should look? Most of the people who tell women how they should look don't even fancy women. I'm a customer so I should decide how I want to look and they should design for me. I shouldn't have to change to what they tell me I should be like. I think the fashion industry is a joke and nothing to be admired or taken seriously about. Well, if all fashion designers or stylists showed that they can make all sorts of women look good then I would admire that they are properly trained in a profession. I think the woman on This Morning is good as she talks about all types of people and what they should wear to look good, but I don't see it often. I have a large bust, small waist and a shapely backside, so seeing something on a catwalk or magazine on a straight up and down woman doesn't give me an idea of if it would suit me.

Where/how to find website operators in each state of the USA? (Sites for festivities related events)? In a few more weeks UWS Ltd. (Unique Website Services Ltd.) will launch a world network of websites (180 events/festivities related websites). There will be a dedicated website for each large city in the world. We are now seeking contact with companies or individuals who may be interested to become an operator for one or more of these websites in the USA. No investment required. All website will be exclusively dedicated to festivities and events like weddings, anniversaries, religious events, modeling, concerts, festivals, art exposition, trade fair, fashion shows, etc. Operators should have at least 8 to 10 hours spare time a week and off course computer/internet access. For pertinent information: dir@uwsltd.com with reference: Website Operator. Please allow 3 to 5 days for a reply. Thank you.

How to ship a large TV having no box or original packing supplies? I have quite a problem. I need to ship my 42" Samsung DLP TV (45" x 30" x 10") from the Bay Area to Los Angeles (that's about 500 miles). I'm ready to pay the shipping costs (+ insurance), but the TV's box and original packing supplies have disintegrated in the rain! What can I do to get this shipped? Is there some kind of service where someone could fashion the packing supplies to the TV? I heard that this can be done for trade shows / businesses, but I don't know any details. Any suggestions? Thanks.

What can we do at her birthday party? my little sister is turning 11 and we are doing a movie theme for it. we are going to have tons of popcorn and movies going, we are going to have a fashion show (maybe), and sing and stuff. i dont know what else to do. my parents dont really care about us having parties, so im basically in charge of the whole thing. ive ordered things from oriental trading, the movie theme pack. ive also ordered a red carpet sort of thing so they can walk down it for the fashion show and stuff. what else can we do if they get bored? its only 4 girls. its a sleepover. my brother who is 12 might help out a little but i dont know, that could be bad!!!!!!! im 14 my little sister WANTS me at the party though. all the other girls are already 11. one of them is turning 12 this month. but she acts the same age and they are in the same age group. and my sister and allie (the 12 year old) are BEST friends. also neighbors.... but thats not the point lol. and. i heard kids LOVE webkinz. they are little stuffed animals that you can play with online. i was thinking of giving them out for part of the goody bags because she loves them, and so do the other girls. BUT. there is one girl coming who im not sure if she likes them, and neither is my sister. this is really important and i forgot it- WHAT MOVIES SHOULD I RENT? im renting the movie Sleepover for sure. she doesnt want scary movies. but i was thinking something kind-of a little more mature then their age. they act like they are my age- not what they dress like and everything- just their craziness and everything. they are fine with any little cursing, but not to much, because they dont curse. im not so sure about the american idol contest. i mean my sister and her friend susie are REALLY good singers, but i hate to admit it, susie is better. the other girls..... um..... well..... not that good.

Is this Really Fair Trade or still exploitation? I have just been watching the BBC News on there they were talking about Fair Trade in Africa. They interviewed someone speaking about the new fashions available in our shops that are "Fair Trade". A spokes person was asked how much the African woman would get for making the dress they showed, and she stated that 1 yr ago the African person would have earned about $1 a day now she is earning approxmately $12 a day. The item that was supposed to be "Fair Trade", a dress from Top Shop which was priced, at £45.99. Exploitation still or what?

i have some games i bought if youd like to trade i really want beach party craze or jojos fashion show 2???

needing pictures for a slide show in school on the fur trade.? ok heres the deal. i need pictures for a slide show.its about the fur trade. im in the prosses of making it.so far i just have some pictures of fur models.the i want it to like have a fading affect like go from fur models then to modles and animals the just animals the revel to the class the "truth" of the fur trad like how the clothing is made. like the "skinning' animals alive. there was on pictur that i found and would love to hav it it had the skinned dog and it had a red border and said the face of fashion on it please if you can find it and the some. thanks!!!!!!!!

how does the article make distinction between firms? use these distionctions to analyze and gain insights? Abstract (Summary) Instead, Giancarlo Di Risio, Versace's bespectacled chief executive, presided over an evening that highlighted luxury goods: Parked at one end of the courtyard was a half-million-dollar Lamborghini Murcielago with a black-and-white leather interior by Versace. A huge poster showed an AgustaWestland helicopter with a Versace-designed cabin. Stacked nearby was luggage embossed with the brand's Greek motif, with pieces starting at about $4,000. The company found it increasingly tough to squeeze profits out of highly perishable fashions as production costs rose in Italy. In 1997, Mr. Versace was murdered outside his Miami villa. The firm's finances went into a tailspin, and it was forced to shelve plans to go public. Mr. Versace's 50% stake in the label went to his niece, Ms. Versace's then-preteen daughter Allegra Versace Beck, shifting the balance of power. Though Ms. Versace owns only 20% of the company, she was seen to exert huge influence because of her daughter's stake. A third sibling, Santo Versace, owns the remaining 30% of the company. Ms. Versace Beck, now 20 years old, manages her stake with the help of advisers. "I said to Di Risio, 'This is not going to work. This is going to die,'" recalled Ms. Versace. But, she said, "I was wrong, and he was right. We sell more now." » Jump to indexing (document details) Full Text (1463 words) (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. Milan -- When Italian fashion house Gianni Versace SpA recently threw a cocktail party in the courtyard of its 16th-century palazzo to promote its latest creations, designer Donatella Versace ducked out of the soiree early, flanked by bodyguards. Instead, Giancarlo Di Risio, Versace's bespectacled chief executive, presided over an evening that highlighted luxury goods: Parked at one end of the courtyard was a half-million-dollar Lamborghini Murcielago with a black-and-white leather interior by Versace. A huge poster showed an AgustaWestland helicopter with a Versace-designed cabin. Stacked nearby was luggage embossed with the brand's Greek motif, with pieces starting at about $4,000. Mr. Di Risio is trying to shift Versace's attention away from clothes and to accessories, home interiors and other lifestyle products that will bring in new streams of revenue and offset fickle fashion cycles. "Fashion does not exist at Versace," he said, describing his strategy in an interview before the reception. The new approach is bearing fruit. Versace swung back into the black last year, posting a $25.4 million profit after years of losses, and has shaken off millions in debt. Driving that turnaround were rising sales in the lucrative accessories Mr. Di Risio is pushing. Yet the effects of the makeover have touched the core of the company's identity. Ms. Versace has begun taming the flamboyant clothing designs that once set her and the fashion house apart from the crowd. "I no longer recognize myself in that kind of woman," the 52-year-old Ms. Versace said in a telephone interview. The culture shift at Versace highlights how an increasingly competitive fashion industry is forcing even the most freewheeling players to embrace a corporate culture. Many labels, including LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton's smaller brands like Celine and Marc Jacobs, have also been toning down their looks to appeal to a wider swath of consumers. Designers who once called the shots are ceding authority to executives who run the numbers. "In the beginning, it was a shock for me," Ms. Versace said. "When you tell a person who is used to being in power -- to saying yes or no on everything -- to take a step back, it's not easy. But it was necessary." Tweaking a label's aesthetics carries risks. If pushed too far, transformations risk alienating loyal customers, says Robert Burke, head of New York-based luxury-goods consultancy Robert Burke Associates and the former fashion director at Bergdorf Goodman. "You will always want to see a fashion edge to Versace," he says. Yet for family-owned fashion labels like Versace, pressure to make more money is high. They compete with publicly traded conglomerates such as LVMH and PPR SA's Gucci Group, which have the financial heft to expand with stores in the emerging markets of China, India and Russia -- seen as fueling the industry's growth. A number of Italy's top family-owned fashion houses, including Versace, Prada SpA and Salvatore Ferragamo SpA, are considering stock- market listings in the next couple of years. "An IPO would be the best way to raise money and implant in these countries," says Peter Farren, a luxury-goods analyst at the French investment firm Bryan Garnier. At Versace, a sobering realization is spurring Mr. Di Risio's moves: The clothes that once made the brand are now struggling to make money. In its heyday in the early 1990s, Versace stayed ahead of the fashion mainstream with lavish catwalk shows that celebrated the racy designs of founder Gianni Versace. The label amassed collections of real estate and artwork that enhanced the family's jet-setter status. The company found it increasingly tough to squeeze profits out of highly perishable fashions as production costs rose in Italy. In 1997, Mr. Versace was murdered outside his Miami villa. The firm's finances went into a tailspin, and it was forced to shelve plans to go public. Mr. Versace's 50% stake in the label went to his niece, Ms. Versace's then-preteen daughter Allegra Versace Beck, shifting the balance of power. Though Ms. Versace owns only 20% of the company, she was seen to exert huge influence because of her daughter's stake. A third sibling, Santo Versace, owns the remaining 30% of the company. Ms. Versace Beck, now 20 years old, manages her stake with the help of advisers. The Versace stakeholders decided the company needed a CEO who could turn the company around. Fabio Cacciatori, at one time an outside financial consultant for the company, became CEO in September 2003 but resigned in December. The company named Versace's then-Chief Financial Officer Daniele Ballestrazzi interim CEO as it searched for new leadership. When Versace recruited Mr. Di Risio from LVMH's Fendi label in the summer of 2004, the house was saddled with more than $146 million in debt and heading to a net loss of $124 million for the year, on revenue of $416 million. High-end retailers like Bergdorf Goodman had stopped carrying the brand. Bergdorf Chief Executive Jim Gold recalls that Versace was distributing too widely, diluting its exclusivity, and was overly consumed with making a splash on the runway. While many labels had started delivering retailers fresh designs more frequently, ahead of the runway collections, Versace resisted. Mr. Di Risio arrived with a new mantra. Clothing that is too fashionable, he told his lieutenants, is bad for business because it eats up capital and goes out of style quickly. Accessories and other leather goods are a better bet because they have a longer shelf life and fatter profit margins. To reduce Versace's dependence on fashion, Mr. Di Risio shut down lines such as Versace Intimates lingerie and Versace Young, a children's line. The company sold its unprofitable perfume, jewelry and watchmaking divisions, replacing them with lucrative licensing agreements with U.S. watch group Timex Corp. and Italian perfume and cosmetics maker EuroItalia Srl. Mr. Di Risio homed in on the company's shoes and handbags, which have higher profit margins because they cost less to produce than clothes but are easier to sell to a wide array of customers. Last year, more than 30% of Versace's $383 million in revenue came from accessories, compared with 4% when Mr. Di Risio arrived. He also expanded the label's push into home furnishings -- a business that generated sales of $82.5 million in 2006, up 55% from the year before. Versace recently unveiled its "Jet Seat," an aerodynamically-styled leather chair in a high-tech ceramic frame that is sold in Europe for <euro>38,000 (about $50,000). "It was like taking a blank page and rewriting everything," Mr. Di Risio says. To succeed, however, he had to get Ms. Versace on board. She had hoped to resurrect the costly haute-couture fashion shows the label had discontinued before Mr. Di Risio's arrival. But he argued she could more effectively enhance the line's exclusivity by holding showings for individual clients. "I said to Di Risio, 'This is not going to work. This is going to die,'" recalled Ms. Versace. But, she said, "I was wrong, and he was right. We sell more now." Ms. Versace had to become more conscious of how much time and money the label invests in promoting designs at events like the Oscars. Last year, the designer dressed actresses Hilary Swank, Uma Thurman and Salma Hayek and director Robert Altman's wife, Kathryn Reed Altman, who donned a navy-blue sequin gown. This year, however, Ms. Versace limited herself to one gown, designing a rose-colored dress with a sweeping train for best-actress nominee Penelope Cruz. For Versace's ready-to-wear line, Ms. Versace is going for looks she calls "a little more understated." Bergdorf Goodman will carry her designs in the fall for the first time in years. Ms. Versace is also working more closely with retailers, adding four more collections beyond the traditional spring and fall runway collections. These are shown to retailers in private visits, giving them a preview of what to expect. On the financial side, Mr. Di Risio has untangled the company's assets from those of the family, selling property he deemed "nonstrategic" to pay the company's debts. The family's Manhattan townhouse was sold for about $35 million, and its contents went up for auction in 2005. The paintings alone -- including works by artists Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Roy Lichtenstein and Julian Schnabel -- fetched more than $11 million dollars. Flagship stores in New York, London and Milan that Mr. Di Risio described as "decadent and sad," were redone with sleek, minimalist designs. The label, which operates 82 stores and has 35 franchise operations, plans to open more than 10 boutiques by the end of the year, including seven stores in China alone. When Versace opened the doors of its updated Moscow boutique in April, an array of leather bags, belts and shoes greeted customers at the store's lacquered ground-floor entrance. The label's ready-to-wear collection was relegated to the upper floor.

I have a clothing line, I sell to personal clients but want to sell to retail stores! I also need a mentor.? Allow me to explain.... I have a popular upcoming women's clothing line in my city [many people know of the brand due to fashion shows, magazine features, internet, and promo]. I understand the trade, I have a manufacturer who can produce small quantities 10+. I have a printer who can provide steady promo material to drive sales higher- marketing/advertising. I have a great website [needs to be updated], a trendy, fashion forward easy to produce line with amazing fabric choice. I have a Rep team in the U.S. and Canada who are willing to assist in sales/promo once I can get this going on my own to start. My questions are... 1. Is there anyone that will be my mentor? Someone who has experience in Buying wholesale, from suppliers...... Maybe a retail store owner who can answer my questions and is interested in being on my Board of Directors? 2. What are the key points in selling to retail/consignment stores etc? Check me out: www.honeymatthews.com info@honeymatthews.com

What do you think Economy Not Reliant On Illegal Immigration ? Takes a minute or two to read.If reading is not for you skip this question.One of the arguments currently made for increasing the intake of immigrants and guest workers is that it is vital to the health of the nation's economy. If this were true, a tough choice would have to be made between economic stagnation and the social and environmental impact of adding further population growth on top of what is already too much. Fortunately, there is no real dilemma. The economy can grow in a healthy fashion with a low level of immigration. How do we know? Our economic history demonstrates this fact. Between 1925 and 1965, we had a level of immigration that averaged less than 180,000 admissions per year. Illegal immigration during that period was not the serious problem that it is today. To The City During that period of restricted immigration — curtailed in part because of World War II and the Depression — the overall trend in economic growth was impressive. It was a time of rapid industrialization and mechanization, a major move from rural America and work in agriculture to the cities and industrial jobs. Women entered the work force in large numbers. In 1920, according to the census, 23.7% of women were in the work force. By 1970, before the effects of the 1965 change in the immigration law had significantly expanded immigrant admissions, the share of women in the work force had grown to 43.3%. The best indicator of how the U.S. economy responded to the period of low immigration between 1925 and 1966 may be seen in inflation-adjusted GDP per capita over that period. It clearly shows that, apart from a rapid jump during WWII and a drop back following it, the overall trend is rising national product — i.e., economic development. It may also be seen that the increase in per capita GDP has continued since the 1965 Immigration Act unleashed rapid immigration growth. But the rate of increase since 1966 is not as great as it was during the period of low immigration. From 1925 to 1966, GDP per capita increased by 168.4%. That is an average annual increase of 4.0%. During the period since then (1966-2005), the increase in GDP per capita has been 114.2%. That is an annual average increase of 2.9%. Of course, immigration is not the only factor influencing economic change. The role of labor unions, laws, trade, transportation, communication and technology all play major roles in economic change. As the United States has become more enmeshed in international commerce and other countries have developed economically, greater competition exists for our produce. It is tempting to look at the greater per annum GDP per capita growth during our earlier low immigration and conclude that a return to low immigration would result in a new surge in per capita growth. Back To Work A slowing in the availability of low-wage labor, according to economic theory, should have the effect of causing wages to rise to attract more U.S. workers back into those occupations. If the nation's output continued to grow during a period of slowing growth in population, this would contribute to the growth in GDP per capita. However, because there are other economic forces at play in shaping the national product, that is not a clear-cut prospect. Nevertheless, the nation's history with low-level immigration and the economic growth during that period provides evidence that it is wrong to suggest that our economy will suffer if immigration and guest worker programs are not increased — as business interests are currently asserting. On the contrary, it suggests that the economy would continue to be healthy if immigration were significantly reduced. http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=275005865571172

How can I find and do business with good, legitimate, manufacturer, Distributors or wholesalers? I am interested in buying and selling fashion items mainly lingerie/sexy intimate wear, clothing for young women and perhaps giftwear. When I'm ready to start buying the products my budget will be a few thousand dollars to buy products, then I can sell and re-buy. I have searched online and found an endless number of people posing as wholesalers, when their prices are much too high to be wholesalers. I don't want to charge my customers too much, but I also want to make a profit. I also am willing to go to trade shows, but the best ones are in New York and internationally. I don't have the tools to do that kind of traveling (mainly financial). Any ideas?

Do I have case againt UPS? IM a small business owner based in NY, And deals in Fashion Garments, Over months of planing i hookup with company in Itlay to build an line for me. To promote new collections I booked an Trade Show in Orlando,FL Sept 14 thru 16. And made all my arrangements for the show(Booth, Fixtures,4 models,Hotel, rent a Car, Air ticket), Due to final stages of samples details i suggested my suppliers in itlay to ship express overnight Via UPS staright to the trade show. samples were shipped via UPS to reach by 13Sept to Orlando, so i have one day in my hand. I even send $400 via western Unioun to my supplier to send samples by UPS. no samples reached on 13sept, no sample on 14th UPS dont have any track on it evn till sataurday i waited but samples, without samples my booth have nothing to sell or book order girls were paid for doing nothing finally i pulled out of show due to so dissapointment, came back on 17th to NY empty hand, try UPS again but no answer next day they confirm samples will be

Volume measure in foreign exchange market? I trade the foreign exchange market. I have a friend who trades the US stock markets. Everytime we have lunch, he shows me a bar chart that measures current volume for any given stock. It's not an oscillator, it's an old fashioned bar chart, the higher the volume the higher the bar. I would love to have such a thing for my foreign exchange. Does anyone know if such a bar chart indicator exists for the foreign currency market? Specifically for the GBP/JPY.

Trends for Autumn/Winter 2008/2009? I'm trying to find actual information on predicted trends. I have booked a place to premiere vision trade show in paris next month but have to do prep research before then. Im looking for info on colours, silhouettes, shape any details or accessories, new fabrics, everything to do with fashion but it must be for autumn-winter 2008-2009. Any help welcome xxx neocat558, thank you so much for those links, spot on! x

Is U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Ca) an old-fashioned Socialist? I've noted that this recently emergent Republican, who seems to have expressed interest in the Presidency lately, holds numerous Stalinish-type socialist tendencies. He is certainly an opponent of globalization, as his voting against the North American Free Trade Act and Central American Free Trade Act shows. In addition, he opposed most-favored nation status under Clinton. This may be a part of a greater dislike of capitalism in general, as shown by his love of America's most popular socialist institution.... ..the armed forces. Hunter is currently the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and is well-known for his support of militarization in America, as well as greater usage of American military at home and abroad. It seems that with his insistence upon a strong military and his contempt for capitalism, he seems to harbor Bolshevik sympathies. This isn't the sort of socialism Hugo Chavez is preaching, it harkens back to the days of Mao.

I need help!! Global expansion from 1914 to 2001??? I have to do a world map showing the exchange of goods and ideas from 1914 to 2001, Ive been looking everywhere i cant find any information or help, can anyone help me or know of anywhere where i can find information?? Including many or all of the following: -exchanges of foods, other trade goods (silk, slaves, sugar etc) -exchanges of ideas, cultural exchanges, art, music, sport fashion etc. -the spread of imperialism and colonialism -the impact and exchange of scientific knowledge, or technological developments

Congress gets it wrong on energy!? Congress gets it wrong on energy! Again Congress seems intent to pass a regressive energy bill — despite the pleas of their constituents for releif at the pump. The truth is that, short of a moratorium on federal gas taxes, there is very little Congress can do to provide short-term releif at the pump but they could help ensure plentifiul supplies of oil and gas — and thus lower prices — in the future, but instead they seem intent to make our situation worse. The National Petroleum Council recently released a report http://www.npc.org/7-18_Press_rls-post.pdf painting a fairly bleak picture for the world's energy supply and demand equation. One way Congress could help would be to remove hurdles to domestic oil production on public lands like ANWR and on the OCS and from non-traditional sources like oil shale and coal to oil. Despite what industry proponents argue, these sources don't need subsidies or a price floor to get going (but who doesn't want guaranteed profit if they can get Congress to give it to them), but they do need the government to reduce hurdles to development on public lands — and more importantly, not make the situation worse with new legislative roadblocks or make the investment situation worse by rescinding reasonable standards for the depreciation of new equipment. In light of high prices and declining domestic production, in the 2005 energy bill Congress sought to encourage new production by expediting the leasing of new oil and gas wells on public lands and off-shore by giving new funding and fast-track authority to the Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management Service, while reducing the bureaucratic paperwork requirements in order to ensure that proposals for new production were assessed, and contracts written, in a timely fashion – a statutory deadline for approval was built into the law. In addition, in order to encourage companies to build expensive, new platforms in high risk areas in the hurricane prone gulf of mexico, where dry wells are not uncommon, the government decided to treat oil and gas companies on the same par as renewable energy firms, allowing them to write off or accelerate the depreciation on capital equipment for new investments in production in the Gulf of Mexico. The new Democratic Congress wants to take all that away. In order to increase revenues to the government to fund their green priorities – none of which will bring much energy online and so help consumers – they wish to end the accelerated depreciation, extend the time federal agencies have to consider new leases and increase the paperwork hurdles. Each of these steps will discourage or slow the development of new oil and gas projects and thus slow (or even halt in some cases) the delivery of new oil and gas resources to the marketplace – high prices will remain high or rise as we become even more dependent on foreign energy supplies. In addition, they want to impose higher fees on new production and, not allow energy companies unwilling to renegotiate leases drawn up under the Clinton Administration to bid on new leases. When energy prices were low and new domestic production cost more than companies could make, the Clinton administration, in order to encourage continued exploration, wrote off-shore leases that that did not require companies to pay royalties. Now, when prices are high, the government wants to force companies to break their contract, and pay royalties on oil produced in the past. This does nothing to produce new oil, shows government to be an unreliable partner thus giving companies less assurance when dealing with the government that the deals written will be kept, and will likely keep well qualified companies from bidding on new leases. Under this deal, unless qualified companies accede to extortion, they will not be able to get new leases, which means there will be less competition and less production (or higher priced production). Only Congress could think this will help our energy situation. Worst of all, these policies will be most damaging to the poorest of the poor. They amount to a hidden tax on the most vulnerable among us. Families earning more than $50,000 per year spend just 4 percent of their income to cover all energy costs. By comparison, households earning between $10,000 and $25,000 per year spend 13 percent on their income on energy overall, and families earning below $10,000 per year spend as much as 29 percent of their incomes on energy. While the relatively wealthy can afford higher gas prices with little impact on their lifestyles – they will still take vacations, and don’t have to decide between food, medication and fuel – poorer households are beginning to make that trade-off every day. This bill will do nothing to reduce energy prices or produce more energy and it will impose unconscionable new costs on the poorest among us.

Ladies - A famous woman approaches you, would you accept her offer (read on)? Just imagine one day you're at home, minding your business, then a lady pops out in your dining room. You recognize her, she's (insert fantasy name here), the most famous sex symbol alive. She's filthy rich, you saw her in every fashion magazine, posing as a model. You even have some fashion items, at least a dress or a purse, designed by her. She's smoking hot too, the kind of glam that give her a place in your bf/hubby workplace, between January and December. She shows you her last photographic service, and an interview in which she "talks" of the illness stole her hearing and voice when she was a little girl. She then in perfect sign language, that somehow you understand, tells you she has magical powers enough to trade her life with yours. If you accept, you'll be her, filthy rich, famous and glam, and she will be you, gaining your able body. What would you exactly reply to her?

China: From Death Camp to Civilization. Why very limited power to government is crucial? Mao unknown story?

Who is Reverand Jeremiah Wright? I do not endorsed this man in any fashion. Just wanted people to see specificallywhat this man and his church are all about. Make you own decisions. http://www.tucc.org/home.htm Dr. Wright’s talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Erik Rush’s comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show): • One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology. • Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology. • I use the word “systematized” because Black liberation theology was in existence long before Dr. Cone’s book. It originates in the days of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was systematized and published by theologians, Old Testament scholars, New Testament scholars, ethicists, church historians, and historians of religion such as Dr. James Cone, Dr. Cain Hope Felder, Dr. Gayraud Wilmore, Dr. Jacqueline Grant, Dr. Kelley Brown Douglas, Dr. Renita Weems, Dr. Katie Cannon, Dr. Dwight Hopkins, Dr. Linda Thomas, and Dr. Randall Bailey. • These scholars, who write in various disciplines, also include seminary presidents like Dr. John Kinney and professors of Hebrew Bible, like Dr. Jerome Ross. Black liberation theology defines Africans and African Americans as subjects – not the objects which colonizers and oppressors have consistently defined “others” as. • We [African Americans] were always seen as objects. When we started defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like “others” defining themselves. • To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else. • African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior. • There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks. • Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora. Dr. Wright’s talking points (3.1.7) for Trinity United Church of Christ its Web site and the Black Value System (in response to Erik Rush’s comments (2.28.07) on the Hannity and Colmes show): • One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology. • Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology,

If you read this much, would you want to finish the story?

newer horizon demanded in usa politicking. can non natural born + nonbinding resolution senate run pres U S ?

State : Neither Samaritan Nor Solomon ?? Mises? If you say that government is too big and truly overweening, you elicit a surprising degree of agreement among people, even mainstream columnists, economists, and nearly everyone. Even government employees, who famously resent their bosses, might be quick to agree. If you hang outside the offices of the IRS in Washington, D.C., in the park at noontime where its employees take their lunch, you will get an earful of vitriol against the bureaucracy such as you wouldn't hear outside 1990s militia circles. Incidentally, the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%. Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go. Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available. Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain. It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it. So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state. We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for. To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending. The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media. I would like to identify the main ones. Rationale Number One: The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help. The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I've probably left out a hundred or so other groups. Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do. In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole. This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn't matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice. The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works. But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice. He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition. As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war. The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others' expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights. The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality. Rationale Number Two: The Solomonic State. In the Bible we are told that King Solomon had "understanding exceeding much and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore." And his "wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt." He was "wiser than all men" and "his fame was in all nations round about." He spoke "three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five." He "spake of trees, from the cedar tree that [is] in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." Now, I'm not here to dispute the Bible's account of Solomon's wisdom. But let us also recall that Solomon's rule later became close to tyrannical. His son Rehoboam inherited his power, and when the people begged for relief from Solomon's "heavy yoke," and instigated a full-scale crackdown: "My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." To be wise and prudent is not characteristics of rulers. In fact, it is very dangerous to hope that they may be. If we set out to find such a person, and have fantastic power available to him when we believe he has arrived, we have set up the framework for tyranny. The founders knew that no man can be trusted with power. They attempted to construct a system that presumed that men were corruptible, and that there would be some means to dislodge them when their corruption showed. Still, today many people long for the Solomonic State as a means of dispensing justice. Unlike the Samaritan model, the goal here is not charity but the just wielding of the sword on behalf of the right and true. Thus should we seek out righteous men of learning and moral character who know what evil is and have the courage to stand up to it and destroy it. This model is what inspires this mentality. There are many problems with this model. One man might be very wise, even the wisest of all men. But as F.A. Hayek might remind us, all the accumulated knowledge in the head of one person is still infinitesimal as compared with the wisdom that emerges through social cooperation on the marketplace. We can consider the price of any good on the market as it stands right now, and know that this one price results from the accumulated decisions of millions of people across thousands and thousands of sectors of economic activity spread throughout the world. The knowledge is dispersed in a million directions and results from small decisions and actions by economic actors. But the result is a single indicator that assists in allocating resources better than any single mind could ever do. The model of the Solomonic State also imagines that somehow the social order we see around us cannot possibly have come about without a single will operating in society, some firm hand that has designed the order and keeps it running smoothly. People who think this way imagine that in the absence of this firm hand, there would be nothing but a Hobbesian state of nature, where society is a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Our age is notably lacking in the likes of Solomon, and so those who fear the Hobbesian state of nature turn to the managerial state to act wisely in the interest of justice and order, at home and abroad. They might not always like what the rulers do, but they consider the alternative to despotism more fearsome. They warn about the dread results of anarchism and liberty, where people senselessly kill and rob without consequence. They fear this liberty more than they fear the abuses of power. This, I submit, is the mentality of many conservatives and many on the Right. We see it in the affections they have for Bush, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, and how quickly people fall for any leader who uses Manichean rhetoric in defense of the latest nationalistic crusade. What these people need more than anything else is a familiarity with the insights of the old liberal tradition as represented by Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. They need to come to see how order is not the mother of liberty but its daughter. They need to see how society is harmonious not because of the state but because of the prevalence of human cooperation in the marketplace, where people work to trade to their own mutual betterment. People who fail to understand this become the unwitting servants of tyranny, particularly in the modern age when it is so obviously not wise but stupid and violent and presumptuous. They imagine that the state can posses godlike powers and bring justice and order, but they end up only empowering the worst elements in society, bringing injustice, and chaos. Now, you might say that the old liberal view of society is naïve. It might be in people's interest to learn to trade rather than steal but we live in a fallen world. If not for some overarching controlling force, people would loot each other unrelentingly and kill for fun. Now, to this I can say that it is true that some societies have not learned to make trading and peace significantly more prevalent than violence and killing. History is strewn with examples. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether a society that fails to learn the art of civilization will erect and sustain a state that will impose civilization on the people. I submit that history also teaches that when a people are brutal and uncivilized, the state is even more so. The state is rarely and maybe never better than the people it rules; in fact, it is almost always worse. Rationale Number Three: Log-Rolling. Given these two very different conceptions of the state, one favoring the welfare state and the other favoring a warfare state, why don't the visions cancel each other out? So intense is the desire of one group to have the state that it wants that it is willing to put up with another group's desire for its conception of the state. The two conceptions decide to cooperate and erect a state that purports to behave both like Solomon and like the Samaritan. That is the origin of the guns-and-butter state, or the welfare-warfare state, or the modern state as we know it, one that purports to meet every need. We see how this log-rolling works every day on Capitol Hill. One group wants more money for tanks and weaponry, and the other wants more for Medicaid and education. If both agree that politics is the art of compromise, they will put up with the other group's priorities in order that their own vision can be fulfilled. On the Right, we find that the love for the police power is more intense than the hatred of redistribution. On the Left, we find that the love of redistribution is more intense than the hatred of war and leviathan. They therefore work together to erect a massive and ever-growing executive. They are similarly unwilling to oppose the state in total. They fear that in doing so, the state as an institution will be discredited, and their conception of what the state should do along with it. Neither side particularly loves big government but both sides agree that it is better than the alternative of letting people alone. So they log-roll to support the public sector above all else, even when it means that they must sleep with their ostensible political enemies. Rationale Number Four: The Inflationary State. Now we come to the reason this system is able to perpetuate itself. And there is something of a mystery to explain here. No people anywhere will put up with a leviathan that grows and grows forever. At some point, the problem of funding state expansion will result in too much violence against property, and the people will revolt. Indeed, if the federal government had to collect all its revenue through a tax of any kind, leveled right now against the public, I submit to you that it would spark a tax revolt on a scale never before seen in modern history. Thus do we have the central bank to create money for the state. Thus do we have paper money that can be created in unlimited quantities. Thus do we have deposit insurance to make banks failure proof, so that the masses will never doubt that the credit pyramid is immortal. Thus do we have the Fed's power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit to the system. An economist at Lehman Brothers sent us an interesting chart the other day. It compares the level of price increases across many Fed regimes. Under the first Fed governor Charles Hamlin, the dollar declined 8% in value. Under Thomas B. McCabe from the late forties, it declined 7.2%. Under Arthur Burns, wholly owned by Nixon, the dollar declined 42% in value. Under Volcker, Mr. Tight Money, it fell 40%. And under Greenspan, who has a reputation as a great inflation fighter, the value of the dollar in terms of goods and services fell fully 44%! Inflation serves the cause of the state by giving it room to run up debts without limit and fund its activities without making the people cough up more revenue. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the inflationary state. People often say to me that a gold standard is impractical. In fact, that is not the case. It is very practical. It is the free-market answer. The state doesn't need to produce money any more than it needs to produce shoes or shirts or clocks. The problem is that we lack the political will to stop the inflation monster. Rationale Number Five: The Propaganda State. In every society control of educational institutions increases in tandem with the rise of the state. This is because the state needs these institutions to inculcate the civic religion of loving the public enterprise, and also because the less people know about the idea of liberty the more the state is provided the room to grow. Consider the Department of Education. Ever since its creation, every Republican administration has come to power with an intention to abolish it. But once they get in power, they find that bureaucracy has its uses. Instead of cutting or abolishing it, they increase the agency and give it more to do. The more the state does, the more the state sees the need to control public opinion by controlling the schools. Now, there is a point of optimism here. If any state could rule without propaganda, it would surely do so. Why then do states find educational control and the propagation of the civic religion in their interest? Because at some level, every state, in all times and places, is required to seek the tacit consent of those it governs. No state can control a society by use of the sword only and alone. It must also seek some degree of ideological conformity with its own goals. Otherwise its rule becomes threatened and destabilized. The other side of the coin is that states can indeed be destabilized by the ultimate counterrevolutionary tactic of providing alternative sources of education. As Mises said, all of history is a battle of ideas. Where the ideas of freedom are triumphant, liberty prevails. Where the ideas of freedom are buried and suppressed, despotism prevails. Our pathway is clear. It is a choice of the Mises Institute not to mix in the mire of a political system that is wholly owned or attempt to seek favor from influential opinion makers. Our path is one of education, pursued with high-minded ideals, advanced using the most modern methods, and animated by the spirit of guerilla warfare. There are Misesians and Rothbardians strewn throughout the academic world, financial and banking houses, law firms, and in every walk of life, not only in this country but all over the world. We have worked for nearly a quarter of a century on a very radical project of advancing economic science and logic. We have pushed to keep the fire of freedom burning brightly. We have sought to teach anyone and everyone about the workings and benefits of liberty. We have come under pressure from left, right, and center. Yet the attention given to this body of ideas grows by the day. We can prevail against the Propaganda State. So long as we are free to do so and have the means available, we will continue to do so. This is our weapon against power. It is the most effective weapon anyone could ever possess. If we win this victory, we win all others. We thank you for supporting education for liberty, and for being part of the revolutionary vanguard that sees through the errors of our day and imagines a brighter future of freedom, private property, and peace. : Mises Institute

association of committee to elect the rev dr kamal karna roy v. homeland security dept us issue birth obama?

The coon caricature? The coon caricature is one of the most insulting of all anti-Black caricatures. The name itself, an abbreviation of raccoon, is dehumanizing. As with Sambo, the coon was portrayed as a lazy, easily frightened, chronically idle, inarticulate, buffoon. The coon differed from the Sambo in subtle but important ways. Sambo was depicted as a perpetual child, not capable of living as an independent adult. The coon acted childish, but he was an adult; albeit a good-for-little adult. Sambo was portrayed as a loyal and contented servant. Indeed, Sambo was offered as a defense for slavery and segregation. How bad could these institutions have been, asked the racialists, if Blacks were contented, even happy, being servants? The coon, although he often worked as a servant, was not happy with his status. He was, simply, too lazy or too cynical to attempt to change his lowly position. Also, by the 1900s, Sambo was identified with older, docile Blacks who accepted Jim Crow laws and etiquette; whereas coons were increasingly identified with young, urban Blacks who disrespected Whites. Stated differently, the coon was a Sambo gone bad. The prototypical movie coon was Stepin Fetchit, the slow-talking, slow-walking, self-demeaning nitwit. It took his character almost a minute to say: "I'se be catchin' ma feets nah, Boss." Donald Bogle, a cinema historian, lambasted the coon, as played by Stepin Fetchit and others: Before its death, the coon developed into the most blatantly degrading of all black stereotypes. The pure coons emerged as no-account niggers, those unreliable, crazy, lazy, subhuman creatures good for nothing more than eating watermelons, stealing chickens, shooting crap, or butchering the English language.1 The coon caricature was born during American slavery. Slave masters and overseers often described slaves as "slow," "lazy," "wants pushing," "an eye servant," and "trifling."2 The master and the slave operated with different motives: the master desired to obtain from the slave the greatest labor, by any means; the slave desired to do the least labor while avoiding punishment. The slave registered his protest against slavery by running away, and, when that was not possible, by slowing work, doing shoddy work, destroying work tools, and faking illness. Slave masters attributed the slaves' poor work performance to shiftlessness, stupidity, desire for freedom, and genetic deficiencies. The amount of work done by a typical slave depended upon the demands of individual slave owners and their ability to extract labor. Typically, slaves worked from dawn to dusk. They were sometimes granted "leisure time" on Saturday or Sunday evenings; however, this time was spent planting or harvesting their own gardens, washing clothes, cooking, and cleaning. A slave owner wrote: "I always give them half of each Saturday, and often the whole day, at which time...the women do their household work; therefore they are never idle."3 Slave owners complained about the laziness of their workers, but the records show that slaves were often worked hard -- and brutally so. Overseers were routinely paid commissions, which encouraged them to overwork the slaves. On a North Carolina plantation an overseer claimed that he was a "'hole hog man rain or shine," and boasted that the slaves had been worked "like horses." He added, "I'd ruther be dead than be a nigger on one of these big plantations."4 After the closing of the African slave trade, the price of slaves went up, thereby causing some slave owners and their hired overseers to be more careful in their use of slaves. "The time had been," wrote one slave owner, "that the farmer could kill up and wear out one Negro to buy another; but it is not so now. Negroes are too high in proportion to the price of cotton, and it behooves those who own them to make them last as long as possible."5 Slaves are generally associated with the harvest of cotton; however, slaves worked in many industries. Almost every railroad in the ante-bellum South was built in part by slave labor. Slaves worked in sawmills, fisheries, gold mines and salt mines. They were used as deck hands on river boats. There were slave lumberjacks, construction workers, longshoremen, iron workers, even store clerks. Slaves monopolized the domestic services. Some slaves worked as skilled artisans, for example, shoemakers, blacksmiths, carpenters, mechanics, and barbers. These artisans were generally treated better than the slaves in the cotton and tobacco fields; therefore, it is not surprising that the artisans did better work. They included "many ingenious Mechanicks," claimed a White colonial Georgian, "and as far as they have had opportunity of being instructed, have discovered as good abilities, as are usually found among [White] people of our Colony."6 The supporters of slavery claimed that Blacks were a childlike people unequipped for freedom. Proslavers acknowledged that some slave masters were cruel, but they argued that most were benevolent, kind-hearted capitalists who civilized and improved their docile Black wards. From Radical Reconstruction to World War I, there was a national nostalgia for the "good ol' darkies" who loved their masters, and, according to the proslavers, rejected or only reluctantly accepted emancipation. In this context, the conceptualization of the coon was revised. During slavery almost all Blacks, especially men, were sometimes seen as coons, that is, lazy, shiftless, and virtually useless. However, after slavery, the coon caricature was increasingly applied to younger Blacks, especially those who were urban, flamboyant, and contemptuous of Whites. Thomas Nelson Page, a White writer wrote this in 1904: Universally, they [White Southerners] will tell you that while the old-time Negroes were industrious, saving, and when not misled, well-behaved, kindly, respectful, and self-respecting, and while the remnant of them who remain still retain generally these characteristics, the "new issue," for the most part, are lazy, thriftless, intemperate, insolent, dishonest, and without the most rudimentary elements of morality....Universally, they report a general depravity and retrogression of the Negroes at large in sections in which they are left to themselves, closely resembling a reversion to barbarism. 7 At the beginning of the 1900s many Whites supported the implementation of Jim Crow laws and etiquette. They believed that Blacks were genetically, therefore permanently, inferior to Whites. Blacks were, they argued, hedonistic children, irresponsible, and left to their own plans, destined for idleness -- or worse. It was not uncommon for Whites to distinguish between Niggers (Coons and Bucks) and Negroes8 (Toms, Sambos, and Mammies), and they preferred the latter. Racial caricatures are undergirded by stereotypes, and the stereotyping of Blacks as coons continued throughout the 20th Century. The pioneer study of racial and ethnic stereotyping in the United States was conducted in 1933 by Daniel Katz and Kenneth Braley, two social scientists. They questioned 100 Princeton University undergraduates regarding the prevailing stereotypes of racial and ethnic groups. Their research concluded that Blacks were consistently described as "superstitious," "happy-go-lucky," and "lazy." The respondents had these views even though they had little or no contact with Blacks.9 This study was repeated in 1951, and the negative stereotyping of Blacks persisted.10 The Civil Rights Movement improved Whites' attitudes toward Blacks, but a sizeable minority of Whites still hold traditional, racist views of Blacks. An early 1990s study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center found that the majority of the White, Hispanic, and other non-Black respondents displayed negative attitudes towards Blacks. For example, 78 percent said that Blacks were more likely than Whites to "prefer to live off welfare" and "less likely to prefer to be self-supporting." Further, 62 percent said Blacks were more likely to be lazy; 56 percent said Blacks were violence-prone; and 53 percent said that Blacks were less intelligent than Whites.11 Stated differently: the coon caricature is still being applied to Blacks. Martin Gilens, a Yale University political scientist, argued that many White Americans believe that Blacks receive welfare benefits more often than do Whites and that "the centuries old stereotype of blacks as lazy remains credible for a large number of white Americans." He claimed that opposition to welfare programs results from misinformation and racism, with Whites assuming that their tax money is being used to support lazy Blacks. Gilens blames, in part, the media. "Pictures of poor blacks are abundant when poverty coverage is most negative, while pictures of non-blacks dominate the more sympathetic coverage."12 The coon caricature was one of the stock characters among minstrel performers. Minstrel show audiences laughed at the slow-talking fool who avoided work and all adult responsibilities. This transformed the coon into a comic figure, a source of bitter and vulgar comic relief. He was sometimes renamed "Zip Coon" or "Urban Coon." If the minstrel skit had an ante-bellum setting, the coon was portrayed as a free Black; if the skit's setting postdated slavery, he was portrayed as an urban Black. He remained lazy and good-for-little, but the minstrel shows depicted him as a gaudy dressed "Dandy" who "put on airs." Unlike Mammy and Sambo, Coon did not know his place. He thought he was as smart as White people; however, his frequent malapropisms and distorted logic suggested that his attempt to compete intellectually with Whites was pathetic. His use of bastardized English delighted White audiences and reaffirmed the then commonly held beliefs that Blacks were inherently less intelligent. The minstrel coon's goal was leisure, and his leisure was spent strutting, styling, fighting, avoiding real work, eating watermelons, and making a fool of himself. If he was married, his wife dominated him. If he was single, he sought to please the flesh without entanglements. Hollywood films extended the brutalization inherent in the coon image. The first cinematic coon appeared in Wooing and Wedding of a Coon (1905), a stupendously racist portrayal of two dimwitted and stuttering buffoons. Several notable slapstick "coon shorts" were produced in 1910-1911, including How Rastus Got His Turkey (he stole it) and Chicken Thief. In the blackface comedy Coon Town Suffragettes (1914), a group of domineering mammies organize a "movement" to keep their good-for-nothing husbands at home. These early coons laid the foundation for the "great" movie coons of the 1930s and 1940s. In the 1929 Fox film Hearts in Dixie, Chloe is married to Gummy, a "languid, shiftless husband whose 'mysery' in his feet prevents him from being of any earthly good as far as work is concerned, although once away from his wife's eye he can shuffle with the tirelessness and lanky abandon of a jumping jack."13 Chloe dies of swamp fever, and Gummy remarries. The new wife is portrayed as a shrew because she tries to force Gummy to work. This movie was a comedy, and most of the humor centered around Gummy's attempts to avoid work and his coon dialogue, for example, "I ain't askin you is you ain't. I is askin you is you is." The actor who played Gummy was Stepin Fetchit, the "greatest" coon actor of all time. Stepin Fetchit was born Lincoln Theodore Perry on May 30, 1892. A medicine show and vaudeville performer, he arrived in Hollywood in the 1920s. Perry claimed that he got the name Fetchit from a racehorse that won him money. However, he also told an interviewer that he came to Hollywood as a member of a comedy team know as "Step and Fetch It," and later adopted a variant of the name. His first featured movie role using the name Stepin Fetchit was in MGM's In Old Kentucky (1929). Whether as Gummy, Stepin Fetchit, or other names, he essentially performed the same role: the arch-coon. Daniel J. Leab, a cinema historian, said this: Fetchit became identified in the popular imagination as a dialect-speaking, slump-shouldered, slack-jawed character who walked, talked, and apparently thought in slow motion. The Fetchit character overcame this lethargy only when he thought that a ghost or some nameless terror might be present; and then he moved very quickly indeed.14 Fetchit was the embodiment of the nitwit Black man. As with the Zip Coon and Urban Coon, this old-fashioned coon character could never correctly pronounce a multisyllabic word. He was portrayed as a dunce. In Stand Up and Cheer (1934), he was tricked into thinking that a "talking" penguin was really Jimmy Durante. Fetchit, scratching his head, eyes bulging, portrayed the coon so realistically that Whites thought they were seeing a real racial type. His coon portrayal was aided by his appearance. According to Donald Bogle, a film historian: His appearance, too, added to the caricature. He was tall and skinny and always had his head shaved completely bald. He invariably wore clothes that were too large for him and that looked as if they had been passed down from his white master. His grin was always very wide, his teeth very white, his eyes very widened, his feet very large, his walk very slow, his dialect very broken.15 Fetchit's coon characters were racially demeaned and often verbally and even physically abused by White characters. In David Harum (1934) he was traded to Will Rogers along with a horse. He was traded twice more in the movie. In Judge Priest (1934), he was pushed, shoved, and verbally berated by Will Rogers; even worse, his character was barely intelligible, scratched his head in an apelike manner, and followed Rogers around like an adoring pet. In Black communities, Stepin Fetchit remains a synonym for a bowing and scraping Black man. In 1970 he sued CBS unsuccessfully for $3 million, charging defamation of character for the way he was portrayed in the television documentary Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed. "It was Step," he claimed, "who elevated the Negro to the dignity of a Hollywood star. I made the Negro a first-class citizen all over the world...somebody it was all right to associate with. I opened all the theaters."16 That statement is hyperbole; however, Stepin Fetchit was a talented actor who added depth -- albeit, slight -- to the movie coon's portrayal. What is his legacy? He was the first Black actor to receive top billing in movies, and one of the first millionaire Black actors. He spawned imitators, most notably, Willie Best (Sleep 'n Eat) and Mantan Moreland, the scared, wide-eyed manservant of Charlie Chan. In 1978 he was elected to the Black Filmmakers Hall of Fame. But he will always be remembered as the lazy, barely literate, self-demeaning, White man's Black. He attempted a comeback in the 1950s, but it was unsuccessful; his coon caricature then seemed merely embarrassing. In the late 1960s he converted to the Black Muslim faith. In 1999 Fetchit's name was again in the headlines. Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace included a character named Jar Jar. Critics claimed that Jar Jar, a bumbling dimwitted amphibian-like character, spoke Caribbean-accented pidgin English, and had ears that suggested dreadlocks. Wearing bellbottom pants and vest, Jar Jar looked like the latest in Black cinematic stereotypes. Newspaper editorials and internet chat room discussions repeatedly invoked Stepin Fetchit's name. For example, Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal described Jar Jar as a "Rastafarian Stepin Fetchit on platform hoofs, crossed annoyingly with Butterfly McQueen."17 This incident suggests that Fetchit's legacy is to be remembered as a coon caricature: lazy, bewildered, stammering, shuffling, and good-for-little except buffoonery.

please answer my question about the constitutional convention? TeachingAmericanHistory.org Homepage Register Online About Us Search Site Seminars & Institutes Historical Documents Library Audio Lectures & Discussions Constitutional Convention Home > Constitutional Convention > Introduction to the Constitutional Convention by Gordon Lloyd Introduction to the Constitutional Convention by Gordon Lloyd See Also: Convention: Introduction to this Site | Introduction to the Convention | Four Act Drama | Day by Day Summary | Major Themes | Madison's Notes | Selected Correspondence Delegates: Age of Framers in 1787 | Educational Backgrounds | Continental Experiences | Delegates by State | Alphabetical List | Interactive Scene at the Signing of the Constitution | Interactive Map of Philadelphia | Entertainment of George Washington at the City Tavern The Call for a Grand Convention On May 15, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, is so can you answer my question?

best place to sell car online? Looking to sell my car. It's in the low 20'sK range. Autotrader never nabbed anything for me (or quick enough since I traded the car in before I got a response) Ebay looks good but I want top dollar, maybe try Buy It Now? cars.com, they get alot of traffic? Newspaper, still the old fashioned way but lots of readers and exposure? Pricey at $61 though. I'm not doing dealers or Carmax because the trade in values killed me the last three cars. I'm going to be a private seller. I have no spot to show the car off on the road either, someone not minding their own business always calls me up on the car sitting somewhere. It's already on craigslist. Forgot to mention. Not getting many responses.

Are there any genuine people out there? Well. No one will read this whole thing. But, I'm just going to go ahead and throw a few of these points out here, just to get them off of my mind... The other day, I had bent to tie my shoe outside of the Kennedy bookstore, when two sorority girls walked past me. Now, let me start by saying, I have absolutely no issue at all with sororities. I think they can be really positive things in most cases. It's just that I mention that these girls were in a sorority, because they were talking loudly and cruelly about another girl in their sorority. It just really struck me because, here these people were, having paid actual money to be in this sorority, and still, feeling no sort of emotional attachment or loyalty to the people they were supposed to be care about. Now, I understand that there are always going to be people who merit a certain amount of dislike wherever you go-- and we are ALL guilty of voicing our true ideas of people behind their backs (in both positive and negative fashions)... But... You see people all of the time spreading rumors and making countless negative comments... A lot of times this is someone who you supposedly consider a friend. But it is apparent that you don't care enough about anyone in a particular friendship in order to avoid the gossip to save the friendship. They find out-- they stop talking to you-- you don't care. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems that people just don't... get attached... in college. I just don't understand it. I guess maybe it has something to do with the fact that people just come and go to and from your life so frequently in college. Maybe it's some sort of defense mechanism. If you don't grow attached to people, it doesn't hurt when they leave. It's even that way in relationships. People date sometimes for years, declare that they care about this person deeply, then break up one day and never speak again. You're allotted a certain amount of time to get over this person. You aren't supposed to care about how they're doing or what they're feeling. You're just supposed to pick up and move on. In college, I see people bouncing from relationship to relationship, remaining utterly emotionally removed. I feel as though people are taught to maximize all that they can get from a relationship, rather than all you can give to that person. You give only to get. When people get bored, they cheat. Oh and physical appearance, by the way, is the top priority because you sure as hell aren't supposed to like someone solely based on their personality. And here we are back in high school. We never left. You know, maybe we never will. I haven't yet experienced life after college, so I don't know. Maybe the whole world is full of shallow people who eat genuine people for breakfast. I don't understand-- In relationships, I DO really care about that person. I do get attached. I'm interested in how I can improve their life, not what I can bloody-well get from them. I'd never cheat. I'm awfully trustworthy. Oh, and I hold personality way above all else. So what happens to me? I date someone. I care about them. I maximize all that I can give. They maximize all that they can take. And they just leave, replacing me maybe even within the week. Observing this, you would think that since people seem to have become blatantly unattached and frankly uninvolved, they would stop giving a flying flip about what anyone else thinks... but in many aspects, it turns out to be quite the contrary. People go to great lengths to impress others. They forgo their own interests and conform to those of the masses, in order to ensure that they are able to *click* into place. I just don't understand. If someone asks me what my favorite television show is, I'm not about to say Grey's Anatomy--since that's sort of become the stereo-typical college chick's chart topper. I'm going to blurt out the truth, because I'm damned-well honest. It isn't that I don't care at all about that person's opinion of me, (if I'm to be honest, I don't think you'd be human if you didn't), I just refuse to give up what makes me me just so I can fit in with a bunch of people who don't know the real me. Maybe this is why I don’t have too many female friends. I openly declare that I’m nerdy enough to play video-games for hours, go run 10 miles and then watch Futurama. I eat burgers instead of salads. I write in my journal instead of gossiping. Not that I’ve had much time to do those things lately… hah. I just don’t really think about how that affects people’s viewpoint of me… But then maybe that’s why we just don’t end up with much to talk about... And maybe I should make an effort because that’s what “branching-out” is… Maybe I’m the wrong one. Oh, and another thing I thought was over in high school-- I see girls dumbing themselves down to impress guys! Now, why, why, WHY in the hell? First off, intelligence is something you should be proud of, not ashamed. And really, aren't you just opening yourself up to a world of humiliation if nothing else? You are saying-- " here I am, brainless and naive. I guess you're in charge...” Maybe it's just because I am a very independent person and cannot for the life of me stand being dominated by others... I don't know. Why would I want to convey something that isn't me at all? Where is your self-respect? I just can't help but wondering-- where did all the genuine people go? Some people point to religion, but I feel as though organized religion can often have a certain amount of phoniness about it as well. Surely, there must be someone out there who feels just like me? ?? I feel as though religion uses social unity to influence people's behavior, just like non-religious social organizations. Isn't there someone out there, who is genuine by their own volition? It isn't that this particular state of the world concerns me to no end... but it really does sort of leave me in a dilemma. Should I change myself in order to be better absorbed into our culture? Should I trade everything for lies and deceit? Should I stop caring, stop giving, stop getting attached? Stop trusting? Because when you're in the minority, you are a lot more vulnerable. I guess while everyone else is learning to avoid getting hurt by not truly opening themselves up to anyone else... I don’t know... Maybe I'm the dim-witted one... for not changing.