Trade Show Exhibit Display Booths

How do I get involved with setup trade show exhibits as a trade or career? I have skills in carpentry,electrical, plumbing, drywall and renovations. I have over 15 years experience in these fields and currently working in my fields Daniel

Looking for a economical and effective trade show or exhibit organizer? I have just started my business, and to be in competition I really need to promote the product on large basis. Trade shows or exhibits will certainly boost up the market for my product locally but widely. I am looking for a great trade show or exhibit organizer to take all the responsibility at reasonable cost. Please advise if you know any? Thanks

where can I find trade show exhibit info?

Where can I RENT an F1 car or F1 full-sized replica car in the USA for a trade show exhibit? Where can I RENT an F1 car or F1 full-sized replica car in the USA for a trade show exhibit? I've found lots of sites and companies based in the UK or Asia but none in the USA. I would consider a replica purchase as well if necessary. I am open to all racing teams at the moment. Thanks in advance. No this is not a joke. My coworker claims he found one in FL that we will rent and is within our budget. He hasn't shared his contact with me yet. I'll try post where we are renting the car when I know more. I suspect he may have found an Indy car, so I'm leaving question out there still. Thanks for the responses thus far.

How much does it cost to have an exhibit at a trade show? I know that it is probably very different depending on what event you go to, but i just wanted to get an idea of how much it costs. My display will require about 20 to 30 square feet

Is the Atlanta Gift Trade Show really all the hype? Or is it worth exhibiting there? ? I'm considering exhibiting at the Atlanta Gift Trade Show, but I'm not sure whether it's worth the investment. Our product is Organic Bamboo Textiles, does anyone have an opinions or past experiences they would like to share? Any feedback would be great! Thanks

What's the best trade show booth? I am going to be exhibiting at a trade show in Chicago and I need to buy a new booth. Does anyone have any recommendations? thanks

how to find trade shows or exhibits about large format printing media & supplies? banners/ billboards/ stands/ boards/ foam boards

Last Minute Trade Show Booth Costs? My company is thinking about exhibiting at a trade show 'last minute' meaning 2 weeks before signing up for a space etc. Do these spaces normally cost more or less because they are last minute? There are a few open spots but I am not sure if they charge premium or discount for last minute exhibitors.

Does anyone here attend trade shows and deal with the union "help"? I'm in the shipping industry, and many clients use my company to ship their exhibit materials to trade shows. The horror stories about the union "decorators" at convention centers are unbelievable! My clients are astonished when they are charged more for these thugs to move their booths from the shipping dock to the show floor than it took for my company to ship it across ten states! The union creeps are universally rude, unhelpful, belligerent and drop whatever they are doing to take their contracted breaks. Do-nothing thugs. All of them. Just wait until they get their hands on our health care!

trade exihibits? does anybody know of any trade shows/exhibits in the philippines for the hotel and restaurant sector?

Trade show booth ideas? Hi! I'm attending a trade show where I'll be exhibiting my website. Any ideas on the decor?

Custom Booth Design companies for Trade Shows and Expositions in Germany? Does anyone know of any companies that design and construct custom booth designs for events in Germany? We are exhibiting in a show in late April!! So, we have very little time to confirm with a company!

A Turkish Custom Booth Design company for Trade Shows and Expositions in Germany? Does anyone know of any companies that design and construct custom booth designs for events in Germany? We are exhibiting in a show in late April!! So, we have very little time to confirm with a company!

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?

Which trade shows are best to exhibit at for companies on limited budgets?

Does anybody know a site for food exhibits/tradeshows? I have a food product that I want to sell in the market, but I want to see if a lot of people would like it. I guess the best thing to do is go to a trade show? I don't know where to start. Please somebody help.

Trying to find trade shows and conventions? Trying to find trade shows and conventions specifically in the area of health and beauty, vitamin and supplements and Natural foods, and health and wellness. Where can I find a listing showing trade shows for those particular categories that will help me decide where I should exhibit a new product I've developed?

Hello I am an Inventor with full Patent rights. I am looking for a Manufacture who may want to license? How? Inventor looking to license invention or exhibit in trade show or in an expo for new product. Does any one know how I would go about this? Thank you for your time...Delilahlizamamgd@yahoo.com

Algebra 2 take home test problem inequality help? A convection center designated a maximum of 34000 square feet of floor space for trade-show exhibits. The space will be divided into two types of areas, wired and unwired zones. Wired zones are for exhibits that require electricity; each occupies 500 sq ft and accommodates 4 exhibits. Unwired zones are for exhibits that do not require electricity; each occupies 850 sq ft and accommodates 6 exhibits. There will be at least 10 of each type of zone, but no more than 40 wired zones. There is not enough space to accommodate all the companies that have applied to exhibit. Linear programming can be used to Determine how many wired zones and unwired zones should be used to accommodate as many exhibits as possible. what are the inequalities?

Best hotel choice near the PARIS-NORD VILLEPINTE Expo Center? Hello, my company is planning to exhibit at a trade show in Paris. The event is taking place at the Paris-Nord Villepinte Exposition Center. I would like to find a hotel that is either walking distance or a short and easy commute. Any suggestions?

adobe illustrator help--brochure, b-card, banner? i am responsible for a trade show exhibit, and am working on a logo for a startup. they need me to complete the following above, and i am a rookie at all this. what do i need to do to ensure everything gets to printer w/o hangups? (document size, file specifics, dpi stuff). i seriously do not want to make a mistake and cause a delay due to stupid mistakes...time and money is on the line! thanks for your help :)

Need help re AC conversion to watts/amps? Our company exhibits at trade shows; my boss asks me to make sure there is a 110AC outlet available for our booth. However, whenever I get an application to request electricity, the forms request amps and watts, such as '5 Amps-600Watts', etc. If I need 110AC, which level of Amps/Watts should I request? Thanks.

How to find potential exhibitors? We are conducting a natural health, organic and eco friendly products and sustainable technology trade show and want to attract foreign companies interested in exhibiting at our event. How can we locate them?

Does this job exist ? Getting paid to attend trade shows (not work in a company's exhibit at a trade show, but just walk around and look at exhibits and talk to exhibitors) Not selling anything, but getting paid to gather information, compile sales leads, anything ? I love attending trade shows and picking up "freebies" etc... wondered if there was any way of getting paid for doing so.

Question for anyone thats good at maths? A manufacturer supplies Display Boxes which are used to protect exhibits at trade shows etc. The boxes have no base, but the walls are made of good quality wood to enhance their experience and the tops are made from a high quality of laminated glass. All the wood used is the same thickness and material. The cost of the boxes depends only on the amount of wood and amount of glass used. The following six boxes (which are shown below with the cost and dimensions) were sent to a museum for an exhibition. My question - How can I find out how much the wood is per sq. ft and how much the glass is per sq. ft. for the following boxes. A £56.20 3ft length, 2ft breadth, 1ft height B £94.60 5.5 length, 2ft breadth, 1ft height C £82.50 6ft length, 2ft breadth, 0.5 ft height D £171.50 5ft length, 4ft breadth, 1.5ft height E £66.30 3ft length, 3ft breadth, 0.75ft height F £127.35 12ft length, 1.5ft breadth, 0.5ft height. Please show all your working so I can learn!

If your good at maths please can you help me? I have this investigation and I'm so stuck on it. A manufacturer supplies Display Boxes which are used to protect exhibits at trade shows etc. The boxes have no base, but the walls are made of good quality wood to enhance their experience and the tops are made from a high quality of laminated glass. All the wood used is the same thickness and material. The cost of the boxes depends only on the amount of wood and amount of glass used. The following six boxes (which are shown below with the cost and dimensions) were sent to a museum for an exhibition. The curator was anxious to save money and queried the bill. She maintained that one of the boxes had been wrongly priced. By considering the two materials used in the construction of the boxes investigate the curator's claim. I'd be so grateful if anyone could give me an idea on how to solve this. I'm so stuck These are the boxes. A £56.20 3ft length, 2ft breadth, 1ft height B £94.60 5.5 length, 2ft breadth, 1ft height C £82.50 6ft length, 2ft breadth, 0.5 ft height D £171.50 5ft length, 4ft breadth, 1.5ft height E £66.30 3ft length, 3ft breadth, 0.75ft height F £127.35 12ft length, 1.5ft breadth, 0.5ft height.

I need information about where to look to find someone that can do exhibit panels or banners? I need information on where to look for pricing info and where I can find someone to do panels or banners. I have done searches on the internet and all I find is info on trade shows. I was wondering if there is somewhere that does these things for non profit groups at a cheaper price. I am looking for a place that has the supplies for a panel or banner, the stands, and can also do the printing. We do have a graphic designer but may be interested in thier ideas or suggestions.

Dumb question about IMATS but what does "what does only includes admission to the exhibit floor" really mean? i can't buy stuff from there and only look at the display? I am talking about the IMATS trade show that will be taking place in Pasadena CA in June, the cheapest tickets are $15 only for exhibit floor, I was wondering if this means there is some floor that u can only look at makeup and then u go further to actually buy it which will not be included in the price.

Salary for college students with a B.S.? What do you think the salary is when a student graduates with her B.S. and starts working in a firm? I'm going into exhibit desiging at a trade show firm..

Salary for students with a B.S.? What do you think the salary is when a student graduates with her B.S. and starts working in a firm? I'm going into exhibit desiging at a trade show firm..

List of IT exhibitions around the world? Where can I find list of IT exhibitions, like CeBIT or Outsource World? I am looking at attending a few trade shows specifically for the IT industry, where service providers exhibit their services. If I can get a list of these events, with the dates would be helpful. It doesnt matter which part of the world it is happening in. thanks

what is the most appropriate thing to wear for a professional exhibit for a woman? Jewelry trade show

I am looking for information on someone or a company that can do exhibit panels or banners.? I need information on where to look for pricing info and where I can find someone to do panels or banners. I have done searches on the internet and all I find is info on trade shows. I was wondering if there is somewhere that does these things for non profit groups at a cheaper price. I am looking for a place that has the supplies for a panel or banner, the stands, and can also do the printing. We do have a graphic designer but may be interested in thier ideas or suggestions.

how does one get a photography exhibit? I want to to have my photography exhibited, does anyone know what it takes to get to this point in having their work shown and sold? The tips of the trade?

need help with my assingment...? The following memo contains 30 intentional errors in sentence structure, spelling, and proofreading. Edit the memo and print it with a 1-inch top margin. Delete these instructions. MEMORANDUM DATE:[Use current date] TO:Maria S. Damen, Vice President, Marketing [Insert handwritten initials] FROM: Ryan Jenkins, Exhibit Manager SUBJECT:REDUCING A MAJOR EXPENSE AT TRADE SHOWS As you suggested, Matthew Chavez and myself have been searching for ways to reduce our trade show exhibition costs’. One of our companys major expenses at these shows is the visitors gift that we present. At last years show we gave away a nine-color, silk-screened T-shirt. Which was designed by a high-priced New York designer. Each shirt cost $15 to produce, however, I’ve located a Chinese supplier who can produce good-looking T-shirts. For the low cost of only $4 each. Look at the savings we can make: 2,000 silk-screened T-shirts @$15$30,000 2,000 cheaper T-shirts @$4 8,000 SAVINGS$22,000 This major saving was immediatley apparent to Matthew and I, as we studied the problem. Please examine the enclosed T-shirt sample. If you compare T-shirts, you might expect a cheaper shirt to be dis-similar; but as you can see, this shirt is quiet presentable. What’s more, it advertises our name just as well as the more expensive silk-screened T-shirts. If the decision were up to Matthew or I, we would be happy to wear the cheaper shirt. With increasing travel costs and de-creasing trade show budgets, us in marketing must look carefully at how we spent the companies limited funds for exhibitions. Over the last several years,’ we have de-creased the number of shows in which we participate, we have also taken fewer booth staffers then in the passed. This is a significant place to reduce expenses. For our next major trade show, please authorize the purchase of 2,000 T-shirts. Which can save us $22,000 in exhibition costs. With managements approval before December 1, we can be sure to receive supplys from our Chinese manufacturer for the spring Las Vegas trade show. Matthew and myself look forward to your quick response. If your worried about this suggestion or need more details, please call me at Ext. 480 so that we can talk about it. Enclosure

International Trade and Commercial Policy? 1.David Hume’s the price-specie-flow mechanism was thought of as a great attack on the economic policies of mercantilists. Today the classical price-specie-flow mechanism is seen as resting on several assumptions. One of the assumptions is demand for traded goods is price elastic. Explain why this assumption is necessary. 2.In international economics, for pedagogical purpose, we assume that there are community indifference curves. Under what conditions can we assume that there exist community indifference curves? Why? 3.In an exchange economy between consumer A and consumer B, their initial endowments are , , , . Their utility functions are and respectively. Find the competitive equilibrium allocation and price ratio. 4.There are two industries, X and Y in an economy. The technologies of X and Y industries exhibit constant returns to scale. The Edgeworth box for production in the economy is shown as below. . , and . Draw this economy’s PPS.

You are addicted to technology when... (A joke JEEZE)? Willys cynical thought for the day; I'm so old I know ALL the answers but nobody asks me the freaking questions! You know you are addicted to technology when... You can't sit through an entire movie without having at least one device on your body beep or buzz. You think of the gadgets in your office as "friends," but you forget to send your father a birthday card. In computer shops, you eavesdrop on a salesman talking with customers, butt in to correct him and spend 20 minutes answering the customers' questions, while the salesman stands by silently, nodding his head. You say "digital compression" in a conversation without thinking how strange your mouth feels saying it. You constantly find yourself in groups of people to whom you say "digital compression." Everyone understands what you mean and you are not surprised or disappointed that you don't have to explain it. You say "voice number" instead of "phone number" as the majority of phone lines in any house are linked to contraptions that talk to other contraptions. You back up your data every day. On holiday, you read a computer manual and turn the pages faster than those who read John Grisham novels. You go to trade shows and map out your path of the exhibit hall in advance. But you can't give someone directions to your house without looking up street names. You would rather get more dots per inch than miles per gallon. You are so knowledgeable about technology that you feel secure enough to say "I don't know" when someone asks you a technology question instead of feeling compelled to make something up. You understand all these jokes. http://www.total-knowledge.com/~willyblues/ From; Willys Jokes archives! The best jokes on the net!

Can you please grade my essay? Give and You Shall Receive The entire world is in an economic recession, and each country has felt the devastating effects. Here in America, money has become tighter, jobs fewer, and food prices have gone up considerably. However, as citizens of an astoundingly wealthy, industrialized nation, if we believe that our current situation is disappointingly inopportune, then we would be greatly mistaken. Not only would we be mistaken, we would also be extremely foolish to lament over our petty woes when millions of people in Africa and Asia live--and often die-- in a state of perpetual poverty, under deplorable conditions. Some countries are stupendously rich and others horrendously poor.. Despite this, hope still remains, and it is for that very reason that wealthy, industrialized nations should adopt a policy in which they use a variety of methods to share their wealth with the undeveloped world, a policy from which there could be many beneficiaries. According to the MilleniumProject commissioned by the United Nations, four billion people live in poverty. Malaria and pneumonia, two diseases that are widely eradicated and completely preventable, seem to travel with the wind in places like Africa and Asia, killing millions each year. Moreover, (according to the UN) eight hundred million people go to bed hungry every night, unsure as to whether they will live to see another sunrise, but knowing that if they do, there still will not be any food. Amid all of this suffering, those who are fortunate enough to pick up a spoon at dinnertime should not find it hard to reach within their hearts to help those in dire need. By trading with those countries who have this dire need, we wealthy nations can jumpstart foreign economies, as well as give food, medicine, and peace of mind to those who need it most. It is said that if one gives, then he or she receives. Similarly, if a government is generous and munificent, it receives things in return. Many developing countries show economic promise, and are looking like eligible to be future trade partners that can provide bona fide investment opportunities. For example, if the United States were to invest in Africa, a continent which most unknowingly consider an investment wasteland, the paybacks could be gargantuan. In reality, Africa is an investment wasteland no longer. In fact, the AT Kearney 2007 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Confidence Index ranks fifteen emerging markets in Africa among the top twenty-five investment market destinations in the world. It is within those emerging markets where there is money to be made; between 1990 and 2005 private capital flows in ninety-four emerging markets rose from twenty five to three hundred billion dollars. However, careful planning is required to make certain that capital is not intercepted by corrupt heads of state and the like. Trade and aid should be reserved for those governments that exhibit democratic behavior. Besides facilitating money flow, sharing wealth would assist America in restoring its global reputation, and simultaneously give us allies for the future. “America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example,” says President Barack Obama. Therefore, we should reach out to the developing world now, so that in the future, complex issues, such as climate change, can be easily addressed. Giving financial aid should not only be viewed as humanitarianism, but also as a long-overdue act of penance for Imperialism. During the Age of Imperialism Western nations bombarded vulnerable nations with military might and injected them with their cultural needle. By doing so, the imperialistic nations, many of which remain world powers, put the native peoples under oppressive conditions and exploited their lands for natural resources. Even today, in this first decade of the twenty-first century, some African countries have barely begun to throw off the shackles that Imperialism placed on them and their economies. For example, in 1913 England possessed colonies such as modern-day South Africa, Egypt, Sudan, and Nigeria. Today, according to a 2008 list compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency, England’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is two trillion seven hundred and eighty seven billion dollars, while the average GDP of its former colonies listed above is a mere seven percent of that. Still, there are those who would scoff at these numbers, and reason that they are a fateful result of the inability of dysfunctional governments to provide for their citizens. It would not hurt those who hold this belief take a look at Walter Rodney’s 1973 novel How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, in which he states, “ When two societies of different sorts come into prolonged and effective contact, the rate and character of change taking place in both is serious

Signs Technology Took Over Your Life Part 2 - True or Not? 19. You go to computer trade shows and map out your path of the exhibit hall in advance. But you cannot give someone directions to your house without looking up the street names. 20. You would rather get more dots per inch than miles per gallon. 21. You become upset when a person calls you on the phone to sell you something, but you think it's okay for a computer to call and demand that you start pushing buttons on your telephone to receive more information about the product it is selling. 22. You know without a doubt that disks come in five-and-a-quarter and three-and-a-half-inch sizes. 23. Al Gore strikes you as an "intriguing" fellow. 24. You own a set of itty-bitty screw-drivers and you actually know where they are. 25. While contemporaries swap stories about their recent hernia surgeries, you compare mouse-induced index-finger strain with a nine-year-old. 26. You are so knowledgeable about technology that you feel secure enough to say "I don't know" when someone asks you a technology question instead of feeling compelled to make something up. 27. You rotate your screen savers more frequently than your automobile tires. 28. You have a functioning home copier machine, but every toaster you own turns bread into charcoal. 29. You have ended friendships because of irreconcilably different opinions about which is better, the track ball or the track pad. 30. You understand all the jokes in this message. If so, my friend, technology has taken over your life. We suggest, for your own good, that you go lie under a tree and write a haiku. And don't use a laptop. 31. You email this message to your friends over the net. You'd never get around to showing it to them in person or reading it to them on the phone. In fact, you have probably never met most of these people face-to-face. 32. You don't even read magazine articles anymore, unless someone's keyed them into e-mail and forwarded it to you. 33. You print the itinerary of your vacation from a scheduler software. 34. You pack the laptop computer first for any trip. 35. While you're away from home, the first three numbers you call are your voicenet, a bulletin board, and one of your e-mail accounts. 36. You are reading this from a screen.

Where did humans first appear? A) South America B) Africa C) Asia D) Europe E) Australia 22. What was the most radical anatomical change in human evolution? A) brain enlargement B) standing erect C) development of language D) loss of body hair E) development of culture 23. Read the following scenario to answer the following question(s). Birds are a widespread group of animals, with approximately 10,000 different species found throughout the world today. Because they are relatively easy to find and so visually appealing, they are better understood than many other groups of animals. They are also valuable biological indicators, with many species living in different habitats during different times of the year and covering long migration routes. According to the World Conservation Union, extinction threatens over 1,200 bird species today and at least 179 are critically endangered. Some of the most endangered species include the Tahiti monarch, with only 10 pairs remaining, and the Bali starling, with only 12 wild individuals left. In Hawaii, the last captive po ouli died in 2005 and the last two known to be alive in the wild have not been seen in many months. Common birds are also disappearing. In North America, red-winged blackbird populations declined by at least 1 percent each year between 1980 and 1999. These examples can serve as a warning. Habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation is the most serious problem and affects 86% of threatened birds. Unsustainable forestry and intensifying agriculture exacerbate this problem of habitat loss. All of this shows that conservation of habitats is critical if many of the world s bird species are going to be saved from extinction in the near future. What is the greatest threat to birds today? A) pollution B) poaching C) cellular phone towers D) habitat loss E) the illegal pet trade 24. Which of these animals exhibits segmentation? A) jelly B) grasshopper C) planarian D) sponge E) hookworm 25. Which of these primate groups is most closely related to hominids? A) apes B) Old World monkeys C) lorises D) lemurs E) New World monkeys

Do you think John McCain is Bad for America? The record shows John McCain exhibits no real epiphany or change of heart on everything from tax cuts, immigration, to bad trade deals. John McCain has denigrated anyone who does not swallow the leftist cant on the reasons for global warming, if there is in fact global warming. He seems to endorse the leftist notion that global warming can be "cured" by spending money or by returning to bicycles and candles living the way Al Gore would have the rest of us live while the elite live like royalty. If America wants someone who believes in open borders, bad trade deals, misuse of the U.S. military as a commodity in service to some elite agenda, unthinking acceptance of politicized science, if they prefer a president who does not think taxes and fees at the present level are not obscene, who voted or sponsored some of the worst legislation ever then then John McCain is their man.

What does it mean:AN EDGE IN THE MARKETS, 2) EXCESS RETURNS? Hello,guys!I'm not an Eng.speaker. Can anybody help me with the meanings of 2 phrases:AN EDGE IN THE MARKETS, 2) EXCESS RETURNS.They're from a book,a context, "There exists no information that can give a trader AN EDGE IN THE MARKETS.There is little debate that markets do not exhibit this type of behavior. Numerous studies have shown that corporate insiders -those privy to nonpublic information - have earned EXCESS RETURNS.If one could acquire similar information in the markets,profits would undoubtedly result.The bigger question is the cost of such information. Since insider trading is illigal, one would risk loss of freedom for an almost certain EDGE IN THE MARKET.

need help with ECONOMICS BAD!!!? 1.Net exports: a.will increase if exports of goods decline. b.will increase if imports of goods rise. c.in our GDP accounts permit estimation of foreign ownership of American businesses. d.include budgetary outlays of the federal government. e.is the net effect of the foreign trade sector on GDP. 2.The circular flow of economic activity is a model of the: a.flow of goods, resources, payments, and expenditures between the sectors of the economy. b.influence of government on business behavior. c.influence of business on consumers. d.role of unions and government in the economy. 3.The circular flow model assumes: a.businesses and households own the factors of production. b.businesses own the factors of production. c.government owns the factors of production. d.households own the factors of production. e.firms, households, and the government own the factors of production. 4.If exports rise and imports fall, then: a.GDP will increase. b.GDP will decrease. c.GDP may remain unchanged. d.net exports will fall. e.transfer will rise. National income account(billions of dollars) Personal consumption expenditures (C)$500 Exports (X) 50 Federal government spending (G) 100 State and local government spending (G) 200 Imports (M) 15 Gross private domestic investment (I) 65 ____5.As shown in Exhibit 11-1, net exports are: a.$50 billion. b.$15 billion. c.$35 billion. d.$65 billion. ____6.Which of the following would not be included in the gross private domestic investment (I) category of GDP? a.A bakery's purchase of a new oven. b.A retailer's additions to its inventories. c.Newly built residential construction.

How credible is the The Open Chemical Physics Journal? The Open Chemical Physics Journal ISSN: 1874-4125 Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark. http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm Gen. Stiggo-That is the only problem I find with this study. It would be hard to reproduce and verify with no other samples.

Please I need help on these Riddle and chain of Questions please help!? 1.How many yards did Peyton Manning throw for during the game on 9/16/07? Which team does he play for? Did the team win or lose? 2.Name 3 shows now playing on Broadway (N.Y.C.). What theater(s) are they playing in? Can you get tickets? 3.Find a movie review for “The Messengers” Who wrote the review? Did they like it? 4.What is the URL for Yosemite National Park? 5.Where do you trade stocks in Germany? What is the URL? 6.What is the high temperature in Lima, Peru today? (include date) 7.Find out what artists have exhibits at the J. Paul Getty Museum. What are the museum’s hours? 8.What is the Official URL for the “2008 Winter Olympics”? Who is the host? 9.What is the current number one book on the Amazon.com Non-Fiction Best Selling list? 10.What is the earliest flight departing John Wayne airport for New York City, NY (JFK) on Monday, October 1, 2007? When does the flight arrive at JFK? What airline is it? I need help before my sister finds out about this pls.

anyone want to proof read? just wrote a first draft some input and editing would be great if anyone has some tips Imperialism was the product of two earlier advancements, nationalism and the industrial revolution. Nationalism gave the people an urge to be a part of the best country and by best this meant strongest, wealthiest, and most powerful. Along with this attraction towards nationalistic power came the political aspects where the people of power were in search of territorial expansion. This quest for territory was lead by the pursuit of raw materials so the industrialized countries could continue to produce goods and build strong economies. Without this nationalism and the industrial revolution, imperialism would not have been possible. There are many different arguments as to which political, social, and economic forces were most responsible for imperialism. However, responsibility for imperialism is mostly held by the nations’ will to gain power, the industrialized producers and consumers in search of wealth, and the ideologies of the time period. In The Century of Total War, Raymond Aron said, “…none of the colonial undertakings was motivated by the quest for capitalist profits; they originated in political ambitions…the nations’ will to power”. (document 3) Aron was correct in that the leaders of the powerful countries of Europe and as well as the U.S. were not only motivated to imperialize Africa and the far East for economical benefits, but out of sheer pride for their country. Nationalism had set off a spark with these countries and everyone wanted their country to be the best and to dominate the world. American Senator A.J. Beveridge wrote in 1898, “Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours.” (document 2) Beveridge exhibited the American spirit which was in many others. They wanted their country to prosper and be the very best. It was not just America, though. Cecil Rhodes also said in 1877, “ I contend that we [Britons] are the finest race in the world, and the more of the world we inhabit, the better it is for the human race.” (document 4) Because of the nations’ will to gain power, the stride for imperializing the rest of the world was so evident in the 19th and 20th centuries. Those who were imperializing looked at the situation much differently than those who were being imperialized. A famous poem by Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden, said “On fluttered folk and wild Your new caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child” was an example of how the already industrialized nations viewed the people they were conquering. (document 6) According to this poem, the natives were half-devil because they were not Christian and half-child because they were not advanced the same way as the Europeans. The Europeans felt responsible to teach the natives how to live “correctly”, despite their customs and cultures. President William McKinley wrote about how when the U.S. was in the Philippines, “We could not leave them to themselves… There was nothing left for us to do but to take them over. Then we would be able to educate the Filipinos.” (document 7) He then wrote of how the U.S. “could uplift and civilize and Christianize them.” In a letter from Phan Thanh Gian, a Vietnamese governor, when writing about the French and how the Vietnamese compared he said, “We are weak against them…No man can resist them. They go where they want, the strongest ramparts fall before them.”(document 8) This shows that although the modern nations claimed to be doing good by imperializing, they were doing it by force and those who they were doing it upon had no choice but to give in. The idea that the world was benefited by the Europeans was thought up by the Europeans and it was backed with European weaponry. The production of industries is what leads our nation to greatness. As stated in document one, imperialism thrives with products fresh of the assembly line, such as weapons, ships, and uniforms. An imperialist nation needs power through industry to provide, consume, and grow into an ever more powerful country. Furthermore, cotton and iron goods are an abundance in America, and a necessity to the rest of the world. As stated in document two, the countries able to supply the rudiments of imperialism to other nations, are the nations who they themselves prosper. The economic power is the true influence in an imperialistic world. Altogether, the responsibility for imperialism relied strongly on the nations’ will to gain power, the industrialized producers and consumers in search of wealth, and the ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries. Without nationalism and the industrial revolution which had been discovered earlier, none of this would have happened. Also, the political, social, and economical forces were all related because without the strong nationalistic people of the countries, the countries would not have been as confident in their attempts to colonize and

Why Does Everyone Say Wizards Suck w/o Arenas? He is not even the best player on the Wizards that would be Caron Butler. IMO, Butler is the 3rd or 4th SF in the league after LBJ23, Pierce, and maybe Granger. I think Butler is better than Melo cause Melo is so 1 dimensional and Butler is hands down better than Arenas. The same goes for Jamison who is also an All-star and vastly overrated he is by far the better all-around player than Gilbert. All Gilbert is, is a 20+ PPG scorer he is a terrible PG that is selfish and does not have his team's best interest @ hand. The Wizards last year showed they are better off w/o him by getting into the playoffs with a better record than when they had Gilbert. They had a streak of 11 straight wins and when Gilbert came back he completely fucked the chemistry and they lost 7 straight. Gilbert can't pass, chucks up like nobody's business when he is off, can't rebound, or defend. He is not that good of a player. In fact, the Wizards were better off with Mason at point last year. He can do a little bit of everything. Therefore, Mason > Arenas. Arenas and his passing inability is what is worse cause Butler and Jamison aren't exactly good passers and although the trio has combined for the highest scoring trio for 5 years now. When they play together their is no ball movement and the game is stagnant. Ever notice when Daniels came in the flow of the game improved when Arenas came out? Also, the Wizards play my Knicks 4x, last night in fact was our 3rd meeting. I have realized that Butler is the man of this team and Jamison follows they should be kept they exhibit heart and all-around play and Butler straight up kills my team he always shows up against them even though they lose. I also realized the reason why Wizards suck this year is not cause of Gilbert, but cause of the Haywood injury. Haywood is their only consistent low post threat and really came on strong last year/ They miss him thrown in with the fact that Thomas can no longer be balls 2 the wall hustle on a consistent basis due to the irregular heart beat and Blatche is good, but young and inconsistent. As, for Gilbert. What is Eating Gilbert Arenas he is selfish and the team fucked up giving him the extension. He cares more of his nicknames Hibachi or Agent 0 than winning. He cares more of showing up Deshawn Stevenson in 3pt contest than winning, and he said he would not like to play if Wizards were not in contention. Well, last year when they were in contention he did not mind coming back messing with the chemistry only to get a contract bonus. I really hate the guy the Wizards would be much better if they trade him to the Bulls for Hinrich. Hinrich is better than Arenas and a true floor general that would flourish once more after he was demoted by Rose. In Washington he would pair well with Butler and Jamison. Throw in Hughes in the trade cause his best days were in Washington and him and Stevenson can form a defensive-3pt shooting duo. Then they give up McGee and Thomas cause the Bulls would take them being that they are loaded with Guards. Arenas could be SG and Gordon 6th Man. PG. KIRK HINRICH SG. DESHAWN STEVENSON SF. CARON BUTLER PF. ANTAWN JAMSION C. BRENDAN HAYWOOD 6. Larry Hughes * Makes for much better team. Yes, did they win w/o Arenas before yes. Sometimes role players are more important to a team than their so called All-stars. To me Arenas is not an All-star. But, anyways once again on certain teams role players are more instrumental than All-stars. In terms of PG productivity Arenas if you call him a PG is dead last 30. Ridnour and Blake are more instrumental to their teams @ the point than Arenas is. So if the Wiz are better w/ Arenas how come last year w/o him they won more games than with him? And Caron is a 20/6/6 guy how is that not better than Arenas a 1 dimensional player.

Any interpretations to this dream please? I am back at the Penna. Academy of the Fine Arts, from where I received my graduate degree. As I did then, the summer after graduation, I worked for the school as a studio painter, "jack of all trades" while deciding where else to move on to. In the dream it is the same as was my reality then. I am working with a man and a woman, We, are all strangers to one anther, only workmates.. But I accept the job, assuming it will be divided into 3 equal parts without discussion, since it is a job shared to be done by the 3 parties assuming their equal responsibilities. Our task is to carry 4 columns made out of cardboard and plaster to the outside, to the roof, where the ventilation is most adequate for the job at hand which is : these must be painted beige and black toward an upcoming exhibit. The fellow says he'll carry 2 for he is the strongest of the 3 of us. The other woman and I allow it. We go through stairs and stairs and even more stairs in order to reach the roof. It seems a climb alike one made to the peak of Everest. Finally when reaching the top, we all begin to paint. I mention having brought as well, red paint - to put under the beige at the columns' top and bottom, as both an under-paint and such as will intensify the detailing of the columns' top and bottom. At mentioning this both the other man and woman sigh to the thought of any "extra" work be done. I explain this toward the effect of the results and their durability. I begin to paint silently..the man and woman are still involved with one another, complaining about doing more work than they think is necessary. At one point, while they have been jabbering, not working, I have finished the red under-painting in ALL, oh-oh..only 3 columns??? I ask the man where the 4th was, since he had taken the responsibility to bring IT. He simply says, he forgot it. This time I sigh but go through a Kafkaesque up and down of staircases to fetch it to the roof, because the man has bluntly refused to budge and get it. When I finally get to the roof, column over shoulder, I see that the two other, have closed the window through which I must crawl through to get to the roof. As they stand outside the window, they are smiling as if they have won at something, totally irrelevant. I am very exhausted so I say, please, at least take the column, the exhibit merits good work. Do your jobs. But they smile with triumph and say no! Then I plead that I am let through, I will do their job, even all their jobs, not yet finished...to this they answer with a smile that shows spiky , very brown-yellowed teeth..'ABSOLUTELY NOT!' Ac consequence I lay my head upon the column with temporary defeat. Closing my eyes for the time being at the senseless futility. What may this dream mean, please? Thank you! Well The Bear-it appears you've touched upon certain interpretations I've been considering.Since I keep a dream journal, though ONLY for dreams I feel there's an importance to keep in mind, I've allowed come to surface a few details u've mentioned. I'm always very busy, not because it replaces something I'd like to deny to myself, but because that seems to be how my mind will not let up.Somewhere THERE, I need to place into order all I don't understand.It's an exhausting process because I've little rest, even in my dreams which may occur in the 3 & 1/2hours of sleep a day or every 2, should I not have collapsed, and closed my eyes from fatigue against the "column".The column: A part, and there were 4 NOT 3 which would hold up "something"?Hmm, never thought of the need for support as to the columns-What was the most terrifying, in fact the only factor in the dream was the other 2 people's impeding smile of triumph!It was shown through brownish-yellow teeth. It Must BE of IMPORTANCE??

How do I get involved with setup trade show exhibits as a trade or career.? I have skills in carpentry,electrical, plumbing, drywall and renovations. I have over 15 years experience in these fields D. Eng

Which trade shows are best to exhibit at for companies on limited budgets?

Any interpretations to this dream please? I am back at the Penna. Academy of the Fine Arts, from where I received my graduate degree. As I did then, the summer after graduation, I worked for the school as a studio painter, "jack of all trades" while deciding where else to move on to. In the dream it is the same as was my reality then. I am working with a man and a woman, We, are all strangers to one anther, only workmates.. But I accept the job, assuming it will be divided into 3 equal parts without discussion, since it is a job shared to be done by the 3 parties assuming their equal responsibilities. Our task is to carry 4 columns made out of cardboard and plaster to the outside, to the roof, where the ventilation is most adequate for the job at hand which is : these must be painted beige and black toward an upcoming exhibit. The fellow says he'll carry 2 for he is the strongest of the 3 of us. The other woman and I allow it. We go through stairs and stairs and even more stairs in order to reach the roof. It seems a climb alike one made to the peak of Everest. Finally when reaching the top, we all begin to paint. I mention having brought as well, red paint - to put under the beige at the columns' top and bottom, as both an under-paint and such as will intensify the detailing of the columns' top and bottom. At mentioning this both the other man and woman sigh to the thought of any "extra" work be done. I explain this toward the effect of the results and their durability. I begin to paint silently..the man and woman are still involved with one another, complaining about doing more work than they think is necessary. At one point, while they have been jabbering, not working, I have finished the red under-painting in ALL, oh-oh..only 3 columns??? I ask the man where the 4th was, since he had taken the responsibility to bring IT. He simply says, he forgot it. This time I sigh but go through a Kafkaesque up and down of staircases to fetch it to the roof, because the man has bluntly refused to budge and get it. When I finally get to the roof, column over shoulder, I see that the two other, have closed the window through which I must crawl through to get to the roof. As they stand outside the window, they are smiling as if they have won at something, totally irrelevant. I am very exhausted so I say, please, at least take the column, the exhibit merits good work. Do your jobs. But they smile with triumph and say no! Then I plead that I am let through, I will do their job, even all their jobs, not yet finished...to this they answer with a smile that shows spiky , very brown-yellowed teeth..'ABSOLUTELY NOT!' Ac consequence I lay my head upon the column with temporary defeat. Closing my eyes for the time being at the senseless futility. What may this dream mean, please? Thank you! Dear The Bear, I have commented upon your interpretation in the sister version of this question. If interested you may visit there for the note I left for you. Thank you! Grecia.

One year after near complete collapse what has changed? http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/13/one-year-after-crisis-banks-back-to-risk-taking/ EW YORK (Sept. 13) - A year after the financial system nearly collapsed, the nation's biggest banks are bigger and regaining their appetite for risk. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and others - which have received tens of billions of dollars in federal aid - are once more betting big on bonds, commodities and exotic financial products, trading that nearly stopped during the financial crisis. That Wall Street is making money again in essentially the same ways that thrust the banking system into chaos last fall is reason for concern on several levels, financial analysts and government officials say. - There have been no significant changes to the federal rules governing their behavior. Proposals that have been made to better monitor the financial system and to police the products banks sell to consumers have been held up by lobbyists, lawmakers and turf-protecting regulators. - Through mergers and the failure of Lehman Brothers, the mammoth banks whose near-collapse prompted government rescues have gotten even bigger, increasing the risk they pose to the financial system. And they still make bets that, in the aggregate, are worth far more than the capital they have on hand to cover against potential losses. - The government's response to last year's meltdown was to spend whatever it takes to protect the financial system from collapse - a precedent that could encourage even greater risk-taking from the private sector. Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, says an overhaul of financial regulations is needed as soon as possible to keep the financial system safe over the long haul. "You cannot rely on the scars of past crises to ensure against practices that will lead to future crises," Summers says. No one is predicting another meltdown from risky trading in the near term. Rather, the concern is what happens over time as banks' confidence grows and the memory of the financial crisis of 2008 fades. Will they pile on bets to the point that a new asset bubble forms and - as happened with mortgage-backed securities - its undoing endangers banks and the broader economy? "We're seeing the same kind of behavior from the banks, and that could lead to some huge and scary parallels," says Simon Johnson, former chief economist with the International Monetary Fund. Some risk-taking is good. When banks are willing to invest in companies or lend to home-buyers, that nurtures economic growth by generating employment and consumer spending, feeding a cycle of expansion. The problem is when banks' quest for profits leads them to take on too much risk. In the case of the housing bubble, which burst last year, banks lent too freely to consumers with weak credit and wagered too much on complex financial instruments tied to mortgages. As real-estate prices turned south, so did the financial industry's health. Because the largest banks' trading divisions make their bets with each other, their fortunes are intertwined. The collapse of one can threaten another - and another - if it is unable to pay off its debts. This so-called counterparty risk is a major reason the Obama administration's regulatory overhaul plan calls for the creation of a "systemic risk regulator." The administration is also seeking tougher capital requirements for banks, arguing that banks' buying of exotic financial products without keeping enough cash on reserve was a key cause of the crisis. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has urged the Group of 20 nations - which meets this month in Pittsburgh - to agree on new capital levels by the end of 2010 and put them in place two years later. Geithner hasn't said how much extra capital banks should be required to keep on hand. Data from the April-June quarter show that the banks are leaning heavily again on their trading desks for revenue. - During the fourth quarter of 2008, when the financial crisis made even the shrewdest bankers risk-averse, Goldman's trading of risky assets nearly stopped. But in the second quarter of 2009, trading revenue had climbed to nearly 50 percent of total revenue, closer to where it was two years ago before the recession began. JP Morgan's reliance on trading revenue has exhibited a similar pattern. - Also in the second quarter, the five biggest banks' average potential losses from a single day of trading topped $1 billion, up 76 percent from two years ago, according to regulatory filings. The government hasn't just watched banks resume their freewheeling ways and prosper. It has been an enabler in the process. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. - during both the Bush and Obama administrations - have made trillions of dollars available to the biggest banks through bailouts, low-cost loans and loss guarantees designed to stabilize the financial system. The fai The failure of Lehman Brothers - the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history - and the panicky sales of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, also have transformed Wall Street. The surviving investment banks have fewer competitors and more market share. Five of the biggest banks - Goldman, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Bank of America - posted second-quarter profits totaling $13 billion. That's more than double what they made in the second quarter of 2008 and nearly two-thirds as much as the $20.7 billion they earned in the second quarter of 2007 - when the economy was strong. Meanwhile, Bank of America and Wells Fargo today originate 41 percent of all home loans that are backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. The banks made $284 billion in such loans in the first half of this year, up from $124 billion during the same period last year. "The big banks now are more powerful than before," said Johnson, now a professor at "The big banks now are more powerful than before," said Johnson, now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management. "Their market share has grown and they have a lot of clout in Washington." Wall Street's recovery is also being aided by a stock-market rally that has driven the S&P 500 index up nearly 54 percent since March 9, when it hit a 12-year low. Despite the return to profitability, these aren't the high-octane days from before the crisis. To qualify for government backing, the biggest Wall Street firms are no longer allowed to supercharge their returns by borrowing up to 30 times the value of their assets to place bets on stocks, bonds and other investments. Businesses supported by Wall Street bankers and traders say they've also noticed changes. Namely, their customers aren't spending as much on food, drinks and entertainment as they did during the boom years. At Fraunces Tavern, a high-end bar just around the corner from the New York Stock Exchange, the Wall Street workers who used to drink $25 glasses of port are scarce these days. "Now we're doing happy hours," says Damon Testaverde, one of the owners of Fraunces Tavern. "We never did that. There's just less bodies around." But one thing fundamental to Wall Street hasn't changed: Big banks and their traders are still finding creative - some say speculative - ways to profit. They're still packaging risky mortgages into securities and selling them to investors, who can earn higher returns by purchasing the securities tied to the riskiest mortgages. That was the practice that helped inflate the real estate bubble and eventually spread financial pain around the globe. In a way, the government has emboldened banks to keep selling risky securities: Since the crisis erupted, federal emergency programs have helped keep the banks from failing.

Ladies and Gents, your opinion please on this information? Is she being too hard on him? Asking too much? Insatiable? I'm gonna break this one down for you, because I used to BE that guy. How does this happen? The guy, good as he is, has a burning desire to excel and provide. He has lots of pressure. A man's job becomes his identity, as well as a source of validation. Now he has the GF living with him, he doesn't have to hunt anymore, that part of his life is squared away (he thinks). Also when living together, much of the excitement backs off, giving way to mundane everyday life, which is often just fine to a guy, and looks normal, just like it was when he was single. The one thing he did like to do, HUNT, is off the table. Often, the daily conflicts of life may also leave him offended or distant, especially if she accuses him of not doing enough, and claims her unhappiness with him. Massively frustrating to the guy, and upsetting. The Result- Things are out of balance. He is overly tired and doesn't know how to satisfy this seemingly ungrateful girl. He loses inspiration to try, as well. He doesn't understand why she can't just be happy, and she doesn't understand what happened to the fun guy she fell in love with. Her friends call her a fool and she doubts herself, because this is a situation most girls would be thrilled with- good guy, good dad, good provider. Passion is absent, and then when the sex does happen, it isn't like it used to be, given the boredom and resentment that exists now. She wants to go out, or talk, but all his energy and words are already spent, and she is now a pain in the ass to him. She is resentful because something else is getting that energy, and therefore feels like she is not real important to him. (for the record, for a woman to know that nothing is more important in her man's life than her is the one key thing she needs more than anything else) She doesn't want him 24/7, she just wants her share of him. It is non-negotiable, she must have it. The Solution- Bad news, dude. You have become mediocre. Boring. If she stays, she will feel like she settled, and may disrespect you for this constantly. You are also hurting her with rejection, though you don't mean to. I know it sounds stupid to you, she shouldn't feel that, but she DOES! The first thing to do is get in balance. Jobs come and go, money comes and goes. Even kids grow up and move out. Therefore, SHE comes first, if you want it to last. You want to spend every inch of your energy making that dollar and leave none for your woman and expect her to be cool with it? If she loves you, she would trade all the benefits of your killer job just to get YOU. She needs your focused attention. NEEDS it. If you don't give it, she will feel unloved, unimportant, rejected, needs not met. She practically has no choice in staying, you are packaging her up and sending her away. And if she truly can't leave, her dissatisfaction may turn into cruelty. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR FOCUSED ATTENTION AND TIME! You may want to resent her for getting in the way of your career and income, but that's crap. If you are all about the career, fine. Pour all your time and energy into it. Just don't expect a relationship. You can't have BOTH, unless you are willing to balance and make sacrifices in both areas. If you don't tend to a fire, and feed it fuel, it will go out. It was hot, but now cold ashes. Same with your girl. If you don't tend to her, the fire will go out. Date her. Seduce her. Forever. Not only does she need that, but she will be the happiest woman alive if she gets it. If you show up to work occasionally, and do a half-assed job, you will be fired. And that is exactly what is happening here, what you are doing to your WOMAN. Relationships are work, they COST, and if you can't afford it, you're toast. Cut things away until you get in balance. LISTEN to her when she says what she needs. If you don't understand, ask her- "what does that look like?" So she can describe it. Here's a few tips- get off early and take her to lunch. Go shoot pool at night with her. Make some simple sandwiches and take her for a walk around the lake. Shut the TV off and read to her. Then discuss what you read. Take her to a comedy club. Write her a sweet note. Brush her hair. Exercise together. You don't have to paint the town red, but you do need to take her OUT of the house. She doesn't want you to burn up cash on her, it is a poor substitute. She needs a CONNECTION. And if you are too tired to 'bring it' in bed, take better care of your health. Quit drinking and smoking. Take vitamins. She knows you CAN, because you used to. That means you just WON'T, hence her feelings of rejection. You just won't bother. If it is already like this, she knows that marrying you is only going to be worse. Handle this, at all costs. Your tired mediocre bullsh*t is not going to cut it, and you will lose her. Oh, and one more thing- she thinks she shouldn't have to tell you. She may not know how to tell you. But she really wants you to know. She loves you, and is dying for you to see. She wants to feel like you are a leader, and if she has to twist your arm, you will both resent that. Step up and take charge of your relationship, and have some passion. LOTS of passion. Women cannot live without it. You shouldn't want to either. TO THE WOMAN- Start with some mercy. If you are harsh with him at this point, you are only making it worse. You feel distant already, and he will distance himself more if you disrespect him. Men often have a 'slim-to-none' level of relationship awareness. That doesn't mean he sucks, it just means he needs to learn. Oh I know you think he should know this, but he doesn't. OK, so you are together now, who will teach him? You are going to have to. Teach him how to love you. Show him what it looks like. Deal in logic. Don't let your frustration sabotage you with hurtful words. Guide him. BE PATIENT. Do you see how I presented it above? Do that, except nicer.... like this... "Man of my life, I love you. I respect you. I admire you and appreciate the things that you do very much. I really do, and I always will. But I have to tell you that I am bored. Your life is out of balance, and you are not handling your business when it comes to me. If it goes on too long, I will be neglected, possibly become a jerk, and probably leave. Your neglect is unacceptable. Time to make choices, and set priorities. Your behavior shows me that you do not desire me, or value me at an acceptable level. Things will not continue as they are, one way or another. You are trying hard. Time to try differently." Talk to him like a guy. You can tell him how you feel, but I would keep the emotion to a minimum. If there is too much, he may see you as a stupid, ungrateful bitch who is dragging him down with dumb-ass feelings. This will not inspire him to new heights of love and passion with you. He may not understand all your emotion, but he does understand logic. Marriage is much like a business, with much expectation and duty, and his performance review is not good. See exhibit A, B, and C. Logic. Logic. Logic. No cruelty. ALWAYS speak to him respectfully, even in critique. You start taking shots at him with insults, and you are toast. He will have no interest in stepping up. You want him to be more loving to you... so make sure you are being lovable. It helps. He knows you could unleash on him, but when you choose not to, he will be grateful, and if he is a wise man, he will be open to correction and improvement. If he is not a wise man, he will end up just like I did. Alone. this is long but LEARN from it Some of you that answered are lazy. Read the information. Maybe if you got it, you wouldnt be asking all these ridiculous questions. Pull your heads out! I am a female. I found this blog written by a man and geeze it speaks to all of us in one way or another. I had to post it.

Is anti-Americanism a new phenomenon. Or did the WOT just bring out the haters that were always there? I have read much on the issue and I am convinced that the people who hate America today also hated America 20 years ago. Obviously younger generations will learn their hatred of America from their parents, teachers and the spiteful media. - I posted an interesting article on the subject below. The Falseness of Anti-Americanism Pollsters report rising anti-Americanism worldwide. The United States, they imply, squandered global sympathy after the September 11 terrorist attacks through its arrogant unilateralism. In truth, there was never any sympathy to squander. Anti-Americanism was already entrenched in the world's psyche—a backlash against a nation that comes bearing modernism to those who want it but who also fear and despise it. By Fouad Ajami Want to Know More? Suggested Readings “America is everywhere," Italian novelist Ignazio Silone once observed. It is in Karachi and Paris, in Jakarta and Brussels. An idea of it, a fantasy of it, hovers over distant lands. And everywhere there is also an obligatory anti-Americanism, a cover and an apology for the spell the United States casts over distant peoples and places. In the burning grounds of the Muslim world and on its periphery, U.S. embassies and their fate in recent years bear witness to a duality of the United States as Satan and redeemer. The embassies targeted by the masters of terror and by the diehards are besieged by visa-seekers dreaming of the golden, seductive country. If only the crowd in Tehran offering its tired rhythmic chant "marg bar amrika" ("death to America") really meant it! It is of visas and green cards and houses with lawns and of the glamorous world of Los Angeles, far away from the mullahs and their cultural tyranny, that the crowd really dreams. The frenzy with which radical Islamists battle against deportation orders from U.S. soil— dreading the prospect of returning to Amman and Beirut and Cairo— reveals the lie of anti-Americanism that blows through Muslim lands. The world rails against the United States, yet embraces its protection, its gossip, and its hipness. Tune into a talk show on the stridently anti-American satellite channel Al-Jazeera, and you'll behold a parody of American ways and techniques unfolding on the television screen. That reporter in the flak jacket, irreverent and cool against the Kabul or Baghdad background, borrows a form perfected in the country whose sins and follies that reporter has come to chronicle. In Doha, Qatar, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, arguably Sunni Islam's most influential cleric, at Omar ibn al-Khattab Mosque, a short distance away from the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, delivers a khutba, a Friday sermon. The date is June 13, 2003. The cleric's big theme of the day is the arrogance of the United States and the cruelty of the war it unleashed on Iraq. This cleric, Egyptian born, political to his fingertips, and in full mastery of his craft and of the sensibility of his followers, is particularly agitated in his sermon. Surgery and a period of recovery have kept him away from his pulpit for three months, during which time there has been a big war in the Arab world that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq with stunning speed and effectiveness. The United States was "acting like a god on earth," al-Qaradawi told the faithful. In Iraq, the United States had appointed itself judge and jury. The invading power may have used the language of liberation and enlightenment, but this invasion of Iraq was a 21st-century version of what had befallen Baghdad in the middle years of the 13th century, in 1258 to be exact, when Baghdad, the city of learning and culture, was sacked by the Mongols. The preacher had his themes, but a great deal of the United States had gone into the preacher's art: Consider his Web site, Qaradawi.net, where the faithful can click and read his fatwas (religious edicts)— the Arabic interwoven with html text— about all matters of modern life, from living in non-Islamic lands to the permissibility of buying houses on mortgage to the follies of Arab rulers who have surrendered to U.S. power. Or what about his way with television? He is a star of the medium, and Al-Jazeera carried an immensely popular program of his. That art form owes a debt, no doubt, to the American "televangelists," as nothing in the sheik's traditional education at Al Azhar University in Cairo prepared him for this wired, portable religion. And then there are the preacher's children: One of his daughters had made her way to the University of Texas where she received a master's degree in biology, a son had earned a Ph.D. from the University of Central Florida in Orlando, and yet another son had embarked on that quintessential American degree, an MBA at the American University in Cairo. Al-Qaradawi embodies anti-Americanism as the flip side of Americanization. A NEW ORTHODOXY Of late, pollsters have come bearing news and numbers of anti-Americanism the world over. The reports are one dimensional and filled with panic. This past June, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press published a survey of public opinion in 20 countries and the Palestinian territories that indicated a growing animus toward the United States. In the same month, the BBC came forth with a similar survey that included 10 countries and the United States. On the surface of it, anti-Americanism is a river overflowing its banks. In Indonesia, the United States is deemed more dangerous than al Qaeda. In Jordan, Russia, South Korea, and Brazil, the United States is thought to be more dangerous than Iran, the "rogue state" of the mullahs. There is no need to go so far away from home only to count the cats in Zanzibar. These responses to the United States are neither surprising nor profound. The pollsters, and those who have been brandishing their findings, see in these results some verdict on the United States itself— and on the performance abroad of the Bush presidency— but the findings could be read as a crude, admittedly limited, measure of the foul temper in some unsettled places. The pollsters have flaunted spreadsheets to legitimize a popular legend: It is not Americans that people abroad hate, but the United States! Yet it was Americans who fell to terrorism on September 11, 2001, and it is of Americans and their deeds, and the kind of social and political order they maintain, that sordid tales are told in Karachi and Athens and Cairo and Paris. You can't profess kindness toward Americans while attributing the darkest of motives to their homeland. The Pew pollsters ignored Greece, where hatred of the United States is now a defining feature of political life. The United States offended Greece by rescuing Bosnians and Kosovars. Then, the same Greeks who hailed the Serbian conquest of Srebrenica in 1995 and the mass slaughter of the Muslims there were quick to summon up outrage over the U.S. military campaign in Iraq. In one Greek public opinion survey, Americans were ranked among Albanians, Gypsies, and Turks as the most despised peoples. Takis Michas, a courageous Greek writer with an eye for his country's temperament, traces this new anti-Americanism to the Orthodox Church itself. A narrative of virtuous and embattled solitude and alienation from Western Christendom has always been integral to the Greek psyche; a fusion of church and nation is natural to the Greek worldview. In the 1990s, the Yugoslav wars gave this sentiment a free run. The church sanctioned and fed the belief that the United States was Satan, bent on destroying the "True Faith," Michas explains, and shoring up Turkey and the Muslims in the Balkans. A neo-Orthodox ideology took hold, slicing through faith and simplifying history. Where the Balkan churches— be they the Bulgars or the Serbs— had been formed in rebellion against the hegemony of the Greek priesthood, the new history made a fetish of the fidelity of Greece to its Orthodox "brethren." Greek paramilitary units fought alongside Bosnian Serbs as part of the Drina Corps under the command of indicted war criminal Gen. Ratko Mladic. The Greek flag was hoisted over the ruins of Srebenica's Orthodox church when the doomed city fell. Serbian war crimes elicited no sense of outrage in Greece; quite to the contrary, sympathy for Serbia and the identification with its war aims and methods were limitless. Beyond the Yugoslav wars, the neo-Orthodox worldview sanctified the ethnonationalism of Greece, spinning a narrative of Hellenic persecution at the hands of the United States as the standard-bearer of the West. Greece is part of NATO and of the European Union (EU), but an old schism— that of Eastern Orthodoxy's claim against the Latin world— has greater power and a deeper resonance. In the banal narrative of Greek anti-Americanism, this animosity emerges from U.S. support for the junta that reigned over the country from 1967 to 1974. This deeper fury enables the aggrieved to glide over the role the United States played in the defense and rehabilitation of Greece after World War II. Furthermore, it enables them to overlook the lifeline that migration offered to untold numbers of Greeks who are among the United States' most prosperous communities. Greece loves the idea of its "Westernness"— a place and a culture where the West ends, and some other alien world (Islam) begins. But the political culture of religious nationalism has isolated Greece from the wider currents of Western liberalism. What little modern veneer is used to dress up Greece's anti-Americanism is a pretense. The malady here is, paradoxically, a Greek variant of what plays out in the world of Islam: a belligerent political culture sharpening faith as a political weapon, an abdication of political responsibility for one's own world, and a search for foreign "devils." Lest they be trumped by their hated Greek rivals, the Turks now give voice to the same anti-Americanism. It is a peculiar sentiment among the Turks, given their pragmatism. They are not prone to the cluster of grievances that empower anti-Americanism in France or among the intelligentsia of the developing world. In the 1920s, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk gave Turkey a dream of modernity and self-help by pointing his country westward, distancing it from the Arab-Muslim lands to its south and east. But the secular, modernist dream in Turkey has fractured, and oddly, anti-Americanism blows through the cracks from the Arab lands and from Brussels and Berlin. The fury of the Turkish protests against the United States in the months prior to the war in Iraq exhibited a pathology all its own. It was, at times, nature imitating art: The protesters in the streets burned American flags in the apparent hope that Europeans (real Europeans, that is) would finally take Turkey and the Turks into the fold. The U.S. presence had been benign in Turkish lands, and Americans had been Turkey's staunchest advocates for coveted membership in the EU. But suddenly this relationship that served Turkey so well was no longer good enough. As the "soft" Islamists (there is no such thing, we ought to understand by now) revolted against Pax Americana, the secularists averted their gaze and let stand this new anti-Americanism. The pollsters calling on the Turks found a people in distress, their economy on the ropes, and their polity in an unfamiliar world beyond the simple certainties of Kemalism, yet without new political tools and compass. No dosage of anti-Americanism, the Turks will soon realize, will take Turkey past the gatekeepers of Europe. WE WERE ALL AMERICANS The introduction of the Pew report sets the tone for the entire study. The war in Iraq, it argues,"has widened the rift between Americans and Western Europeans" and "further inflamed the Muslim world." The implications are clear: The United States was better off before Bush's "unilateralism." The United States, in its hubris, summoned up this anti-Americanism. Those are the political usages of this new survey. But these sentiments have long prevailed in Jordan, Egypt, and France. During the 1990s, no one said good things about the United States in Egypt. It was then that the Islamist children of Egypt took to the road, to Hamburg and Kandahar, to hatch a horrific conspiracy against the United States. And it was in the 1990s, during the fabled stock market run, when the prophets of globalization preached the triumph of the U.S. economic model over the protected versions of the market in places such as France, when anti-Americanism became the uncontested ideology of French public life. Americans were barbarous, a threat to French cuisine and their beloved language. U.S. pension funds were acquiring their assets and Wall Street speculators were raiding their savings. The United States incarcerated far too many people and executed too many criminals. All these views thrived during a decade when Americans are now told they were loved and uncontested on foreign shores. Much has been made of the sympathy that the French expressed for the United States immediately after the September 11 attacks, as embodied by the famous editorial of Le Monde's publisher Jean-Marie Colombani, "Nous Sommes Tous Américains" ("We are all Americans"). And much has been made of the speed with which the United States presumably squandered that sympathy in the months that followed. But even Colombani's column, written on so searing a day, was not the unalloyed message of sympathy suggested by the title. Even on that very day, Colombani wrote of the United States reaping the whirlwind of its "cynicism"; he recycled the hackneyed charge that Osama bin Laden had been created and nurtured by U.S. intelligence agencies. Colombani quickly retracted what little sympathy he had expressed when, in December of 2001, he was back with an open letter to "our American friends" and soon thereafter with a short book, Tous Américains? le monde après le 11 septembre 2001 (All Americans? The World After September 11, 2001). By now the sympathy had drained, and the tone was one of belligerent judgment and disapproval. There was nothing to admire in Colombani's United States, which had run roughshod in the world and had been indifferent to the rule of law. Colombani described the U.S. republic as a fundamentalist Christian enterprise, its magistrates too deeply attached to the death penalty, its police cruel to its black population. A republic of this sort could not in good conscience undertake a campaign against Islamism. One can't, Colombani writes, battle the Taliban while trying to introduce prayers in one's own schools; one can't strive to reform Saudi Arabia while refusing to teach Darwinism in the schools of the Bible Belt; and one can't denounce the demands of the sharia (Islamic law) while refusing to outlaw the death penalty. Doubtless, he adds, the United States can't do battle with the Taliban before doing battle against the bigotry that ravages the depths of the United States itself. The United States had not squandered Colombani's sympathy; he never had that sympathy in the first place. Colombani was hardly alone in the French intellectual class in his enmity toward the United States. On November 3, 2001, in Le Monde, the writer and pundit Jean Baudrillard permitted himself a thought of stunning cynicism. He saw the perpetrators of September 11 acting out his own dreams and the dreams of others like him. He gave those attacks a sort of universal warrant: "How we have dreamt of this event," he wrote, "how all the world without exception dreamt of this event, for no one can avoid dreaming of the destruction of a power that has become hegemonic . . . . It is they who acted, but we who wanted the deed." Casting caution and false sympathy aside, Baudrillard saw the terrible attacks on the United States as an "object of desire." The terrorists had been able to draw on a "deep complicity," knowing perfectly well that they were acting out the hidden yearnings of others oppressed by the United States' order and power. To him, morality of the U.S. variety is a sham, and the terrorism directed against it is a legitimate response to the inequities of "globalization." In his country's intellectual landscape, Baudrillard was no loner. A struggle had raged throughout the 1990s, pitting U.S.-led globalization (with its low government expenditures, a "cheap" and merciless Wall Street-Treasury Department axis keen on greater discipline in the market, and relatively long working hours on the part of labor) against France's protectionist political economy. The primacy the United States assigned to liberty waged a pitched battle against the French commitment to equity. To maintain France's sympathy, and that of Le Monde, the United States would have had to turn the other cheek to the murderers of al Qaeda, spare the Taliban, and engage the Muslim world in some high civilizational dialogue. But who needs high approval ratings in Marseille? Envy of U.S. power, and of the United States' universalism, is the ruling passion of French intellectual life. It is not "mostly Bush" that turned France against the United States. The former Socialist foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, was given to the same anti-Americanism that moves his successor, the bombastic and vain Dominique de Villepin. It was Védrine, it should be recalled, who in the late 1990s had dubbed the United States a "hyperpower." He had done so before the war on terrorism, before the war on Iraq. He had done it against the background of an international order more concerned with economics and markets than with military power. In contrast to his successor, Védrine at least had the honesty to acknowledge that there was nothing unusual about the way the United States wielded its power abroad, or about France's response to that primacy. France, too, he observed, might have been equally overbearing if it possessed the United States' weight and assets. His successor gave France's resentment highly moral claims. Villepin appeared evasive, at one point, on whether he wished to see a U.S. or an Iraqi victory in the standoff between Saddam Hussein's regime and the United States. Anti-Americanism indulges France's fantasy of past greatness and splendor and gives France's unwanted Muslim children a claim on the political life of a country that knows not what to do with them. THE BURDEN OF MODERNITY To come bearing modernism to those who want it but who rail against it at the same time, to represent and embody so much of what the world yearns for and fears— that is the American burden. The United States lends itself to contradictory interpretations. To the Europeans, and to the French in particular, who are enamored of their laïcisme (secularism), the United States is unduly religious, almost embarrassingly so, its culture suffused with sacred symbolism. In the Islamic world, the burden is precisely the opposite: There, the United States scandalizes the devout, its message represents nothing short of an affront to the pious and a temptation to the gullible and the impressionable young. According to the June BBC survey, 78 percent of French polled identified the United States as a "religious" country, while only 10 percent of Jordanians endowed it with that label. Religious to the secularists, faithless to the devout— such is the way the United States is seen in foreign lands. So many populations have the United States under their skin. Their rage is oddly derived from that very same attraction. Consider the Saudi realm, a place where anti-Americanism is fierce. The United States helped invent the modern Saudi world. The Arabian American Oil Company— for all practical purposes a state within a state— pulled the desert enclave out of its insularity, gave it skills, and ushered it into the 20th century. Deep inside the anti-Americanism of today's Saudi Arabia, an observer can easily discern the dependence of the Saudi elite on their U.S. connection. It is in the image of the United States' suburbs and urban sprawl that Saudi cities are designed. It is on the campuses of Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford that the ruling elite are formed and educated. After September 11, 2001, the Saudi elite panicked that their ties to the United States might be shattered and that their world would be consigned to what they have at home. Fragments of the United States have been eagerly embraced by an influential segment of Saudi society. For many, the United States was what they encountered when they were free from home and family and age-old prohibitions. Today, an outing in Riyadh is less a journey to the desert than to the mall and to Starbucks. An academic in Riyadh, in the midst of an anti-American tirade about all policies American, was keen to let me know that his young son, born in the United States, had suddenly declared he no longer wanted to patronize McDonald's because of the United States' support of Israel. The message was plaintive and unpersuasive; the resolve behind that "boycott" was sure to crack. A culture that casts so long a shadow is fated to be emulated and resented at the same time. The United States is destined to be in the politics— and imagination— of strangers even when the country (accurately) believes it is not implicated in the affairs of other lands. In a hauntingly astute set of remarks made to the New Yorker in the days that followed the terrorism of September 11, the Egyptian playwright Ali Salem— a free spirit at odds with the intellectual class in his country and a maverick who journeyed to Israel and wrote of his time there and of his acceptance of that country— went to the heart of the anti-American phenomenon. He was thinking of his own country's reaction to the United States, no doubt, but what he says clearly goes beyond Egypt: People say that Americans are arrogant, but it's not true. Americans enjoy life and they are proud of their lives, and they are boastful of their wonderful inventions that have made life so much easier and more convenient. It's very difficult to understand the machinery of hatred, because you wind up resorting to logic, but trying to understand this with logic is like measuring distance in kilograms….These are people who are envious. To them, life is an unbearable burden. Modernism is the only way out. But modernism is frightening. It means we have to compete. It means we can't explain everything away with conspiracy theories. Bernard Shaw said it best, you know. In the preface to 'St. Joan,' he said Joan of Arc was burned not for any reason except that she was talented. Talent gives rise to jealousy in the hearts of the untalented. This kind of envy cannot be attenuated. Jordanians, for instance, cannot be talked out of their anti-Americanism. In the BBC survey, 71 percent of Jordanians thought the United States was more dangerous to the world than al Qaeda. But Jordan has been the rare political and economic recipient of a U.S. free trade agreement, a privilege the United States shares only with a handful of nations. A new monarch, King Abdullah II, came to power, and the free trade agreement was an investment that Pax Americana made in his reign and in the moderation of his regime. But this bargain with the Hashemite dynasty has not swayed the intellectual class, nor has it made headway among the Jordanian masses. On Iraq and on matters Palestinian, for more than a generation now, Jordanians have not had a kind thing to say about the United States. In the scheme of Jordan's neighborhood, the realm is benign and forgiving, but the political life is restrictive and tight. When talking about the United States, Jordanians have often been talking to their rulers, expressing their dissatisfaction with the quality of the country's public life and economic performance. A pollster venturing to Jordan must understand the country's temper, hemmed in by poverty and overshadowed by more resourceful powers all around it: Iraq to the east, Israel to the west, and Syria and Saudi Arabia over the horizon. A sense of disinheritance has always hung over Jordan. The trinity of God, country, and king puts much of the political life of the land beyond scrutiny and discussion. The anti-Americanism emanates from, and merges with, this political condition. With modernism come the Jews. They have been its bearers and beneficiaries, and they have paid dearly for it. They have been taxed with cosmopolitanism: The historian Isaac Deutscher had it right when he said that other people have roots, but the Jews have legs. Today the Jews have a singular role in U.S. public life and culture, and anti-Americanism is tethered to anti-Semitism. In the Islamic world, and in some European circles as well, U.S. power is seen as the handmaiden of Jewish influence. Witness, for instance, the London-based Arab media's obsession with the presumed ascendancy of the neoconservatives— such as former chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz— in the making of U.S. foreign policy. The neocons had been there for the rescue of the (Muslim) Bosnians and Kosovars, but the reactionaries in Muslim lands had not taken notice of that. Left to itself, the United States would be fair-minded, this Arab commentary maintains, and it would arrive at a balanced approach to the Arab-Islamic world. This narrative is nothing less than a modernized version of the worldview of that infamous forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. But it is put forth by men and women who insist on their oneness with the modern world. A century ago, in a short-story called "Youth," the great British author Joseph Conrad captured in his incomparable way the disturbance that is heard when a modern world pushes against older cultures and disturbs their peace. In the telling, Marlowe, Conrad's literary double and voice, speaks of the frenzy of coming upon and disturbing the East. "And then, before I could open my lips, the East spoke to me, but it was in a Western voice. A torrent of words was poured into the enigmatical, the fateful silence; outlandish, angry words mixed with words and even whole sentences of good English, less strange but even more surprising. The voice swore and cursed violently; it riddled the solemn peace of the bay by a volley of abuse. It began by calling me Pig . . . ." Today, the United States carries the disturbance of the modern to older places— to the east and to the intermediate zones in Europe. There is energy in the United States, and there is force. And there is resistance and resentment— and emulation— in older places affixed on the delicate balancing act of a younger United States not yet content to make its peace with traditional pains and limitations and tyrannies. That sensitive French interpreter of his country, Dominique Moïsi, recently told of a simple countryman of his who was wistful when Saddam Hussein's statue fell on April 9 in Baghdad's Firdos Square. France opposed this war, but this Frenchman expressed a sense of diminishment that his country had sat out this stirring story of political liberation. A society like France with a revolutionary history should have had a hand in toppling the tyranny in Baghdad, but it didn't. Instead, a cable attached to a U.S. tank had pulled down the statue, to the delirium of the crowd. The new history being made was a distinctly American (and British) creation. It was soldiers from Burlington, Vermont, and Linden, New Jersey, and Bon Aqua, Tennessee— I single out those towns because they are the hometowns of three soldiers who were killed in the Iraq war— who raced through the desert making this new history and paying for it. The United States need not worry about hearts and minds in foreign lands. If Germans wish to use anti-Americanism to absolve themselves and their parents of the great crimes of World War II, they will do it regardless of what the United States says and does. If Muslims truly believe that their long winter of decline is the fault of the United States, no campaign of public diplomacy shall deliver them from that incoherence. In the age of Pax Americana, it is written, fated, or maktoob (as the Arabs would say) that the plotters and preachers shall rail against the United States— in whole sentences of good American slang. Fouad Ajami is the Majid Khadduri professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/the_falseness_of_antiamericanism.htm

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, issued "A Resolve" to the thirteen colonies: "Adopt such a government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the safety and happiness of their constituents in particular and America in general." Between 1776 and 1780 each of the thirteen colonies adopted a republican form of government. What emerged was the most extensive documentation of the powers of government and the rights of the people that the world had ever witnessed. These state constitutions displayed a remarkable uniformity. Seven attached a prefatory Declaration of Rights, and all contained the same civil and criminal rights. Four states decided not to "prefix" a Bill of Rights to their constitutions, but, instead, incorporated the very same natural and traditional rights found in the prefatory declarations. New York incorporated the entire Declaration of Independence into its constitution. The primary purpose of these declarations and bills was to outline the objectives of government: to secure the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The government that was chosen to secure these rights was declared universally to be "a republican form of government." All of the states, except Pennsylvania, embraced a two-chamber legislature, and all, except Massachusetts, installed a weak executive and denied the Governor the power to veto bills of the legislature. All accepted the notion that the legislative branch should be preeminent, but, at the very same time, endorsed the concept that the liberty of the people was in danger from the corruption of the representatives. And this despite the fact that the representatives were installed by the election of the people. Thus, each state constitution embraced the notion of short terms of office for elected representatives along with recall, rotation, and term limits. The Second Continental Congress also created the first continental-wide system of governance. The Articles of Confederation created a nation of pre-existing states rather than a government over individuals. Thus, the very idea of a Bill of Rights was irrelevant because the Articles did not entail a government over individuals. The states were equally represented in the union regardless of size of population, only one branch was needed, normal political activity required the support of super majorities, the union was limited to the powers expressly enumerated, and amendment was required to endow the union with powers that weren't specifically articulated. Amendments required the unanimous approval of all thirteen state legislatures. The Articles didn't come into operation until the early 1780s because of territorial disputes between two states; all of the states were required to "sign on" before the Articles became operative on any one state. These two directives produced two opposite and rival situations: an early operating, robust and healthy state and local politics and a late arriving, weak and divisive continental arrangement. Several statesmen, especially George Washington, were concerned that the idea of an American mind that had emerged during the war with Britain was about to disappear and the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to foster the development of an American character. According to Washington, "we have errors to correct." He argued that the states refused to comply with the articles of peace, the union was unable to regulate interstate commerce, and the states met, but oh so grudgingly, just the minimum interstate standards required by the Articles. Others, especially James Madison, were concerned that the state legislatures—dominated by what he saw as oppressive, unjust, and overbearing majorities—were passing laws detrimental to the rights of individual conscience and the right to private property. And there was nothing that the union government could do about it because the Articles left matters of religion and commerce to the states. The solution, concluded Madison, was to create an extended republic, in which a variety of opinions, passions, and interests would check and balance each other, supported by a governmental framework that endorsed a separation of powers between the branches of the general government. Between 1781 and 1785 attempts "to correct these errors" failed to secure the required unanimous consent of the state legislatures. Matters changed, however, in 1786. Following James Madison's suggestion of 21 January 1786, the Virginia Legislature invited all the States to discuss ways to reduce interstate conflicts in Annapolis, Maryland. The "commissioners" in attendance at Annapolis during September 1786, chatted about these particular concerns, but suggested that the conversation be both deepened and widened. They endorsed a motion that a "Grand Convention" of all the States meet in Philadelphia the next May 1787 to discuss how to improve the Articles of Confederation. One might well ask, "Who or what authorized the Virginia Legislature to call the Annapolis Convention and who or what authorized the Annapolis Convention to call for a 'Grand Convention'?" The answer is to be found in the Declaration of Independence: The people have the right to choose the form of government under which they shall live and to install such government as they deem appropriate to secure their liberty, security, and happiness. The Selection of the Delegates Madison and Washington agreed that the principles of the Revolution of 1776 were in danger due to a weak continental arrangement and overbearing, unjust, and reckless state legislatures. But how could they take advantage of the opportunity provided by the Annapolis recommendation? How was such a bold proposal to be put into effect? Madison persuaded the Virginia Legislature to implement the challenge of the Annapolis Convention and invite all the other states to also reconsider the status of the Articles. He also persuaded the Assembly to be the first to elect delegates to the Grand Convention to consider the business "of May next." The Virginia Assembly elected 55-year-old revolutionary hero George Washington to head the delegation. "Give me Liberty or give me Death" Patrick Henry declined because "he smelt a rat." Doctor James McClurg was selected even though he had no political experience; James Madison insisted he be present. Richard Henry Lee and Thomas Nelson, colonial heroes and Signers of the Declaration, refused to attend. 34-year-old Edmund Randolph, the Governor of Virginia, 55-year-old John Blair, an esteemed Virginia judge, 55-year-old George Wythe, the first law professor of the United States and Signer of the Declaration, 62-year-old George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights were all chosen along with five foot tall, 120 pound, 36-year-old James Madison. Five States followed Virginia's lead. 1. New Jersey selected William Churchill Houston, Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court David Brearly, 40-year-old Irish immigrant William Paterson, Governor William Livingston, known as "the Whipping Post" because of his great height, and 27-year-old Jonathan Dayton who after the Convention went exploring and died in what is now Dayton, Ohio. 2. Pennsylvania selected eight delegates: Thomas Mifflin was elected as the leader of the delegation; he was speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly. Other members selected were Robert Morris, financier of the Revolution, George Clymer, signer of the Declaration, Jared Ingersoll a political reformer who later bestowed on Madison the appellation, "Father of the Constitution," Irish immigrant Thomas Fitzsimons, founder of the Bank of America and one of two Catholics at the Convention, 45-year-old James "The Caledonian" Wilson from Scotland, 33-year-old peg leg and "rake" Gouverneur Morris, who spoke more than anyone at the Convention, and 81-year-old Benjamin "the American Socrates" Franklin who was added to the delegation as a courtesy. All the delegates from Pennsylvania resided in Philadelphia. 3. Former Governor Alexander Martin was chosen to lead the North Carolina delegation, but left before the signing. 29-year-old William Davie also left the Convention early. In 1802 he was killed in a duel. 29-year-old Richard Dobbs Spaight, preacher, essayist, and mathematician Doctor Hugh Williamson, and land speculator William Blount—who later earned the dubious honor of being the first member expelled from the United States Senate—made up the core of the delegation that had a major impact on the course of the debates in July. Howard Christy gives this central signing honors in his commemoration of the Constitution. 4. 54-year-old George Read headed the Delaware delegation. Additional members included "corpulent and impetuous" Gunning Bedford Junior, prudent and educated John Dickinson, and two quiet thirty-five-year olds: Jacob Broom and Richard Bassett. 5. The head of the Georgia delegation was William Few who was joined by Abraham Baldwin, William Houstoun, and 49-year-old William Pierce, one of the poorest attendees in terms of income—thus he has no official portrait—who nevertheless left us rich sketches of the delegates. So six of the states had taken Virginia's initiative to form a Grand Convention without waiting for any formal endorsement by the existing government under the Articles of Confederation. Other states, however, were more cautious and wanted the existing Congress to address the legitimacy of such a gathering. On 28 February 1787, the Confederation Congress endorsed the meeting of the Grand Convention on "the second Monday in May next." Exactly what the Congress authorized became a bone of contention. The recommendatory act of Congress reads thus: A Convention of delegates should meet "for the sole purpose of revising the articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." (Italics in the original of the version reprinted in Federalist 40.) Did the Congress limit the Convention to the discussion of specific and particular matters or did the Congress empower the Convention to "run away" and propose whatever alterations the delegates considered were needed to preserve the principles of the Revolution? New York was the first state to act after the Congressional endorsement. The Governor George Clinton faction of the New York legislature selected State Supreme Court judge Robert Yates and John Lansing to, in effect, outvote Alexander Hamilton. The New York delegation was not particularly prominent at the Convention. Yates and Lansing left in early July, just prior to the passage of the Connecticut Compromise, and the 32-year-old Hamilton, who lost his life at age 49 in a duel with Aaron Burr, was far more influential in securing the adoption of the Constitution in 1788 than in its framing in 1787. Five States followed New York's lead. 1. In early March, South Carolina, selected John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, and Pierce Butler as their delegates; they were pro-national, pro-slavery, and very influential. 2. Massachusetts, also in March, selected Elbridge Gerry, who signed the Declaration, 32-year-old Rufus King, "backwoods lawyer" Caleb Strong, and Nathaniel Gorham, who chaired the Committee of the Whole during the Convention. 3. Four days before the Convention began, Connecticut elected three delegates: William Samuel Johnson, who learned of his appointment to the Presidency of Columbia College on his way to Philadelphia, Roger Sherman, who signed both the Declaration and the Articles, and 42-year-old Oliver Ellsworth who had the reputation of talking to himself and being a chain chewer of snuff. 4. Irish immigrant Doctor James McHenry, after whom Fort McHenry is named, was a leader of the Maryland delegation. He was joined by 60-year-old bachelor, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, 30-year-old Daniel Carroll—one of two Catholics at the Convention—29-year-old John F. Mercer, who blew into and out of town during the first week of August, and Luther Martin, who apparently had a great capacity to consume immense amounts of alcohol, and sober up at a moment's notice. 5. New Hampshire was short of cash so John Langdon funded the expenses for himself and Nicholas Gilman; they arrived at the Convention on July 23, after the main debate over the Connecticut Compromise was completed and yet just in time for a one-week recess. Rhode Island, the thirteenth state, declined to send delegates. Thomas Jefferson characterized the 55 men who showed up in Philadelphia as "demi-gods," who created a Constitution that would last into remote futurity. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the work of the American Founders: never before in the history of the world had the leaders of a country declared the existing government to be bankrupt, and the people, after debate, calmly elected delegates who proposed a solution, which, in turn, was debated up and down the country for nearly a year, and not a drop of blood was spilled. Madison, in Federalist 37, indicates the uniqueness of the Founding: never before had there been a democratic founding; all previous foundings had been the work of a single founder like Romulus. And Hamilton, in Federalist 1, suggested that this was a unique event in the history of the world; finally government was going to be established by reflection and choice rather than force and fraud. And what is also unique is the fact that the framers were relatively young, well educated, and politically experienced. Like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was written by delegates immersed in 1) the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Montesquieu, and 2) a world of political experience at both the state and continental level. Both basic documents were written in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, and thirty signers of the Declaration in 1776 played a vital part in the creation and adoption of the Constitution, 1787-1789. How to Read the Convention Very few of the delegates selected were present at the appointed time for the meeting of the Grand Convention in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787. All the Virginia delegates were present, however, and fully settled into their accommodations. Washington stayed at Robert Morris's Town House, and Madison secured lodgings across the street at Mrs. House's Boarding House. During this waiting period, the Virginia delegates caucused with each other in an attempt to set the tone for the deliberations of the Convention and paid courtesy calls on prominent members of Philadelphia society. Some entered a Catholic church for the first time. On May 25, a quorum of seven states was secured. The first order of business was to elect a President, and George Washington was the obvious choice. William Jackson, yet another immigrant at the Convention, was elected Secretary of the Convention and he recorded the propositions and amendments as well as the vote tabulation. James Madison took extensive Notes of the proceedings and although some scholars have questioned their authenticity and completeness, they remain the primary source for reproducing the conversations at the Convention. Other delegates kept specific notes on certain days, there are letters back home to friends and loved ones, there are urgent bills sent for immediate payment that augment, and there are personal diaries, some more complete than others. Nothing, however, can compete with, or ever replace, Madison's Notes. The delegates also agreed that the deliberations would be kept secret. The case in favor of secrecy was that the issues at hand were so important that honest discourse needed to be encouraged and delegates ought to feel free to speak their mind, and change their mind, as they saw fit. Thus, despite the hot summer weather in Philadelphia, and delegates who, on the whole, were rather overweight and hardly "dressed down" for the occasion, the windows were closed and heavy drapes drawn. The merits and demerits of the secrecy rule have been a subject of considerable debate throughout American history. In Act One of the Convention, Governor Randolph introduces the fifteen point Virginia Plan at the end of May to "revise the Articles of Confederation." The decisive features of this plan are 1) the complete structural exclusion of the states in terms of both election and representation; 2) the complete diminution of the powers of the states and the virtual freedom of Congress to act in those areas for which the states are incompetent; 3) the establishment of an extended national republic with institutional separation of powers and the introduction of the possibility that short terms of office and term limits—standard features of traditional republicanism—will be abandoned. Under the wholly federal Articles of Confederation, only the states are represented and the central government was restrained to the exercise of expressly delegated powers. And under the state republican constitutions, the governor had very little authority, and the elected representatives were kept under close scrutiny. Madison's Virginia Plan introduces a new understanding of federalism and republicanism. This wholly national republican plan is debated, and amended, over the next two weeks, and the main features are adopted by the delegates in mid June over two alternatives: the wholly federal, or state based, New Jersey Plan, that argues that the Virginia Plan goes too far, and the Hamilton Plan that claims the Virginia Plan does not go far enough. Hamilton, among other things, envisioned a President for life. Act Two portrays the Convention in crisis, in the sense that the delegates were at a stalemate. Far from the wholly national republican Virginia Plan being accepted, as we might very well anticipate when the curtain fell at the end of Act One, the delegates from Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, New York, and Mr. Martin from Maryland—the defenders of the New Jersey Plan, the old style federalism of the Articles, and the old fashioned republicanism of the state constitutions—insisted on questioning the validity of the Virginia Plan. They argued that the Convention had exceeded the Congressional mandate because the Articles had in fact been scrapped rather than revised. Thus the Convention had violated the rule of law. Moreover, the Convention was about to propose a novelty—a large country under one republican form of government—that would never be accepted by the electorate. These delegates knew their Locke and Montesquieu and they relied on their own political experience which was remarkably extensive: republican government could only exist in areas of small extent where the people kept close watch over their representatives. A breakthrough occurs at the end of June when Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut suggests that we are neither wholly national nor wholly federal but a mixture of both. Several delegates echo this theme and the Convention decides to move beyond the exclusively national or federal paradigms. The Gerry Committee is created to explore the ramifications of this suggestion that the people be represented in the House and the states be represented in the Senate. This recommendation—the Connecticut Compromise—is accepted over Madison's objections in mid-July. Act Three focuses on the debates during August over the Committee of Detail Report, especially concerning the itemization of Congressional powers. With the Connecticut Compromise in place, the delegates turned from the question of structure to the question of national and state powers. Under the Virginia Plan, Congress was empowered to do anything the States were incompetent to do. By July, that was no longer acceptable to the delegates. A Committee was created to draft a Constitution—the Committee of Detail—that would address the division of powers between the central and state governments and also the separation of powers between Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. Another issue that emerged in Act Three is the slavery question. What could Congress do and not do to regulate and/or abolish slavery? This is a vital question and deserves special coverage. It is instructive to compare the clause in the Committee of Detail Report of August 6 with the Signed Constitution of September 17. The former forbids Congress from ever regulating the slave trade and prohibits Congress from discouraging the trade by means of a tax or tariff. By contrast the final Constitution, limits the prohibition on Congress until 1808 and permits Congress to discourage the slave trade. In March, 1807, President Jefferson signed into law an Act of Congress prohibiting the slave trade effective January 1, 1808, and during the 1790s Congress took specific steps to discourage the importation of Africans for the purpose of being sold into slavery. Act Four covers the final three weeks of the Convention during the month of September. Despite all the progress that had been made on the structural role of the states and enumerating the powers of Congress, there was much work still to be done on the Presidency. The Brearley Committee came up with the idea of an Electoral College as a sensible compromise to the long and largely fruitless debates on how to elect the President. It had been clear for four months that until the mode of election was settled, no progress could be made on 1) length of term, 2) the issue of re-eligibility, and 3) the powers of the President. The Electoral College was modeled on the Connecticut Compromise: the President would be elected by a combination of people and states. The Committee of Style wrote the final draft of the Constitution. It included a Preamble and an obligation of contracts clause, both written by Gouverneur Morris, and an enumeration of the powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8. During the last week of the Convention the delegates added a few refinements, raised some serious concerns, and discussed what they agreed to over the four months of deliberations. Mason expressed the wish that "the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights." Elbridge Gerry supported Mason's unsuccessful attempt to attach a Bill of Rights. Randolph joined Mason and Gerry and declared that he too wouldn't sign the Constitution. And the delegates wondered whether or not the power to create a national university was implied within the meaning of the necessary and proper clause. Rising Sun ChairOn the last day of the Convention, September 17, Benjamin Franklin looked at the chair occupied by Washington and declared the sun enshrined on the chair to be a rising sun. Many delegates over the four months of deliberation often thought that it was a setting sun. Master of American History and Government: Home | About | Admission | Schedule of Courses | Course Registration | Tuition | Faculty | Request More Information Free Saturday Seminars for Teachers: Upcoming Saturday Seminars | Register Online | Previous Seminars Free Summer Institutes for Teachers: Upcoming Summer Institutes | Previous Institutes Historical Documents Library: Home | Founding Era | Expansion Era | Civil War Era | Progressive Era Post World War II Era | General Resources Online Audio Lectures and Discussions: Home Special Exhibits: Constitutional Convention | Ratification of the Constitution Teaching American History Grants: Partner with the Ashbrook Center | TAH Grant Web Sites | Ashbrook Center TAH Grant Partners Search Site Search Document Library Printer-Friendly Version Verizon Foundation Support for teachingamericanhistory.org is provided by the Verizon Foundation. A Project of the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University 401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free) info@TeachingAmericanHistory.org © 2006 Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs 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?

Are there any "holes" in the Theory of Evolution? I have gathered the following quotes from some "real" scientists who have a problem with the evolution theory as it is commonly taught: Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist). "most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago). "As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University). "The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150). "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist). "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science). "In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist). "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist). "I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97). "So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128). "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168). "I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist). "But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22) "The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagrams) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13) Sorry it's so long. My question is, are these guys telling us the truth...ARE so-called "evolutionists" so married to the theory that they simply can't see or admit that the theory COULD be wrong? To set the record straight...I am not a "Creationist", I am a Christian. In the arena of evolution/vs/creation, I am "agnostic"...that is, I am not sure, either way. I am curious. I've not seen any serious evidence to prove to me that evolution is, indeed, a fact...to me, it is an open question. Why, for instance, is this "common ancestor" so difficult to track down? Common sense tells me that it would have to have been some sort of ape-like creature...but what did it evolve from, and why? How can you be sure such a creature ever existed? Where did he go? These are questions that are very real, to me, and mean much more than whether or not I'm gonna need a new flu shot because the astute li'l critters that cause flu adapted to the vaccine I had last year.... REAL answers would be appreciated, but if you just HAVE to be rude, crude, and not to shrewd, all you prove to me is that you really don't have any answers, either, or you would give them. Thank you.

which is the best trip have you undertaken till date ? Hampi was not on our radar, while traveling to Chitradurga Fort, we planned for just a weekend getaway from Bangalore by car. After finishing the trip to Kalline Kote, we instinctively decided why not rush to Hampi? It is just 150 kms away, with small stretch of 18 kms of bad road before Kudilgi on NH 13. I happened to visit during 1978 along with my parents. In those days, it was typical village with a rustic atmosphere. There was not much interest among the tourist to visit this place, which was known as ruined city, without any guide we wandered cluelessly and we landed in the peak of summer to add to our discomfort. The only distinct memory was that of Inverted Gopuram of Virupakasha temple. After a gap of nearly 30 years I find that a new civilization has emerged. Perhaps after Hampi being declared a world heritage site in 1987, a mind blowing transformation has taken place at Hampi. It is as if history is being re-written, with guides, autorikshaw round trip, bike guides, and professional tour operators unleashing knowledge to tourists. There are exists lot of similarities between POMPEII & HAMPI. The common features are : 1. Road Network 2. Water Management 3. Temple construction 4. Public functions 5. Common Bath 6. Cultural Festivity 7 Art & Sculpture 8. Well defined markets.9 Brothels Lane. Trading activity were carried out between various parts of the world in both the periods. We find gems & jewellery being traded in the bazaars. All household articles such as pottery, grains, vegetables, fruits, beetlenut, flowers etc were being traded. Further brothel lanes were located in the bazaar for the visitors and artisans from outstation. Our first point of visit was Virupaksha temple which was guided by a foreigner, because we ignored the offer to be guided @ Rs 400/- for a trip, which we thought was exhorbitant. We entered the Virupaksha temple without any enterance fee ( between 6.30 to 8 am it is free entry) The sheer grandeur started unraveling. On the left there is a sanctum which is occupied by tourists for changeover, which is really surprising. The main temple is dedicated to Lord Shiva, who is supposed to have been captivated by the dedication of Pampadevi. Lord Shiva consented to marry Pampa in his avatar as Virupaksha, the presiding deity. Behind the Virupaksha temple lies a room wherein we can view the inverted image of the main tower through a pin hole. It is application of Periscope principle. The bazaar in front of the Virupakasha temple is proposed to be shifted to another place to maintain the heritage look. The proposed shopping centre will be the main reporting centre for Hampi excursion. An organized trip with eco friendly mode of transport would be ideal. Further a fixed guide charges would be also be ideal depending on no of spots toured or time spent concept. After Virupaksha temple visit we walked across a lane adjescent to the right, just on a blinder, towards Hemkunta hill. Here one is astounded by the skills of rock carving work station.. It is like a canvas on which artist exhibits his painting. The granite was the main raw material for most types of monumental construction at the site – which was abundant in and around Hampi for over 200 kms. Traditionally, granite blocks were split by first cutting rows of closely spaced cubical holes into which wooden wedges were pounded. When wetted, the wedges expanded, thereby propagating deep cracks through the stone which split as per dimension required by the artisans. We found almost four temples, one was literally filled with water on the entrance, and other not so prominent temples, maybe created for low strata people of the times, even the poojary of the temple just gave us some insight, for which he was suitably tipped. The overnight heavy rain had made the rocky surface quite slippery, it was an adventure to climb Hemkunta hillock. The entire Hampi area, is visible in all its panaromic view. There is an acropolis type of two storey structure maybe for the kings to view. There is no description on this monument to my surprise. Once you start climbing down the steps which is neatly chiseled on the rocks it is adventurers delight, a neat landscaped garden leads to Sasvikalu Ganesha. It is a monolithic exposure of Lord Ganesha which is barricaded to prevent vandalism. Next we walk across we, come to Dodda Ganesh, which is again vandalized by Sultans, it is now a crude form, luckily the sanctum and veranda in not pillaged, the sculptures are exhuberance of dance and drama of the bygone era. Ugra Narasimha monolithic statue is located nearby along with Badavi Linga installed by a poor women. We got to know that autorikshaw guides are available @ Rs 250/- to take us around and we decided to hire such a guide. He spent 3 hours taking us around all the important landmark starting from Hemkunt Dodda Kalu Ganesh, Sasive Ganesh, Ugra Narasimha, Badavi Linga, Veerabhadra Temple, Lotus Mahal, Elephant’s Stable, Mahanavami Dibba, Hazaar Rama Temple & Vittala Temple. At the Mahanavmi Dibba, a celebration for Nine days was unfolded by the royalty. The king witnessed the cultural programmes such as folk dances, puppet show, fancy dress, fireworks, military parade, procession of horses and elephants, beginning with pooja to lord Durga. Even today the Government of Karnataka is trying to recreate the tradition of Vijayanagar empire by organizing HAMPI UTSAV in November first week every year. The Sultans wanted to build their own architectural edifice to match Vijaynagar rulers, Lotus Mahal, a summer resting palace was created. It had its own pond to cool the surroundings. Behind the Lotus Mahal, Elephant stables in 11 domed structure is built to house the royal animal. Once again this area is barricaded for renovation. Behind this stable if one is adventurous one can go on a trek to visit a temple winding into a mini forest. There is a small temple by the side of Lotus temple which on the outer wall of Lotus Mahal. After disposing the auto guide. We visited independently visited the balance places Sri Krishna temple, where one notices the vandalism of Sultans, who literally burnt down the temple along with people. It is rarely visited by tourist, the sculpture work is marvelous. Then went around back to Hazaar Rama temple, which is the ultimate exposure of the skills of the artisans on rock hewn walls, temples and pillars. It is a culmination of the golden era of Vijaynagar empire. It looks as if the Kings got into a mode of celeberation of life, without warfare. We find scenes from the epics Ramayana, hunting scenes, battleground warfare, courtesans entertaining the kings, hunting scene in olden days and in general description of all day to day events in the life of the royalty. The underground Shiva temple is a marvel. It is fed by water channels, which have entered the temple premises due to lack of conservation effort. Will ASI do some quick thinking otherwise it meet the fate of Musical pillar at Vittala temple. Museum at Kamalapura houses some of the restored sculptures and various other pieces of artwork is stored. Many foreign travelers scourge HAMPI in their quest for the hidden treasures of HAMPI by camping months together. Someday, someone is bound to hit the jackpot. Till then Hampi literally rocks.

What do you think about Saturday or Sunday being the Sabbath? The Sabbath is Saturday? Which Day? "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Genesis 2:2-3 Which day is the Sabbath? "The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God." Exodus 20:10. "And when the sabbath was past, ...very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre." Mark 16:1,2. Modern and Historic Statements on the Sabbath American Congregationalist Anglican Baptist Brethren Catholic Church of Christ Church of England Congregational Christian Church Disciples of Christ Episcopalian Lutheran Lutheran Free Church Methodist Moody Bible Institute Presbyterian Protestant Episcopal Southern Baptist Dictionaries and Encyclopedias Infidel Miscellaneous American Congregationalist: "The current notion that Christ and His apostles authoritatively substituted the first day for the seventh, is absolutely without any authority in the New Testament." Dr. Layman Abbot, in the Christian Union, June 26, 1890. Anglican: "And where are we told in the Scriptures that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day... The reason why we keep the first day of the week holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other things, not because the Bible, but because the Church, has enjoined it." Isaac Williams, Plain Sermons on the Catechism, pages 334, 336. Baptist: “There was and is a command to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will however be readily said, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, where can the record of such a transaction be found: Not in the New Testament – absolutely not. There is no scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week.” Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’. "To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years' discussion with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false [Jewish traditional] glosses, never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during the forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that He had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach the subject. Of course I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day as we learn from the Christian Fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism." Dr. E. T. Hiscox, report of his sermon at the Baptist Minister's Convention, in 'New York Examiner,' November 16, 1893 (The leader / spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church agrees with this statement.See Below) "The Scriptures nowhere call the first day of the week the Sabbath. . .There is no Scriptural authority for so doing, nor of course, any Scriptural obligation." The Watchman. "We believe that the law of God is the eternal and unchangeable rule of His moral government."-"Baptist Church Manual," Art. 12. "There was never any formal or authoritative change from the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath to the Christian first-day observance." -WILLIAM OWEN CARVER, "The Lord's Day in Our Day," page 49. "There is nothing in Scripture that requires us to keep Sunday rather than Saturday as a holy day." Harold Lindsell (editor), Christianity Today, Nov. 5, 1976 Brethren: "With the views of the law and the Sabbath we once held ... and which are still held by perhaps the great majority of the most earnest Christians, we confess that we could not answer Adventists. What is more, neither before or since have I heard or read what would conclusively answer an Adventist in his Scriptural contention that the Seventh day is the Sabbath (Ex. 20:10). It is not 'one day in seven' as some put it, but 'the seventh day according to the commandment.' " Words of Truth and Grace, p. 281. ^ Top Catholic: “It is well to remind the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and all other Christians, that the Bible does not support them anywhere in their observance of Sunday. Sunday is an institution of the Roman Catholic Church, and those who observe the day observe a commandment of the Catholic Church.” Priest Brady, in an address, reported in the Elizabeth, NJ ‘News’ on March 18, 1903. See This Rock "Protestants ... accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change... But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that ... in observing Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the Church, the pope." Our Sunday Visitor, February 5th, 1950. See This Rock “Of course these two old quotations are exactly correct. The Catholic Church designated Sunday as the day for corporate worship and gets full credit – or blame – for the change.” This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics and Evangelization, p.8, June 1997 Question: Which is the Sabbath day? Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day. Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” -Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50 Q. Must not a sensible Protestant doubt seriously, when he finds that even the Bible is not followed as a rule by his co-religionists? A. Surely, when he sees them baptize infants, abrogate the Jewish Sabbath, and observe Sunday for which [pg. 7] there is no Scriptural authority; when he finds them neglect to wash one another's feet, which is expressly commanded, and eat blood and things strangled, which are expressly prohibited in Scripture. He must doubt, if he think at all. ... Q. Should not the Protestant doubt when he finds that he himself holds tradition as a guide? A. Yes, if he would but reflect that he has nothing but Catholic Tradition for keeping the Sunday holy; ... Controversial Catechism by Stephen Keenan, New Edition, revised by Rev. George Cormack, published in London by Burns & Oates, Limited - New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benzinger Brothers, 1896, pages 6, 7. "The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians." The Catholic Encyclopedia, Commandments of God, Volume IV, © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition © 1999 by Kevin Knight, Nihil Obstat - Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur - +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York, page 153. ''The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.'' The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4. "All of us believe many things in regard to religion that we do not find in the Bible. For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is the 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the Church outside the Bible." The Catholic Virginian, "To Tell You The Truth,” Vol. 22, No. 49 (Oct. 3, 1947). "... you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73. 'Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.'' Catholic Record, September 1, 1923. "But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom, even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair." The Faith of Millions "Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. "The Day of the Lord" (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy." Sentinel, Pastor's page, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995 “If Protestants would follow the Bible, they would worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church.” Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920. “The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church.” Monsignor Louis Segur, ‘Plain Talk about the Protestantism of Today’, p. 213. What Important Question Does the Papacy Ask Protestants? Protestants have repeatedly asked the papacy, "How could you dare to change God's law?" But the question posed to Protestants by the Catholic church is even more penetrating. Here it is officially: ""You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer. You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered."" *Library of Christian Doctrine: Why Don't You Keep Holy the Sabbath-Day? (London: Burns and Oates, Ltd.), pp. 3, 4. ''I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says, No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week. And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the Holy Catholic Church." Priest Thomas Enright, C.S.S.R., February 18, 1884, Printed in the American Sentinel, a New York Roman Catholic journal in June 1893, p. 173. "There is but one church on the face of the earth which has the power, or claims power, to make laws binding on the conscience, binding before God, binding under penalty of hell-fire. For instance, the institution of Sunday. What right has any other church to keep this day? You answer by virtue of the third commandment (the papacy did away with the 2nd regarding the worship of graven images, and called the 4th the 3rd), which says 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.' But Sunday is not the Sabbath. Any schoolboy knows that Sunday is the first day of the week. I have repeatedly offered one thousand dollars to anyone who will prove by the Bible alone that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep, and no one has called for the money. It was the holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday, the seventh day, to Sunday, the first day of the week." - T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture delivered in 1893. ''Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.'' C. F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons, in answer to a letter regarding the change of the Sabbath, November 11, 1895. “Tradition, not Scripture, is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built.” Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157 "The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law". The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth" Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29. "The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity." John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994 "...pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.(29) This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true "sun"." John Paul II, Dies Domini, 27. The day of Christ-Light, 1998 (Prominent protestant leaders agree with this statement - See above for a statement by Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the ‘Baptist Manual’) "The Sun was a foremost god with heathen-dom…The sun has worshippers at this hour in Persia and other lands…. There is, in truth, something royal, kingly about the sun, making it a fit emblem of Jesus, the Sun of Justice. Hence the church in these countries would seem to have said, to 'Keep that old pagan name [Sunday]. It shall remain consecrated, sanctified.' And thus the pagan Sunday, dedicated to Balder, became the Christian Sunday, sacred to Jesus." William Gildea, Doctor of Divinity, The Catholic World, March, 1894, p. 809 "The retention of the old pagan name of Dies Solis, for Sunday is, in a great measure, owing to the union of pagan and Christian sentiment with which the first day of the week was recommended by Constantine to his subjects - pagan and Christian alike - as the 'venerable' day of the sun."" Arthur P. Stanley, History of the Eastern Church, p. 184 "When St. Paul repudiated the works of the law, he was not thinking of the Ten Commandments, which are as unchangeable as God Himself is, which God could not change and still remain the infinitely holy God."-Our Sunday Visitor, Oct. 7, I951. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church." Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p.58 (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p.67) "Some theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the NEW LAW, that he himself has explicitly substituted sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is entirely abandoned. It is now commonly held that God simply gave His church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as holy days. The church chose sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days." - Vincent J. Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast-Day Occupations, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, Studies in Sacred Theology, No. 70.,1943, p. 2. "If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday, with the Jews, instead of Sunday; ..." -- A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, by Rev. John Laux M.A., Benzinger Brothers, 1936 edition, Part 1. "Sunday is a Catholic institution, and... can be defended only on Catholic principles.... From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first." Catholic Press, Aug. 25, 1900 "The Sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. The Church altered the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of Sunday. Protestants must be rather puzzled by the keeping of Sunday when God distinctly said, 'Keep holy the Sabbath Day.' The word Sunday does not come anywhere in the Bible, so, without knowing it they are obeying the authority of the Catholic Church." Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Explained, p. 89. ''Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.'' John Cardinal Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893. ^ Top Church of Christ: "But we do not find any direct command from God, or instruction from the risen Christ, or admonition from the early apostles, that the first day is to be substituted for the seventh day Sabbath." "Let us be clear on this point. Though to the Christian 'that day, the first day of the week' is the most memorable of all days ... there is no command or warrant in the New Testament for observing it as a holy day." "The Roman Church selected the first day of the week in honour of the resurrection of Christ. ..." Bible Standard, May, 1916, Auckland, New Zealand. "... If the fourth command is binding upon us Gentiles by all means keep it. But let those who demand a strict observance of the Sabbath remember that the seventh day is the ONLY sabbath day commanded, and God never repealed that command. If you would keep the Sabbath, keep it; but Sunday is not the Sabbath. The argument of the 'Seventh-day Adventists' is on one point unassailable. It is the Seventh day not the first day that the command refers to." G. Alridge, Editor, The Bible Standard, April, 1916. "There is no direct Scriptural authority for designating the first day the Lord's day."-DR. D. H. LUCAS, Christian Oracle, Jan. 23, 1890. "The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath. There never was any change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change."-"First-Day Observance," pages 17, 19. "It has reversed the fourth commandment by doing away with the Sabbath of God's Word, and instituting Sunday as a holiday." DR. N. SUMMERBELL, "History of the Christian Church," Third Edition, page 4I5. "To command...men...to observe...the Lord's day...is contrary to the gospel." - "Memoirs of Alexander Campbell," Vol. 1, page 528. "It is clearly proved that the pastors of the churches have struck out one of God's ten words, which, not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality."-ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, "Debate With Purcell," page 214. "I do not believe that the Lord's day came in the room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day, for this plain reason, where there is no testimony, there can be no faith. Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath was changed, or that the Lord's day came in the room of it."-ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, Washington Reporter, Oct. 8, 1821. ^ Top Church of England: "Many people think that Sunday is the Sabbath. But neither in the New Testament nor in the early church is there anything to suggest that we have any right to transfer the observance of the seventh day of the week to the first. The Sabbath was and is Saturday and not Sunday, and if it were binding on us then we should observe it on that day, and on no other." Rev. Lionel Beere, All-Saints Church, Ponsonby, N.Z. in Church and People, Sept. 1, 1947. "Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should be done on Sunday. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. ...! That is Saturday." P. Carrington, Archbishop of Quebec, Oct. 27, 1949; cited in Prophetic Signs, p 12. "The observance of the first instead of the seventh day rests on the testimony of the church, and the church alone." Hobart Church News, July 2, 1894; cited in Prophetic Signs, p 14. "Where are we told in Scripture that we are to keep the first day at all? We are commanded to keep the Seventh; but we are nowhere commanded to keep the first day. The reason why we keep the first day holy instead of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many things, not because the Bible, but because the Church, has enjoined them." Rev. Isaac Williams, Ser. on Catechism, p. 334. "The seventh day, the commandment says, is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. No kind of arithmetic, no kind of almanac, can make seven equal one, nor the seventh mean the first, nor Saturday mean Sunday. ... The fact is that we are all Sabbath breakers, every one of us." Rev. Geo. Hodges. "Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or to His apostles."-SIR WILLIAM DOMVILLE, "Examination of the Six Texts," pages 6, 7. (Supplement). "There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about ab­staining from work on Sunday. . . . Into the rest of Sunday no divine law enters…, The observance of Ash Wednesday or Lent stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday." -CANON EYTON, 'The Ten Commandments," pages 52, 63, 65. "Is there any command in the New Testament to change the day of weekly rest from Saturday to Sunday? None."-"Manual of Christian Doctrine," page 127. "The Lord's day did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath....The Lord's day was merely an ecclesiastical institution. It was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because for almost three hundred years together they kept that day which was in that commandment...The primitive Christians did all manner of works upon the Lord's day, even in times of persecution, when they are the strictest observers of all the divine commandments; but in this they knew there was none."-BISHOP JEREMY TAYLOR, "Ductor Dubitantium," Part I, Book II, Chap. 2, Rule 6. Sec. 51, 59. "Sunday being the day on which the Gentiles solemnly adore that planet and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body (as they conceived it), the Christians thought fit to keep the same day and the same name of it, that they might not appear causelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice than might be otherwise taken against the gospel."-T. M. MORER, "Dialogues on the Lord's Day," pages 22, 23. "The Puritan idea was historically unhappy. It made Sun­day into the Sabbath day. Even educated people call Sunday the Sabbath. Even clergymen do." "But, unless my reckoning is all wrong, the Sabbath day lasts twenty-four hours from six o'clock on Friday evening. It gives over, therefore, before we come to Sunday. If you suggest to a Sabbatarian that he ought to observe the Sabbath on the proper day, you arouse no enthusiasm. He at once replies that the day, not the principle, has been changed. But changed by whom? There is no injunction in the whole of the New Testament to Christians to change the Sabbath into Sunday.' - D. MORSE­BOYCOTT, Daily Herald, London, Feb. 26, 1931. "The Christian church made no formal, but a gradual and almost unconscious transference of the one day to the other."- F.W. FARRAR, D.D., "The Voice From Sinai," page 167. "Take which you will, either of the Fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord's day instituted by any apostolical man­date; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week."-PETER HEYLYN, "History of the Sabbath," page 410. "Merely to denounce the tendency to secularise Sunday is as futile as it is easy. What we want is to find some principle, to which as Christians we can appeal, and on which we can base both our conduct and our advice. We turn to the New Testament, and we look in vain for any authoritative rule. There is no recorded word of Christ, there is no word of any of the apostles, which tells how we should keep Sunday, or indeed that we should keep it at all. It is disappointing, for it would make our task much easier if we could point to a definite rule, which left us no option but simple obedience or disobedience. . . . There is no rule for Sunday observance, either in Scripture or history."-DR. STEPHEN, Bishop of Newcastle, N.S.W., in an address reported in the Newcastle Morn­ing Herald, May 14, 1924. ^ Top Congregational: "The Christian Sabbath' [Sunday] is not in the Scripture, and was not by the primitive [early Christian] church called the Sabbath." Timothy Dwight, Theology, sermon 107, 1818 ed., Vol. IV, p49 Note: Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) was president of Yale University from 1795-1817. "It is quite clear that, however rigidly or devoutly we may spend Sunday, we are not keeping the Sabbath ... The Sabbath was founded on a specific divine command. We can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday ... There is not a single sentence in the New Testament to suggest that we incur any penalty by violating the supposed sanctity of Sunday." Dr. Dale, The Ten Commandments, pp. 106, 107. "It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day." Buck's Theological Dictionary page 403. "There is no command in the Bible requiring us to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath."-ORIN FOWLER, A.M., "Mode and Subjects of Baptism." "The current notion that Christ and His apostles authoritatively substituted the first day for the seventh, is absolutely without any authority in the New Testament."-DR. LYMAN ABBOTT, Christian Union, Jan. 18, 1882. Christian Church: "I do not believe that the Lord's day came in the room of the Jewish Sabbath, or that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day, for this plain reason, where there is no testimony, there can be no faith. Now there is no testimony in all the oracles of heaven that the Sabbath is changed, or that the Lord’s Day came in the room of it." Alexander Campbell, in The Reporter, October 8, 1921 "It has reversed the fourth commandment by doing away with the Sabbath of God's Word, and instituting Sunday as a holiday." - Dr. N. Summerbell, History of the Christian Church, Third Edition, p. 415 "There is no direct scriptural authority for designating the first day the Lord's day." - Dr. D. H. Lucas, Christian Oracle, Jan. 23, 1890. "The first day of the week is commonly called the Sabbath. This is a mistake. The Sabbath of the Bible was the day just preceeding the first day of the week. The first day of the week is never called the Sabbath anywhere in the entire Scriptures. It is also an error to talk about the change of the Sabbath. There never was any change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. There is not in any place in the Bible any intimation of such a change." First-Day Observance, pp. 17, 19. Disciples of Christ: "There is no direct Scriptural authority for designating the first day ‘the Lord’s Day.’" Dr D.H. Lucas, Christian Oracle, January, 1890 "If it [the Ten Commandments] yet exist, let us observe it... And if it does not exist, let us abandon a mock observance of another day for it. 'But,' say some, 'it was changed from the seventh to the first day.' Where? when? and by whom? - No, it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to be gone through again: for the reason assigned [in Genesis 2:1-3] must be changed before the observance or respect to the reason, can be changed. It is all old wives' fables to talk of the 'change of the sabbath' from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio, - I think his name is "Doctor Antichrist.'" Alexander Campbell, The Christian Baptist, February 2, 1824, vol 1, no. 7 ^ Top Episcopalian: "We have made the change from the seventh day to the first day, from Saturday to Sunday, on the authority of the one holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church of Christ." Bishop Symour, Why We keep Sunday. "The Bible commandment says on the seventh-day thou shalt rest. That is Saturday. Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should be done on Sunday." Phillip Carrington, quoted in Toronto Daily Star, Oct 26, 1949 [Carrington (1892-), Anglican archbishop of Quebec, spoke the above in a message on this subject delivered to a packed assembly of clergymen. It was widely reported at the time in the news media]. Lutheran: "The observance of the Lord's Day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the Church." Augsburg Confession of Faith. "They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord's day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appears, neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbath day. Great, say they, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments." -Augsburg Confession of Faith, Art. 28, par. 9. "They [Roman Catholics] allege the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue [the ten commandments]; and they have no example more in their mouths than they change of the Sabbath. They will needs have the Church's power to be very great, because it hath dispensed with the precept of the Decalogue." The Augsburg Confession, 1530 A.D. (Lutheran), part 2, art 7, in Philip Schaff, the Creeds of Christiandom, 4th Edition, vol 3, p64 [this important statement was made by the Lutherans and written by Melanchthon, only thirteen years after Luther nailed his theses to the door and began the Reformation]. "For up to this day mankind has absolutely trifled with the original and most special revelation of the Holy God, the ten words written upon the tables of the Law from Sinai."-"Crown Theological Library," page I78. "The Christians in the ancient church very soon distinguished the first day of the week, Sunday; however, not as a Sabbath, but as an assembly day of the church, to study the Word of God together, and to celebrate the ordinances one with another: without a shadow of doubt, this took place as early as the first part of the second century."-Bishop GRIMELUND, "History of the Sabbath," page 60. "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance."- AUGUSTUS NEANDER, "History of the Christian Religion and Church," Vol. 1, page 186. "I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should reject the law of Ten Commandments...Whosoever abrogates the law must of necessity abrogate sin also."-MARTIN LUTHER, Spiritual Antichrist," pages 71, 72. "We have seen how gradually the impression of the Jewish Sabbath faded from the mind of the Christian church, and how completely the newer thought underlying the observance of the first day took possession of the church. We have seen that the Christian of the first three centuries never confused one with the other, but for a time celebrated both." The Sunday Problem, a study book by the Lutheran Church (1923) p.36 "But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel .... These churches err in their teaching, for scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect" John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday, pp.15, 16 ^ Top Lutheran Free Church: “For when there could not be produced one solitary place in the Holy Scriptures which testified that either the Lord Himself or the apostles had ordered such a transfer of the Sabbath to Sunday, then it was not easy to answer the question: Who has transferred the Sabbath, and who has the right to do it?” George Sverdrup, ‘A New Day.’ Methodist: "This 'handwriting of ordinances' our Lord did blot out, take away, and nail to His cross. (Colossians 2: 14.) But the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away.... The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law. ...Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages."-JOHN WESLEY, "Sermons on Several Occasions," 2-Vol. Edition, Vol. I, pages 221, 222. "No Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral."-"Methodist Church Discipline," (I904), page 23. "The Sabbath was made for MAN; not for the Hebrews, but for all men."-E.O. HAVEN, "Pillars of Truth," page 88. "The reason we observe the first day instead of the seventh is based on no positive command. One will search the Scriptures in vain for authority for changing from the seventh day to the first. The early Christians began to worship on the first day of the week because Jesus rose from the dead on that day. By and by, this day of worship was made also a day of rest, a legal holiday. This took place in the year 321. "The reason we observe the first day instead of the seventh is based on no positive command. One will search the Scriptures in vain for authority for changing from the seventh day to the first... Our Christian Sabbath, therefore, is not a matter of positive command. It is a gift of the church... "-CLOVIS G. CHAPPELL, "Ten Rules for Living," page 61. "Sabbath in the Hebrew language signifies rest, and is the seventh day of the week... and it must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day." Charles Buck, A Theological Dictionary, "Sabbath" "In the days of very long ago the people of the world began to give names to everything, and they turned the sounds of the lips into words, so that the lips could speak a thought. In those days the people worshipped the sun because many words were made to tell of many thoughts about many things. The people became Christians and were ruled by an emperor whose name was Constantine. This emperor made Sunday the Christian Sabbath, because of the blessing of light and heat which came from the sun. So our Sunday is a sun-day, isn't it?"-Sunday School Advocate, Dec. 31, 1921. "The moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He [Christ] did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken... Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their un­changeable relation to each other."-JOHN WESLEY, "Sermons on Several Occasions," Vol. I, Sermon XXV. “It is true that there is no positive command for infant baptism. Nor is there any for the keeping of the first day of the week. Many believe that Christ changed the Sabbath. But, from His own words, we see that He came for no such purpose. Those who believe that Jesus changed the Sabbath base it only on a supposition.” Amos Binney, ‘Theological Compendium’, p. 180-181 "The Sabbath instituted in the beginning, and confirmed again and again by Moses and the prophets, has never been abrogated. A part of the moral law, not a jot or a tittle of its sanctity has been taken away." New York Herald 1874, on the Methodist Episcopal Bishops Pastoral 1874 Moody Bible Institute: "The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?"- D.L. MOODY, "Weighed and Wanting," page 47. "I honestly believe that this commandment [the fourth, or Sabbath commandment] is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place. 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.' It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was-in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.' - Id., page 46. "This Fourth is not a commandment for one place, or one time, but for all places and times." D.L. Moody, at San Francisco, Jan. 1st, 1881. ^ Top Presbyterian: "The Christian Sabbath (Sunday) is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive church called the Sabbath." Dwight's Theology, Vol. 14, p. 401. "A further argument for the perpetuity of the Sabbath we have in Matthew 24:20, Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter neither on the Sabbath day. But the final destruction of Jerusalem was after the Christian dispensation was fully set up (AD 70). Yet it is plainly implied in these words of the Lord that even then Christians were bound to strict observation of the Sabbath." Works of Jonathon Edwards, (Presby.) Vol. 4, p. 621. "We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law; for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must therefore be as unchangeable as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform." JOHN CALVIN, "Commentary on a Harmony of the Gospels," Vol. 1, page 277. "God instituted the Sabbath at the creation of man, setting apart the seventh day for the purpose, and imposed its observance as a universal and perpetual moral obligation upon the race." ­American Presbyterian Board of Publication, Tract No. 175. "The observance of the seventh-day Sabbath did not cease till it was abolished after the [Roman] empire became Christian," ­American Presbyterian Board of Publication, Tract No. 118. "The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard to the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation." "Westminster Confession of Faith," Chap. 19, Art. 5. "The Sabbath is a part of the Decalogue-the Ten Commandments. This alone for ever settles the question as to the perpetuity of the institution ... Until, therefore, it can be shown that the whole moral law has been repealed, the Sabbath will stand...The teaching of Christ confirms the perpetuity of the Sabbath."- T.C. BLAKE, D.D., "Theology Condensed," pages 474, 475. "Sunday being the first day of which the Gentiles solemnly adored that planet and called it Sunday, partly from its influence on that day especially, and partly in respect to its divine body (as they conceived it) the Christians thought fit to keep the same day and the same name of it, that they might not appear carelessly peevish, and by that means hinder the conversion of the Gentiles, and bring a greater prejudice that might be otherwise taken against the gospel" T.M. Morer, Dialogues on the Lord's Day "There is no word, no hint in the New Testament about abstaining from work on Sunday. The observance of Ash Wednesday, or Lent, stands exactly on the same footing as the observance of Sunday. Into the rest of Sunday no Divine Law enters." Canon Eyton, in The Ten Commandments. "Some have tried to build the observance of Sunday upon Apostolic command, whereas the Apostles gave no command on the matter at all.... The truth is, so soon as we appeal to the litera scripta [literal writing] of the Bible, the Sabbatarians have the best of the argument." The Christian at Work, April 19, 1883, and Jan. 1884 Protestant Episcopal: “The day is now changed from the seventh to the first day... but as we meet with no Scriptural direction for the change, we may conclude it was done by the authority of the church.” ‘Explanation of Catechism’ ^ Top Southern Baptist: “The sacred name of the Seventh day is Sabbath. This fact is too clear to require argument [Exodus 20:10 quoted]… on this point the plain teaching of the Word has been admitted in all ages… Not once did the disciples apply the Sabbath law to the first day of the week, -- that folly was left for a later age, nor did they pretend that the first day supplanted the seventh.” Joseph Hudson Taylor, ‘The Sabbatic Question’, p. 14-17, 41. "The first four commandments set forth man's obligations directly toward God.... But when we keep the first four commandments, we are likely to keep the other six. . . . The fourth commandment sets forth God's claim on man's time and thought.... The six days of labour and the rest on the Sabbath are to be maintained as a witness to God's toil and rest in the creation. . . . No one of the ten words is of merely racial significance.... The Sabbath was established originally (long before Moses) in no special connection with the Hebrews, but as an institution for all mankind, in commemoration of God's rest after the six days of creation. It was designed for all the descendants of Adam."-Adult Quarterly, Southern Baptist Convention series, Aug. 15, 1937. Dictionaries and Encyclopedias: "Sunday was a name given by the heathens to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshipped the sun, ...the seventh day was blessed and hallowed by God Himself, and ...He requires His creatures to keep it holy to Him. This commandment is of universal and perpetual obligation...The Creator 'blessed the seventh day'-declared it to be a day above all days, a day- on which His favour should assuredly rest. ...So long, then, as man exists, and the world around him endures,' does the law of the early Sabbath remain. It cannot be set aside so long as its foundations last.... It is not the Jewish Sabbath, properly so-called, which is ordained in the fourth commandment. In the whole of that injunction there is no Jewish element, any more than there is in the third commandment, or the sixth." ­Eadie's Biblical Cyclopedia, 1872 Edition, page 561. "Thus we learn from Socrates (H.E., vi.c.8) that in his time public worship was held in the churches of Constantinople on both days.... The view that the Christian's Lord's day or Sunday is but the Christian Sabbath deliberately transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week does not indeed find categorical expression till a much later period.... The earliest recognition of the observance of Sunday as a legal duty is a constitution of Constantine in A.D. 321, enacting that all courts of justice, inhabitants of towns, and workshops were to be at rest on Sunday (venerabili die Solis), with an exception in favour of those engaged in agricultural labour...The Council of Laodicea (363) ... forbids Christians from judaizing and resting on the Sabbath day, preferring the Lord's day, and so far as possible resting as Christians."-Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1899 Edition, Vol. XXIII, page 654. "Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the sabbatical observance of Sunday is known to have been ordained is the sabbatical edict of Constantine, A.D. 32I." ­Chambers' Encyclopedia, Article "Sunday." "It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day."-M'CLINTOCK AND STRONG, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. IX, page 196. "Sunday (Dies Solis, of the Roman calendar, 'day of the sun,' because dedicated to the sun), the first day of the week, was adopted by the early Christians as a day of worship. The 'sun' of Latin adoration they interpreted as the 'Sun of Righteousness.' . . . No regulations for its observance are laid down in the New Testament, nor, indeed, is its observance even enjoined."-SCHAFF HERZOG, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1891 Edition, Vol. IV, Art. "Sunday." "Sabbath in the Hebrew language signifies rest, and is the seventh day of the week... and it must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day." CHARLES BUCK, "A Theological Dictionary," "As the Sabbath is of divine institution, so it is to be kept holy unto the Lord. Numerous have been the days appointed by men for religious services; but these are not binding, because of human institution. Not so the Sabbath. Hence the fourth commandment is ushered in with a peculiar emphasis-'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.'…The abolition of it would be unreasonable."-'CHARLES BUCK, "A Theological Dictionary," 1830 Edition, page 537. "But although it [Sunday] was in the primitive times indifferently called the Lord's day, or Sunday, yet it was never denominated the Sabbath; a name constantly appropriate to Saturday, or the seventh day, both by sacred and ecclesiastical writers."-Id., page 572. "The notion of a formal substitution by apostolic authority of the Lord's day [meaning Sunday] for the Jewish Sabbath [or the first for the seventh day]...and the transference to it, perhaps in a spiritualized form, of the sabbatical obligation established by the promulgation of the fourth commandment, has no basis whatever, either in Holy Scripture or in Christian antiquity." - SIR WILLIAM SMITH AND SAMUEL CHEETHAM, "A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities," Vol. 11, page 182, Article "Sabbath." "This long series of temporal enactments (in considering which we have, for the sake of exhibiting them as a whole, anticipated chronological order) must have told very powerfully upon the conception of the Lord's day in the church itself, not only tending to formalize its celebration, but to invest it in great degree with the character of a sabbath. Still, however, there was no connexion of its observance with the obligation of the fourth commandment, and therefore no application to it either of the laws of the Jewish sabbath, or of our Lord's teaching on the subject, as modifying and spiritualizing these laws." -Id., page 1047 Infidel: 'Probably very few Christians are aware of the fact that what they call the 'Christian Sabbath' (Sunday) is of pagan origin. "The first observance of Sunday- that history records is in the fourth century', when Constantine issued an edict (not requiring its religious observance, but simply abstinence from work) reading, 'let all the judges and people of the town rest and all the various trades be suspended on the venerable day of the sun.' At the time of the issue of this edict, Constantine was a sun-worshipper; therefore it could have had no relation whatever to Christianity." - ­HENRY M. TABER. "Faith or Fact" (preface by Robert G. Ingersoll), page 112. "I challenge any priest or minister of the Christian religion to show me the slightest authority for the religious observance of Sunday. And, if such cannot be shown by them, why is it that they are constantly preaching about Sunday as a holy day? ...The claim that Sunday takes the place of Saturday, and that because the Jews were supposed to be commanded to keep the seventh day of the week holy, therefore the first day of the week should be so kept by Christians, is so utterly absurd as to be hardly worth considering....That Paul habitually observed and preached on the seventh day of the week, is shown in Acts 18:4-'And be reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath' (Saturday)."-Id., pages ,114, 116. ^ Top Miscellaneous: "You will tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! But by whom? Who has authority to change an express commandment of Almighty God? When God has spoken and said, 'Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day,' who shall dare to say, 'Nay, thou mayest work and do all manner of business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day in its stead'? This is a most important question, which I know not how you can answer." "You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the Ten Commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered."-"The Library of Christian Doctrine," pages 3, 4. "The first precept in the Bible is that of sanctifying the seventh day: 'God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.' Genesis 2:3. This precept was confirmed by God in the Ten Commandments: 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep It holy. ...The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' Exodus 20: 8, 10. On the other hand, Christ declares that He is not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. (Matthew 5: 17.) He Himself observed the Sabbath: 'And, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day.' Luke 4: r6. His disciples likewise observed it after His death: 'They . . . rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.' Luke 23: 56. Yet with all this weight of Scripture authority for keeping the Sabbath or seventh day holy, Protestants of all denominations make this a profane day and transfer the obligation of it to the first day of the week, or the Sunday. Now what authority have they for doing this? None at all but the unwritten word, or tradition of the Catholic Church, which declares that the apostle made the change in honour of Christ's resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Ghost on that day of the week."-JOHN MILNER, "The End of Religious Controversy," page 71. "Sabbath means, of course, Saturday, the seventh day of the week, but the early Christians changed the observance to Sunday, to honour the day on which Christ arose from the dead."-FULTON OURSLER. Cosmopolitan, Sept. 1951, pages 34, 35. "I do not pretend to be even an amateur scholar of the Scriptures. I read the Decalogue merely as an average man searching for guidance, and in the immortal 'Ten Words' I find a blueprint for the good life."-Id., page 33. "Most certainly the Commandments are needed today, perhaps more than ever before. Their divine message confronts us with a profound moral challenge in an epidemic of evil; a unifying message acceptable alike to Jew, Moslem, and Christian. Who, reading the Ten in the light of history and of current events, can doubt their identity with the eternal law of nature?"-Id., page 124. "The Sabbath is commanded to be kept on the seventh day. It could not be kept on any other day. To observe the first day of the week or the fourth is not to observe the Sabbath. . . . It was the last day of the week, after six days of work, that was to be kept holy. The observance of no other day would fulfil the law."-H. J. FLOWERS, B.A., B.D., "The Permanent Value of the Ten Commandments," page 13. "The evaluation of Sunday, the traditionally accepted day of the resurrection of Christ, has varied greatly throughout the centuries of the Christian Era. From time to time it has been confused with the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath. English ­speaking peoples have been the most consistent in perpetuating the erroneous assumption that the obligation of the fourth commandment has passed over to Sunday. In popular speech, Sunday is frequently, but erroneously, spoken of as the Sabbath."-F. M. SETZLER, Head Curator, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institute, from a letter dated Sept. 1, 1949. "He that observes the Sabbath aright holds the history of that which it celebrates to be authentic, and therefore believes in the creation of the first man; in the creation of a fair abode for man in the space of six days; in the primeval and absolute creation of the heavens and the earth, and, as a necessary antecedent to all this, in the Creator, who at the close of His latest creative effort, rested on the seventh day. The Sabbath thus becomes a sign by which the believers in a historical revelation are distinguished from those who have allowed these great facts to fade from their remembrance.' - JAMES G. MURPHY, "Commentary on the Book of Exodus," comments on Exodus 20: 8-11. ** The Bible also identifies the entity who thinks it can change God's law. ^ Top Enter a description of what you are looking for. "When St. Paul repudiated the works of the law, he was not thinking of the Ten Commandments, which are as unchangeable as God Himself is, which God could not change and still remain the infinitely holy God." Our Sunday Visitor, Oct. 7, 1951.

What is the main point of "In defense of talks shows" by barbara ehrenreich? UP UNTIL NOW, THE TARGETS OF BILL (THE BOOK OF Virtues) Bennett's crusades have at least been plausible sources of evil. But the latest victim of his wrath--TV talk shows of the Sally Jessy Raphael variety--are in a whole different category from drugs and gangsta rap. As anyone who actually watches them knows, the talk shows are one of the most excruciatingly moralistic forums the culture has to offer. Disturbing and sometimes disgusting, yes, but their very business is to preach the middle-class virtues of responsibility, reason and self-control. Take the case of Susan, recently featured on Montel Williams as an example of a woman being stalked by her ex-boyfriend. Turns out Susan is also stalking the boyfriend and--here's the sexual frisson--has slept with him only days ago. In fact Susan is neck deep in trouble without any help from the boyfriend: she's serving a yearlong stretch of home incarceration for assaulting another woman, and home is the tiny trailer she shares with her nine-year-old daughter. But no one is applauding this life spun out of control. Montel scolds Susan roundly for neglecting her daughter and failing to confront her role in the mutual stalking. A therapist lectures her about this unhealthy "obsessive kind of love." The studio audience jeers at her every evasion. By the end Susan has lost her cocky charm and dissolved into tears of shame. The plot is always the same. People with problems--"husband says she looks like a cow," "pressured to lose her virginity or else," "mate wants more sex than I do"--are introduced to rational methods of problem solving. People with moral failings--"boy crazy," "dresses like a tramp," "a hundred sex partners"--are introduced to external standards of morality. The preaching--delivered alternately by the studio audience, the host and the ever present guest therapist--is relentless. "This is wrong to do this," Sally Jessy tells a cheating husband. "Feel bad?" Geraldo asks the girl who stole her best friend's boyfriend, "Any sense of remorse?" The expectation is that the sinner, so hectored, will see her way to reform. And indeed, a Sally Jessy update found "boy crazy," who'd been a guest only weeks ago, now dressed in schoolgirlish plaid and claiming her "attitude [had] changed"--thanks to the rough-and-ready therapy dispensed on the show. All right, the subjects are often lurid and even bizarre. But there's no part of the entertainment spectacle, from Hard Copy to Jade, that doesn't trade in the lurid and bizarre. At least in the talk shows, the moral is always loud and clear: Respect yourself, listen to others, stop beating on your wife. In fact it's hard to see how The Bill Bennett Show, if there were to be such a thing, could deliver a more pointed sermon. Or would he prefer to see the feckless Susan, for example, tarred and feathered by the studio audience instead of being merely booed and shamed? There is something morally repulsive about the talks, but it's not anything Bennett or his co-crusader Senator Joseph Lieberman has seen fit to mention. Watch for a few hours, and you get the claustrophobic sense of lives that have never seen the light of some external judgment, of people who have never before been listened to, and certainly never been taken seriously if they were. "What kind of people would let themselves be humiliated like this?" is often asked, sniffily, by the shows' detractors. And the answer, for the most part, is people who are so needy--of social support, of education, of material resources and self-esteem--that they mistake being the center of attention for being actually loved and respected. What the talks are about, in large part, is poverty and the distortions it visits on the human spirit. You'll never find investment bankers bickering on Rolonda, or the host of Gabrielle recommending therapy to sobbing professors. With few exceptions the guests are drawn from trailer parks and tenements, from bleak streets and narrow, crowded rooms. Listen long enough, and you hear references to unpaid bills, to welfare, to 12-hour workdays and double shifts. And this is the real shame of the talks: that they take lives bent out of shape by poverty and hold them up as entertaining exhibits. An announcement appearing between segments of Montel says it all: the show is looking for "pregnant women who sell their bodies to make ends meet." This is class exploitation, pure and simple. What next--"homeless people so hungry they eat their own scabs"? Or would the next step be to pay people outright to submit to public humiliation? For $50 would you confess to adultery in your wife's presence? For $500 would you reveal your 13-year-old's girlish secrets on Ricki Lake? If you were poor enough, you might. It is easy enough for those who can afford spacious homes and private therapy to sneer at their financial inferiors and label their pathetic moments of stardom vulgar. But if I had a talk show, it would feature a whole different ca

dont pay attention to this!?

temporary daycare in new york city? I am exhibiting at a trade show this summer in NYC, so looking for a daycare or some healthy environment to leave my 10-month-old from 9 to 6 for five days. Can anyone recommend any place or know where I should look into? Thanks for the help!!