Vocabulary Tip! Shopping....

Different Kinds of Shops:
A large shop that sells all kinds of foods is called a supermarket. A hypermarket usually includes a supermarket and department store. A department store is a large shop with different sections or departments selling lots of different things.

A delicatessen or deli sells cooked foods or prepared foods like salads, cold cooked meats and cheeses.
A butcher sells different meat products.
A fruit and vegetable shop or greengrocer sells fruit and vegetables.
A bakery sells different kinds of bread.
A florist is a shop or company that sells flowers, especially flowers that have been put together in a special way.
A secondhand shop has things that are not new.
A plant shop or garden center is a place where you can buy flowers and plants to grow in your garden.
A boutique sells women's clothing and jewelery.
Factory outlets are stores selling brandname clothes and shoes at discounted prices.
A stall is a place in a market where you can sell things.

A store that sells milk, ice-cream, small amounts of groceries etc and is often open longer than other stores has different names in different English speaking countries: for example, convenience store, 7-Eleven (parts of Australia), dairy (New Zealand), corner store, superette or newsagent. You need to find the name that is used where you are living.
A store that has a drive-thru or drive-through part allows you to buy something without leaving your car.
People in shops:
The person who helps or serves you in a store is known as a shop assistant or sales assistant. If we need to see the person in charge, we ask to speak to the manager or a supervisor.
Parts of a Store:
A changing room is a place in the shop with a mirror where you can try clothes on.
The checkout is the place where you pay for what you have bought. The till (British English) or cash register(American English) is the machine used to add up how much is spent and give change.
At a supermarket you put your food in a cart known as a shopping cart or trolley.
Shopping Words:
If you want to exchange something, you want to change or replace it for something else because it's the wrong size etc.
A receipt is a piece of paper that lists what you bought from a shop and the price.
If you get a bargain, you think something  is a cheap or good price.
If you pay in cash, you pay in money in notes and coins.
If something is on special, the price of something is lower than it usually is. When a shop has a sale, it is selling things at lower prices than it usually does.

For Nov. 23rd

The Obama administration is using the crisis in the Mexican Gulf to sell it's nightmare agenda for a so called "green economy", a push for initiatives that have, according to its own government, led directly to catastrophic economic failure in Spain.
The White House has enacted a direct emailing campaign, calling for support to sell the American people on long sought global warming and Cap and Trade legislation.
The emails sent out en mass to those on the Obama campaign mailing list ask for a public lobbying effort to push for a cap and trade bill in the Senate to match legislation already passed in the House.
The email from Obama (see in full at the end of this article) reads:

The BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast is the worst environmental disaster of its kind in our nation's history. I am returning to the region today to review our efforts and meet with families and business owners affected by the catastrophe.
We are working to hold BP accountable for the damage to the lands and the livelihoods of the Gulf Coast, and we are taking strong precautions to make certain a spill like this never happens again.
But our work will not end with this crisis. That's one of the reasons why last week I invited lawmakers from both parties to join me at the White House to discuss what it will take to move forward on legislation to promote a new economy powered by green jobs, combat climate change, and end our dependence on foreign oil.
[...]Please stand with me today in backing clean energy. Adding your name will help Organizing for America create a powerful, public display of support for making this change happen.

The green push hasn't ended there. In an interview published by Politico this weekend, Obama compared the BP oil spill with 9/11, noting:
"In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come."
Just as George W. Bush's Afghanistan invasion plan was sitting on the shelf before 9/11, Obama's green economy bill has been laying in wait for almost two years now.

Obama's stated intention to "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050" has not gone away.
Recent exposure of the fraud behind the climate science driving the global warming movement had seemingly scuppered Obama's chances of pushing through the legislation, which would see some $2.9 trillion shaved off the economy by the year 2050 if enacted. The legislation would also reduce GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with theeconomic meltdown of 1929 and 1930.
Now, however, in the wake of the BP disaster, and a tightly controlled public relations machine managing it, Obama has seen an opportunity to gain momentum, once more wheeling out his "clean energy" rhetoric:
"One of the biggest leadership challenges for me going forward is going to be to make sure that we draw the right lessons from this disaster." Obama noted in the Politico interview, clearly intimating that one of the "right lessons" would include passing his radical climate change legislation.
On several separate occasions, over the past two years, Obama has referred to the "green economy" policies enacted by Spain as being the model for what he envisions for America.
It is precisely this kind of "green economy" that has left Spain with a 20 per cent unemployment rate, virtually bankrupt and in need of being bailed out by the rest of Europe.
A newly leaked internal document from Spain’s Zapatero administration outlines how Spain’s “green economy initiatives” have been a financial disaster.
In this so-called "green economy", over 2.2 jobs are lost for every “green job” created.
"Today’s leaked document reveals that even the socialist Spanish government now acknowledges the ruinous effects of green economic policy," reports Christopher Horner.
"Despite the soft-pedaling, the document reveals exactly why electricity rates "necessarily skyrocketed" in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the disaster. This internal assessment preceded the Zapatero administration’s recent acknowledgement that the "green economy" stunt must be abandoned, lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece."
Obama admits in his mass email, "There will be transition costs and a time of adjustment." This translates to gas and electricity prices going through the roof, huge new taxes and regulations on U.S. businesses, and the ushering in of an era of green policing where, in order to meet its stated goals, the U.S. government micro-manages citizens and enterprises to ensure they are being "eco-friendly".
Without question, developing alternative energy methods and encouraging the use of solar and wind power for means of self-sufficiency and reducing dependency on oil and fossil fuels is a fantastic notion and should be widely supported. But this isn’t about helping the environment, it’s about exploiting people’s legitimate concern for the planet by diverting their attention and getting them to enthusiastically partake in their own enslavement while mandating their fellow citizens do the same.
Welcome to another dose of the “change you can believe in,” trillions more of taxpayer’s money thrown at a scam that has nothing to do with saving the environment and everything to do with raping the middle class and the poor while erecting a gargantuan police state system of informants and enforcement to carry out the elite’s new feudalist agenda.

============================================

The email from Obama in full:

Dear xxxxxxx,
The BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast is the worst environmental disaster of its kind in our nation's history. I am returning to the region today to review our efforts and meet with families and business owners affected by the catastrophe.
We are working to hold BP accountable for the damage to the lands and the livelihoods of the Gulf Coast, and we are taking strong precautions to make certain a spill like this never happens again.
But our work will not end with this crisis. That's one of the reasons why last week I invited lawmakers from both parties to join me at the White House to discuss what it will take to move forward on legislation to promote a new economy powered by green jobs, combat climate change, and end our dependence on foreign oil.
Today, we consume more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but have less than two percent of the world's oil reserves. Beyond the risks inherent in drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month -- including many in dangerous and unstable regions.
In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk. We cannot delay any longer, and that is why I am asking for your help.
Please stand with me today in backing clean energy. Adding your name will help Organizing for America create a powerful, public display of support for making this change happen.
The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a new future. That means continuing our unprecedented effort to make everything -- from our homes and businesses to our cars and trucks -- more energy-efficient. It means rolling back billions of dollars of tax breaks to oil companies so we can prioritize investments in clean energy research and development.
Many businesses support this agenda because shifting to clean energy creates opportunities for entrepreneurship. This is how we will reinvent our economy -- and create new companies and new jobs all across the country.
There will be transition costs and a time of adjustment. But if we refuse to heed the warnings from the disaster in the Gulf -- we will have missed our best chance to seize the clean-energy future we know America needs to thrive in the years and decades to come.
The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill, and there is currently a plan in the Senate -- a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans -- that would achieve the same goal. But this is an issue that Washington has long ignored in favor of protecting the status quo.
So I'm asking for your help today to show that the American people are ready for a clean-energy future.
Please add your name to mine:
http://my.barackobama.com/CleanEnergy
Thank you,
President Barack Obama

For Nov. 23rd

FBI pressuring Google, Facebook to allow ‘back doors’ for wiretapping

By Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, November 17th, 2010 -- 9:47 pm

ACLU: Proposed expansion of wiretap powers 'a clear recipe for abuse'

FBI Director Robert Mueller traveled to Silicon Valley this week to convince major Internet players to build "back doors" into their software that will allow law enforcement to wiretap data on their networks, says a news report.

It's part of an effort to expand the FBI's wiretapping powers to include the latest communications technologies, including social networking sites, voice-over-Internet (VoIP) telephone services and BlackBerries.

But privacy and civil rights advocates are raising the alarm about the proposal, saying that the proposed wiretapping tools could just as easily be used by hackers to steal personal information, or by oppressive governments to track political dissidents.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that Mueller is on a lobbying trip in Silicon Valley to sell tech companies on the idea.

Mr. Mueller and the F.B.I.’s general counsel, Valerie Caproni, were scheduled to meet with senior managers of several major companies, including Google and Facebook, according to several people familiar with the discussions. How Mr. Mueller’s proposal was received was not clear.

“I can confirm that F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller is visiting Facebook during his trip to Silicon Valley,” said Andrew Noyes, Facebook’s public policy manager. Michael Kortan, an F.B.I. spokesman, acknowledged the meetings but did not elaborate.

The Obama administration plans to introduce the new law -- an update to the 1994 Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act -- next year.

The current law mandates that phone companies have to be ready to wiretap a customer if law enforcement requests it, but supporters of the new law say that's no longer good enough. The FBI says its ability to wiretap is "going dark" because people are increasingly using encrypted communications tools, such as Skype and the BlackBerry. The new law would require companies such as these to install "back door" access to their communications.

That's raising the alarm among privacy advocates who say the same tool that lets the FBI snoop on communications can be exploited by hackers for criminal purposes.

“Building backdoors in software to help the FBI wiretap will attract hackers who want to do the same thing – access confidential communications,” Gregory Nojeim, a lawyer at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told SC Magazine.

"It is important to realize that this proposal isn’t simply applying the same sort of wiretap system we have for phones to the Internet; it would require reconfiguring and changing the nature of the Internet," Laura Murphy of the ACLU's legislative office said in a statement.

"We remain very concerned that this proposal is a clear recipe for abuse and will make it that much easier for the government to gain access to our most personal information. Americans should not simply surrender their privacy and other fundamental values in the name of national security."

The Times reports that there is resistance to the proposed law even within the Obama administration.

The Commerce Department and State Department have questioned whether it would inhibit innovation, as well as whether repressive regimes might harness the same capabilities to identify political dissidents, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

Another problem has to do with the non-geographic nature of the Internet. Many services used by US Web surfers are based in other countries. Under the proposed law, those services would have to route their communications through a US server so that they could be tapped. Whether foreign communications companies could be required -- or would be willing -- to do that remains an open question.

“They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,” said James Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology in a Times interview. “They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.”

But James Lewis of the Center for Strategic International Studies says the concerns about the proposed law were "cooked up" by the privacy-rights community. SC Magazine reports:

[S]uch legislation would not expand the FBI's current ability – it would just preserve it, Lewis said. Under 1994's Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, phone and broadband networks are required to have interception capabilities, Lewis said. As people increasingly communicate online, law enforcement's capabilities will further decrease, making it easier for criminals to get away with crimes.

For Nov. 23rd

Baron David de Rothschild: Economic Crisis Will Bring New World Order, Global Governance

Rupert Wright
The National (UAE)
Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008

Among the captains of industry, spin doctors and financial advisers accompanying British prime minister Gordon Brown on his fund-raising visit to the Gulf this week, one name was surprisingly absent. This may have had something to do with the fact that the tour kicked off in Saudi Arabia. But by the time the group reached Qatar, Baron David de Rothschild was there, too, and he was also in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Although his office denies that he was part of the official party, it is probably no coincidence that he happened to be in the same part of the world at the right time. That is how the Rothschilds have worked for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes.
“We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business,” says Baron Rothschild. “We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally.”
The Rothschilds have been helping the British government – and many others – out of a financial hole ever since they financed Wellington’s army and thus victory against the French at Waterloo in 1815. According to a long-standing legend, the Rothschild family owed the first millions of their fortune to Nathan Rothschild’s successful speculation about the effect of the outcome of the battle on the price of British bonds. By the 19th century, they ran a financial institution with the power and influence of a combined Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and perhaps even Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China today.

(Article continues below)

In the 1820s, the Rothschilds supplied enough money to the Bank of England to avert a liquidity crisis. There is not one institution that can save the system in the same way today; not even the US Federal Reserve. However, even though the Rothschilds may have lost some of that power – just as other financial institutions on that list have been emasculated in the last few months – the Rothschild dynasty has lost none of its lustre or influence. So it was no surprise to meet Baron Rothschild at the Dubai International Financial Centre. Rothschild’s opened in Dubai in 2006 with ambitious plans to build an advisory business to complement its European operations. What took so long?
The answer, as many things connected with Rothschilds, has a lot to do with history. When Baron Rothschild began his career, he joined his father’s firm in Paris. In 1982 President Francois Mitterrand nationalised all the banks, leaving him without a bank. With just US$1 million (Dh3.67m) in capital, and five employees, he built up the business, before merging the French operations with the rest of the family’s business in the 1990s.
Gradually the firm has started expanding throughout the world, including the Gulf. “There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family, but we are proud to be in this region. However, it takes time to develop a global footprint,” he says.
An urbane man in his mid-60s, he says there is no single reason why the Rothschilds have been able to keep their financial business together, but offers a couple of suggestions for their longevity. “For a family business to survive, every generation needs a leader,” he says. “Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history. Finally, don’t be complacent about giving the family jobs.”
He stresses that the Rothschild ascent has not been linear – at times, as he did in Paris, they have had to rebuild. While he was restarting their business in France, his cousin Sir Evelyn was building a British franchise. When Sir Evelyn retired, the decision was taken to merge the businesses. They are now strong in Europe, Asia especially China, India, as well as Brazil. They also get involved in bankruptcy restructurings in the US, a franchise that will no doubt see a lot more activity in the months ahead.
Does he expect governments to play a larger role in financial markets in future? “There is a huge difference in the Soviet-style mentality that occurred in Paris in 1982, and the extraordinary achievements that politicians, led by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, have made to save the global banking system from systemic collapse,” he says. “They moved to protect the world from billions of unemployment. In five to 10 years those banking stakes will be sold – and sold at a profit.”
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.”
So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? “You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business,” he says. “As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser.”
It is that role as trusted adviser to both governments and companies that Rothschilds is hoping to build on in the region. “In today’s world we have a strong offering of debt and equity,” he says. “They are two arms of the same body looking for money.”
The firm has entrusted the growth of its financing advisory business in the Middle East to Paul Reynolds, a veteran of many complex corporate finance deals. “Our principal business franchise is large and mid-size companies,” says Mr Reynolds. “I have already been working in this region for two years and we offer a pretty unique proposition.
“We work in a purely advisory capacity. We don’t lend or underwrite, because that creates conflicts. We are sensitive to banking relationships. But we look to ensure financial flexibility for our clients.”
He was unwilling to discuss specific deals or clients, but says that he offers them “trusted, impartial financing advice any time day or night”. Baron Rothschilds tends to do more deals than their competitors, mainly because they are prepared to take on smaller mandates. “It’s not transactions were are interested in, it’s relationships. We are looking for good businesses and good people,” says Mr Reynolds. “Our ambition is for every company here to have a debt adviser.”
Baron Rothschild is reluctant to comment on his nephew Nat Rothschild’s public outburst against George Osborne, the British shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nat Rothschild castigated Mr Osborne for revealing certain confidences gleaned during a holiday in the summer in Corfu.
In what the British press are calling “Yachtgate”, the tale involved Russia’s richest man, Oleg Deripaska, Lord Mandelson, a controversial British politician who has just returned to government, Mr Osborne and a Rothschild. Classic tabloid fodder, but one senses that Baron Rothschild frowns on such publicity. “If you are an adviser, that imposes a certain style and culture,” he says. “You should never forget that clients want to hear more about themselves than their bankers. It demands an element of being sober.”
Even when not at work, Baron Rothschild’s tastes are sober. He lives between Paris and London, is a keen family man – he has one son who is joining the business next September and three daughters – an enthusiastic golfer, and enjoys the “odd concert”. He is also involved in various charity activities, including funding research into brain disease and bone marrow disorders.
It is part of Rothschild lore that its founder sent his sons throughout Europe to set up their own interlinked offices. So where would Baron Rothschild send his children today?
“I would send one to Asia, one to Europe and one to the United States,” he said. “And if I had more children, I would send one to the UAE.”