Military-style clothing has been oft-copied. Today, the Pershmerga used social media to attack H&M over the jumpsuit recently unveiled in H&M’s Autumn/Winter collection.
<------------- This is the offending garment: The Daily Mail reports that complaints flooded in on social media accusing H&M of copying the uniforms worn by female Kurdish soldiers who are fighting ISIS. The olive-green jumpsuit is styled with a wide belt and lace-up boots. H&M's global press officer Ida Ståhlnacke said in a statement: "We are truly sorry if we have offended anyone with this piece, this was of course never our intention. At H&M we want to offer the latest within fashion and trends and we continuously listen to our customers’ requests. The last seasons we have seen an increasing demand on jumpsuits and therefore we currently offer a selection of jumpsuits in different colors and materials, such as denim blue and deep red. The jumpsuit in question is made in a light and comfortable material and is a part of a larger collection consisting of many garments in khaki green, which also is one of the trendiest colors this season. The opinions of our customers are very important to us and we will keep this feedback in mind for future collections." I don’t live in Iraqi or Turkey; I didn’t holster an automatic weapon this morning to go fight terrorists. I live in peace; in an urban well-to-do community; I do not have the mindset of a Kurdish fighter. That said, I do not think H&M’s jumpsuit is an affront to the Pershmerga, the Kurds, or their cause. Loud applause for the Pershmerga’s soldiers, male and female. And, LOUD APPLAUSE for H&M’s Jumpsuit. It’s badass. Just like the soldiers. This on the other hand … this from Urban Outfitters is truly reprehensible:: I've spent the last week in mediation. Mediation as an advocate for a party, then mediation as the mediator, capped off with attending an advanced mediation training program. This prompted me to write a "what to expect in mediation" handout for clients. When mediating for a client, I always have a pre-mediation meeting to carefully explain the process but a written handout reinforces the verbal. The handout is long; however these are some of the important takeaways:
GOALS Your mediator’s goal is to help resolve your dispute. Your lawyer’s job is to offer advice as to reasonableness, courtroom scenarios, advantages and disadvantages of compromise, litigated outcomes, and costs. Your mediator is not so much concerned about the “equities” of the resolution; instead, your mediator is invested in facilitating a resolution. CHOICES This process of mediation is all about making choices. Your lawyer will give you information and advice, but you will need to make the decisions. These decisions are all yours – no one can tell you what to do or force you to choose one outcome or another. GIVE-AND-TAKE In a settlement, both sides have to compromise, and both usually feel they have given up too much. This is universal, regardless of the issue, the strength of the parties (or their weaknesses) or the other factors in a mediated case. No one walks away happy. TOGETHERNESS IS OVERRATED. Most of the day is spent in separate rooms, apart from the other side. Joint sessions may occur but they are rare. Joint sessions are loaded with conflict, some smoldering, some overt. Caution. THE MISSING PIECES The start of a mediation is often composed of an exchange of information, a gathering of the "puzzle pieces,” lists of items, requests for information, and corrorborating documents. PUFFING The first proposal by each side is puffery – a “best day-in-court offer.” These “first offers” get the ball rolling but they often prompt high emotions. Take a moment, count, breathe, vent, breathe, and move on to a counterproposal. THE FOREST AND THE TREES When everyone’s had a say, deals start to form. Folks move away from the past, who said what to whom, finger-pointing and blame. Disputes about the "truth" or "fiction" of individual values, individual expenses and income amounts fade, and the focus turns to specific proposals and counterproposals. This is where the settlement occurs. ARM TWISTING You may question your mediator’s impartiality when you are asked to make concessions. This is normal. Your mediator is pushing the other side just as hard, asking them just as many questions, pushing towards compromise. RULES… IN A KNIFE FIGHT? Offers to compromise are confidential. Your mediator cannot be a witness. BUT, statements by a party may be used by the other side after an impassed mediation to ask for more information, for more discovery, or in trial. So long as you designate what information you want kept confidential, your mediator has an ethical obligation not to disclose designated confidential information to the other side. DAY TURNS TO NIGHT Your mediation “day” will be long. It might be 8 or 10 hours (or even more sometimes). Your mediation day will be physically exhausting and emotionally exhausting. There will be long periods of “downtime” while your mediator is spending time in the other room with the other side. Use this time to work on another proposal in anticipation that the proposal you’ve made is rejected or tweaked. Your mediator may not provide snacks or food that you can eat. Bring snacks. WE HAVE A DEAL Once an agreement is reached, your mediator may outline the specific terms into a “Mediated Settlement Agreement.” You and your lawyer will carefully review this document and if you are satisfied with your choices and decisions, and satisfied that the Agreement correctly outlines the terms you have agreed to, you will be asked to sign the Agreement. You mediator will notarize this Agreement. This document is a contract between you and the other party, and can be enforced using contract principles. My bike is there somewhere! It's not the one with the pink handlebar tape, tho you might think that. Wilmington Triathlon fun.
Just when I thought Amazon was going to dominate the world. BAM! Here comes Alibaba. News of their splashy & profitable IPO is old news. I knew, generally, that Alibaba was an “e-commerce giant” like Amazon. But oh so much more, as it turns out.
Alibaba owns or has a minority interest in ALL of these companies, whereas in the US, similar businesses are independently owned (aka, Amazon, eBay, Paypal): * Alibaba.com. International e-commerce site. * 1688.com. Chinese business-to-business trade, bringing in 30 million per day in transactional value. * AliExpress.com. Online retail site for small businesses. * Taobao. Similar to eBay, Taobao is a consumer-to-consumer online shopping platform. In 2013, it was the 3rd most frequented website in China, per Bloomberg. * Tmall.com. Similar to Amazon, it offers global retail brands for sale. It was the 8th most visited website in 2013, per Bloomberg. * Juhuasuan.com. Similar to Gilt, ideeli, or Fab.com, this site offers “flash sales” at discounted prices. * eTao.com is a comparison shopping website, like Shopzilla, or TheFind, Overstock, or BizRate. It offers products from within the Alibaba network (Tmall & Taobao) along with global brands. * Alipay. Online payment platform, like PayPal. More than half of all of China’s online payments transact through Alipay. * Aliyun.com. A cloud computing platform. Similar to Apple’s iCloud. * 11 Main.com. A US shopping site with merchants offering clothing, accessories, & jewelry. Alibaba is into messaging apps with Laiwang; online media streaming (aka Netflix) with its interest in China Vision Media Group; blogging through Weibo, and car service company, Lyft. According to Reuters, the Alibaba Group’s websites accounted for 80% of China’s online sales. Read that again. In a county with a population of 1.4 billion people, the Alibaba group ships to 80% of the market that's ordering online. Thud. That’s me falling on the floor. No wonder the IPO blew up raking in over 21 billion. The Alibaba Group is estimated to be worth over 200 billion. To put that in perspective, in 2013, Ireland had the #47th highest GDP in the world according to the World Bank at 217 billion. Alibaba’s worth is similar to the value of an entire county. While Jeff Bezos is worrying about Hachette Book Group, Alibaba is marching towards world dominion. I might alienate some folks with this article. I do not want to; but it might happen. Which I find ironic (and germane) given the subject matter. I am talking about "collaborative divorce."
It sounds great, doesn't it? Who would reject such a thing? EVERYONE wants a collaborative solution, right? Folks call me and inquire about collaborative divorce and say "I want my divorce to be collaborative. It sounds nice. I don’t want to go to court." Collaborative divorce is not for everybody. It is not a magic potion that avoids all controversy that surrounds a marital dissolution. Collaborative divorce is aspirational. Collaborative divorce is often described like this: Collaborative divorce is a process. Unlike a traditional divorce, the process is a mutually respectful, open-minded process that focuses on joint problem solving. REALITY CHECK:: 98% of all "traditional" divorces are settled out of court, even if a lawsuit is initially triggered. Sometimes a lawsuit is filed in order to bring the parties to court-ordered mediation or other alternative dispute solutions. In other words, for "joint problem solving." REALITY CHECK:: a "mutually respectful process" is impossible if the timing is not right. If one spouse has been betrayed or financial waste (or ruin) has been discovered or there is domestic violence or any number of other scars are open, seething, oozing -- finding "mutual respect" is just not going to happen. Wounds must be addressed before there is any ability to have an "open-minded" collaboration. Another tenet of collaborative divorce: Collaborative divorce avoids court. The goal with collaborative divorce is to reach an agreement without going to Court by developing an effective relationship with your ex-spouse that enables you to make joint decisions. REALITY CHECK:: Even in a collaborative divorce process, the interest of each spouse is adverse to the other. There is no longer a "we." There is no "unit." It is "me" and "I" and "you." When interests are adverse, developing an effective relationship with your ex- (or still current) spouse takes balance and compromise, which takes insight and perspective. A spouse that must pay wants to pay as little as possible. A spouse that needs financial assistance wants more than the paying spouse can afford. A parent whose "job" has been to primarily parent must relinquish parts of the job to someone who acquiesced those duties. "Joint decisions?" REALITY CHECK:: If joint decisions were not made during an intact marriage, it is a mighty big challenge to make them once apart. If, for instance, there was a significant disconnect over disciplining the children during the marriage, it is not likely that "collaborative divorce" is going to produce a change of philosophy bringing about mutual agreement never present before. I am not saying that spouses who disagreed over things big and small, minor and major, during the marriage will continue that same path after separating. People change. Dynamics change. Flexibility occurs. Parents can co-parent, even when they never did so before. Spouses can make decisions together, even when they did not before. It isn't collaborative law per se that brings about this change in behavior. It isn't "traditional divorce." It isn't a full-on courtroom brawl. It is people who intentionally decide. Here's another ingredient (aka "selling point") of collaborative divorce: it offers people an expanded team of professionals. The result is that parties have more access to information, more guidance from experts, more transparency throughout the proceedings, and more mutually beneficial solutions. REALITY CHECK:: This team is expensive. Collaborative divorce is not, repeat NOT, less costly than "non-collaborative" divorce. This team can consist of mental health professionals, financial advisors, appraisers, CPAs, and others. This "team" doesn't materialize only in collaborative divorces. This team is engaged, and consulted in a "non-collaborative" divorce, too. The benefit in the collaborative process is that one outside professional is engaged on behalf of both parties. That works and saves money (one expert instead of two). At least until the consultant offers an opinion that is opposed by one of the spouses. Collaborative law is open. With litigation, parties are pitted against each other. By pledging mutual respect and openness, the parties learn how to work with each other instead of against each other. REALITY CHECK:: Folks are "pitted against each other" even in collaborative divorce. Part of the collaborative model is to sit down together in 4-way meetings to openly discuss terms. Picture this: 2 spouses each with his and her lawyer sitting in a room around a round table. On the discussion agenda: disposition of the family home. Spouse A left the marriage. Spouse B is in the marital home with the 2 kids under age 5. Spouse A wants the house sold because there is not enough money to pay for the mortgage on the marital home and on the new, recently purchased, townhouse. Spouse B has no intention of moving out or selling the family home. These folks are pitted against each other - it doesn't matter what you call the process. 4-way meetings are incredibly challenging for all participants. Even more so when the discussion items are hot-button, emotional, issues. REALITY CHECK:: All the touchy feely words about “openness” and “respect” and “mutual goals”can’t change the plain fact that solutions are hard. The words used to describe the collaborative divorce process make it sound easy. No matter what the process, no matter what you call it, it is challenging to separate and to find common ground. Real life happenstance:: I was in the 4-way round table room in a collaborative meeting. The agenda item was child support and spousal support. My client had a sunny personality and was a conflict avoidant, people pleaser. The balance of power was not level, at least not in a 'stand up and advocate for yourself' way. In the 4-way, my client's spouse began haranguing my client about the budget. The tone and words were argumentative and harsh. The other lawyer did nothing to reduce tensions or re-direct the attack. My client sat there silently with tears dripping. I could no longer be "collaborative" and I stormed out of the session with my client. These folks WERE pitted against each other. Self-interest does not vaporize in collaborative divorce. Here's the collaborative divorce hook: there is a no-litigation pledge. If the collaboration fails, the lawyers and the assembled team are dismantled and disengaged. The spouses begin anew. The hook is that the penalty of losing your lawyer and the time and money investment is so severe that folks will stay in the collaborative process. REALITY CHECK:: Collaborative divorce is risky. It can be a strategy. A well-heeled, well-financed spouse can deploy the collaborative model without any intention of reaching a mutual agreement, unless of course they get everything they want. Also, what sounds good on the front end (pledge not to litigate; let's all be friends) can prove to be a mistake, but the consequences of cutting loose your lawyer, your team, the notebooks of meticulously compiled documents, time and emotional investment come together to compel a person to stay in the process and end up with a bad deal. Some collaboration, right? I am not a collaborative law hater. The process can work. It does work. In fact, it worked in the case where I stormed out of the room with my weeping client. It is not, however, for everyone. Not every couple is best positioned for the collaborative process. Not every couple can afford it. If a divorcing couple chooses a "non-collaborative" divorce, it doesn't mean they are not being collaborative. They are investing in another process that is better for their situation. And, odds are, the couple choosing another process will end up with a mutually negotiated, out-of-court agreement. A collaboration by another process, but a collaboration nonetheless. I admit it. I like a crop top paired with a high waist. They are everywhere. And, how about all that red at the Emmy’s? I started wondering about trends. How do they start? How is it that seemingly every brand from luxury to knock off is sporting similar colors or fabrics or silhouettes? Is there a couture spy network? Is there a secret fashion summit where all the players go and scheme
about the new “it” look? Well, there may very well be a secret club, but for sure there is sophisticated trend forecasting. Turns out, trend forecasting is a big business. Analysts examine and predict long term and short term fashion trends. Long term trends are those that may exist for 2 years or more. Short term trends are more immediate, and center on sports, entertainment, and pop culture. Nearly all (or all) major brands, department stores, designers – 75,000 subscribers according to Forbes, access Worth Global Style Network (WGSN) for sourcing trends. WGSN’s website proclaims: “Trend and color forecasts 2+ years ahead of season.” “The latest market intelligence.” “Validate your design direction with our future forecasts and detailed analysis.” (Source: http://www.wgsn.com.) Hold up. Did I read that right? Validate your design direction? Validate. Meaning, to give official sanction, confirmation, or approval to. This means that a designer creates a look and then logs in for a sanity check of the creation. With so much money invested in a design I can understand why a designer would want a collection to be marketable, but doesn’t that also mean that looks are cookie cutter? With the slim margins of some fashion designers or brands, who wants to risk economic ruin by putting out collection of fuchsia-colored crepe floral when the herd is out in minimalist white silk? I can understand the economics. It seems like designing and marketing to trend tends to make us all conformists. Sometimes that’s comforting – just blending in with the landscape. At least I am starting to understand why jumpsuits and rompers are back in style. I love them! I rocked those looks back in the day! At my current age, I’m better off in a romper than a crop top, although I’m not gonna lie. I wore an awesome high waisted skirt with a crop top to an event the other day and I felt like a million bucks (even if some folks looked at me and thought I should act my age. Screw them.) Artist Paul Friedrich and handbag designer Holly Aiken of Raleigh, North Carolina,
teamed up on a line of wallets, totes, and messenger bags ($44-136) emblazoned with Friedrich's popular character, Dr. Strangegutt, and his ageless query. http://hollyaiken.com/.
|