Roy T's Blog

'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:22:33 -0600

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files - including 1079 emails and 72 documents - you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails - supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory - suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

But perhaps the most damaging revelations - the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal - are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because - though Hadley CRU's director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room - he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

......Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back-I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back....

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?"

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September - I wrote the story up here as "How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie" - Hadley CRU's researchers were exposed as having "cherry-picked" data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which - in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community - spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that's sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called "sceptical" view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it's a blow to the AGW lobby's credibility which is never likely to recover.

Tags: AGW, Andrew Bolt, Climategate, Hadley CRU, ManBearPig, scandal

THE LATEST HOLIDAY "CASH BACK" SCAM!

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:29:21 -0600

It happened at Wal-Mart (Super center Store #1279, 10411 N Freeway 45, Houston, TX 77037 a month ago. I bought a bunch of stuff, over $150, & I glanced at my receipt as the cashier was handing me the bags. I saw a cash-back of $40. I told her I didn't request a cash back & to delete it. She said I'd have to take the $40 because she couldn't delete it. I told her to call a supervisor. Supervisor came & said I'd have to take it. I said NO! Taking the $40 would be a cash advance against my Discover & I wasn't paying interest on a cash advance!!!!! If they couldn't delete it then they would have to delete the whole order. So the supervisor had the cashier delete the whole order & re-scan everything! The second time I looked at the electronic pad before I signed & a cash-back of $20 popped up. At that point I told the cashier & she deleted it. The total came out right. The cashier agreed that the electronic pad must be defective.

Obviously the cashier knew the electronic pad was defective because she NEVER offered me the $40 at the beginning. Can you imagine how many people went through before me & at the end of her shift how much money she pocketed? Just to alert everyone. My co worker went to Milford, DE Wal-Mart last week. She had her items rung up by the cashier. The cashier hurried her along and didn't give her a receipt. She asked the cashier for a receipt and the cashier was annoyed and gave it to her. My co worker didn't look at her receipt until later that night. The receipt showed that she asked for $20 cash back. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR CASH BACK!

My co-worker called Wal-Mart who investigated but could not see the cashier pocket the money. She then called her niece who works for the bank and her niece told her this. This is a new scam going on. The cashier will key in that you asked for cash back and then hand it to her friend who is the next person in line. Please, please, please check your receipts right away when using credit or debit cards! This is NOT limited to Wal-Mart, although they are the largest retailer so they have the most incidents I am adding to this. My husband and I were in Wal-Mart North Salisbury and paying with credit card when my husband went to sign the credit card signer he just happen to notice there was a $20 cash back added. He told the cashier that he did not ask nor want cash back and she said this machine has been messing up and she cancelled it. We really didn't think anything of it until we read this email.

I wonder how many "seniors" have been, or will be, "stung" by this one???? To make matters worse ....THIS SCAM CAN BE DONE ANYWHERE,

New Food Sprinkle

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:29:20 -0600

Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating

A California Company has recently launched an interesting new product which may signal a major breakthrough in weight loss. The company, Sensa, www.Sensa.com, came up with an innovative way to convince the brain to stop overeating.

First the theory behind the product. The obvious fact is that we eat too much. But why? It turns out that's the way our brains are programmed. Throughout our evolutionary history, food has been scarce, so in order to ensure survival, humans have been conditioned to eat as much as they can whenever food is available. Unfortunately, when food is abundant and rich in calories, as it is today, the results can be ugly.

Enter Dr. Alan Hirsch, an intrepid doctor and scientist, whose lifelong specialty has been understanding how our senses, and in particular, smell and taste affect the brain's functioning. Dr. Hirsch noticed that many patients who had lost their sense of smell and taste due to illness or accident experienced rapid weight gain. Certain smells and tastes seemed to be acting on the brain to control the appetite.

Dr Hirsch studied hundreds of compounds and after years of research developed a set of virtually odorless and tasteless food sprinkles that have shown a strong impact on the body's appetite-control center, which he called "Tastants". Then, in one of the largest studies of a non-prescription weight-loss system, these Tastants were tested for effectiveness as a means of weight loss.

The results were significant. Over a 6 month period, 1,436 women and men sprinkled flavorless "Tastant" crystals on everything they ate, and lost an average of 30.5 pounds - nearly 15% of their total body weight.

Participants achieved these results without having to follow any special exercise regime or diet.

Best of all, because it is tasteless and odorless and contains no stimulants and does not directly interact with the digestive system, there are no unpleasant side-effects. None of the horror stories associated with "fat-blockers" or stimulant based weight loss systems.

According to Dr Hirsch, "With Sensa, you can eat all the foods that satisfy your senses and you don't have to deal with any intense food cravings or feelings of starvation. Sensa merely helps you eat less of the foods you love and gain greater satisfaction from smaller portions."

A flavorless, odorless sprinkle that triggers this type of weight loss - too good to be true? Apparently the company anticipated a somewhat skeptical response from consumers, jaded by a weight loss industry spread thick with misleading claims. For that reason, they have introduced the product through a special Free Trial Offer that lets you try it before paying for it. You can learn more at TrySensa.com

A Thanksgiving Lesson.................

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:34:21 -0600

Did you know that our Pilgrim forefathers tried communism when they first landed at Plymouth Rock?

How's that for a dramatic beginning to a story? Years ago, when I used to give a lot of talks to high school classes, this was one of my favorites. It always got the students' attention. And I have to admit, I also enjoyed seeing some liberal teachers get so upset with me they almost lost their lunches.

Here's the story I told those students in those long-ago presentations.

The Pilgrims who arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620 were incredibly brave and hardy souls. They were motivated by the noblest of virtues. They vowed, each and every one, to be as selfless as possible-to always put the needs of the group first. They agreed to own everything in common and to share everything equally.

And their naïve piety almost killed the entire colony.

We all know how the adventure begins. A group of devout Christians, seeking religious freedom for themselves and eager to "advance the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ" in the New World, sets sail from Plymouth, England in 1620. An investment consortium known as the Merchant Adventurers of London paid the expenses for the trip, including chartering the Mayflower and its 40-man crew.

The deal was simple: The Pilgrims agreed to establish a colony in northern Virginia where they would plant crops, fish the waters and hunt in the forests. They would return a certain percentage of each year's bounty to London until their debt had been repaid.

Things went wrong from the start. First, the syndicate changed the deal, drastically reducing the amount they would loan the Pilgrims. The brave adventurers were forced to sell many of their own possessions, and much of their provisions, to pay for the trip. As a result, they landed in the New World badly short of supplies.

Next, the small ship they had purchased in Holland, which was to accompany them to America so they could fish the waters off the coast, had to be abandoned in England.

Shortly after they set sail, the ship, badly misnamed the Speedwell, became "open and leakie as a sieve," as its captain reported. They returned to Dartmouth, where the boat was dry-docked for three weeks as repairs were made.

But to no avail. After leaving Dartmouth, the group sailed less than 300 miles when the captain decided the Speedwell "must bear up or sink at sea." This time the ships put in at Plymouth, England, where it was decided to go on without the Speedwell. On Sept. 16, 1620, the Mayflower set out alone to cross the Atlantic.

A month later, when they had reached the halfway point, fierce storms battered the ship and threatened the lives of passengers and crew. Many wanted to turn back for England. But if they abandoned the journey, they would lose everything they had invested. The Pilgrims decided to trust in God and sail on.

Despite the storms, the hazards, the crowding and the poor food, only one Pilgrim died during the voyage, a young servant. His death was balanced by the birth of a son to Stephen and Elizabeth Hopkins, who named their child Oceanus.

There were 102 passengers on board the Mayflower-50 men, 20 women and 32 children-along with a crew of 40. The captain set a course along the 42nd parallel, a bearing that would carry him to Cape Cod. From there he intended to swing south and follow the coast to northern Virginia.

A little over two months later, on Nov. 19, land was finally sighted and the captain turned the ship south, toward Virginia. However, they soon encountered such "dangerous shoals and roaring breakers" that they turned back to Massachusetts. It was then that the grumblings of dissent turned into a full-fledged roar. Many of the passengers insisted on landing in Massachusetts, where "none had power to command them."

The Pilgrim leaders decided to meet the explosive situation by asking each male on board, except for the crew, to sign a formal document that would lay "the first foundation of their government in this place." Thus the Mayflower Compact was born.

The Pilgrims were a diverse lot. Many of them were illiterate. Yet in creating the Mayflower Compact they showed an extraordinary political maturity. They agreed to establish a government by the consent of the governed, with just and equal laws for all. Each adult male, regardless of his station in life-gentleman, commoner or servant-would have an equal vote in deciding the affairs of the colony. Of the 65 men and boys on board, all but 24 signed the agreement. The only ones who did not were the children of those adults who did sign, or men who were too sick to do so.

The first decision made under the covenant was to abandon efforts to reach Virginia and instead to settle in New England. The first explorers landed at Plymouth on Dec. 21, 1620.

Weather delays kept the majority from seeing their new home for nearly two weeks. On Jan. 2, 1621, work began on the first building they would erect-a storehouse.

Because provisions were so scanty they decided that the land would be worked in common, produce would be owned in common, and goods would be rationed equally. Not unlike the society Karl Marx envisioned of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Unfortunately, thanks to illness, injury and attitude, the system did not work. Pilferage from the storehouse became common. Suspicions of malingering were muttered. Over the course of that first, harsh winter, nearly half of the colonists perished. Four families were wiped out completely; only five of 18 wives survived. Of the 29 single men, hired hands and servants, only 10 were alive when spring finally came.

The colonists struggled desperately for two more years. When spring arrived in April 1623, virtually all of their provisions were gone. Unless that year's harvest improved, they feared few would survive the next winter. The Pilgrim leaders decided on a bold course. The colony would abandon its communal approach and permit each person to work for his own benefit, not for the common good.

Here is how the governor of the colony, William Bradford, explained what happened then. This is taken from his marvelously readable memoir (if you can make adjustments for the Old English spellings), History of Plimoth Plantation:

The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Plato & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;-that ye taking away of properties, and bringing it in communitie into a commone wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.

For this communitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For yet young men that were most able and fitte for labor & services did repine that they should spend their time & strength to worke for other men's wives and children with out any recompense.

Once they replaced communal efforts with individual responsibility the differences were dramatic-and life-saving. Men went into the fields earlier and stayed later. In many cases, their wives and even their children (some barely past the toddler stage) worked right alongside them. More acres were planted, more trees were felled, more houses were built, and more game was slaughtered because of one simple change: People were allowed to keep the fruits of their own labors.

The Pilgrims arrived deeply in debt to the London merchants who sponsored them. They worked for more than 20 years, as individuals and as a community, to pay off the crushing burden. In 1627, they borrowed money to pay off the Merchants Adventurers. By 1645, they had paid off the entire debt to the company which had advanced them the sums to pay off the Merchants.

When their debt had been paid in full (at the astronomical interest rate of 45 percent per year), the company that had advanced the sums wrote the Pilgrims:

Let it not be grievous to you, that you have been instruments to break the ice for others who come after with less difficulty. The honour shall be yours to the world's end.

As we celebrate this coming Thanksgiving Day, some 380 years after the Pilgrims celebrated the first of this uniquely American holiday, let us remember the sacrifices they made... the devotion they showed... and the lessons they learned.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

-Chip Wood

Book sells 300,000 copies ... on its first day

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:53:27 -0600

Hey, remember that story last week about how she'd have to sell a whopping 400,000 copies for HarperCollins to break even?

I think it'll be okay.

There's a rule of thumb in the industry that publishers net about $10 per hardcover sold, after expenses, but before the cost of the advance. Once she's sold 700,000 copies, then, HarperCollins is in the black. And what of that 1.6 million printed? An ideal "sell-through" rate is about 75 percent, which means HarperCollins thinks it's going to sell about 1.2 million copies. At that level, Palin will have made $7 million and HarperCollins $5 million of its own.

A HarperCollins insider told The Daily Beast that the book sold a staggering 300,000 copies on the first day alone, which was Tuesday. "Sales are phenomenal, and we are convinced that the book will continue to sell phenomenally for some time to come," says the insider. They're not prevaricating: As of 2:30pm today, the book was #1 on Amazon, ahead of both Stephen King's new novel, Under the Dome, and Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol. The latter sold 1 million copies on its first day, but that figure included the UK, and top fiction generally trumps non-fiction. Any way you carve it, Going Rogue looks to be a $12 million goldmine.

I'm a little suspicious that a relatively minor, Palin-hating outfit like the Daily Beast landed a scoop this big, but it's probably legit. Their source sounds solid, and don't forget that their founder has friends in very high places inside the publishing industry.

I've got no big finisher for this post so here's the clip of her chat about faith with David Brody on CBN. The thought of how she and Huck will handle each other if they square off two years from now is downright dizzying. Exit question: The Daily Beast story contains a long rundown of all the people who are making money off her this week. Didn't they forget someone?

Sears.........and Christmas

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:21:59 -0600

Jerry W. Ginn
Ginn Group, Inc.
COO/EXEC VP
(404)-669-9214 Work
(404)-669-9215 Fax
(770)-316-2187 Cell
jwginn@ginngroup.com
www.ginngroup.com
200 WestPark Drive
Suite 100
Peachtree City, Georgia 30269

I know I needed this reminder since Sears isn't always my first choice. Amazing when you think of how long the war has lasted and they haven't withdrawn from their commitment. Could we each buy at least one thing at Sears this year?

How does Sears treat its employees who are called up for military duty? By law, they are required to hold their jobs open and available, but nothing more. Usually, people take a big pay cut and lose benefits as a result of being called up.

Sears is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and maintaining all benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all called up reservist employees for up to two years.

I submit that Sears is an exemplary corporate citizen and should be recognized
for its contribution. I suggest we all shop at Sears, and be sure to find manager to tell them why
we are there so the company gets the positive reinforcement it well deserves.

Pass it on.

Decided to check this before I sent it forward. So I sent the following e-mail to the Sears Customer
Service Department :

I received this e-mail and I would like to know if it is true. If it is, the Internet may have just become one
very good source of advertisement for your company. I know I would go out of my way to buy products from Sears instead of another store for a like item, even if it's cheaper at that store.

This is their answer to my e-mail:

Dear Customer:

Thank you for contacting Sears.The information is factual. We appreciate your positive feedback.

Sears regards service to our country as one of greatest sacrifices our young men and women can make. We are happy to do our part to lessen the burden they bear at this time.

Bill Thorn Sears Customer Care
webcenter@sears.com
1-800-349-4358

Please pass this on to all your friends. Sears needs to be recognized for this outstanding
contribution and we need to show them as Americans, we appreciate what they are doing for our military!!!

It's verified by Snopes.com at:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/sears.asp

Is This What Nic Cage Spends.......................

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:11:38 -0600

.....................Those National Treasure Checks On?!

Josh Grossberg and Claudia Rosenbaum

Next time we see Nicolas Cage, the Coppola-pedigreed, Oscar-winning thespian, slumming it in a

craptacular explosionfest, we'll know why.

All that national treasure he unearthed is gone.

The Oscar winner's former bean counter is fighting back at allegations he ripped off the Ghost Rider star, claiming in a newly filed countersuit that Cage just can't stop spending big bucks.

Samuel Levin says by the time the actor hired him in 2001, Cage had "already squandered tens of millions of dollars he had earned as a movie star, he was deeply in debt and he owed millions of dollars in accrued but unpaid income taxes."

And what did he spend it on? Levin gives a breakdown that includes "15 palatial homes around the world, four yachts, an island in the Bahamas, a Gulfstream jet, millions of dollars in jewelry and art."

But wait, there's more! Lots more...

After examining the actor's books, Levin says he determined that Cage would have to earn at least $30 million a year just to bankroll his lavish lifestyle and give him financial stability, let alone security.

So Levin says he convinced Cage to grant him approval to sell off some assets, among them a $1.6 million comic book collection and more than a dozen cars.

But after starring in such box-office hits as National Treasure, The Ant Bully, Ghost Rider and National Treasure: Book of Secrets, Levin says the 45-year-old actor was back on a buying spree of "epic proportions."

Among some of the crazier purchases Cage blew his wad on?
Three mansions that cost a total of $33 million, including two castles in England and Germany that required millions in renovations "just to make them habitable."
22 automobiles, including nine Rolls-Royces
47 pieces of art work and exotic items
Huge sums spent on "sizeable entourage on costly vacations" and "enormous Gatsby-scale parties."

In his $20 million negligence suit filed against Levin last month, Cage alleged that he was kept in the dark about his out-of-control spending habits, a claim the CPA denied.

Instead Levin says that he warned the star from the start of their relationship that Cage was "living beyond his means" and was teetering on the precipice of financial disaster.

Levin is seeking $128,000 in unpaid business management fees. Cage's attorney, Marty Singer, could not be reached for comment.

Let it snow..........

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:00:14 -0600

.................? days till CHRISTMAS!

George W. Bush Presidential Center

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:52:44 -0600

Help President and Mrs. Bush advance the principles of freedom, opportunity, responsibility and compassion. Become a Charter Member of the George W. Bush Presidential Center today!

Dear Reader,

I don't have to remind you how America was tested time and again-at home and abroad-during the eight defining years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The difficult decisions President Bush made in the face of each challenge were rooted in the core principles he held throughout his years of public service-the fundamental values that have guided America since her founding: Freedom . . . Opportunity . . . Responsibility . . . Compassion.

Now President and Mrs. Bush-with the support of many patriotic Americans like you-are taking on a new challenge. They are continuing their personal commitment to advancing these enduring principles through the George W. Bush Presidential Center.

The Center will uniquely integrate the records of a national archive, the thematic exhibits of a presidential museum, and the intellectual capital of a research-based policy institute to transform ideas into action.

The George W. Bush Presidential Center will continue to advance the ideals and core principles that shaped his presidency during a defining period in America's history.

Please accept this invitation to stand with President and Mrs. Bush by becoming a Charter Member of this vibrant, multi-disciplinary Center.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Hon. Mark Langdale
President
George W. Bush Foundation

Video: Crowder goes to Gitmo

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:59:30 -0600

I knew the smart-ass would end up there someday. I just didn't think it'd be as a tourist.

Seems like a travelogue at the beginning, but stick with it. He's got a point. Many points, actually.

Giuliani: Palin ‘Exciting Figure in Republican Party'

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:52:57 -0600

By: Rick Pedraza

Sarah Palin instills the kind of excitement the Republican Party needs, says former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who added that the party should be thankful for her appeal to its conservative base.

The former Alaska governor and Republican vice-presidential candidate has time to hone her qualifications if she decides to seek the party's presidential nomination, Giuliani told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Sunday.

"I think that is going to develop," he said. "She's got two to three years to develop a case if she wants to make a case for running for president."

Palin's appearance this week on the cover of "Newsweek" is good for the GOP, Giuliani said, although the article is entitled: "How Do You Stop a Problem Like Sarah? She's Bad News for the GOP -- and Everybody Else, Too."

"It shows a lot of attention is being paid to our party. She is an exciting figure in the Republican Party, and she is someone who draws an enormous amount of attention."

For example, Giuliani recalled the reaction when he took Palin to Yankee Stadium during the summer to see a game in front of what he estimated to be a "7-to-1" crowd" of Democrats in the Bronx.

"She got a great reception," he told Stephanopoulos. "There is something extra special that Sarah Palin has in terms of reaching out to people. My party needs that kind of excitement. After all, we're a minority party."

When it was suggested Palin could drive some moderates out of the Republican Party, Giuliani said moderates should not feel threatened. Palin could push for the positions she holds, while others can propose their own views, with neither in fear of being pushed out of the GOP, he said.

"That's the kind of competition we want," Giuliani said. "We want attention on the Republican Party. After all, it's good for a two-party system. [Palin] creates attention; she raises money; she helps candidates. I don't agree with everything that she says, but she doesn't agree with everything I say."

Giuliani said he isn't worried that a majority of the American public doesn't think Palin is qualified to be president yet.

Appearing earlier in the day on CNN's "State of the Union," Giuliani told host John King: "We're very far away from a 2012 election. Right now, I like figures who are creating interest in the Republican Party. Given the decisions that the Obama administration is making, particularly on this area of terrorism, which concerns me probably more than any other, we're going to need some pretty strong alternatives in 2012. I don't know if it'll be Sarah Palin or someone else, but right now it is [about] developing interest the Republican Party. We need a two-party system and we need a healthy one."

Palin is on tour promoting her new book, "Going Rogue: An American Life." Her appearances this week include a five-part series on ABC's "Good Morning America," with the full interview on 20/20 Friday evening, and "The Oprah Winfrey Show" Monday.

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 43 percent of Americans express a favorable opinion of Palin overall, while 37 percent would consider voting for her for president. Seventy-six percent of Republicans view her favorably, while 61 percent see her as qualified for the presidency.

Palin Confides in Oprah

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:50:52 -0600

By: Jim Meyers

Economy Beat GOP Ticket

One day before the official release of her best-selling memoir "Going Rogue: An American Life," Sarah Palin sat down on Monday with Oprah Winfrey to discuss her book, her family, and her campaign as John McCain's running mate.

In the wide-ranging interview, Palin also spoke about her wardrobe controversy, her teenage daughter's pregnancy, her much-maligned interview with Katie Couric, why the McCain-Palin ticket lost, and more. Some highlights:

McCain advisers forced the Palin family to overhaul their wardrobe when they arrived in Minneapolis for the Republican National convention in September 2008.

"I thought this was like one of those relationships you have, when we're young, and somebody says, 'I just love you the way that you are; now let me change you,'" Palin said.

The ultimate showdown with McCain staffers came on election night when she was told she could not deliver a concession speech before McCain spoke.

"I was disappointed that the explanation I was given [was] that . . . V.P. candidates never give a speech on election night. I knew that was false because I have seen it happen. In fact four years prior, of course, that had happened."

Even if Palin had been allowed to be more herself during the campaign, she said, it is likely that the Republican presidential ticket would have lost.

"The reason that we lost: The economy changed under a Republican administration," Palin said. "People were sincerely looking for change. They were quite concerned about the road that America was on with its economy. They did not want more of the same. They did not want status quo. And I think, unfortunately, our ticket represented what was perceived as status quo."

Despite plaudits from campaign advisers who said she'd done well in her September 2008 interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Palin knew better.

When Oprah said she wanted to talk about the Couric interview, Palin laughed and said: "Must we?"

Among several missteps in the interview, Palin asserted that Alaska's proximity to Russia enhanced her foreign policy credentials. Critics seized on the interview as evidence that she wasn't qualified to be president if something were to happen to McCain.

Palin told Oprah: "The campaign said, 'Right on. Good. You're showing your independence. This is what American needs to see. It was a good interview.' And of course I'm thinking, 'If you thought that was a good interview, I don't know what a bad interview is.' Because I knew it wasn't a good interview."

She also said that Couric, whom she referred to as "the perky one," annoyed her by "badgering" her during the interview.

Palin still considers Levi Johnston, the former fiancé of her daughter Bristol and the father of Bristol's son, "part of the family."

Johnston has complained that he was treated as an outcast following Palin's unsuccessful run for vice president, and claimed that Palin resigned from her governor's post in July to make money.

Oprah asked whether Levi would be invited to Thanksgiving dinner.

Palin laughed again and said: "That's a great question. It's lovely to think that he would ever even consider such a thing. Because of course he is a part of the family and you want to bring him in the fold, kind of under your wing. And he needs that, Oprah. I think he needs to know that he is loved. And he has the most beautiful child.

"This can all work out for good, it really can. We don't have to keep going down this road of controversy and drama all the time. We're not really into the drama. We have other things to concentrate on and do."

She also said she will "continue to pray for Levi."

When Palin got a surprise phone call from the McCain campaign asking whether she'd like to be on the Republican presidential ticket, she had no doubts that she was ready for the challenge.

"When I got the call, it was not such a shocking call to me . . . I felt quite confident in my abilities and my executive experience knowing that this is an executive administrative job. I was happy to get in there and contribute."

But Palin said she was stunned that McCain aides knew her then-17-year-old daughter Bristol was pregnant, a fact that Palin had yet to disclose back in Alaska.

"I was surprised, too, that we didn't handle that issue, that challenge, better," she said. "If we were given that allowance to deal with the issue in a more productive way, we perhaps could have sent a better message: This is not to be glamorized, not to be emulated."

Palin said Bristol was "devastated" and in tears when she found that her pregnancy was on the news, and contended that the press exhibited a "double standard" by focusing on the Palin family and accepting Barack Obama's demand that his family was off-limits to the press.

Palin brushed aside talk about a possible campaign for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

"I am dealing with so many issues that are important . . . and what I am finding, clearer and clearer every day, what I am seeing is that you don't need a title to make a difference."

When Oprah asked if Palin would tell her whether she intends to run in 2012, Palin got a laugh from the studio audience when she said, "No, I wouldn't."

As for why she resigned as governor of Alaska with more than a year left on her first term, Palin told Oprah: "I resigned because I wasn't going to run for a second term. I was heading into a lame-duck term.

"We came back from 10 weeks on the road [on the campaign] to a new normal in Alaska. Everything had so changed in my administration. There were so many opposition researchers up there that were sent, probably, by the Obama camp.

"It was a point where my state of Alaska was being hampered by my presence there."

At the end of the interview, Oprah cited talk that Palin was getting a talk show of her own, and asked jokingly: "Should I be worried?"

McCain Aides Attack Palin Over Book

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:41:51 -0600

By: Dan Weil

In her new book, "Going Rogue," Sarah Palin takes shots at the officials who ran John McCain's presidential campaign, and now those officials are firing back.

"It's all fiction," McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt told Politico news service.

"Why is the bald guy always the villain?" Schmidt, of course, has no hair.

In her book, the vice presidential candidate says that Schmidt blamed the campaign's woes on her post-partum depression and even tried to tell her what to eat.

She "took in his rotund physique and noted that he used nicotine to keep his own cognitive connections humming along," the book says

"I'm a forty-four year old, healthy, athletic woman raising five kids and governing a large state, I thought as his words faded into a background buzz. Sir, I really don't know you yet. But you've told me how to dress, what to say, who to talk to, a lot of people not to talk to, who my heroes are supposed to be, and we're still losing. Now you're going to tell me what to eat?"

A top, anonymous McCain aide told Politico that Schmidt and campaign manager Rick Davis addressed her diet out of concern that she was losing too much weight.

"We told her that her health came first and offered to get her a nutritionist," the aide said.

The spat with Schmidt is ironic in that he was one of McCain's aides to most strongly recommend that the Arizona Senator choose Palin, who had limited political experience.

According to The New York Times, Palin puts more focus in her book on lashing out at McCain operatives than at Democrats.

"The most sustained and vehement barbs in this book are directed not at Democrats or liberals or the news media, but at the McCain campaign," writes Times book reviewer Michiko Kakutani.

Deciphering the Mohammed Trial

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:19:50 -0600

By George Friedman

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in federal court in New York. Holder's decision was driven by the need for the U.S. government to decide how to dispose of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. Naval base outside the boundaries of the United States selected as the camp in which to hold suspected al Qaeda members.

We very carefully use the word "camp" rather than prison or prisoner of war camp. This is because of an ongoing and profound ambiguity not only in U.S. government perceptions of how to define those held there, but also due to uncertainties in international law, particularly with regard to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Were the U.S. facility at Guantanamo a prison, then its residents would be criminals. If it were a POW camp, then they would be enemy soldiers being held under the rules of war. It has never really been decided which these men are, and therefore their legal standing has remained unclear.

War vs. Criminal Justice

The ambiguity began shortly after 9/11, when then-U.S. President George W. Bush defined two missions: waging a war on terror, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice. Both made for good rhetoric. But they also were fundamentally contradictory. A war is not a judicial inquiry, and a criminal investigation is not part of war.

An analogy might be drawn from Pearl Harbor. Imagine that in addition to stating that the United States was at war with Japan, Franklin Roosevelt also called for bringing the individual Japanese pilots who struck Hawaii to justice under American law. This would make no sense. As an act of war, the Japanese action fell under the rules of war as provided for in international law, the U.S. Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Japanese pilots could not be held individually responsible for the lawful order they received. In the same sense, trying to bring soldiers to trial in a civilian court in the United States would make no sense. Creating a mission in which individual Japanese airmen would be hunted down and tried under the rules of evidence not only would make no sense, it would be impossible. Building a case against them individually also would be impossible. Judges would rule on evidence, on whether an unprejudiced jury could be found, and so on. None of this happened, of course - World War II was a war, not a judicial inquiry.

It is important to consider how wars are conducted. Enemy soldiers are not shot or captured because of what they have done; they are shot and captured because of who they are - members of an enemy military force. War, once launched, is pre-emptive. Soldiers are killed or captured in the course of fighting enemy forces, or even before they have carried out hostile acts. Soldiers are not held responsible for their actions, but neither are they immune to attack just because they have not done anything. Guilt and innocence do not enter into the equation. Certainly, if war crimes are in question, charges may be brought; the UCMJ determines how they will be tried by U.S. forces. Soldiers are tried by courts-martial, not by civilian courts, because of their status as soldiers. Soldiers are tried by a jury of their peers, and their peers are held to be other soldiers.

International law is actually not particularly ambiguous about the status of the members of al Qaeda. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them because they have not adhered to a fundamental requirement of the Geneva Conventions, namely, identifying themselves as soldiers of an army. Doing so does not mean they must wear a uniform. The postwar Geneva Conventions make room for partisans, something older versions of the conventions did not. A partisan is not a uniformed fighter, but he must wear some form of insignia identifying himself as a soldier to enjoy the conventions' protections. As Article 4.1.6 puts it, prisoners of war include "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." The Geneva Conventions of 1949 does not mention, nor provide protection to, civilians attacking foreign countries without openly carrying arms.

The reasoning behind this is important. During the Franco-Prussian war, French franc-tireurs fired on Prussian soldiers. Ununiformed and without insignia, they melded into the crowd. It was impossible for the Prussians to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, so they fired on both, and civilian casualties resulted. The framers of the Geneva Conventions held the franc-tireurs, not the Prussian soldiers, responsible for the casualties. Their failure to be in uniform forced the Prussians to defend themselves at the cost of civilian lives. The franc-tireurs were seen as using civilians as camouflage. This was regarded as outside the rules of war, and those who carried out such acts were seen as not protected by the conventions. They were not soldiers, and were not to be treated as such.

An Ambiguous Status

Extending protections to partisans following World War II was seen as a major concession. It was done with concerns that it not be extended so far that combatants of irregular forces could legally operate using their ability to blend in with surrounding civilians, and hence a requirement of wearing armbands. The status of purely covert operatives remained unchanged: They were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. Their status remained ambiguous.

During World War II, it was U.S. Army practice to hold perfunctory trials followed by executions. During the Battle of the Bulge, German commandos captured wearing U.S. uniforms - in violation of the Geneva Conventions - were summarily tried in field courts-martial and executed. The idea that such individuals were to be handed over to civilian courts was never considered. The actions of al Qaeda simply were not anticipated in the Geneva Conventions. And to the extent they were expected, they violated the conventions.

Holder's decision to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to federal court makes it clear that Mohammed was not a soldier acting in time of war, but a criminal. While during times of war spies are tried as criminals, their status is precarious, particularly if they are members of an enemy army. Enemy soldiers out of uniform carrying out reconnaissance or espionage are subject to military, not civilian, justice, and frequently are executed. A spy captured in the course of collecting information is a civilian, particularly in peacetime, and normally is tried as a criminal with rules of evidence.

Which was Mohammed? Under the Geneva Conventions, his actions in organizing the Sept. 11 attacks, which were carried out without uniforms or other badges of a combatant, denies him status and protection as a POW. Logically, he is therefore a criminal, but if he is, consider the consequences.

Criminal law is focused on punishments meted out after the fact. They rarely have been preventive measures. In either case, they follow strict rules of evidence, require certain treatments of prisoners and so on. For example, prisoners have to be read the Miranda warning. Soldiers are not policeman. They are not trained or expected to protect the legal rights of captives save as POWs under the UCMJ, nor protect the chain of custody of evidence nor countless other things that are required in a civilian court. In criminal law, it is assumed that law enforcement has captured the prisoner and is well-versed in these rules. In this case, the capture was made without any consideration of these matters, nor would one expect such consideration.

Consider further the role of U.S. covert operations in these captures. The United States conducts covert operations in which operatives work out of uniform and are generally not members of the military. Operating outside the United States, they are not protected by U.S. law although they do operate under the laws and regulations promulgated by the U.S. government. Much of their operations run counter to international and national law. At the same time, their operations are accepted as best practices by the international system. Some operate under cover of diplomatic immunity but carry out operations incompatible with their status as diplomats. Others operate without official cover. Should those under unofficial cover be captured, their treatment falls under local law, if such exists. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them, nor was it intended to.

Spies, saboteurs and terrorists fall outside the realm of international law. This class of actors falls under the category of national law, leaving open the question of their liability if they conduct acts inimical to a third country. Who has jurisdiction? The United States is claiming that Mohammed is to be tried under the criminal code of the United States for actions planned in Afghanistan but carried out by others in the United States. It is a defensible position, but where does this leave American intelligence planners working at CIA headquarters for actions carried out by others in a third country? Are they subject to prosecution in the third country? Those captured in the third country clearly are, but the claim here is that Mohammed is subject to prosecution under U.S. laws for actions carried out by others in the United States. And that creates an interesting reciprocal liability.

A Failure to Evolve

The fact is that international law has not evolved to deal with persons like Mohammed. Or more precisely, most legal discussion under international law is moving counter to the Geneva Conventions' intent, which was to treat the franc-tireurs as unworthy of legal protection because they were not soldiers and were violating the rules of war. International law wants to push Mohammed into a category where he doesn't fit, providing protections that are not apparent under the Geneva Conventions. The United States has shoved him into U.S. criminal law, where he doesn't fit either, unless the United States is prepared to accept reciprocal liability for CIA personnel based in the United States planning and supporting operations in third countries. The United States has never claimed, for example, that the KGB planners who operated agents in the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union were themselves subject to criminal prosecution.

A new variety of warfare has emerged in which treatment as a traditional POW doesn't apply and criminal law doesn't work. Criminal law creates liabilities the United States doesn't want to incur, and it is not geared to deal with a terrorist like Mohammed. U.S. criminal law assumes that capture is in the hands of law enforcement officials. Rights are prescribed and demanded, including having lawyers present and so forth. Such protections are practically and theoretically absurd in this case: Mohammed is not a soldier and he is not a suspected criminal presumed innocent until proven guilty. Law enforcement is not a practical counter to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A nation cannot move from the rules of counterterrorism to an American courtroom; they are incompatible modes of operation. Nor can a nation use the code of criminal procedures against a terrorist organization operating transnationally. Instead, they must be stopped before they commit their action, and issuing search warrants and allowing attorneys present at questioning is not an option.

Therefore - and now we move to the political reality - it is difficult to imagine how the evidence accumulated against Mohammed could enter a courtroom. Ignoring the methods of questioning, which is a separate issue, how can one prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compromising sources and methods, and why should one? Mohammed was on a battlefield but not operating as a soldier. Imagine doing criminal forensics on a battlefield to prove the criminal liability of German commandos wearing American uniforms.

In our mind, there is a very real possibility that Mohammed could be found not guilty in a courtroom. The cases of O.J. Simpson and of Jewish Defense League head Rabbi Meir Kahane's killer, El Sayyid Nosair - both found not guilty despite overwhelming evidence - come to mind. Juries do strange things, particularly amid what will be the greatest media circus imaginable in the media capital of the world.

But it may not be the jury that is the problem. A federal judge will have to ask the question of whether prejudicial publicity of such magnitude has occurred that Mohammed can't receive a fair trial. (This is probably true.) Questions will be raised about whether he has received proper legal counsel, which undoubtedly he hasn't. Issues about the chain of custody of evidence will be raised; given that he was held by troops and agents, and not by law enforcement, the chances of compromised evidence is likely. The issue of torture will, of course, also be raised but that really isn't the main problem. How do you try a man under U.S. legal procedures who was captured in a third country by non-law enforcement personnel, and who has been in military custody for seven years?

There is a nontrivial possibility that he will be acquitted or have his case thrown out of court, which would be a foreign policy disaster for the United States. Some might view it as a sign of American adherence to the rule of law and be impressed, others might be convinced that Mohammed was not guilty in more than a legal sense and was held unjustly, and others might think the United States has bungled another matter.

The real problem here is international law, which does not address acts of war committed by non-state actors out of uniform. Or more precisely, it does, but leaves them deliberately in a state of legal limbo, with captors left free to deal with them as they wish. If the international legal community does not like the latter, it is time they did the hard work of defining precisely how a nation deals with an act of war carried out under these circumstances.

The international legal community has been quite vocal in condemning American treatment of POWs after 9/11, but it hasn't evolved international law, even theoretically, to cope with this. Sept. 11 is not a crime in the proper sense of the term, and prosecuting the guilty is not the goal. Instead, it was an act of war carried out outside the confines of the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. goal is destroying al Qaeda so that it can no longer function, not punishing those who have acted. Similarly the goal in 1941 was not punishing the Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor but destroying the Japanese Empire, and any Japanese soldier was a target who could be killed without trial in the course of combat. If it wishes to solve this problem, international law will have to recognize that al Qaeda committed an act of war, and its destruction has legal sanction without judicial review. And if some sort of protection is to be provided al Qaeda operatives out of uniform, then the Geneva Conventions must be changed, and with it the status of spies and saboteurs of all countries.

Holder has opened up an extraordinarily complex can of worms with this decision. As U.S. attorney general, he has committed himself to proving Mohammed's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while guaranteeing that his constitutional rights (for a non-U.S. citizen captured and held outside the United States under extraordinary circumstances by individuals not trained as law enforcement personnel, no less) are protected. It is Holder's duty to ensure Mohammed's prosecution, conviction and fair treatment under the law. It is hard to see how he can.

Whatever the politics of this decision - and all such decisions have political dimensions - the real problem faced by both the Obama and Bush administrations has been the failure of international law to evolve to provide guidance on dealing with combatants such as al Qaeda. International law has clung to a model of law governing a very different type of warfare despite new realities. International law must therefore either reaffirm the doctrine that combatants who do not distinguish themselves from noncombatants are not due the protections of international law, or it must clearly define what those protections are. Otherwise, international law discredits itself.

Classic Brands

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:21:14 -0600

Then & Now

By Renee DeFranco

Today, many Americans are not as impulsive or careless with their purchases as they've been in the past. They're more willing to trade down in price, even if it means looking beyond their favorite brands, and they certainly think twice before splurging on anything in or near the realm of "luxury." To be sure, brand loyalty isn't out... but the stakes are much higher for those brands striving to keep their loyal following of suddenly-cash-strapped consumers.

Below, we take a look at 10 of our favorite classic, nostalgic brands over the years. For many of us, these brands have helped define our favorite foods, games and pastimes. Some of these products have disappeared, and others have staged a welcome comeback. A few have remained strong and steady over the decades. Read on to see where some of the classics are today.

Cracker Jack

Thanks largely to the seventh-inning stretch song "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," baseball games and Cracker Jack have gone hand in hand since 1908. Today, 500 to 600 bags (no longer boxes) of Cracker Jack are sold at a typical Philadelphia Phillies game, according to a recent New York Times article.

But some teams have had their doubts about Cracker Jack. Take the New York Yankees, which traded the classic brand for another caramel corn, Crunch 'n Munch, in 2004, according to the article. Fans rebelled, and two months later, Cracker Jack was back.

Given the way today's ball park food menus are rapidly expanding, some fear peanuts and Cracker Jack will be beaten out by popular sales of trendier items like sushi and lobster rolls in the future, as noted in the New York Times. Others, however, insist the baseball staple won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

Hydrox Cookies

Another popular food brand hails from the year 1908... the crème-filled sandwich cookies known as Hydrox. Originally manufactured by Sunshine Biscuits, these cookies prefaced the Oreo, which was introduced four years later in 1912. However, the marketing powers of the Nabisco Division of Kraft Foods managed to convince later generations that Oreo was the original cookie sandwich. Not exactly... Behind the marketing clutter, Hyrdox cookies were known to be crispier, cheaper, kosher... and many claimed they "stood up better to milk."

Even after getting off on the wrong foot, a series of acquisitions added to Hydrox cookies' ill fate. In 1996, Keebler snatched up Sunshine Biscuits and its batches of Hydrox. In 1999, Keebler replaced Hydrox with a similar, reformulated product called Droxies. And then, in 2003, two years after Kellogg's swept in and acquired Keebler, Droxies disappeared.

On the cookies' 100th anniversary, Kellogg's resumed distribution of Hydrox cookies under the Sunshine label, shipping batches in late August 2008. Hydrox aficionados petitioned Kellogg's to make Hydrox a permanent product in their portfolio. Nevertheless, Hydrox disappeared again less than a year later. Today, Hydrox exists in a very minimal form -- "Hydrox" cookie crumbs are used as a topping on Carvel ice cream treats. At least one company recognized Hydrox had some staying power.

Tab Soda

Introduced as a cola diet drink in 1963 by the Coca-Cola Co., Tab soda was marketed to people wanting "to keep 'tabs' on their weight." But the soda's ingredients were a recipe for disaster. It was initially sweetened with cyclamate, which was banned by the FDA in 1969. It was then reformulated with saccharin, which the FDA tried to ban in 1977. Though the saccharin ban was rejected, a new label was required that informed consumers of the risk of bladder cancer.

The Tab brand was briefly extended to Tab Lemon-Lime and Tab Orange. But in 1982, after the introduction of Diet Coke (surrounded by all the bells and whistles of a $100 million marketing campaign), Tab's days were numbered. In 1984, Diet Coke was reformulated to include blended saccharin and a small amount of aspartame, which is the way its ingredients stand today.

Today, Tab has a U.S. following of "Tabaholics," buying roughly 3 million cases in 2008, according to a piece by Fortune magazine. As a symbol of the '70s, it has also made appearances in "Austin Powers" and "That 70s Show," Fortune notes.

Bazooka Bubble Gum

Topps Co., based in Brooklyn, N.Y., first marketed Bazooka, packaged in a patriotic red, white and blue wrapping, shortly after World War II. In 1953, Topps added small comic strips featuring the "Bazooka Joe" character. Though the bubble gum remained virtually unchanged for over 50 years, it has dwindled in popularity. Nevertheless, "Bazooka Joe" is staging a comeback in Michael Eisner's planned feature-film adaptation of the bubble gum and its comic-strip cast of characters. Film plans were first announced in May 2009.

The Ground Round

This popular restaurant chain first opened in 1969 by Howard Johnson's Inc. It was "the original 'no rules' place," according to its corporate website. Its limited menu had only 12 items, including burgers, snack food and pitchers of beer. Ground Round featured cartoons and Little Rascals episodes on big-screen TVs, served endless amounts of popcorn and peanuts, and even encouraged patrons to toss the peanut shells on the floor.However, management was late to realize that these shells were flammable... until the floors of two locations -- Yonkers, N.Y., and York, Pa. -- caught fire on two separate occasions, killing one patron and injuring many others.

On a lighter note, the restaurant encouraged children to weigh themselves before eating, allowing parents to pay a penny for each pound their kid weighed -- making the restaurant a big hit among cost-conscious families. Overselling by parent company Howard Johnson's led to the franchise's near collapse in the late 1980s. In 2004, Ground Round changed its ownership structure after financial struggles.

Today, with fewer than 50 franchises in 19 states, there's concern the chain may eventually be bought out. But these restaurants are a far cry from the original Ground Rounds. In today's Ground Rounds, rules do apply... you won't spot a peanut shell on the floor and kids, unfortunately, can no longer eat for pennies.

Legos

The Lego Group, a privately held company based in Billund, Denmark, originally designed the colorful line of interlocking bricks known as Legos in the 1940s. The company name "Lego," coined by Danish carpenter Ole Kirk Christiansen, came from the Danish phrase "leg godt," which means "play well."

Legos slowly gained popularity over the years, though the toy sets were first rejected by retailers in fear that plastic toys would never replace wooden ones. Retailers soon discovered they were wrong in this regard. Lego pieces of all varieties are part of a universal system; despite some changes in design, those made in 1958 will still interlock with those made in 2009. They have also spawned a subculture of Lego movies, games, competitions and four Lego-themed amusement parks.

Though the brand has had some challenges over the years -- for example, in 2004, losses totaled nearly $300 million, according to an Ad Age article -- it has continued to bounce back. Lego sales spiked 18 percent in 2008 and, in the first half of 2009, were up 23 percent. Lego toys, particularly Lego Star Wars, are expected to top the charts in toy sales this holiday season. What's more? The much-anticipated Lego Universe will launch in 2010.

Silly Putty

More than 300 million eggs -- or 4,500 tons -- of Silly Putty have been sold since the toy's debut in 1950. The idea began when, in the midst of World War II, the Japanese continued to invade rubber producing countries in the Far East, cutting off supply to the U.S. This took a toll on production efforts, particularly for truck tires and boots. As a result, the government's War Production Board challenged the American industry to attempt to develop a synthetic rubber compound.

In 1943, James Wright, an engineer working for General Electric Co., in New Haven, Conn., combined boric acid and silicone oil, which created bouncing putty. GE was determined to find a use for this putty and sent samples to engineers worldwide, though no practical application was discovered.

In 1949, the owner of a toy store in New Haven, Conn., decided that the material should be marketed and sold as a toy. Today, Silly Putty has a Crayola-owned trademark. Arguably the product's most noteworthy achievement: In 1968, Silly Putty reached the moon, when Apollo 8 astronauts used the substance to secure their tools in zero-gravity.

Mr. Potato Head

Brooklyn, N.Y.-based inventor and designer George Lerner created the first precursor of Mr. Potato Head in 1949, using fruits and vegetables. Though the toy was rejected by many companies that deemed the use of food items for toys as wasteful, Lerner eventually convinced a breakfast cereal company to include plastic versions of the toy in their boxes.

In 1952, Hasbro purchased the toy, giving Lerner a $500 cash advance and a royalty of 5 percent of every kit sold. It was then dubbed Mr. Potato Head and went on to become the very first toy advertised on TV. The toy at first only included plastic parts to add to a potato or vegetable, but a plastic Mr. Potato Head was added to the kit in 1964. The size of Mr. Potato Head doubled in 1975, in order to adhere to child safety regulations introduced by the U.S. government.

In 2006, Hasbro began selling individual themed sets to add to Mr. Potato Head, including Mermaid, Rockstar and Santa Claus. Thanks to Mr. Potato Head's steady development of physical and personality traits over the years, it has managed to keep a captive audience.

Monopoly

Monopoly, sold in 103 countries and produced in 37 languages, is the best-selling board game in the world. It was created in 1934, in the height of the Great Depression, by Charles B. Darrow of Germantown, Pa. The game was originally rejected by Parker Brothers because of "52 design errors." However, Darrow went ahead on his own, making 5,000 homemade games and selling them through a Philadelphia department store. As demand grew, he went back to Parker Brothers, which then bought the game.

Today, Monopoly continues to be a favorite pastime around the world, and many special editions have been made. The most expensive Monopoly game to date, crafted with diamonds, rubies, sapphires and 23k gold, is worth $2 million. As for the longest Monopoly game... it lasted a total of 70 days.

McDonald's Fried Apple Pie

McDonald's deep-fried apple in a cardboard box first emerged in the late '60s and developed a huge following over the years. Its crispy texture and the too-good-to-pass-up 2 for $1 deal made the pie a big hit. But amid concerns that the apple filling was much too hot and posed the risk of burning customers, McDonald's Corp. phased out the pies in 1992. Its replacement: a healthier, less scolding-hot baked apple pie.

Unconfirmed rumors have circulated that McDonald's fried apple pies still exist in some locations in the U.S. and abroad, and now, another restaurant-chain is selling fried apple pies, 2 for $1. Let's see how long these stay on the menu at KFC.

First U.S. marijuana cafe opens in Portland

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:45:48 -0600

By Dan Cook, Reuters

PORTLAND, Oregon - The United States' first marijuana cafe opened on Friday, posing an early test of the Obama administration's move to relax policing of medical use of the drug.

The Cannabis Cafe in Portland, Oregon, is the first to give certified medical marijuana users a place to get hold of the drug and smoke it -- as long as they are out of public view -- despite a federal ban.

"This club represents personal freedom, finally, for our members," said Madeline Martinez, Oregon's executive director of NORML, a group pushing for marijuana legalization.

"Our plans go beyond serving food and marijuana," said Martinez. "We hope to have classes, seminars, even a Cannabis Community College, based here to help people learn about growing and other uses for cannabis."

The cafe -- in a two-story building which formerly housed a speak-easy and adult erotic club Rumpspankers -- is technically a private club, but is open to any Oregon residents who are NORML members and hold an official medical marijuana card.

Members pay $25 per month to use the 100-person capacity cafe. They don't buy marijuana, but get it free over the counter from "budtenders". Open 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., it serves food but has no liquor license.

There are about 21,000 patients registered to use marijuana for medical purposes in Oregon. Doctors have prescribed marijuana for a host of illnesses, including Alzheimer's, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and Tourette's syndrome.

On opening day, reporters invited to the cafe could smell, but were not allowed to see, people smoking marijuana.

"I still run a coffee shop and events venue, just like I did before we converted it to the Cannabis Cafe, but now it will be cannabis-themed," said Eric Solomon, the owner of the cafe, who is looking forward to holding marijuana-themed weddings, film festivals and dances in the second-floor ballroom.

NO PROSECUTION

The creation of the cafe comes almost a month after the Obama administration told federal attorneys not to prosecute patients who use marijuana for medical reasons or dispensaries in states which have legalized them.

About a dozen states, including Oregon, followed California's 1996 move to adopt medical marijuana laws, allowing the drug to be cultivated and sold for medical use. A similar number have pending legislation or ballot measures planned.

Pot cafes, known as "coffee shops", are popular in the Dutch city of Amsterdam, where possession of small amounts of marijuana is legal. Portland's Cannabis Cafe is the first of its kind to open in the United States, according to NORML.

Growing, possessing, distributing and smoking marijuana are still illegal under U.S. federal law, which makes no distinction between medical and recreational use.

Federal and local law enforcement agencies did not return phone calls from Reuters on Friday seeking comment on the Portland cafe's operations.

"To have a place that is this open about its activities, where people can come together and smoke -- I say that's pretty amazing." said Tim Pate, a longtime NORML member, at the cafe.

Some locals are hoping it might even be good for business.

"I know some neighbors are pretty negative about this place opening up," said David Bell, who works at a boutique that shares space with the cafe. "But I'm withholding judgment. There's no precedent for it. We don't know what to expect. But it would great if it brought some customers into our store."

(Writing by Bill Rigby; editing by Mohammad Zargham)

Leaked Black Friday Ads....

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:09:07 -0600

.....................for Wal-Mart, Target and More

By Renee DeFranco

Earlier this week, we shared a list of the best Black Friday sites. These online hubs reveal the latest deals, discounts and even "unconfirmed" rumors of what "might possibly" be available.

We suppose we were on to something... Today, one of the sites on our list actually leaked Target's Black Friday ad. To get in on the latest deals, check out GottaDeal.com.

What kinds of enticing promotions await Target shoppers? Day-after-Thanksgiving deals include 32-inch LCD HDTVs for just $249, $3 toasters and coffeemakers (yes, you read that correctly) and 50 percent off select toys. The store is also offering a $10 gift card for every $100 spent between 5 a.m. and noon. Sounds like something you might want to know and plan for in advance.

Target is not alone. One of Wal-Mart's Black Friday deals has also been leaked, according to recent online reports. The retail giant will offer the AT&T Curve 8310 and Sprint's Curve 8330 for free. AT&T's Bold 9000 will be discounted to $78.88. Other smart phones, including T-Mobile's Curve 8520 and its Pearl 8120 Black Emerald, will be available for just $28.88. Offers include a two-year contract.

Best Buy's bargains were also leaked today. Check out Electronista's post about the electronics giant's many deals to come.

Glenn Beck's "The Christmas Sweater-A Return to Redemption...LIVE"

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:21:23 -0600

Glenn Beck's "The Christmas Sweater-A Return to Redemption...LIVE" will be at Springfield's Showplace 12 Theaters on December 3rd. NewsRadio WTAX will give you a chance to win tickets to the show, stay tuned. Meanwhile, you can purchase tickets at fandango.com.

Give the "Gift of Reading"!

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:18:38 -0600

The NewsRadio WTAX First Book Gift of Reading is underway. Morning NewsWatch's Bob Murray kicked it off on November 9th at Fairview School, reading to Mrs. Kelly and Mrs. Fitzgerald's Kindergarten class.

This holiday season we have teamed up with Marine Bank to collect new books for Pre-K through 2nd graders in the Springfield School District. From now until December 11th, we will be collecting children's books at the WTAX Studios at 3501 East Sangamon Avenue or at the six Springfield Marine Bank locations: 3120 Robbins Road, 3050 Wabash Avenue, 1953 Sangamon Avenue, 3001 South Sixth Street, 1401 Dirksen Parkway, 525 North 4th Street, and 2136 Cook Street.

You can buy a book from our suggested reading list or choose one of your favorites to give to a needy child. You can also give donations to First Book at any of the Marine Bank locations. Gift the "Gift of Reading" this holiday season.

On December 5th, you can shop for books at Barnes and Noble and help the "Gift of Reading" drive, and your purchase will also help benefit the drive through First Book.

Here are the suggested reading titles. We have listed books for Pre-K through 2nd grade:

PRESCHOOL
1. Don't Laugh Joe -Keiko Kasza
2. Birdie's Big-Girl Shoes-Sujean Rim
3. Where the Wild Things Are-Maurice Sendak
4. The Little Mouse, The Red Ripe Strawberry and The Big Hungry Bear-Don and Audrey Wood
5. Move Over Rover-K. Beaumont
6. Silly Sally-Audrey Wood
7. Mrs. Wishy Washy-Joy Cowley
8. The Very Hungry Caterpillar-Eric Carle
9. Big Fat Hen-Keith Baker
10. Big Sarah's Little Boots-Paulette Bourgeois

KINDERGARTEN
1. Caps for Sale-Esphyr Slobodkina
2. Corduroy-Don Freeman
3. Goodnight Moon-Margaret Wise Brown
4. Jamaica's Find-Juanita Havill
5. Just Like Daddy-Frank Asch
6. Koala Lou-Mem Fox
7. Peter's Chair-Ezra Jack Keats
8. Ramona, The Pest-Beverly Cleary
9. The Carrot Seed-Ruth Krauss
10. The Napping House-Audrey Wood

FIRST GRADE
1. A Chair For My Mother-Vera Williams
2. Abiyoyo-Pete Seeger
3. Harriet, You'll Drive Me Wild-Mem Fox
4. In a Dark, Dark Room-Alvin Schwartz
5. Leo, The Late Bloomer-Robert Kraus
6. Mouse Soup-Arnold Lobel
7. Mr. Popper's Penguins-Richard Atwater
8. Owl Moon-Jan Yolen 9. Polar Express-Chris Van Allsberg
10. The Important Book-Margaret Wise Brown

SECOND GRADE

1. Blueberries for Sal-Robert McCloskey
2. Frod and Toad Are Friends-Arnold Lobel
3. Hattie and The Fox-Mem Fox
4. Little Bear's Visit-Else Holmshead Minarik
5. Machines At Work-Byron Barton
6. Miss Nelson Is Missing-Harry Allard
7. Miss Rumphius-Barbara Cooney
8. Poppleton-Cynthia Rylant
9. The Gardener-Sarah Stewart
10. Thunder Cake-Patricia Polacco

Get a Run In ..........

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:05:55 -0600

Help A Cause.

NewsRadio WTAX and the Jingle Bell Run/Walk have been working together for years to raise money for arthritis sufferers. The Arthritis Foundation's Jingle Bell Run/Walk will be on Saturday, November 21st this year at Lincoln Land Community College. Register now. The 3.1 mile/5K race is at 9:45 on Saturday, November 21st.

Salvation Army's Tree of Lights

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:03:47 -0600

Campaign Underway.

The Salvation Army's Tree of Lights Campaign is underway. The Tree of Lights campaign funds a large portion of the Army's budget. The Army provides food, shelter, clothing and more to those who find themselves out of work and out of a home. It also provides Christmas baskets and toys to many families.

You can help by donating at a red kettle, where you'll certainly hear the bell ringers this holiday season. Or you can donate online.

The children who are helped by the Salvation Army get a chance to get a toy and some clothes this holiday season, thanks to the generosity of many. You can pick up an Angel at the WTAX Studios from our Angel Tree, starting November 23rd. The Angel tag will have a child's age and a desired toy or gift on it. You buy that gift, leave it unwrapped and return it and the Angel back to the WTAX studios. Then all of those Angel gifts go to the Army's Christmas Castle to allow for those children to get a gift this holiday season.

Gift the "Gift of Life"

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:01:10 -0600

Before You Head Out For Thanksgiving.

NewsRadio WTAX and the Central Illinois Community Blood Center want you to give the "Gift of Life" before you head out for Thanksgiving this year. The Blood Center sees a decrease in donors this time of the year because of the holidays and vacations and then add the flu to the mix, and the need becomes even more great.

It will take less than an hour of your time and won't cost you any money from your pocketbook. Schedule in an hour to donate blood on Friday, November 20th and give the gift of life.

For more information on giving, click here. NewsRadio WTAX's Bob Murray will be at the Blood Center from 10am-Noon on Friday, November 20th.

The Blood Center is at 1134 South Seventh Street and is open 8am-4pm on Friday, November 20th. You can call for an appointment at 753-1530 or make one at cicbc.org/calendar2.asp

We hope to see you giving blood on November 20th at the Central Illinois Community Blood Center.

Just in case you didn't know...

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:39:11 -0600

A 36 year-old female had an accident several weeks ago and totaled her car. A resident of Kilgore , Texas she was traveling between Gladewater & Kilgore. It was raining, though not excessively, when her car suddenly began to hydro-plane and literally flew through the air. She was not seriously injured but very stunned at the sudden occurrence!

When she explained to the highway patrolman what had happened he told her something that every driver should know - NEVER DRIVE IN THE RAIN WITH YOUR CRUISE CONTROL ON . She thought she was being cautious by setting the cruise control and maintaining a safe consistent speed in the rain.

But the highway patrolman told her that if the cruise control is on when your car begins to hydro-plane and your tires lose contact with the pavement, your car will accelerate to a higher rate of speed making you take off like an airplane. She told the patrolman that was exactly what had occurred.

The patrolman said this warning should be listed, on the driver's seat sun-visor - NEVER USE THE CRUISE CONTROL WHEN THE PAVEMENT IS WET OR ICY, along with the airbag warning. We tell our teenagers to set the cruise control and drive a safe speed - but we don't tell them to use the cruise control only when the pavement is dry.

The only person the accident victim found, who knew this (besides the patrolman), was a man who had had a similar accident, totaled his car and sustained severe injuries.

NOTE: Some vehicles (like the Toyota Sienna Limited XLE) will not allow you to set the cruise control when the windshield wipers are on.

Enemies Within...........

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:46:19 -0600

by Chuck Norris

Last Thursday, Nov. 5, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist and devout Muslim, fatally shot 13 American citizens (12 service members) and wounded an additional 29 people at the largest U.S. military base, Fort Hood, Texas.

For six months, authorities had been tracking the extremist thinking of Hasan. Internet postings like this one go back to May 20, 2009: "Scholars have paralleled (a U.S. soldier's falling on a grenade to save surrounding troops) to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers."

Hasan vehemently opposed the U.S. missions in the Middle East, arguing with co-workers, senior officers and even patients. He quarreled with Col. Terry Lee, who testified that Hasan said, "Maybe the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor." Dr. Val Finnell, a former classmate of Hasan's, said that Hasan was "very vocal" about equating the war on terror with a war on Islam. He said Hasan even gave a PowerPoint presentation once justifying Islamic suicide bombing.

A few days before the killing spree at Fort Hood, Hasan proved his premeditated intentions by giving away all his belongings (including his Qurans) to his neighbors, saying he no longer would need them and adding, "I'm ready."

Just hours before the shooting spree, he attended prayer services at a local mosque, where he normally wore street clothes but that morning wore white Muslim attire.

Firsthand witnesses at the Fort Hood murder scene say they heard Hasan yelling "Allahu akbar" (meaning "God is great") before he opened fire.

And authorities just revealed that Hasan has made contact with other al-Qaida operatives. In 2001, authorities say, Hasan attended a mosque whose leadership was associated with two of the 9/11 hijackers. He even apparently stirred up anti-American sentiment within other Muslim soldiers at Fort Hood.

Yet despite all of this U.S. adversity in his background, Hasan was promoted this past May to the rank of major.

And the questions that keep coming to my mind are: Have we become so tolerant and politically correct that we can't see or confront a rotten apple when it's right in front of our eyes? When our fear of discrimination enables our enemies, can't we see something is grimly amiss?

To those roughly 3,500 Muslims who faithfully serve in the U.S. military, God bless you. We appreciate what you do and pray for you along with all of our dedicated service members. I fully realize Muslim extremists don't represent mainstream Islam. We must not quarantine all Islamic theology and practice as un-American.

At the same time, we must not stick our heads in the religious sands and call all these fatal acts "isolated incidents." We should not ignore the systemic nature and embryonic potential of fanaticism inherent within many. And we must not allow our cultural infatuation with passivity and tolerance to restrain us from searching for and stopping such militant rudimentary resistance, especially on our military posts.

Even our president warned Americans not to "jump to conclusions" about the motives of Maj. Hasan. But to what "conclusions" is he referring? It fascinates me that our president travels the world blaming America for everything under the sun but cautions Americans not to "jump to conclusions" about a fanatical Muslim military officer who just took the lives of 13 patriots and wounded many others who have honored their oath to defend this country. Why would the commander in chief even take up his precious media time immediately after this brutal rampage to encourage tolerance and political correctness concerning this psychotic killer? As a veteran of the Air Force and honorary Marine, I am appalled.

It's time our federal government woke up and realized that jihadists are not done planning and plotting against the U.S. and that a terrorist is not only defined by being a card-carrying member of al-Qaida. It's time our federal government better assured the protection of our valiant service members, not only in the Middle East but also right here on American soil.

Extremists still are infiltrating our military ranks, and we must be more diligent about exposing and stopping them. If Washington worked with just one-tenth the passion in corralling the enemies of the U.S. as it has in ramrodding the Obama-Pelosi health care system down our throats and pocketbooks, we'd reduce military acts of terrorism down to zero, inside and outside our borders.

As another Veterans Day passes, we owe our renewed allegiance and support to our service members. And we owe, in particular, the families of those who fell at the Fort Hood massacre our continued reassurance that their loved ones did not die in vain. They were real people, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers -- American patriots who each sacrificed everything in a war we wage even domestically to save our sacred land.

Let us pause again and salute all the victims and valiant soldiers at Fort Hood, including the heroes who kept the death toll from escalating. Let us honor the wounded and, in particular, the fallen, who (like those who fell on 9/11) serve as catalysts for our patriotism and vivid reminders that there are still enemies within.

What's your personality?

Roy T Robinette (the Real Estate Firm) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:34:27 -0600

We all like to learn more about ourselves. It isn't vanity or egotism. It's simply a part of human nature.

That's why online tests are incredibly popular. No doubt you've seen plenty of ads for IQ and personality tests.

I wouldn't waste my time with most of these tests. Who knows if they're reliable? And you could end up with a ton of spam.

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter is a well-regarded personality test. After answering a series of questions, you'll see your personality type.

The test will provide insight into your personality. But it is about more than just having fun.

It is extremely helpful when deciding on a career or a job. You'll be able to distinguish what is a good fit for you and what isn't.

You can take the test at today's Cool Site. It should only take you about 10 minutes to answer the questions.

When you're done, you can view a mini report of your personality for free. You're also given the opportunity to purchase a more in-depth report on your personality.



www.keirsey.com