THE ENTERPRISE
DON'T CANCEL THAT CHRISTMAS PARTY!
Hold a "Pot Luck"--the old fashioned party where everyone brings something and the company just furnishes coffee, iced tea and soft drinks. Most companies can afford that outlay. The people who have been working so hard together deserve a chance to celebrate the holidays together. If someone (or some group) wants to volunteer to decorate, fine. If not, that's fine too. Ask everyone to wear something "Seasonal" (that's the politically correct term that has come to replace Christmas or Hanukkah (ugh--Political Correctness makes me crazy.) But instead of canceling the party, make it a luncheon event, the week before the Christmas. (Luncheon events also minimize "holiday party hanky-panky!")
US AUTOMAKERS--NOT TOTALLY BAD--FACTS TO CONSIDER
GM + Ford + Chrysler sold 8.5 million vehicles in the US last year. Ford's reliability and crashworthiness are at the top of the ratings. GM's quality ranking is not bad, either. Some GM cars rank quite well. Detroit doesn't build all gas guzzlers—many of them are equal to the imported models. American automakers investments in pickup trucks and large SUVs are foolish--NOT. They make good trucks, and consumers have wanted the large SUVs (so it's not just the carmakers "fault"). Detroit knows how to build hybrids too; GM has more than Honda or Nissan.
So what's the problem? It's not that the Detroit 3 can't engineer or build good cars. It's the structure (organization and facilities) created by continuing to support too many brands, too many models, too many layers, too much bureaucracy and FAR too little sensitivity to how a company should be run--ECONOMICALLY! And the government is going to tell them how to do it better? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
MANAGEMENT MISTAKES & UNION-INSPIRED COSTS--TOP HEAVY BUREAUCRACY AND OLD COST LEGACIES
For years, executives at the Detroit 3 have not faced the tough issues sternly enough. Why? Wall Street/shareholder pressures on financial management at the top (protecting their jobs)--at least that's my interpretation. Alan Mulally is doing the right things at Ford and it's showing--he's the new guy from OUTSIDE the auto industry. GM is saddled with "old-thinking management" and the same board makeup for years--unsuccessful years. Chrysler hasn't worked right for the past 5 years, and Cerberus financial manipulation won't fix that, no matter who's at the helm. Chrysler builds the worst assortment of cars. It has the most difficult task, financially and product-wise.
The industry needs a face-off with the UAW, but a labor-beholden Congress, won't make that happen, now, soon enough, or eve--until it's too late. Too bad. Any government-inspired solution will be a compromise at best, a failure at worst. They need a "capitalist" who is a hard-nosed executive in charge (I vote for Mitt Romney--a Michigan guy with auto industry in his family roots!) Key indicator as to why auto company execs still don't get it: Flying into Washington in multimillion dollar corporate jets, that cost thousands of dollars per year to operate--to ask for handouts. Bad optics? I think so!
C'MON NAVIES OF THE WORLD, WIPE OUT THOSE SOMALIAN PIRATES
Piracy is an old problem. The means of dealing with it is simple--and has been for centuries. Pirates only understand violence--so give it to them. It will only take a small fraction of the armed might of the world's navies--a few from each of the countries that use those shipping lanes--to discourage (and partially wipe out!) small bands of pirates. A single RPG (that's Rocket Propelled Grenade for pacifists who are reading this) will nicely eliminate the pirates' small craft. What happens to them? If they are smart, they jump overboard when they see the RPG coming at them. If not, "cie la vie." (Translation: "that's life.")
The human rights advocates and bleeding hearts around the world can all go to H---L, or better yet, let them all get on a ship and go discuss things with the pirates. Watch the human rights people scurry for cover from that suggestion. It's easy to be "sensitive" when you aren't "involved in the fight." It is time for the "majority" of people in the world to stand up and tell these "minority-special interest whiners" to shut up and get lost--or join those "poor oppressed people" who are on the hijacked ships, held at gunpoint. while those "poor pirates" steal the cargoes and collect ransom for the ship's return. Blow a few boatloads of them out of the water and the others might decide on a different career path.
WHEN THE LIGHTS GO OFF--NEARLY EVERYTHING STOPS
Remember the big blackout in the Eastern third of the US a few years ago? This year, the tail of Hurricane Ike swung through Columbus, OH like someone cracking a whip. Winds gusted to 75 MPH, and took out electricity to about 1/3 of the city and surrounding area. It took up to a week to restore some homes power, and those lucky ones, like us, were only out of power for 30-36 hours. Just long enough for things in your freezer to start thawing and your refrigerator to spoil. Just long enough to realize how many ways we rely on electricity in our day to day life. Cut off natural gas and see what happens!
During the peak of the electric "blackout", nothing much worked. Cell phones were dead, or their batteries ran down, and only car chargers could be used to recharge them. Telephones on land lines were even dead, and they have used low voltage and battery power--a throwback to the old days--but switching these days is via computers, which need electricity. Those came back on faster, but were still out for a day.
Anyone who doesn't think that Energy is, or should be at the top of our national priority list, THINK AGAIN. Talk about an economic disaster. Stores can't sell; factories can build; communications can't communicate! (Recall my 2002 novel, THE SILENCE, in which all communications and many other computer-controlled systems were "silenced" by Cyber-terrorists--and I only used known technologies in it--nothing "made up.")
There are some interesting options in alternative sources of Energy, and where it might be generated, and where it is used...but first someone has to make a national strategy. NO one, so far, has done much of anything about that. But of course we have the Department of Energy to look out for us (joke!) What follows was sent by a friend. I can't vouch for its absolute accuracy, but I imagine it's pretty close to correct.
ABOLISH THE DEPT. OF ENERGY (sent by a friend--but how appropriate!)
Does anybody out there recall the reason given for the establishment of the department of energy during the carter administration? Anybody? Anything? No? Didn't think so. Bottom line. . We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember. Ready? It was very simple, and at the time everybody thought it very appropriate. The department of energy was instituted 8-04-1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh? And now it's 2008, 31 years later, and the budget for this necessary department is at $24.2 billion a year, they have 16,000 federal employees, and approximately 100,000 contract employees and look at the job they have done! This is where you slap your forehead and say 'what was I thinking?' Ah yes, good ole government bureaucracy. And now we are going to turn the banking system over to them? God help us.
If we took a small fraction of the savings from shutting down the bureaucrats at DOE, and used it to contract with one or two huge contractor (like Bechtel, et. al.), you can bet we'd get a plan for using the various energy sources, distribution improvements, and some real world cost and time budgets. Would anyone be bold enough to actually do that? Don't hold your breath. It's contrary to governmental idiocy.
ARE SMALL BUSINESSES OVERTAXED? YOU DECIDE:
Should Barack Obama give small businesses tax relief? Perhaps if you are one, you have an idea of your tax burden. This is just a partial listing (compiled by a small business owner in his frustration about taxation.)
ARE WE OVERTAXED AS A SMALL BUSINESS IN THE U S. A.?
Taxes ‘we’ pay as a small business:
1. Pay taxes on the business building (tho' we don’t own) 2. On the lease for the building
3. On all bank loans (intangible, docs & stamps) 4. Taxes to acquire the business
5. On all the equipment/property of the business 6. On every payroll we pay:
7. Federal taxes 8. State taxes
9. Local taxes 10. Unemployment taxes
11. Social Security & Medicare (employer’s share) 12. Franchise taxes
13. Inventory taxes 14. On every paycheck we get:
15. Federal taxes 16. State taxes
17. Local taxes 18. Unemployment taxes
19. Social Security & Medicare (employee’s share) 20. On every insurance (W/C, Liability, etc.)
21. On all autos & trucks 22. On every tire that is used
23. On every repair that is made 24. On every gallon of gas & oil used
25. On all our cell phones 26. On all our phone lines
27. On the monthly water bill 28. On the monthly power bill
29. On the garbage bill 30. On every business license
31. On all occupational licenses required 32. Sales taxes on every purchase the company makes (not for resale)
33. Each yard of concrete that leaves the yard 34. Hotel taxes and local taxes for each hotel room
Then finally….on personal income, if there is any left. Then we get to pay Again at home:
1. Income taxes 2. Property taxes
3. Water taxes 4. Power taxes
5. Phone taxes 6. Cell phone taxes
7. Fuel taxes 8. Tire taxes
9. Sales taxes 10. Capital gains taxes
11. Excise taxes 12. Social Security (if & when we get to retire on it)
13. Alternative Minimum Taxes--just in case we haven't paid enough!!!
That's only 45, but the list could go on, and on, and on….
----------------------------------------------------------
I guess that is enough "Contrarian Thinking" for one week. I am attaching a piece from George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor and a pretty astute observer of current events. It puts things in good perspective given all the stuff going on.
A note to those who have asked if I have another book coming. Not right now. I am "soured" on publishers and the book selling industry in general. It is "broken." Plus, few people have time to read an entire business book. I suspect my future business efforts will be shorter and more focused (practice what you preach?). I may actually resurrect the novel that I had 1/3 written, a sequel to THE SILENCE, whose working title has been THE PULSE. We'll see what 2009 brings.
Have a happy Thanksgiving and give thanks that America remains free--and free of terrorist attacks for another year--that's 7+, since 9/11. Thank God for those brave men and women who serve so we can be free.
Best, John
------------
WANT TO WORRY ABOUT SOMETHING WORSE THAN A RECESSION? WORSE THAN CREEPING SOCIALISM?
TRY THIS: A NUCLEAR OR "EMP" ATTACK
NOVEMBER 24, 2008 © The Wall Street Journal
What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do—Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense against an EMP attack.
By BRIAN T. KENNEDY
As severe as the global financial crisis now is, it does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. Through fits and starts we will sort out the best way to revive the country's economic engine. Mistakes can be tolerated, however painful. The same may not be true with matters of national security.
Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors -- including Ronald Reagan -- he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have proven how vulnerable we are. On that day, Islamic terrorists flew planes into our buildings. It is not unreasonable to believe that if they obtain nuclear weapons, they might use them to destroy us. And yet too many policy makers have rejected three basic facts about our position in the world today:
First, as the defender of the Free World, the U.S. will be the target of destruction or, more likely, strategic marginalization by Russia, China and the radical Islamic world.
Second, this marginalization and threat of destruction is possible because the U.S. is not so powerful that it can dictate military and political affairs to the world whenever it wants. The U.S. has the nuclear capability to vanquish any foe, but is not likely to use it except as a last resort.
Third, America will remain in a condition of strategic vulnerability as long as it fails to build defenses against the most powerful political and military weapons arrayed against us: ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Such missiles can be used to destroy our country, blackmail or paralyze us.
Any consideration of how best to provide for the common defense must begin by acknowledging these facts. Consider Iran. For the past decade, Iran -- with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea -- has been developing missile technology. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced in 2004 their ability to mass produce the Shahab-3 missile capable of carrying a lethal payload to Israel or -- if launched from a ship -- to an American city.
The current controversy over Iran's nuclear production is really about whether it is capable of producing nuclear warheads. This possibility is made more urgent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement in 2005: "Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved."
Mr. Ahmadinejad takes seriously, even if the average Iranian does not, radical Islam's goal of converting, subjugating or destroying the infidel peoples -- first and foremost the citizens of the U.S. and Israel. Even after 9/11, we appear not to take that threat seriously. We should.
Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counter-strike.
But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).
Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.
This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.
Let us be clear. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.
Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America's finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.
The only solution to this problem is a robust, multilayered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.
An EMP attack is not one from which America could recover as we did after Pearl Harbor. Such an attack might mean the end of the United States and most likely the Free World. It is of the highest priority to have a president and policy makers not merely acknowledge the problem, but also make comprehensive missile defense a reality as soon as possible.
Mr. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and a member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense.
NOTE: THE VILLAINS IN MY NOVEL "THE SILENCE" HAD EMP DEVICES IN RESERVE, IN CASE THEIR SCHEMES DIDN'T WORK.
---------------------------
OBAMA: FIRST MOVES
By George Friedman, CEO, Stratfor
Three weeks after the U.S. presidential election, we are getting the first signs of how President-elect Barack Obama will govern. That now goes well beyond the question of what is conventionally considered U.S. foreign policy -- and thus beyond Stratfor's domain. At this moment in history, however, in the face of the global financial crisis, U.S. domestic policy is intimately bound to foreign policy. How the United States deals with its own internal financial and economic problems will directly affect the rest of the world.
One thing the financial crisis has demonstrated is that the world is very much America-centric, in fact and not just in theory. When the United States runs into trouble, so does the rest of the globe. It follows then that the U.S. response to the problem affects the rest of the world as well. Therefore, Obama's plans are in many ways more important to countries around the world than whatever their own governments might be planning.
Over the past two weeks, Obama has begun to reveal his appointments. It will be Hillary Clinton at State and Timothy Geithner at Treasury. According to persistent rumors, current Defense Secretary Robert Gates might be asked to stay on. The national security adviser has not been announced, but rumors have the post going to former Clinton administration appointees or to former military people. Interestingly and revealingly, it was made very public that Obama has met with Brent Scowcroft to discuss foreign policy. Scowcroft was national security adviser under President George H.W. Bush, and while a critic of the younger Bush's policies in Iraq from the beginning, he is very much part of the foreign policy establishment and on the non-neoconservative right. That Obama met with Scowcroft, and that this was deliberately publicized, is a signal -- and Obama understands political signals -- that he will be conducting foreign policy from the center.
Consider Clinton and Geithner. Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq war -- a major bone of contention between Obama and her during the primaries. She is also a committed free trade advocate, as was her husband, and strongly supports continuity in U.S. policy toward Israel and Iran. Geithner comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he participated in crafting the strategies currently being implemented by U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Everything Obama is doing with his appointments is signaling continuity in U.S. policy.
This does not surprise us. As we have written previously, when Obama's precise statements and position papers were examined with care, the distance between his policies and John McCain's actually was minimal. McCain tacked with the Bush administration's position on Iraq -- which had shifted, by the summer of this year, to withdrawal at the earliest possible moment but without a public guarantee of the date. Obama's position was a complete withdrawal by the summer of 2010, with the proviso that unexpected changes in the situation on the ground could make that date flexible.
Obama supporters believed that Obama's position on Iraq was profoundly at odds with the Bush administration's. We could never clearly locate the difference. The brilliance of Obama's presidential campaign was that he convinced his hard-core supporters that he intended to make a radical shift in policies across the board, without ever specifying what policies he was planning to shift, and never locking out the possibility of a flexible interpretation of his commitments. His supporters heard what they wanted to hear while a careful reading of the language, written and spoken, gave Obama extensive room for maneuver. Obama's campaign was a master class on mobilizing support in an election without locking oneself into specific policies.
As soon as the election results were in, Obama understood that he was in a difficult political situation. Institutionally, the Democrats had won substantial victories, both in Congress and the presidency. Personally, Obama had won two very narrow victories. He had won the Democratic nomination by a very thin margin, and then won the general election by a fairly thin margin in the popular vote, despite a wide victory in the electoral college.
Many people have pointed out that Obama won more decisively than any president since George H.W. Bush in 1988. That is certainly true. Bill Clinton always had more people voting against him than for him, because of the presence of Ross Perot on the ballot in 1992 and 1996. George W. Bush actually lost the popular vote by a tiny margin in 2000; he won it in 2004 with nearly 51 percent of the vote but had more than 49 percent of the electorate voting against him. Obama did a little better than that, with about 53 percent of voters supporting him and 47 percent opposing, but he did not change the basic architecture of American politics. He still had won the presidency with a deeply divided electorate, with almost as many people opposed to him as for him.
Presidents are not as powerful as they are often imagined to be. Apart from institutional constraints, presidents must constantly deal with public opinion. Congress is watching the polls, as all of the representatives and a third of the senators will be running for re-election in two years. No matter how many Democrats are in Congress, their first loyalty is to their own careers, and collapsing public opinion polls for a Democratic president can destroy them. Knowing this, they have a strong incentive to oppose an unpopular president -- even one from their own party -- or they might be replaced with others who will oppose him. If Obama wants to be powerful, he must keep Congress on his side, and that means he must keep his numbers up. He is undoubtedly getting the honeymoon bounce now. He needs to hold that.
Obama appears to understand this problem clearly. It would take a very small shift in public opinion polls after the election to put him on the defensive, and any substantial mistakes could sink his approval rating into the low 40s. George W. Bush's basic political mistake in 2004 was not understanding how thin his margin was. He took his election as vindication of his Iraq policy, without understanding how rapidly his mandate could transform itself in a profound reversal of public opinion. Having very little margin in his public opinion polls, Bush doubled down on his Iraq policy. When that failed to pay off, he ended up with a failed presidency.
Bush was not expecting that to happen, and Obama does not expect it for himself. Obama, however, has drawn the obvious conclusion that what he expects and what might happen are two different things. Therefore, unlike Bush, he appears to be trying to expand his approval ratings as his first priority, in order to give himself room for maneuver later. Everything we see in his first two weeks of shaping his presidency seems to be designed two do two things: increase his standing in the Democratic Party, and try to bring some of those who voted against him into his coalition.
In looking at Obama's supporters, we can divide them into two blocs. The first and largest comprises those who were won over by his persona; they supported Obama because of who he was, rather than because of any particular policy position or because of his ideology in anything more than a general sense. There was then a smaller group of supporters who backed Obama for ideological reasons, built around specific policies they believed he advocated. Obama seems to think, reasonably in our view, that the first group will remain faithful for an extended period of time so long as he maintains the aura he cultivated during his campaign, regardless of his early policy moves. The second group, as is usually the case with the ideological/policy faction in a party, will stay with Obama because they have nowhere else to go -- or if they turn away, they will not be able to form a faction that threatens his position.
What Obama needs to do politically, then, is protect and strengthen the right wing of his coalition: independents and republicans who voted for him because they had come to oppose Bush and, by extension, McCain. Second, he needs to persuade at least 5 percent of the electorate who voted for McCain that their fears of an Obama presidency were misplaced. Obama needs to build a positive rating at least into the mid-to-high 50s to give him a firm base for governing, and leave himself room to make the mistakes that all presidents make in due course.
With the example of Bush's failure before him, as well as Bill Clinton's disastrous experience in the 1994 mid-term election, Obama is under significant constraints in shaping his presidency. His selection of Hillary Clinton is meant to nail down the rightward wing of his supporters in general, and Clinton supporters in particular. His appointment of Geithner at the Treasury and the rumored re-appointment of Gates as secretary of defense are designed to reassure the leftward wing of McCain supporters that he is not going off on a radical tear. Obama's gamble is that (to select some arbitrary numbers), for every alienated ideological liberal, he will win over two lukewarm McCain supporters.
To those who celebrate Obama as a conciliator, these appointments will resonate. For those supporters who saw him as a fellow ideologue, he can point to position papers far more moderate and nuanced than what those supporters believed they were hearing (and were meant to hear). One of the political uses of rhetoric is to persuade followers that you believe what they do without locking yourself down.
His appointments match the evolving realities. On the financial bailout, Obama has not at all challenged the general strategy of Paulson and Bernanke, and therefore of the Bush administration. Obama's position on Iraq has fairly well merged with the pending Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq. On Afghanistan, Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus has suggested negotiations with the Taliban -- while, in moves that would not have been made unless they were in accord with Bush administration policies, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has offered to talk with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and the Saudis reportedly have offered him asylum. Tensions with Iran have declined, and the Israelis have even said they would not object to negotiations with Tehran. What were radical positions in the opening days of Obama's campaign have become consensus positions. That means he is not entering the White House in a combat posture, facing a disciplined opposition waiting to bring him down. Rather, his most important positions have become, if not noncontroversial, then certainly not as controversial as they once were.
Instead, the most important issue facing Obama is one on which he really had no position during his campaign: how to deal with the economic crisis. His solution, which has begun to emerge over the last two weeks, is a massive stimulus package as an addition -- not an alternative -- to the financial bailout the Bush administration crafted. This new stimulus package is not intended to deal with the financial crisis but with the recession, and it is a classic Democratic strategy designed to generate economic activity through federal programs. What is not clear is where this leaves Obama's tax policy. We suspect, some recent suggestions by his aides notwithstanding, that he will have a tax cut for middle- and lower-income individuals while increasing tax rates on higher income brackets in order to try to limit deficits.
What is fascinating to see is how the policies Obama advocated during the campaign have become relatively unimportant, while the issues he will have to deal with as president really were not discussed in the campaign until September, and then without any clear insight as to his intentions. One point we have made repeatedly is that a presidential candidate's positions during a campaign matter relatively little, because there is only a minimal connection between the issues a president thinks he will face in office and the ones that he actually has to deal with. George W. Bush thought he would be dealing primarily with domestic politics, but his presidency turned out to be all about the U.S.-jihadist war, something he never anticipated. Obama began his campaign by strongly opposing the Iraq war -- something that has now become far less important than the financial crisis, which he didn't anticipate dealing with at all.
So, regardless of what Obama might have thought his presidency would look like, it is being shaped not by his wishes, but by his response to external factors. He must increase his political base -- and he will do that by reassuring skeptical Democrats that he can work with Hillary Clinton, and by showing soft McCain supporters that he is not as radical as they thought. Each of Obama's appointments is designed to increase his base of political support, because he has little choice if he wants to accomplish anything else.
As for policies, they come and go. As George W. Bush demonstrated, an inflexible president is a failed president. He can call it principle, but if his principles result in failure, he will be judged by his failure and not by his principles. Obama has clearly learned this lesson. He understands that a president can't pursue his principles if he has lost the ability to govern. To keep that ability, he must build his coalition. Then he must deal with the unexpected. And later, if he is lucky, he can return to his principles, if there is time for it, and if those principles have any relevance to what is going on around him. History makes presidents. Presidents rarely make history.
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com.
Copyright 2008 Stratfor.
------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group,
Phone 614-840-0959 http://www.mariotti.net
http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------
Comments