Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Fwd: Red Alert: North Korean Artillery Attack on a Southern Island
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Red Alert: North Korean Artillery Attack on a Southern Island
From: "STRATFOR" <mail@response.stratfor.com>
To: thadenjosh@aol.com
CC:
Subject: Red Alert: North Korean Artillery Attack on a Southern Island
From: "STRATFOR" <mail@response.stratfor.com>
To: thadenjosh@aol.com
CC:
View on Mobile Phone [http://app.response.stratfor.com/e/es.aspx?s=1483&e=147583&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123] | Read the online version [http://app.response.stratfor.com/e/es.aspx?s=1483&e=147583&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123].
Red Alert
"STRATFOR" [http://www.stratfor.com/?utm_source=RedAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101123&utm_content=topbanner&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123]
"Red Alert" [http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101123_north_korean_artillery_attack_southern_island?utm_source=RedAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101123&utm_content=RDimage&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123]
You have received this Red Alert as a member of our free list. To access further analysis of the situation as it develops, join STRATFOR [https://www.stratfor.com/campaign/crisis_coverage?utm_source=RedAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIFLSFIRDAL101123158002&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123].
Red Alert: North Korean Artillery Attack on a Southern Island
-------------------------------------------------------------
[http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101123_north_korean_artillery_attack_southern_island?utm_source=RedAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101123&utm_content=RDtitle&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123] November 23, 2010
North Korea and South Korea have reportedly traded artillery fire Nov. 23 across the disputed Northern Limit Line (NLL) in the Yellow Sea to the west of the peninsula. Though details are still sketchy and unconfirmed, South Korean news reports indicate that around 2:30 p.m. local time, North Korean artillery shells began landing in the waters around Yongpyeongdo, one of the South Korean-controlled islands just south of the NLL. North Korea has reportedly fired as many as 200 rounds, some of which struck the island, injuring at least 10 South Korean soldiers, damaging buildings, and setting fire to a mountainside. South Korea responded by firing some 80 shells of its own toward North Korea, dispatching F-16 fighter jets to the area, and raising the military alert to its highest level.
South Korean President Lee Myung Bak has convened an emergency cabinet meeting, and Seoul is determining whether to evacuate South Koreans working at inter-Korean facilities in North Korea. The barrage from North Korea was continuing at 4 p.m. Military activity appears to be ongoing at this point, and the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff are meeting on the issue. No doubt North Korea's leadership is also convening. Read more » [http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101123_north_korean_artillery_attack_southern_island?utm_source=RedAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101123&utm_content=readmore&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123]
""
"Save on annual memberships" [https://www.stratfor.com/campaign/special_offer?utm_source=RedAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WIFLSFI101123RDAL&utm_content=offersbutton&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123]
""
""
"Connect with us" "Twitter" [http://app.response.stratfor.com/e/er.aspx?s=1483&lid=16&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123] "Facebook" [http://app.response.stratfor.com/e/er.aspx?s=1483&lid=17&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123] "Youtube" [http://app.response.stratfor.com/e/er.aspx?s=1483&lid=84&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123] "STRATFOR Mobile" [http://www.stratfor.com/media_room/pr/iphone?utm_source=RedAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101123&utm_content=iphone&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123]
""
New to STRATFOR? Get these free intel reports emailed to you. If you did not receive this report directly from us and would like more geopolitical & security related updates, join our free email list. [https://www.stratfor.com/campaign/weekly_register?utm_source=RedAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101123&utm_content=ifforwarded&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123]
Sponsorship: Sponsors provide financial support in exchange for the display of their brand and links to their site on STRATFOR products. STRATFOR retains full editorial control, giving no sponsor influence over content. If you are interested in sponsoring, click here to find out more [http://www.stratfor.com/sponsorship?utm_source=RedAlert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101123&utm_content=sponsorship&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123].
To unsubscribe from future emails or to update your email preferences, please cut and paste the link into your browser.
[http://app.response.stratfor.com/e/sl.aspx?s=1483&elq=d70dd4aaeccc459794f6d22785c5d123]
Eloqua Corporation
553 Richmond Street West, Suite 214
Toronto, Ontario Canada
M5V 1Y6
416-864-0440
Privacy Policy
[LINK TO CLIENT PRIVACY POLICY GOES HERE]
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Keynesian economics (pronounced /ˈkeɪnziən/, also called Keynesianism and Keynesian theory) is a macroeconomic theory based on the ideas of 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1]
election day
Most people who pay attention to the U.S. election system can gather at least a vague sense that something is systemically wrong with the process by which we choose our elected officials.
Serious efforts have been made over the past few presidential election cycles to reform campaign finance regulations, and significant cases have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that affect how much money can be accepted from donors such as corporations.
I think most people can agree that the biggest problem is the amount of money needed to fund a successful campaign. This year Meg Whitman spent $140 million of her own money to run for governor in California and she may not even get within ten points of her opponent.
By following the trail of money, we can see that the vast majority of campaign expenditures are on television ads. Election seasons are an advertising cash cow for media companies, especially television conglomerates, and especially in close elections, where both sides spend as much advertising money as they are able to collect from donors and political action committees.
But more people are getting their news information online every day, and in ten years, television may no longer be the primary medium of influence in advertising, political or otherwise.
Savvy campaign strategists now aim for their advertisements to go "viral" on the internet, which means that people voluntarily share the advertisements with friends and family due to their effectiveness or for their humor. This has a multiplying effect on the return on investment for the candidate in terms of money spent on creating the ad.
Today, television stations still act as the gatekeeper of ultimate political influence and power through their unmatched ability to broadcast the candidates' message into voters' minds. Newer media strategists will replace the television station as the next gatekeepers, but since every single candidate has the tools available (comparatively inexpensive computers, instead of broadcast towers) to potentially create an effective advertisement to relay their message through the internet, campaigns may soon be less about donations and more about ideas.
Serious efforts have been made over the past few presidential election cycles to reform campaign finance regulations, and significant cases have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that affect how much money can be accepted from donors such as corporations.
I think most people can agree that the biggest problem is the amount of money needed to fund a successful campaign. This year Meg Whitman spent $140 million of her own money to run for governor in California and she may not even get within ten points of her opponent.
By following the trail of money, we can see that the vast majority of campaign expenditures are on television ads. Election seasons are an advertising cash cow for media companies, especially television conglomerates, and especially in close elections, where both sides spend as much advertising money as they are able to collect from donors and political action committees.
But more people are getting their news information online every day, and in ten years, television may no longer be the primary medium of influence in advertising, political or otherwise.
Savvy campaign strategists now aim for their advertisements to go "viral" on the internet, which means that people voluntarily share the advertisements with friends and family due to their effectiveness or for their humor. This has a multiplying effect on the return on investment for the candidate in terms of money spent on creating the ad.
Today, television stations still act as the gatekeeper of ultimate political influence and power through their unmatched ability to broadcast the candidates' message into voters' minds. Newer media strategists will replace the television station as the next gatekeepers, but since every single candidate has the tools available (comparatively inexpensive computers, instead of broadcast towers) to potentially create an effective advertisement to relay their message through the internet, campaigns may soon be less about donations and more about ideas.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Deck Refinishing
Here's what you can use for stripping a deck, instead of a pressure washer or sandpaper:
OxiClean and a green scouring pad.
Before & After photos below...
OxiClean and a green scouring pad.
Before & After photos below...
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Time to Negotiate A Raise is During the Hiring Process
Below is a table of numbers I put together the other day when thinking about this subject. When you get hired for a new job, you're excited about it, and you might be tempted to avoid haggling over your new salary, especially since you don't want to make any waves before you even start. But here's one reason to think twice before you accept your new employer's starting salary offer:
The table above compares 2 sets of salaries over a 10-year period.
'Fred' is a new employee starting a new job at a salary of $70,000 per year. The 'Total' column next to Fred's salary adds his total earnings at the new company, year after year.
'Sally' is being hired at the same company as Fred, at the same time, in the same job. Sally negotiated a higher salary before she started working at her new job. The difference is only $2,000- less than 3 percent of their annual salary, so no big deal- right? Wrong.
Look at the difference it makes over time. The table assumes annual wage increases of 4 percent, which is generous (in some cases), but remember that many jobs have extra bonuses that are calculated based on the base salary, such as shift differentials, holiday pay, weekend pay, year-end bonuses, etc. So in reality, many peoples' salaries increase at a higher rate than 4 percent per year.
As you can see, even if Sally just stays in this same position, without getting any promotions or extra incentive pay, her salary will increase from $72,000 to $87,599 after just 5 years.
And after only 5 years, Sally will have earned an extra $13,265 just by negotiating a $2,000 annual increase in salary before she started her new job. That represents almost 20 percent (18.4) of her first year's salary.
Even if that doesn't seem like an impressive figure over 5 years, stop and think about what you could do with an extra 18 percent of your annual salary when it comes time to make your next job transition. And all you have to do is ask- at the best time.
The table above compares 2 sets of salaries over a 10-year period.
'Fred' is a new employee starting a new job at a salary of $70,000 per year. The 'Total' column next to Fred's salary adds his total earnings at the new company, year after year.
'Sally' is being hired at the same company as Fred, at the same time, in the same job. Sally negotiated a higher salary before she started working at her new job. The difference is only $2,000- less than 3 percent of their annual salary, so no big deal- right? Wrong.
Look at the difference it makes over time. The table assumes annual wage increases of 4 percent, which is generous (in some cases), but remember that many jobs have extra bonuses that are calculated based on the base salary, such as shift differentials, holiday pay, weekend pay, year-end bonuses, etc. So in reality, many peoples' salaries increase at a higher rate than 4 percent per year.
As you can see, even if Sally just stays in this same position, without getting any promotions or extra incentive pay, her salary will increase from $72,000 to $87,599 after just 5 years.
And after only 5 years, Sally will have earned an extra $13,265 just by negotiating a $2,000 annual increase in salary before she started her new job. That represents almost 20 percent (18.4) of her first year's salary.
Even if that doesn't seem like an impressive figure over 5 years, stop and think about what you could do with an extra 18 percent of your annual salary when it comes time to make your next job transition. And all you have to do is ask- at the best time.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
U.S. Economy, 2010-2012: Inflation, Deflation or Hyperinflation?
Here is a 4-part essay on the outlook for the U.S. economy from www.dailycapitalist.com. I think the author's conclusions are pretty close to being on target.
Click here to see the entire article in pdf.
Click here to see the entire article in pdf.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Ladies and Gentlemen, the City Council of Detroit, Michigan, in Session
Yes, this is real. No, it is not acting or staged. From April 11, 2008.
As of May, 2010, the official unemployment rate in Detroit was 14.8%.
As of May, 2010, the official unemployment rate in Detroit was 14.8%.
Structural vs Cyclical Unemployment
Compare the charts during the two recessions and recoveries for job growth by industry. 
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Hugh Hendry
This is just a rundown of everything that's happening in the European financial markets right now- the only thing that's remarkable about this video is that it was recorded 16 months ago, in January 2009.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tony Robbins, 2006
This speech is so all-over-the-place that it almost doesn't make sense, but the interaction with Al Gore alone is worth watching.
European Financial Crisis
Even the optimist on this panel doesn't believe that Greece will be able to begin repaying its debt in 3 years.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Wal-Mart Asks Suppliers to Cede Control of Deliveries (Update2) - Bloomberg.com
Wal-Mart Asks Suppliers to Cede Control of Deliveries (Update2) - Bloomberg.com
Walmart is going to begin to pick up their merchandise from their suppliers in Walmart's trucks, instead of having it delivered to Walmart distribution centers by the suppliers.
The story is that Walmart can do it at less cost than the suppliers can. But read the whole story, and see how this will result in higher costs for Walmart's competitors who still take deliveries from the same suppliers.
This will have a 'crowding out' effect on stores like Target & Kohls, etc as their deliveries become more expensive. And Walmart will eventually start to have a greater say in where the suppliers locate future manufacturing plants- the merchandise will need to be made either nearby a Walmart distribution center, or at least on a convenient route for Walmart's trucks to pick it up.
This is a bigger deal than it seems because it will make a lot of dominoes fall throughout the supply chain for Walmart's suppliers and Walmart's competitors.
Walmart is going to begin to pick up their merchandise from their suppliers in Walmart's trucks, instead of having it delivered to Walmart distribution centers by the suppliers.
The story is that Walmart can do it at less cost than the suppliers can. But read the whole story, and see how this will result in higher costs for Walmart's competitors who still take deliveries from the same suppliers.
This will have a 'crowding out' effect on stores like Target & Kohls, etc as their deliveries become more expensive. And Walmart will eventually start to have a greater say in where the suppliers locate future manufacturing plants- the merchandise will need to be made either nearby a Walmart distribution center, or at least on a convenient route for Walmart's trucks to pick it up.
This is a bigger deal than it seems because it will make a lot of dominoes fall throughout the supply chain for Walmart's suppliers and Walmart's competitors.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)