Out of the Indus Deluge

So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

Genesis 6:7




And it moved on with them amid waves like mountains; and Nuh called out to his son, and he was aloof: "O my son! Embark with us and be not with the unbelievers.

He said: "I will betake myself for refuge to a mountain that shall protect me from the water."

Nuh said: "There is no protector today from Allah's punishment but He Who has mercy; and a wave intervened between them, so he was of the drowned."

Sura 11:42-43

-------------------------------------------

It has recently come to the attention of various media sources that Western countries do not have a lot of love for the Pakistani people. Despite a flood of Biblical-Quranic proportions which has swept entire provinces away and left millions struggling to survive in makeshift camps ripe for epidemics, the response by Western countries has been described as "lukewarm", "sluggish", and "trickling". The BBC compared the response in the first 3 weeks to those of the recent earthquake in Haiti and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Mosharraf Zaidi does the same, looking at funding given per affected person. Clearly the Christian West -- headlined as usual by the United States, the supplier of the vast majority of the world's humanitarian and development aid, is not jumping to open its checkbooks for the inhabitants of the Indus Valley. But why?

Here's a question from a reporter at Thursday's U.S. State Department press briefing:

QUESTION: But why should the American taxpayer who just this morning got another horrible – more bad economic news be asked to contribute more than they already are to this when the results – as I said before, this is a country that has difficulty or is unable to collect tax money from its own people, the wealthiest Pakistanis who live there, and has not been entirely cooperative in going after people that attacked us.

Here we have the 2 top reasons given as to why donor aid is slow to Pakistan: their government is corrupt and not worth supporting, and furthermore has and continues to support terrorist organizations. Both quite true -- although Transparency International rates Pakistan higher than Haiti in corruption, and U.S. citizens seemed to have less trouble stomaching charity to Haiti -- which suggests that corruption alone can't account for the donor gap. Which leaves us with Pakistani support for terrorism -- and perhaps on a larger scale, a general distrust of the Pakistani government. In the weeks leading up to the flood we had the WikiLeaks episode and the David Cameron "gaffe", both cementing the perception that the Pakistani government isn't "on our side". During the first days of the flood the major story was Pakistani President Zardari's European tour, sleeping in fancy silk bedding while his people struggled to even find hard ground to sleep on. And now in the relative aftermath we have the story of the West's lack of compassion for poor Muslim Pakistanis.

Perceptions are key here, and as often in Muslim-West relations, they rarely reflect the truth. Americans perceive that Pakistanis support terrorism, and that keeps them from putting serious weight behind humanitarian efforts. The reality is that Pakistanis have suffered as much as any people from terrorism, and there is only a very small minority which actively support Al-Qaeda and its Western-hating ilk. Pakistanis perceive that Americans are uninterested in their problems and are willing to support any regional leaders that fight Al-Qaeda and its ilk even when those same leaders are causing the suffering which swells the radical Islamist ranks.

As long as these perceptions remain, the Pakistani-U.S. relationship will continue to get worse. The Pakistani government, corrupt as it is, needs U.S. support in the fight against growing radical Islamist groups -- the same groups that have provided timely aid to flood victims in places where the government and the international community has yet to reach. Simply tossing bags of rice embossed with the American flag at those communities won't be enough. The long-term Pakistan problem is essentially a P.R. problem for the United States, and we need to be at our most opportunistic in using this disaster to "re-start" relations with the Pakistani people. What better disaster than a flood to remind everyone about the commonalities in the Christian and Muslim traditions?

This is not the time to hedge aid on discussions over Afghanistan or the ISI. This is not the time to make a mockery of freedom of religion by denying American Muslims a cultural place in the post-9/11 world. This is not the time to avert our eyes to suffering, even -- maybe especially -- if those suffering don't agree with our world view. Let's helicopter in ten million pounds of rice and ten million mosquito nets to be handed out in mosques -- especially those mosques with half-burnt American flags lying under flood waters. Let's take the private contractors out of Iraq and get them building levees and community shelters in Pakistan, and setting up cricket pitches in the refugee camps for the kids who used to have Osama Bin Laden posters on their walls (more of a metaphor). Let's put together a 100,000 Urdu-English Qurans and send them to Pakistani madrassas with flooded libraries.

The Biblical/Quranic flood can be interpreted in many ways. What is clear in the story is that God was upset with how the world had progressed and was using the flood to wipe the slate clean. This story is almost identical in the Bible and the Quran. While to attribute a divine presence to the recent flood in Pakistan would be, at the very least, sacrilegious, the opportunity to wipe the slate clean is very real. We began to write the history of humanity in the fertile Indus Valley nearly 5000 years ago. How will the next chapter read?

Among the Volcanoes

Guatemala is a land of incredible beauty; cloud-drenched highlands, black sand beaches, rainforests thick with life, and ancient volcanoes. The Mayan culture lives on in the majority indigenous population, a testament to the longevity of tradition. Tranquility seems to float through the populace, characterized by general friendliness and a laid-back attitude. Guatemala is also in danger of becoming the Americas' newest failed state.

Two major reasons for state failure should be familiar to anyone reading news about Latin America: guns and drugs. Massive amounts of guns were shipped into the country during the 40 year "internal conflict", and when the conflict "ended" in 1996 little was done to reduce the number of arms floating around the country. Drug trafficking has long been an issue, but spiraled out of control around 2007 when Mexico began a full-fledged war on drug cartels -- who then shifted operations to Guatemala and found a perfect transport point. The cartels and the drug-based economy they have spawned is incredibly well-armed and more than willing to use violence when necessary. The Guatemalan government, never a paragon of efficiency or transparency, offers next to nothing in the way of law enforcement. Impunity is the key word -- this is a country where might clearly makes right, whether on a dark rural highway or in a well-lit courtroom. Justice, in the mind of the people, lies not with corrupt or blackmailed prosecutors and judges, nor with swiss cheese jails, but with hand-made revenge.

Guns, drugs, and lack of law enforcement are powerful proximate causes that has led Guatemalans towards a failed state. The current government of Alvaro Colom has weakened significantly over the past few months, and in the past weeks has taken to accusing the opposition of trying to bring down his government -- which has been true since he took office in 2007, but the current calls reek of desperation. The head of the UN-supported CICIG prosecutor's office quit in June, castigating Colom for failing to make any significant law enforcement reform and for appointing an Attorney General linked to the drug cartels (whose "election" was summarily nullified by the Constitutional Court). The spiraling violence, while most intense in Guatemala City, has touched all parts of the country. The coming presidential elections in 2011 will bring a period of even more violence, and will without a doubt endanger the future of democracy in Guatemala. If elections only bring bloodshed and never bring any real social change, why would anyone want more? There is real popular support for a "benevolent" dictatorship in Guatemala -- and the person best placed to become such a dictator is Otto Perez Molina, the so-called "Mano Dura" (Strong Hand), a general with dirty hands from the internal conflict and who retains links to violent groups. This is a situation which will get worse, and may never get better.

The proximate causes for Guatemala's unraveling are fairly clear, and steps can still be taken by domestic and international actors to deal with these issues. But there are deeper wounds that need to be dealt with before the country can truly move beyond its current troubles.

The internal conflict began in the late 1960s, pitting a small left-wing intellectual guerrilla movement against a government that clearly and without apology represented the interests of the wealthy landowners. Much of this movement grew out of support for earlier left-wing presidencies of Arevalo and Arbenz, the latter being overthrown in 1954 by the CIA. The guerrillas tried to link their movement to the interests of the poor indigenous population, with some success but without the force strength or unity to ever pose a real threat to the government. Despite the weakness of the insurgency, the government decided to wipe out all the guerrillas and anyone who might support them. This murderous offensive continued well into the 1980s, and its after-effects still linger today.

According to UN investigators, more than 200,000 people were killed during the internal conflict, with over 90% of the murders committed by government military and para-military forces (which often included indigenous men conscripted and forced to kill their neighbors). Violence against women, including rape, was common. Almost every Guatemalan was touched by these crimes in some way -- a family member or friend was victimized, or committed crimes -- and none of them have forgotten. These experiences reaped untold psychological damage, tearing apart families and communities, unraveling centuries of social trust, and leaving hundreds of thousands to go on with their lives with gaping sections of their psyche missing. Yet there was no efforts at real national reconciliation, no official programs to deal with the years of violence, no tribunals for those responsible, and no justice for the victims. In 2010 the first conviction was handed down for his role in the infamous Dos Erres massacre, but the vast majority of those who ordered and led human rights abuses live free without fear of prosecution (at least one is a member of Congress). The subject of the internal conflict is almost entirely ignored in Guatemalan schools.

Dealing with criminals and victims from the conflict would be incredibly difficult at this point. It would require an unprecedented political commitment and a powerful, independent investigative and judicial apparatus, as well as immense international and domestic support. But until past crimes and past victims are given justice, there can be no hope for justice elsewhere in the country. Peace is not simply the absence of public violence; it requires a personal sense of safety, a sense that the beasts of chaos have been banished underground. The new generation of Guatemalans may grow up without the violent memories of their parents, but they will inherit a culture of violence ready to explode at the slightest provocation and rain ash over the people among the volcanoes. How can we possbily have Peace if the beasts of chaos live in our own minds?


See the International Crisis Group's recent report on Guatemala for more information.

World Cup Fever!

Every four years several billion people spend an inordinate amount of time watching television. No, not Eurovision. World Cup fever strikes deep, a potent mix of nationalism, hooliganism, and referee-hatred. Life and death (and a great deal of property damage) are decided by each game. The worldwide excitement is high. The group stage is complete, and tomorrow marks the beginning of the knockout rounds where the fate of each team rides on a single game, and possibly a single foot. What a perfect moment for the first installation of Erratum Terrium's Spellbindingly Entertaining Statistics!! SES!!!

Money is, now more than ever, an integral part of the sports world. Even in the World Cup where player salaries don't figure, rich countries still have a significant advantage. They can recruit and train players from a young age, support them throughout their career, and provide a much higher levels of resources for their national team. And, unlike the poorer countries, they have mountains of extra support from corporate sponsors and therefore don't have to make budgetary sacrifices to provide those same resources.

Yet the World Cup retains fundamental equalizers that the overall international system lacks. The rules are the same for all teams; a goal struck by Cameroon or Paraguay is equal to one struck by France or the United States. But what is the relationship between a country's wealth and its 2010 World Cup success?

At first glance it appears that wealth is a fairly good predictor of success. Only 1 of the 7 poorest* teams (Ghana, the tournament's poorest side) made it past the group stage, while 5 of the 8 wealthiest* teams made it.

*Here we are measuring "wealth" by GDP per capita in PPP$ as measured by the IMF in 2009, with the sole exception being North Korea whose numbers are based on a 2009 CIA estimate. Let it be said loud and clear that Erratum Terrium's use in this situation of GDP per capita is a pure measurement of total country wealth. We do not, repeat, do not believe in GDP per capita as an accurate measure of the economic situation in any given country.

So the wealthiest teams tend to do better than the poorest teams. Fairly predictable, but not the whole story. Let's take a look at efficiency; that is, how well a given country used its wealth to achieve World Cup success. Here we will look at points scored in the group stage as a percentage of GDP per capita. Excluding the two teams who failed the score a point (North Korea and Cameroon, both very poor countries) there were twelve teams whose points scored made up less than 0.02% of their GDP per capita. Except for Algeria ($6,869) all of those teams have GDP per capita above $26,700 and only two of them (the United States and England in a fairly easy Group D) made it past the group stage. On the opposite side, there were 6 teams whose points made up at least 0.05% of their GDP per capita (with the most efficient being Ghana at 0.26%). 5 of those 6 teams qualified for the knockout round, with the only return-ticket team being Ivory Coast, who to their benefit managed 4 points in the Group of Death with powerhouses Portugal and Brazil despite the second-lowest GDP per capita among all 32 teams.

And for the wealthy countries, their successes were costly. Let's imagine that each country's citizens (the fictionally equal citizens implied by the GDP per capita calculations) had to pay for their points and goals with equal contributions based on GDP. The French would have to pony up $33,679 for each point, and the Swiss $43,007 for each goal. Meanwhile the Ghanaians only need to flip over $388 for each of their points, and the people of Ivory Coast only $419 for each goal scored.

Of course in all this analysis we are ignoring the 150+ countries that failed to qualify for the World Cup, most of which are poor. Although it is worth noting that none of the world's 5 richest countries qualified.

So basically we can say that while wealth is a fairly good predictor of World Cup success, it by no means assures any victories -- which France, Australia, Denmark, and Switzerland found out the hard way. And while poverty hinders World Cup success, it cannot contain quality play -- which Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Paraguay have proved this year.

We will have an opportunity to test the effects of the wealth disparity tomorrow when Ghana, the tournament's poorest team, takes on the United States, the tournament's wealthiest team with a GDP per capita nearly 30 times that of Ghana, on the first day of knockout play (Mighty Ducks, anyone?). For the sake of barefoot kids kicking plastic bottles down dirty streets around the world, let's hope the Black Stars comes out victorious.


ADDENDUM (4/7/10)

Victory was short-lived. In the first knockout round Ghana (#151 GDP per capita in the world) defeated the U.S. (#6) and Paraguay (#117) made sushi rolls out of Japan (#23). England (#19) and South Korea (#30) were sent packing. The quarter-finals, on the other hand, brought a harsh dose of reality to the economic underdogs. All four games saw the wealthier country take home victory. The lone, not-so-rich, non-Eurozone holdout is Uruguay (#62), who needed penalties to send the Black Stars home. Trivia Twist: Uruguay won the first ever World Cup in 1930.

A few more statistical snacks...the average GDP per capita ranking for the 32 teams which qualified for the World Cup was 59 (out of 182), and the median ranking was 39. Much of that differential is due to Paraguay and Ghana, the only two teams from the bottom economic half to qualify. Below see the changes in the average GDP per capita rankings of qualifying teams:

World Cup = 59
Knockout round = 49
Quarterfinals = 64
Semifinals = 29

¡Uruguay all the guay!

The Bitten Hand

Much attention is currently focused on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The environmental repercussions will be terrible, and it may be decades before the fragile region recovers. We learned that MMS government regulators were...shall we say, "relaxed" in their pursuit of oversight. And much attention has also been paid to the ping-pong game of responsibility played between the Obama Administration and the owners of the sunken oil platform which caused the spill, BP (No, not "British Petroleum" -- just "BP". Like when Prince changed his name to that symbol.) The administration has made a big show of being "tough" on BP, insisting that the company pay for the clean-up and announcing plans for new regulations and energy legislation. And where there's politics, there's money -- lots of oily BP money, much of which has gone to Obama and Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D).

In recent times we have seen more conflicts between multi-national corporations and local governments in their countries of operation. Usually the battle-lines are far from the front pages. In back rooms it's much easier to solve these sort of problems "amicably". Once things go public the opportunities for bribery and corruption shrink. The BP oil spill is one example of a MNC/national government tiff. Let's take a look at some others.

GREECE

As if things could get any worse, 2 Danish pharmaceutical companies have decided to stop supplying vital drugs to the Greek medical system. The 2 companies, Novo Nordisk and Leo Pharma, previously supplied 17 insulin products, and a anti-blood-clotting agent and anti-psoriasis medication, respectively. Both companies state that their decision to withdraw the products is due to the Greek government's recent decision to cut all pharmaceutical prices by 25% -- a decision prompted by international pressure to reduce government spending. The companies, already owed hundreds of millions of euros by the Greek government, state that the new reduced prices would force them to run their businesses in Greece at a loss and could trigger similar price reductions in others countries. To their benefit, Novo Nordisk did agree to the price reduction on one less-advanced insulin product and will offer another basic insulin product for free. However, "Steve Gaudis" is not convinced of their goodwill. According to that same article, 40% of Novo Nordisk profits come from the modern insulin products. 50,000 people in Greece use(d) these products. The word "blackmail" comes up repeatedly in Greek statements.

SOMALIA/GERMANY

Abdinur Ahmed Darman, a Somali expatriate who maintains his baloney claims to be the President of Somalia*, has apparently signed an agreement with a German security company to send 100 mercenaries to Somalia. According to the contract, the former Bundeswehr soldiers will only arrive in the country when Darman returns as the legitimate president. Asgaard Security Group, the contracted party, has stated that it would wait for UN recognition of Darman before sending its troops. However other reports have the first contingent of mercenaries already on their way to Somalia. The internationally recognized President of Somalia* Sharif Sheikh Ahmed called the contract "laughable" and Darman a "con artist". Con artist or not, Darman is an interesting political character. He claims to have been elected president at a national reconstruction conference in 2003, and that all leaders since are illegitimate. He also claims credit for setting up the relatively stable Islamic Court system that ruled the country before the 2006 invasion by Ethiopia -- there is no evidence that this is true. There was a report made by several Somali journalists that his militia tried to kill them after finding their reporting objectionable. His government operates its own official government and PR websites (check the "Contact" page -- funny, but still a big step up from somalipresidency@yahoo.com). Perhaps coincidentally the PR website is run out of Germany as well. Check out the videos here and here.

Two ways of looking at this situation.
One: Darman and Asgaard are just looking for publicity. Asgaard wants to advertise its services in "unstable environments" (don't get any more unstable than Somalia these days) and Darman capitalizing on a weak Somalian government and a recent failed international conference in Turkey to make his name known to power brokers inside and outside of Somalia.
Two: This shit is for real. Darman wants to "re"-take power in Somalia, and he knows the international community is tired of the weak-kneed and fractional current government. He wants international backing for a new regime -- a.k.a. the Chalabi Gambit -- and he thinks that bringing in former western military types will buy him some Davos cred. Not sure if he realizes that the EU (Germany included) has already sent troops to Somalia to help train the army.

Oh and the * sign after "President of Somalia" is meant to remind readers that this title implies little if any actual control over said country, given that most of said country is run by one of two conglomerated Islamist groups.
SO WHAT?

Here we have 3 situations in different parts of the world, linked by one aspect: the changing dynamic between national governments and multi-national corporations. It is clear to everyone that national governments (NAGs) have less carrot and stick tools in their belt to deal with the MNCs than they used to. It is simply too easy for MNCs to shift operations (or at least legitimately threaten to shift operations) or finances from one country to the next. And at a basic level, the culture of nationalist fealty that used to be status quo in major corporations has been diluted down to a What-Have-You-Done-For-Me-Lately attitude.

Once upon a time privatization was a tool of fiscally conservative NAGs trying to rid themselves of the moral responsibility for the general welfare of the population placed upon them after World War II. This viewpoint (Acronym Game: Reagan-Thatcher-IMF...go!) was founded in a world where corporations were, at the most, representations of the power of their respective countries. Not so far off from the days of the East India Trading Co. Those days are gone. And now we pay. Literally. The BP oil spill will drive up prices, which we have no choice but to pay, and then the increased profits will go to...well, you get the picture. The Danish taxpayers will help foot the bill to set Greece right again, and in paying those debts, their taxpayers dollars will go to Novo Nordisk and Leo Pharma...who will continue to withhold their products from the Greek market, fostering a black market in those drugs where prices for sick Greek consumers will most likely be significantly higher than they were before. And Asgaard will send its former Bundeswehr soldiers into Somalia, where some day they may be contractually obligated to fire on other Bundeswehr soldiers training Somalian security forces under EU auspices...all because a rich businessman with web access and a Napoleon-complex thought that calling a tail a leg makes it one.

OFF INTO THE SUNSET

But the argument here is not one which fulminates blindly against all increases in MNC power. The NAGs had a go at running the world, and the results have been severely mixed. There's no way of knowing whether the next century -- assuredly a century where the scales will tip towards MNCs -- will leave us better or worse off.

What is important to realize is that this new era will be different. In giving greater freedom to the MNCs we have removed some important democratic controls over how the world is run. We will continue to run into situations like the three demonstrated above -- and the NAGs will look (furtively) for ways to pull back on the reins on this runaway train. There simply isn't enough space for the primacy of profit AND nationalist fealty. Your money or your country.

Crash, Collapse, Spill: Whither Corporate Responsibility?

Dear Citizen,

In your blessed and tranquil day-to-day, you may have heard some whisperings about terrible accidents. Accidents, being a natural function of our ever more complicated world, happen all too often these days. We, the Corporations, feel terribly about these accidents and do whatever we can to aid the victims and prevent future accidents -- so long as those efforts do not affect our bottom line. "What's that?" say the faux-populist talkings heads, "So you DO only care about your profits. You are all terrible people and will go straight to hell upon your deaths -- which will all hopefully come about as a result of your own malfeasance!" Well, ratings lap-dogs, you do have one bit right: We do care about our profits. Our purpose is to make money for our stockholders, and we have few qualms about doing what is necessary to increase those profits and prolong our own corporate lives. It is through centuries of our profit-seeking actions that the economies of the developed world have grown so substantially and provided you all with the comforts and resources that you heedlessly enjoy today.
The personal computer and air-conditioning? Us.
AIDS treatment medications and witty greeting cards? Us.
Planes, trains, automobiles, and plastic tricycles? Take a wild guess.

And yet when something does go wrong, when an ACCIDENT does happens -- a commercial airplane with faulty, past-repair-date wiring crashes and incinerates a few hundred passengers, a coal mine originally dug by the light of oil lamps collapses and traps a few dozen underpaid, cancer-ridden miners, or an offshore oil rig pops a massive leak and wipes out a few hundred square miles of aquatic ecosystem -- the spotlight of blame always lands on us.

Now, if you've read this far already then you are unfortunately not among the 95.3% of society that seeks happiness in ignorance [percentage based on the most recent Nielsen research], and it might be that you actually want to know how the world works. And therefore there is less than a 0.02% likelihood that you will ever willingly buy our stock. So we'll give it to you straight: Fuck you and your moral obfuscations about corporate responsibility. You can't have your cake, eat it too, and then complain that you wanted pie. The rich of the world -- and no equivocating; if you are reading this on your own computer, then that means you -- love to reap the benefits of the world we created. Non-Germans and Japanese: How do you think the Allies won World War II? Because despite all the difficulties, we redirected all of our factories to war material output and massively out-produced the Axis. And Germans and Japanese: How do you think you recovered from World War II? It certainly wasn't through socialism. And speaking of that, don't worry about the whole "defeating communism and saving the non-gulag-interred population of the world from being interred in gulags" thing -- that one's on us. By any chance are you living longer and healthier than your grandparents? For that you can thank pharmaceutical companies, corporate agriculture, supermarkets, pharmacies, and the transportation and oil companies that allow all of those goodies to travel across the globe -- not to mention the modern financial and communication networks that provide the foundation for it all.

Your left-wing talking- and typing-heads will tell you that corporations were created in the public domain, originally to serve the crown and later the democratic "common good". They yearn for that halcyon epoch where the economy utilized the country's resources to power growth and the democratic government made sure that every citizen's needs were provided for. Problem is, that epoch never existed and it never will. Every government, even the most "representative", is ruled by the power of money -- just as much so as any corporation. At least we are honest about our methods of operation; democratic politicians always spend an inordinate amount of time denying the truth of how greatly they are influenced by money. The world has always been ruled by the rich, and it always will be. Any attempt to deny this is at the very least foolish, if not outright dangerous.

It's a corporate world: a world you created for us to rule. You created it when you asked for MORE and decided not to care too much about how we got that pair of sneakers, that bunch of bananas, or that gallon of gasoline to you. And sorry bleeding-hearts, but it's far too late to start caring now. We've got the good shit, and you and all of your neighbors are just as hooked as any frothy-mouthed, skin-scratching addict. Did someone say regulation? We dare you -- double-doggy dare you -- to try and regulate us. And when we say "regulate", we don't mean "pass laws which contain regulations". We mean "actually use the legal system to change our behavior". The former is simple, and to be honest, we only put up cursory resistance to regulatory laws because passing these laws takes pressure off us and our political allies. Even the most stringent regulations can be easily outmaneuvered with a good team of lawyers, some offshore accounts, and a few well-placed bribes to government-salary regulators.

If all this talk is depressing your sappy liberal brain, by all means go and work for a charity or a non-profit. Help those people left behind in our free market economy, God knows there are plenty of them. We might even send you a donation every once and a while -- we want poor people to be happy too! Unhappy poor people can start riots and fuel anti-oligarchic movements, and those kind of things are bad for business.

So next time you read a story about some accident caused by the lack of corporate responsibility, don't get angry and certainly don't ask us to sacrifice our profit margins to run maintenance checks more often than necessary or provide counseling to widows. These accidents are part of an unpredictable world, collateral damages resulting from the economic growth. The reality is that billions more people will benefit from what this system of economic growth produces than will suffer from the occasional accident. Our focus-group-tested advice: Don't worry, be happy. Just let us take care of things. Remember, it's our world. You just live in it.


Sincerely,

The Corporations