Stratfor subscriptions do are _not_ $40k a year. The article was being very misleading on that point, saying that this was what the price was in 2001. Perhap

Stratfor subscriptions do are _not_ $40k a year. The article was being very misleading on that point, saying that this was what the price was in 2001. Perhaps that was because the subscrition page on Startfor was still down, but when I subscribed, it was something like $200 or so a year --- it was less than the cost of WSJ. What I get out of Stratfor, and why I read it, is not "secret intelligence information", but analysis. It may not be as good as what the CIA has, but that's because it truly doesn't have access to "secret intelligence information". But at least they are trying to make sense of facts! Unlike the New York Times, which acts as a stenographer for the White House (the White House has leaked information from the CIA saying their analysts are sure Iraq had weapons of mass distruction, therefore it must be true) or for politicians (where Arthur Brisbane was caught wondering whether it was OK to label statements form political candidates that were false as not being true in newspaper articles, or whether newspapers should just run the quote), or the Television Evening News, which trot out "retired generals" who are still on the consulting payroll of the Pentagon without disclosing that fact. If I want the party line from the politicos, I know where to get it. Not that I take Stratfor's conclusions as gospel --- I don't take the Times, the Economist, or other sources as gospel either. But hopefully by reading all of that, I can have a more informed view of the world. Other than satisfying my own curiosity, I have the naive and old fashioned view that being well informed is the responsibility of each and every citizen of a democracy --- and that means getting information and analysis from multiple sources, and then coming to my own conclusions.