Politics

Authored by Josh Stylman via The Brownstone Institute,

Let me start by saying I loathe politics. I’ve always been drawn to liberal ideas—individual freedom, protecting the vulnerable, questioning authority, and the fundamental belief that consenting adults should be free to live their lives however they choose as long as they’re not harming others. These aren’t political positions to me; they’re basic human principles. But the game of politics itself repulses me. What I’m about to share isn’t about politics; it’s about our shared reality and how we’ve lost touch with it.

The Mindvirus

What’s truly mind-numbing to me is how people don’t see what’s happening right in front of them. The media has devolved into nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the establishment, programming people to react rather than think. I’ve experienced this firsthand: When I drew historical comparisons between vaccine mandates and 1933 Germany’s early authoritarian policies, I was instantly labeled an extremist and cancelled by my NYC community. Yet now, these same people casually call everyone at Trump’s MSG rally Nazis. The irony would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

My Liberal Foundation

I still believe deeply in core liberal principles:

• Genuine free speech, not the controlled corporate version we see today
• Standing against establishment overreach
• Opposing unchecked corporate power
• Fighting against unnecessary wars
• Complete bodily autonomy – your body, your choice, in ALL contexts
• Defending individual rights consistently, not selectively

These aren’t just political positions—they’re principles about human dignity and freedom.

The Democratic Party’s Transformation

The Democratic Party’s drift from these values didn’t happen overnight. Many of us, exhausted by Bush’s brutal wars, lies about weapons of mass destruction, and the Patriot Act’s assault on civil liberties, invested our hopes in Obama’s promise of change. But instead of the transformation we sought, we got what felt like Bush’s third and fourth terms.

Under Obama, we watched as corporate influence grew stronger, not weaker. The Snowden revelations exposed massive surveillance programs. The housing crisis devastated ordinary Americans while Wall Street got bailouts. Rather than challenging institutional power, the Democratic establishment became increasingly entangled with it.

The betrayal of liberal values became even clearer with Bernie Sanders. Like Trump, Bernie tapped into something real—a deep frustration with a system that had left ordinary Americans behind. Both men, from vastly different perspectives, recognized that working people were suffering while elites prospered. But the Democratic establishment couldn’t allow an actual progressive challenger. They used every trick in the book—from media manipulation to primary shenanigans—to block him from the nomination. Most disappointing was watching Bernie himself bend the knee to the same establishment he had railed against, leaving millions of supporters feeling betrayed and politically homeless.

When Hillary Clinton emerged as the nominee, we were told rejecting her meant rejecting women’s leadership. But we weren’t rejecting female leadership—we were rejecting warmongering and corporate cronyism. What we needed was a leader embodying the feminine divine: qualities of compassion, understanding, nurturing wisdom, and the ability to truly listen. Instead, we got another hawk in the corporate establishment’s pocket. And when that failed, they doubled down on cynical identity politics with Harris.

Today, the situation relating to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. perfectly exemplifies how far the party has fallen. Here was a lifelong Democrat, a member of the party’s most popular family, who wanted to challenge these corrupting influences—and they wouldn’t even let him on the debate stage. I firmly believe that had they given him the opportunity, he could have united the country and beaten Trump.

But that reveals the truth: this was never about beating Trump. It was about ensuring they maintained control by installing another establishment stooge who wouldn’t challenge their power structure. His departure from the party isn’t just about one candidate; it’s the culmination of a long betrayal of liberal principles.

The Politics of Distraction vs. Real Issues

Take abortion rights. This is an incredibly nuanced issue with deeply held convictions on all sides. I’ve spoken with several constitutional lawyers who’ve explained that overturning Roe was legally sound—not a political decision but a constitutional one about federal versus state authority. That makes it even more telling that Democrats, when they had a supermajority, chose not to codify these protections into federal law. Instead, they’ve kept this issue unresolved, using it as a reliable tool to drive voter turnout every four years.

While abortion access matters deeply to many Americans, we’re facing multiple crises that threaten the very foundation of our republic: inflation is crushing working families while Wall Street posts record profits; government surveillance of citizens has reached dystopian levels; and our regulatory agencies—the FDA and CDC—have been completely captured by corporate interests, approving one toxic product after another while our children are being poisoned by processed foods, environmental toxins, and experimental drugs.

The climate crisis (or what some see as deliberate geoengineering) threatens our very survival. Our border is in complete chaos—while we send billions to foreign conflicts most Americans barely understand. All this while our own infrastructure crumbles and our nation grows more divided than ever.

The hypocrisy around women’s rights is particularly telling. The same party that claims to champion women’s bodily autonomy pushed for mandatory experimental medical interventions, despite documented evidence of mRNA vaccines affecting women’s reproductive cycles and fertility. These effects were known from early trials, yet raising concerns got you labeled as “anti-science.” Meanwhile, they’ve insisted that biological males have access to women’s spaces—including locker rooms, bathrooms, and sports competitions—prioritizing fashionable ideologies over women’s safety and fair competition.

The Democrats permanently lost any moral authority on bodily autonomy the moment they advocated for mandatory medical procedures—yet they continue to lecture us about it without a hint of self-awareness. Liberal principles aren’t a Chinese menu where you get to pick and choose which freedoms matter.

Take Kamala Harris—she literally campaigned on “My body, my choice” while simultaneously mandating experimental Covid shots for her own campaign staff. You can’t claim to champion bodily autonomy in one breath and deny it in the next based on political convenience. Either you believe in individual liberty and bodily autonomy, or you don’t. There’s no à la carte option when it comes to fundamental human rights.

The Corporate-State Fusion

What we’re seeing today aligns disturbingly well with Mussolini’s definition of fascism: the merger of state and corporate power. Look at Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum promoting “stakeholder capitalism,” where corporations and governments form partnerships to control various aspects of society. The WEF’s corporate membership reads like a who’s who of Democratic Party megadonors: BlackRock, which donated millions to Biden’s campaign while pushing ESG policies that benefit their bottom line; Pfizer, which poured over $10 million into Democratic coffers while securing massive government contracts; Google and Meta, which not only donate heavily but actively suppress information challenging Democratic narratives.

This isn’t a coincidence; it’s coordination. These same companies shape policy that enriches them: BlackRock advises on financial policy while managing government assets, Pfizer helps write drug approval guidelines while selling mandatory vaccines, and Big Tech collaborates with federal agencies to control information flow. We saw this play out in real time: from day one of the Biden administration, they created backdoor channels into social media companies to censor Americans’ speech about Covid, the 2020 election, and other sensitive topics.

This isn’t a theory—it’s documented fact. Every major policy decision seems to benefit these corporate partners: vaccine mandates, digital currency initiatives, censorship programs, climate policies—all funneling money and power to the same corporations that fund the Democratic machine. When corporations and government work together to control information and behavior, that’s precisely the corporate-state fusion that classical liberals once fought against. The Democratic Party has become the party of corporate fascism while claiming to fight against it.

The Democratic Facade

The current administration embodies everything wrong with our system. Look at Kamala Harris—she dropped out of the 2020 presidential race before any primary, polling below 1%. Biden then selected her solely because he limited his pool to black women—not because of her qualifications, but because of identity politics. Her record as Senator was abysmal—she sponsored zero significant legislation and missed 84% of votes during her brief tenure. Then as Vice President, her role as border czar has been an unprecedented disaster—one the administration now tries to pretend never happened.

And here’s the ultimate irony: this is the party screaming loudest about “threats to democracy,” yet they literally installed Harris as their candidate when nobody voted for her—she dropped out before a single primary vote was cast due to dismal polling. They wouldn’t even let their own members participate in primary debates. They’re lecturing us about democracy while actively suppressing democratic processes within their own party. When they say “democracy is on the ballot,” what they really mean is their controlled version of democracy where they pick the candidates and we’re supposed to fall in line.

Nobody voted for her, and honestly, nobody really likes her—they just hate Trump more. They could prop up a steaming pile of manure as a candidate, and people would vote for it just to vote against Trump. But here’s the real question: If Trump is truly the democracy-ending threat they claim, why didn’t democracy end during his first term? And if Harris is the solution to our problems, why hasn’t she fixed anything while in office?

The Trump Enigma

My view on Trump has evolved, though not in the way many might expect. I didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020. Growing up in this region, I knew him only as a second-generation real estate developer—Woody Guthrie had written those critical lyrics about his father, “Old Man Trump.” At the time, I thought Donald was just another entitled heir who happened to opportunistically tap into something real. 

But there’s so much more to this story. His connections to secret societies and the occult run surprisingly deep. His Trump Tower penthouse is essentially a Masonic temple, designed as a replica of Versailles with deliberate esoteric symbolism throughout. His mentor was a 33° Scottish Rite, and Roy Cohn’—master of blackmail and dark arts—shaped his early career. Most intriguingly, his uncle John Trump was the MIT scientist tasked with reviewing Nikola Tesla’s papers after his death—papers that allegedly contained world-changing technologies, from free energy to more exotic possibilities. I don’t know what it all means, but there’s clearly more to this story than the “orange man bad” narrative we’re fed.

At this point, I see only three possibilities:

1. He’s playing his part in a grand political wrestling match (WWF style)
2. He’s a dueling bad guy (genuinely a thorn in the establishment’s side)
3. He’s actually the hero of this story (which would be the most hilarious plot twist imaginable from the vantage point of someone like me)

The Path Forward

Candidly, I don’t know and at this point, any of these seem plausible. What I do know is what the blue team represents—their actions have made that crystal clear. But Trump remains a bit of a mystery to me. I have a hard time believing any politician could be our savior—real change has always come from the bottom up, not the top down. But something interesting happened that gave me a glimmer of hope: RFK, Jr. jumping on board.

The RFK, Jr. situation is fascinating. Here’s a Kennedy—essentially Democratic royalty—teaming up with Trump after being shut out by his own party. This isn’t just any political alliance. RFK, Jr.’s deep understanding of the administrative state, from public health institutions to regulatory agencies, combined with his proven track record of exposing corporate capture and fighting pharmaceutical corruption, makes this particularly intriguing. Maybe, just maybe, this alliance could protect our children from harmful policies and unnecessary wars?

I struggle with what comes next because I understand the gravity of our situation. Our republic is incredibly fragile—more fragile than most people realize. The Founders knew this, warning us about the difficulty of maintaining a democratic republic. But I refuse to give up on dialogue, even when it feels hopeless. If people don’t see what’s happening by now—the censorship, the mandates, the war-mongering, what appears to be intentional schismogenesis (I wrote about this idea here)—will they ever?

The powers that profit from our division; they’ve mastered the art of keeping us fighting each other so we don’t look up to see who’s really pulling the strings. These aren’t just political issues—they’re existential challenges that require reasonable people to discuss complex solutions. Your neighbor who voted differently isn’t your enemy—they likely want many of the same things you do: safety, prosperity, freedom, and a better future for their children. They might just have different ideas about how to get there.

I know this is heavy stuff. You might disagree with everything I’ve said, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is letting these disagreements destroy our relationships and communities. The choice isn’t just about who we vote for—it’s about how we treat each other, how we discuss our differences, and whether we can find common ground in our shared humanity.

The way forward isn’t through hatred or fear. It’s through understanding, open dialogue, and most importantly, love. We might be living through the death throes of the American experiment, or we might be witnessing its rebirth. Either way, we’re in this together, and our strength lies in our ability to work through these challenges as a community, as neighbors, and as friends. Let’s choose wisdom over reaction, understanding over judgment, and love over fear. Our future depends on it.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Via Middle East Eye

The Israeli military is preparing to deploy remotely controlled automated weapons across occupied West Bank checkpoints to target Palestinians, according to a report by the Israeli Army Radio on Sunday.

The system, named “Roeh-Yoreh” (“See-Fires”), is an advanced weaponry structure developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. It includes a tower with sophisticated surveillance equipment and a remote-controlled lethal fire mechanism. 

Since its introduction into the Israeli military arsenal in 2008, the system has been exclusively used in Gaza, where it was deployed along the security fence to target Palestinians approaching the barrier. 

According to Army Radio, the move to use the system in the West Bank comes despite its limited effectiveness in repelling the Hamas-led October 7 attacks out of Gaza. 

In the early hours of the assault, Hamas used drones to hit the tower-mounted weapons, disabling them with ease and allowing fighters to cross the boundary into Israel. 

The Israeli military plans to deploy dozens of Roeh-Yoreh systems in strategic locations across the West Bank, including settlement entrances and key control points, according to the report.

The goal, it added, was to prevent armed attacks and infiltrations into illegal Israeli settlements. The manufacturing of these systems for the West Bank has already begun. 

Initially, they will be installed at high-risk locations by the Israeli military, with plans to expand deployment to additional sites.

According to the report, the 636 Reconnaissance Unit of the West Bank Division will operate the systems, amid rising Israeli concerns about growing security threats in the territory. 

Around 700,000 Israeli settlers live in roughly 300 illegal settlements in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem, which have been constructed since they were captured by Israel in the 1967 war. Under international law, settlement construction in an occupied territory is illegal.

Since Israel launched its war on Gaza in October last year, violence by the army and settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank has skyrocketed. 

At least 800 Palestinians from the West Bank have been killed by Israeli fire since the war began, with around 6,500 more wounded, according to Palestinian health officials. 

Authored by Andrew Latham via RealClearWorld,

Russia’s 2015 military intervention in Syria was a bold assertion of its great power ambitions, rescuing Bashar al-Assad’s regime and projecting influence in the Middle East. However, recent rebel advances and Assad’s sudden deposal threaten to isolate Russia’s Khmeimim airbase and Tartus naval facility, undermining both the practical and symbolic foundations of Moscow’s global power status.

The fall of Assad promises to be a major blow to Russia, which is already bogged down in Ukraine. Its ramifications are likely to be felt across Moscow’s foreign policy, which could soon face some stark and unenviable choices.

The Russian presence in Syria is central to the Kremlin’s broader strategy of force projection. Its Mediterranean bases allow Moscow to sustain military operations in the Levant, North Africa, and beyond, countering U.S. influence. With the key city of Homs having fallen to the rebels, supply routes to Khmeimim and Tartus have been severed, forcing reliance on vulnerable air and sea routes. This will weaken Russia’s operational readiness and its ability to influence events in neighboring theaters, including Africa.

Khmeimim also serves as a logistical hub for Russian private military contractors (PMCs) like the Wagner Group, active in Libya, Mali, and the Central African Republic. These contractors are central to Moscow’s efforts to expand its influence in Africa, providing security and securing lucrative economic deals. With Khmeimim isolated, sustaining these operations would become costly and inefficient, reducing Moscow’s ability to achieve its geopolitical objectives on the continent.

The isolation of Khmeimim and Tartus will severely constrain Russia’s ability to sustain military operations in Syria and beyond, undermining its ability to conduct airstrikes, reconnaissance, and rapid-response missions. PMCs, reliant on robust logistics, will face disruptions, emboldening opposition forces and exposing the fragility of Russia’s African partnerships. These setbacks will ripple through Moscow’s strategic calculations, undercutting its influence and economic goals.

The symbolic consequences of a rebel victory will be even more damaging. Moscow has portrayed its intervention in Syria as a demonstration of its reliability as an ally and its ability to uphold the sovereignty of client states. The loss in Syria will puncture this narrative, exposing the limits of Russian power and credibility. Regional actors, including Iran, Turkey, and the Gulf states, will recalibrate their perceptions of Moscow’s influence, while African partners might pivot toward more reliable alternatives such as China or the West.

Domestically, the repercussions of a diminished role in Syria will be significant. President Vladimir Putin has marketed the Syrian intervention as a triumph of Russian statecraft, portraying it as a cornerstone of Russia’s resurgence on the global stage. While critics of Russia’s foreign interventions have questioned their costs for years, the fall of Assad could amplify these doubts in ways the prolonged conflict in Ukraine has not. Syria’s collapse would symbolize a failure of Russia’s ability to safeguard allied regimes, striking at the narrative of strategic competence that Putin has worked to project. Public perceptions of Russian strength, carefully curated through state-controlled media, could falter, creating broader political vulnerabilities. Moreover, Syria has served as a testing ground for Russian weapons systems, and reduced visibility in the region would weaken their appeal to buyers, further diminishing Russia’s geopolitical leverage and economic gains from arms exports. The rebel victory in Syria will resonate globally. For the United States and its allies, it will validate strategies to contain Russian influence and embolden further countermeasures. NATO could leverage Russia’s difficulties to underscore the limitations of its global reach, while China might accelerate efforts to dominate regions like Central Asia and Africa, further sidelining Moscow in regions where it traditionally competes.

Russia now faces a stark choice: escalate its military commitment to protect its strategic interests, such as its naval facility in Tartus and airbase in Khmeimim, or accept a diminished role in the region. Escalation would aim to preserve these assets and reassert influence but risks clashes with other regional powers and would strain resources already stretched by commitments in Ukraine and Africa. Retrenchment, however, would signal a devastating blow to Russia’s credibility as a reliable guarantor of allied regimes worldwide, sending a clear message to its partners in Africa, the Middle East, and beyond that Moscow cannot be counted on to defend its allies in times of crisis. This erosion of trust would undermine Russia’s broader global strategy and invite further challenges to its influence elsewhere.

Already there is evidence Russian warships have left Tartus, raising questions about Russia’s commitment to its Syrian bases. As Russia navigates this crisis, it must confront the limits of its resources and the fragility of its aspirations. Great power status requires not just military might but strategic resilience. The outcome of the Syrian conflict will shape the future of Russia’s role in the evolving international order. For Moscow, the stakes could not be higher.

Andrew Latham is Professor of Political Science at Macalester College and a Non-Resident Fellow at Defense Priorities.

In the fourth quarter of 2023, online shopping was a record-breaking 17% of all retail sales. Put another way, one out of every six dollars was spent online.

This graphic from Visual Capitalist’s Jenna Ross, in partnership with BGO, highlights the spike in ecommerce that occurs every year during the holiday season.

The Growing Popularity of Online Shopping

Over the last 15 years, the percentage of money consumers are spending online has more than tripled. The most online shopping always occurs in the fourth quarter due to Black Friday and holiday spending.

In the table below, we show online shopping as a percentage of total retail sales over time.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Data accessed November 19, 2024.

With people stretched for time during the busy holiday season, many opt for quick online orders and home deliveries. 

Beyond convenience, deals also draw people to their screens. For instance, Amazon’s October Prime Day and Cyber Monday both offer deals catered to online shoppers. In 2024, Cyber Monday drew over 64 million U.S. shoppers—nearly three times higher than the 23 million people who shopped in stores.

To handle the increase in online shopping orders, U.S. retailers will need to have a plan for storing their products and transporting them to customers.

The Logistics of Online Orders

Free and fast shipping are top priorities for online shoppers. Nearly 40% would abandon a retailer with high shipping costs, while 32% would stop buying because of late deliveries. These high expectations, and the increase in ecommerce, is driving demand for real estate that can process online orders.

BGO’s industrial warehouse and logistics properties are strategically located to help reduce expenses and transport goods to consumers more quickly. During the busy holiday period, these properties run at full efficiency to meet the surging demand.

Learn what’s moving markets in BGO’s The Chief Economist newsletter.

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

I was happy to welcome my friend Peter Schiff back on to Fringe Finance this past week, where I was able to get his take on a couple of the items I wrote about on the blog last week – most importantly, whether or not he thinks markets will crash up (hyperinflation) or down (deflationary depression).

Schiff and I also talked about his perspectives on markets, government policies, and the future of Bitcoin and gold. I also asked Schiff about his miscalculations, primarily underestimating the length of time it would take for economic reckoning and on bitcoin.

Speaking from his residence in Puerto Rico, Schiff painted a dire picture of the U.S. economy, marked by excessive debt, misguided monetary policies, and misplaced optimism.

Schiff’s outlook on the markets remains grim. “The market is already very expensive,” he observed, highlighting that “the optimism factored in is misplaced.” He warned of an impending reckoning, exacerbated by years of deficit spending and inflationary policies: “We have a $36.2 trillion debt that’ll soon reach $40 trillion. This is unsustainable.”

“The market is already very expensive. It’s hard to see parabolic upside when optimism is misplaced. The markets are expecting good things to happen that aren’t going to happen.” – Peter Schiff

On whether markets are set to “crash up or crash down,” Schiff remarked, “Higher inflation is baked in, but that’s not good for the dollar. The markets are wrong to think it is.” His skepticism extends to the Federal Reserve, which he accused of sacrificing long-term economic health for short-term stability: “The Fed is a one-trick pony. Its solution to every problem is to inflate, mask the problem, and hope it goes away.”

---

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

---

Schiff remains an unwavering advocate for gold, dismissing Bitcoin as a speculative bubble. He criticized Bitcoin’s lack of utility, stating, “It’s not digital gold; it’s not digital anything.” Contrasting it with gold, Schiff argued, “Gold has intrinsic value and has been a store of wealth for millennia. Bitcoin has failed to be money for 15 years.”

Taking aim at Michael Saylor’s proposal for the U.S. government to sell its gold reserves to buy Bitcoin, Schiff called it “a horrible idea” and dismissed Saylor’s comments as “self-serving.” He continued, “Bitcoin is not a reserve asset; it’s a speculative tool that has concentrated risk.”

Schiff also lambasted the speculative frenzy surrounding Bitcoin ETFs and institutional purchases: “Bitcoin ETFs and MicroStrategy have cornered 8% of Bitcoin’s total supply. That’s a bubble waiting to burst.”

“Bitcoin ETFs and MicroStrategy have already cornered 8% of Bitcoin’s supply. That’s concentration risk in a speculative bubble,” Schiff said. “Michael Saylor’s proposal for the U.S. to sell its gold for Bitcoin is not just a bad idea—it’s delusional. It’s putting all your eggs in one highly speculative basket.”

Schiff highlighted the worsening state of the U.S. economy: “People are working harder for less real income, drowning in debt, and paying 25% interest on credit cards. This is the reality behind the so-called recovery.” He lambasted the bipartisan reluctance to address deficits: “Trump promised to cut deficits but signed every debt-busting bill put on his desk. Nothing will change under his leadership.”

We also discussed:

• Market outlook: Speculation on whether markets will experience an inflationary rise or deflationary crash
• Federal Reserve policies: Predictions about the Fed’s actions concerning inflation and interest rates
• Inflation expectations: Discussion about how inflation impacts the economy and the U.S. dollar
• Government deficits: Criticism of rising budget and trade deficits under various administrations.
• Trump’s economic policies: Evaluation of Trump’s promises versus the reality of government spending and deficits
• Impact of tax cuts: Debate over whether tax cuts would stimulate the economy or worsen the deficit
• Military and welfare spending: Criticism of increases in military and welfare spending despite calls for fiscal restraint.
• Gold and currency: The comparative value of gold versus the U.S. dollar and other assets.
• Bitcoin and cryptocurrency: Analysis of Bitcoin’s perceived value, speculative nature, and potential risks.
• Comparative risk of assets: Comparison between speculative investment in Bitcoin and traditional markets.
• Historical trends in gold ETFs: Analysis of gold’s stability and its market dynamics versus Bitcoin.
• Government intervention in Bitcoin: Concerns over potential government involvement in Bitcoin markets
• Critique of modern monetary theory (MMT): Dismissal of MMT as a sustainable economic approach
• Economic bubbles and malinvestment: Concerns over the allocation of capital into unproductive sectors
• Debt servicing crisis: Warnings about rising interest payments on national debt
• Future economic predictions: Forecasts of a potential dollar crisis or significant inflationary period

You can watch the entire hourlong interview here. 

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.