Category: Uncategorized

“the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

And who was it that was saying that modern Democrats are NOT left-wing? This is the message of Marx, of Lenin, of Hitler, of Mussolini, and every left-wing demagogue since Socrates who would elevate the collective over the individual. It is not possible to subscribe to both human rights and left-wing collectivist ideology. The two are in inherent and fundamental contradiction, which is why decent, well-meaning left-wingers so often find themselves trapped in a maelstrom of cognitive dissonance.

I suspect this will be completely lost on the horde of Philistines that inhabit this sparkling corner of the Blogosphere, but UMBERTO ECO HAS A NEW NOVEL OUT!

Entitled The Mysterious Flame of the Queen of Loana, it is described as follows:

Imagine if you woke up one morning and did not remember anything about yourself: who you were, where you are, if you were married or if you had children. And that happens to the protagonist of the new novel by Umberto Eco, a sixty-year old stricken with amnesia following a serious accident. The events described in The Mysterious Flame of the Queen of Loana revolve around the figure of John-Baptist Bodoni, called Yambo, an antiquarian librarian in Milan in a desperate search for his past. He awakes from a long sleep in his hospital bed, a man with perfect recall of who Napoleon was, how to drive a car and open a box of cookies, but who does not know who he or those around him are.

Although he recovers fully from his injuries, Yambo does not recover his memories. To help him retrieve them, his wife brings him to the old house of his family in Solara, between Langhe and Monferrato, where the man spends his days interred in an immense attic listening to old records, leafing through his childhood comic books and reading the letters of his mother.

At first his life slowly begins to return, but the familiar sounds and smells lead his imagination to discover the fanciful life of his youth. He comes back to his consciousness, but only to discover the unforeseeable, for when the dramatic paradox of his life reveals itself, he truly learns who he is.

In anyone else’s hands, this story would probably be so dull as to fail to slice butter, but I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be a masterpiece, as Eco spins the reader’s mind around like a basketball on the overlong index finger of a Harlem Globetrotter, giving it periodic whacks as it whirls by.

Dark Window hurls accusations of goofiness: [Vox’s] new column implies that it’s actually modern-day liberals who are the fascists and to prove his point, he gives us his own translation of Mussolini’s Fascist Manifesto. I encourage you to go read the article itself as it’s a little long to quote here at length…. Frankly, I don’t like it when any side throws around highly-charged names like Nazi or Fascist or Communist to describe a political foe. And unfortunately, this seems to be happening with alarming regularity these days. These terms come flying from both Left and Right and although the people throwing them will generally say they’re simply pointing out similarities between a particular person and a particular historical policy of one of the above-mentioned groups, their actual intention is obviously not to engage in a close historical reading of political theory. Rather, it’s to generate the extremely visceral reactions associated with things like the Final Solution or Gulags or Death Camps or Totalitarianism. I think it’s wrong when either side engages in this activity and, frankly, I think it generally masks an inability to debate the merits of particular issues or policies. It’s far easier to call somebody a Nazi or a Commie than it is to participate in a reasoned debate.

Now, I like Dark Window and I agree that the name-calling is often pointless, however, as one who has extensively read through the history and intellectual development of Fascist, National Socialist and Communist ideologies, (as well as other, less famous leftist variants), I am not simply attempting to generate visceral reactions. Instead, I am methodically demonstrating how the Left has been successful in hiding the direct relationship between its modern forms and its historical forms for which most people harbor great loathing. So, I have to salute DW for making what is the only possible argument against the left-wing nature of facism. Unfortunately for him, it is ultimately a weak one.

But back to Vox. His main argument seems to be that since Mussolini used what amounts to a propoganda piece to advocate things like women’s suffrage, a minimum wage, and systemization of national transportation, that liberals are far more fascist than conservatives or libertarians. The mistake Vox makes is to draw the simplistic conclusion that if Mussolini wrote something in his manifesto, it’s what fascism came to be and what we mean when we use the term today.

It would only amount to a mere propaganda piece if Mussolini had not subsequently enacted those very measures he was advocating in his manifesto. Take women’s suffrage for example: Mussolini took power in 1922 and women were granted suffrage in 1925, albeit with some restrictions. He did precisely as he promised in the manifesto when the Charter of Labour was enacted, setting up twenty-two syndicates where membership was compulsory for employers and employees, each controlled by a party member. Furthermore, if the manifesto is to be viewed as nothing but a meaningless propaganda piece, it seems most strange that it should threaten the Catholic Church, which was still a popular institution in Italy.

As with most American liberals, Dark Window is uncomfortable with the simplistic notion that written documents, such as the U.S. Constitution, mean what they say. This discomfort with textual precision is why the modern Left has such a difficult time coming to terms with aggressive forces such as the global jihad, as they cannot believe that bin Laden is so simplistic as to announce his intentions. Why would he, they think, when they themselves are sophisticated enough hide their true intentions?

Quite the contrary, the manifesto was written to wrest control of the government by gaining wide popular acceptance through political compromise. The words of the manifesto bear very little resemblance to what is meant by modern political theorists when they describe the doctrines of fascism. Once Mussolini gained power, he governed in a very different manner than that espoused in his manifesto. Industries were not nationalized but run under a structure of corporatism strongly influenced by the Church. Even more importantly, the driving factor of actual fascism was not to create an egalitarian society but to centralize power in the hands of a small and strongly nationalistic ruling body.

Modern political theorists either define the term so broadly as to be almost meaningless, or turn it back around in a circular definition equally devoid of meaning. What is fascism? The governing philosophy of Benito Mussolini’s party. What was the governing philosophy of Benito Mussolini’s historical party? Facism. The Church corporatism, or corporativismo to which DW refers is simply a form of collective class collaboration proposed by Pope Leo as an alternative to Marxian class conflict, but it has nothing to do with Christianity or capitalism and is yet another collectivist left-wing concept. Furthermore, Mussolini never had any intention of coming to power through compromise, as his planned 1922 march on Rome clearly shows.

What is amusing here is that DW fails to recognize that the driving factor of EVERY left-wing ideology is to centralize power in the hands of a small ruling body. This is true of Bolshevist Marxist-Leninism, of Maoist Communism, of the Khmer Rouge, of the National Socialists, and, it must be noted, of the corrupt Democratic-Republican globalist cabal. It is surely the height of irony that the heirs of Marxian dialectic cannot seem to recognize it at work in their own ideologies.

Finally, DW’s position is wholly anti-intellectual. Taken to its conclusion, it suggests that ideas which cannot be put immediately into practice have no standing. The Left often attempts to have its cake and eat it too, in its common argument that Soviet Communism as practiced between 1917 and 1989 is not true communism as theorized by Marx, but Italian Fascism as practiced between 1922 and 1939, on the other hand, is true facism, all contradictions to fascist theory as theorized by Giovanni Gentile notwithstanding.

“And yet, the only serious question is if it is more ironic to tar a libertarian or a member of the Religious Right with the fascist brush, as one seldom hears James Dobson calling for the government seizure of all church-owned property.” That’s your only serious question, Vox? Considering the very strong ties between the Catholic Church and Mussolini’s fascist party during the early years of power and the Church’s strong influence over him and his policies during his entire reign, your example seems to break down. Because if there’s one thing Dobson is calling for, it’s more religious influence on our national leaders.

The “strong ties” to which DW refers are precisely the opposite of what he is implying. Far from a partnership, the Church-Party relationship was an uneasy one of two opposing parties unable to gain sole supremacy. Once Mussolini realized that in confronting the Catholic Church he was taking on “a colossal force”, he arranged to make accomodations in much the same way that Lenin made capitalistic compromises in his New Economic Program of 1925. Did Lenin therefore have strong ties to capitalism? If one reads the actual text of the Lateran Treaties, one quickly realizes that this is essentially a bribe, providing the Church with the land and sovereignty of what is now the independent Vatican in return for a free hand in the governance of Italy.

“In 1925, Mussolini encapsulated the heart of fascist philosophy in a memorable phrase: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato. This means “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Now, I ask you, in the Year of Our Lord 2004, does that sound more like a Libertarian, a Republican or a Democrat?” If you read that in light of Mussolini’s actions, you know that his definition of “the State” is far different than what Vox is implying. Replace “State” with “Strong Nationalistic Leader” and ask that last question again.

Here DW completely loses the plot. Mussolini may have come to believe that he was the State, (and certainly his assertion “the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality” is suspicious), but regardless of whether he is referring to himself, a vanguard of the People or a freely elected representative body, he shares with today’s Democrats a belief that there is nothing outside the lawful purview of the national government.

PS – Just to set the record straight, it was not Dark Window or any of those who took up his Vox Challenge that made accusations of facism. I received several emails subsequent to the suffrage post that also made statements regarding my ancestry, my sexual preferences and the amount of fecal matter in my intestines. Now, DW can be hysterical, to be sure, but usually in the funny sense – Up yours, Luxembourg!

PPS – Dark Window adds: Update: Vox has posted an enjoyable and spirited response to this piece over at his own blog. Sadly, I will not be at home much the next couple of days so in lieu of a proper riposte on my part, I simply direct you over to him and invite you to formulate your own conclusions. In this instance, I happily cede the last word to him.

I can’t take any joy in having the last word here, as he’s clearly off to spend a week meditating in the forest as he mourns the tragic passing of Les Bleus, dead of self-asphyxiation.

Naked Writing takes exception to my clarification of the Spanish Inquisition: It wasn’t that bad. That’s what I’m reading at several sites devoted to the faithful point that the Inquisition “wasn’t that bad.” Instead of millions killed, as popular sentiment maintains, the Roman Catholic Church itself “only” killed a few hundred thousand for heresy and witchcraft crimes – the grand excess of others who died actually perished at the hands of the secular authorities in Roman Catholic countries, carrying out harsh penalties for witchcraft and heresy under their own ensign as opposed to that of the Church. Above that, the other the pains and deaths of those eras attributed to the Inquistion was either Protestant propaganda designed to shift the blame from Protestant states and churches trials for similar crimes onto the memory of those states allied with the RCC.

What else can one say? Executing 6,000 people over hundreds of years is not as bad as murdering millions, is it? If millions of deaths is no worse than a few thousand, then why do so many people have their panties in a bunch over Stalin, Hitler and Mao? The USA has executed more than 6,000 people in less than half the lifespan of the Spanish Inquisition, should our country then be regarded with the same historical horror as is the Inquisition? Facts are facts, and the facts are that the common knowledge about the Inquisition is utterly, totally and completely wrong.

The problem is, the argument that non-theists such as myself make regarding the tragedy of these deaths, isn’t one easily absolved by lowering the body count. Saying that the terrors behind the Inquisition “wasn’t that bad” because “only” 25,000 people were killed in Germany or that the population of the Duchy of Lichenstein was “only” reduced by 10% instead of far higher numbers misses the point. And mounting an argument, as several of those sited do, that Church backed investigations into heresy and witchcraft accusations was better because the Church was “less” likely to use torture . The critique, the point, the crime non-theists point to existed the moment the first person was singled out for an accusation.

That may be the argument that this individual makes, but it’s not one that anyone else is making. The argument everyone else makes is that the Spanish Inquisition was a terrible human tragedy in which the Church murdered millions of innocent individuals for the crime of not being Christian. And that simply isn’t true. The Inquisition was State law equivalent to current Saudi law that requires citizens in Saudi Arabia to be Muslim, and was far more civilized as it simply exiled those who refused to comply instead of beheading them. Interesting, that “non-theists” are more troubled by events 500 years ago instead of what is happening right now. Are they cowards, racists or simply anti-Christian bigots? I’m not sure, perhaps all three.

That anyone, at anytime, in any place, for any reason, was maimed, tortured or otherwise victimized because their take on the illusory and intangible was different than the majority’s, are grounds enough for anger.

You can tell this person is a left-liberal, as he is of the opinion that meaningless posturing counts for something. Notice how this insensibly mutates the argument from a specific assertion that the Spanish Inquisition was terrible because it slaughtered so many victims into an amorphous condemnation of All Bad Things.

The “evidence” that Majority Believers — the Orthodox of whatever stripe, creed, faith, understanding, or religion — put forward as evidence proving that their take is the right and correct, is just as fleeting, nebulous and non-existent as every other, heterodox heretic to grace either the rack or the stake. For no matter what flavor of mist one prefers, it is still, in the end, mist, evaporating quickly under the morning light of ration inquiry. It fails to solidify no matter its name “Orthodoxy” or “Heresy.” Be it 1 dead or 1 million, all those who were felled, were so over nothing.

Naked writing, naked assertions. Under this individual’s reasoning, one would deny gravity because one cannot see it. As for the latter statement, it reveals utter ignorance of the very reason the Spanish Inquisition came into being, namely, the fact that Spain was still in the process of expelling the Moorish invaders in completing La Reconquista – the Spanish Inquisition began in 1478 while the Ten Years War for the final piece of the Reconquest, Granada, did not even start until 1481 – and many Moors and Jews not loyal to the Spanish throne were making false conversions to the state religion rather than face expulsion. Contrary to the Naked Writer’s assertion, the Inquisition was not “over nothing” but was a serious State matter of settling past scores and quelling internal insurrection. While other Inquisitions focused on heretics, the Spanish Inquisition was far more concerned with hunting down conversos. The uprisings of the Mudejares in 1500-1502 and the Moriscos in 1568-1571 indicates that these royal concerns were not unfounded.

Jewish history is rather more sober on the entire subject than the later Protestant propaganda, as it tends to concentrate more on the expulsion of their people from Queen Isabella’s Andalusia (1483) and the rest of Spain (1492), and admits that many of the Jews who remained did make false conversions. Considering that the American people were quite willing to round up Japanese-Americans over the imagined threat of a Japanese invasion, it seems a little strange to condemn the Spanish people, who had been living under the heel of foreign invaders for 700 years, for wishing to ensure that they were completely rid of all their former occupiers following the long-awaited triumph of the Reconquest.

From Debka: The surprise move [to hand over sovereignty] prompted a rush of explanations by various informed sources who presented it as:

1. An attempt to pre-empt the spectacular Iraqi guerrilla-al Qaeda terrorist strikes that intelligence experts judged were scheduled for June 30. It was hoped that the secretly-planned fait accompli of the transition would catch the enemy off-balance.

2. A demonstration to the assembled NATO leaders that Washington and London, in asking for alliance assistance for the Iraqi army, seriously meant what they said about handing power over to an indigenous regime in Baghdad. The formal act was supposed to finally win round any waverers.

However, DEBKAfile political and military analysts believe these arguments which may sit well in the diplomatic arena are unlikely to stand the test of reality inside Iraq, where the precipitate handover looks less like a coolly reasoned move and more like a counsel of desperation, or even the loss of control by coalition leaders…. Iraq’s interim foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari, in Istanbul for the NATO summit, explained the move in a nutshell. He said power was transferred ahead of time in view of “the deteriorating security situation.” In other words, the Americans and British passed a hot potato to Baghdad before the brew heated up still further.

I wonder if the administration’s defenders will insist this is all part of a grand secret strategy to win… something. Then again, perhaps the Fallujah debacle has finally convinced them that this administration has less strategic competence than the average thirteen year-old wargamer. Don’t get me wrong; I’ll be very pleased if they pull the troops out and start actually dealing with the war declared on America instead of playing at nation-building. But nothing they have said or done leads me to conclude that they have any heart for taking on the twin centers of the global jihad.

Right from the beginning, when the administration showed that they would rather strip rights from American cititzens than do anything to offend illegal aliens, I had serious doubts about whether the administration was actually serious about its undeclared war on method. In fact, in my very first political column, I warned about how the response to 9/11 would likely be used to America’s detriment. You can look it up in the archive at voxday.net if you like.

It’s always interesting to see how we must divulge the contents of our bank account and allow the FBI and NSA to scan all of our personal communications because if we don’t a terrorist might possibly do something bad somewhere. And yet, the borders remain wide open. It amazes me that the American people – conservatives, no less – continue to buy into this.

I don’t see how Democrats will be able to argue that a Senate candidate’s divorce records must be unsealed, but a presidential candidate’s are private. I’m sure they’ll find a way, though, since they proudly spit on the concept of intellectual consistency – then wonder why no one respects their intellects.

I find it interesting that so many politicians are divorced; I don’t think it’s so much that the job is demanding as it is the fact that the profession attracts the very worst sort of neurotic control freaks. Unsealed or not, however, I don’t believe the papers will tell us anything new. We already know that Kerry is a complete arruso who has to be kept hidden away from the public in order to maintain any level of support.

Of course, if he wins, it could make for an even more amusing presidency than Slick Willie’s. It will be entertaining to see his supporters turn on him like rabid dogs once they realize what a thoroughly dislikeable man he is.

Jack took Jeri to the club

To swing out in the open

Jack fell down at Jeri’s frown

And John slipped down the slope then

It’s probably bordering on insane to use Umberto Eco, who is considered notoriously difficult reading in Italy, as translation practice, but the upside is that it makes reading everything else pretty easy by comparison. The downside is that he enjoys creating plays on words and idiomatic turns of phrase that are completely incomprehensible to me. Still, the challenge is intriguing. The article appeared in L’espresso on June 11; as always, I can guarantee several glaring mistakes and blame for all infelicities should be laid at my door, not that of the Great One himself.

La Pistola dell’Ostrega(1)

Political Correctness is a true and proper movement born in the American universities of liberal and radical inspiration, therefore of the Left, with an eye towards acknowledging multiculturalism and reducing some of the ingrained linguistic vices that established lines of discrimination confronting various minorities. And therefore they began to say “blacks” and later “Afro Americans” instead of “negroes”, and “gay” instead of the thousands of other notorious appellations reserved for disparaging homosexuals.

Naturally, this campaign for the purification of the language has produced a true fundamentalism, which has led to the notable case in which some feminists proposed to no longer say “history” since it begins with the pronoun “his”, as they thought this meant that the story was “his”, but instead to say “herstory” – her story – obviously ignoring the Greco-Latin etymology which has no gender implications.

However, the tendency has assumed also neoconservative, or frankly, reactionary aspects. If you decide to no longer call people in wheelchairs handicapped or even disabled, but “differently abled” and after do not construct access ramps in public places, it is evident that you have hypocritically removed the word but not the problem. And the same is true if you substitute saying “indefinitely unoccupied” for fired or “in a program of transition to change careers” for dismissed. Who knows why a banker isn’t ashamed of his title and doesn’t insist on being called an operator in the field of savings. If it’s not working, changing the name won’t fix it.

On these and an infinity of other problems, Edoardo Crisafulli amuses in his book “The Politically Correct and Linguistic Liberty”, which strips naked all these contradictions. He takes on both sides, pro and con, and is always very entertaining. Reading it, however, I came to reflect on the curious case of our country. While Political Correctness exploded elsewhere, in our case it was diffused and instead we are always developing more and more Political Incorrectness. If, at one time, one would read a newspaper and a politician would say: “As a politics of convergence is emerging, one would prefer an asymptotic choice that eliminated single points of intersection”; today he prefers to say: “Dialogue? To Hell with that dirty son of a bitch!”

It is true that at one time in old Communist circles they used to label the adversary as “horseflies” and in speaking during a fracas, they might have chosen to use a lexicon more incontinent than that of a longshoreman, but that was in a time when there were no limits to what one could say – it was accepted as an affectation – as was once the case in the gentlemen’s clubs of venerated memory – where the gentlemen were not verbally inhibited. Today, instead, the technique of an insult is televised, a sign of unconcious faith in the valor of democracy.

It probably began with Bossi(2), in which his manly hardness obviously alludes to the softness of other people, and the appellation of “Berluskaz(3)” was unmistakable but the thing spread widely. Stefano Bartezzaghi, writing under the name Venerdi di Repubblica, cites the play of insults today in circulation, but in good fun, all things considered.

Therefore, I too must contribute to the sweetness of Politically Incorrect Italian, and as I have consulted a series of dictionaries and dialects, permit me to suggest some polite and good-natured expressions with which to insult your enemy, graceful words: pistola dell’ostrega, papaciugo, imbolsito, crapapelata, piffero, marocchino, pivellone, ciulandario, morlacco, badalucco, pischimpirola…[long, long list of like insults removed for the sake of brevity].

(1) Ostrega can’t be found in most dictionaries. The title, as near as I can tell, means “the weapon (pistol) of gosh”, although for a while I thought he was playing off the term “strega” witch or “ostrica” oyster. This led me to wonder if there wasn’t some deeper profundity there, but Vittorio emails to explain: “ostrega” is an old exclamation in Venetian dialect.

(2) Vittorio also adds: in the 1980’s the Northern League, led by Umberto Bossi, had a celebrated slogan “The League is the one that is hard” used against PC. That’s where “celodurismo” comes from. I don’t know about “celoflocismo”. My undestanding is that Eco is implying overtones of hardness and softness as they relate to male tumescence. Alessandro also writes to explain: Celodurismo is a neologism in Italian politics derived from the (in)famous phrase by Umberto Bossi: “ce l’ho duro” meaning “I got an hard-on and I can keep it up for hours!”, so that celodurismo means a rough and boasting attitude which is typical of Umberto Bossi and his mates of the Lega Nord political party. Actually, I never heard of celoflocismo, but it surely derives from “ce l’ho floscio” which is quite the contrary of “ce l’ho duro” so that celoflocismo means the contrary of celodurismo.

(3) “Berluskaz” is likely a combination of “Berlusconi” and “catzo”, saying that Silvio Berlusconi, the Prime Minister and owner of AC Milan, is a motherf—–. Well, they won the Scudetto this year, so deal.

Perhaps this doesn’t bother anyone else. But I swear, is there is anything quite so annoying as correspondence from presumably literate people signed: “Best”? Best what? Best wishes? Best of luck? Best watch out because I’m planning to chain you up naked against the wall in my stone-lined pit of sex slaves? From what I’ve seen in my emails, it seems as if started out as a New York thing, so naturally it’s spread as others slavishly ape what they think is ever so spiffy and sophisticated.

Imbeciles.

Suprises, surprises and more surprises. No doubt the Eurobookies are hurting, as only a deluded patriot would have gambled on Greece over France, and while the Netherlands are seemingly an eternal contender, who was expecting them to successfully navigate a penalty shoot-out for the first time, especially against a facile and team-oriented Swedish squad?

The Czechs came out flat against Denmark; the game was so slow, dull and poorly officiated that I almost didn’t bother returning to the television after halftime. That would have been a mistake, though, as they clinically executed two assassin-like goals stemming from sharp through passes to Milan Barros. Taken in its totality, the game was like watching a cat toying with a mouse, leisurely dispatching it with ease when it tires of the charade.

It forces me want to rethink my statement on the Northern Alliance show that the winner of the Sweden-Holland game would take all. But if Holland can win on penalties – we got two phone calls from SpaceBunny’s best friend, a Dutch girl who sounded on the very verge of expiring from nervous tension, during the shootout – perhaps it is finally their year. However, I don’t like the managerial matchup between Advocaat and Scolari, as the difference between the Dutchman and the man who doesn’t fear to pull Luis Figo in the biggest match so far is a stark one.

And then, of course, one would be a fool to dismiss the hometown factor in a tournament that has seen the most unusual mix of great – love all the yellow cards being handed out to the divers – and appalling refereeing. So, what to conclude?

The easy game first. The Czechs have not only been dominant, but play an Arsenal-like open attacking style that will have no trouble cracking open the Greek defense. They should win easily, by as many as five goals. Despite the above comments, I don’t trust Portugal. They should have lost to England even though they outplayed them. They’ve choked numerous times in the past and they have a Ewing Theory (see The Sports Guy) thing going with their best player, Luis Figo. I think we’ll see Holland against the Czechs for the whole enchilada.

satan writes:

uh…does Vox actually own a home or does he live with mommy? I mean the guy looks like he’s about…what? 16 years old? what could he possibly know about home ownership other than by proxy? what kind of ass kisser would ask such a thing???

I’m still your Daddy, pitchfork punk. (kiss, kiss on the guns). I buy low and I sell high. If the heat hasn’t fried your synapses, maybe you can figure out where I am on the home ownership curve today.

A time to live, a time to die

A time to laugh, a time to cry

A time to rent, a time to buy

It’s a little known fact that The Byrds were Austrians. By the way, Dread Pirate, don’t get your panties in a complete twist over the Denning report. Sure, it’s possible that he’s right, just as it’s possible that the email I received from a friend of someone who spent 30 years in the intelligence community is correct in saying that the election will be canceled this fall. It’s also possible that even if Denning is correct, he’s off by two years and housing prices will double between now and then as blow-off tops are notoriously hard to predict.

If you’re stretched into a difficult mortgage, I’d get out of it now and rent. If you’re simply living in a house that you can afford, that has doubled over the last few years, then what do you care if it drops 50 percent? Housing prices are basically inflation, and if your house goes up, then you’ll be paying more for a different house. It doesn’t really matter except for your ability to carry debt, which is always dangerous for any individual or corporation. Plenty of perfectly healthy, profitable companies have died because they took on too much debt.

I’m quite familiar with the FNME and FMAC situation and it does look, well, questionable. There’s always funny business going on with these quasi-government institutions, particularly those that control billions of dollars in assets. Then again, I’ve been expecting some form of financial disaster since about 1998, and other than the short stock bear from 2000 to 2002, we haven’t seen it. Remember, a) the world is always ending; and b) it hasn’t ended yet.

That being said, a few rifles, some dried food and a pile of gold coins never hurt anyone. Might even make some money if Prechter counted wrong and what he thought was a 5th wave was only a really big 3rd.