A few weeks ago, I had an appointment with my cable guy. I needed to leave work early, so I rushed all day long to get everything done and naturally I missed lunch in that process. So on my way back home I ducked into a McDonald’s drive-thru to grab a fast meal and not miss my appointment.

On a whim, I added the McDonald’s Daily Double to my meal. Such decisions get made when you’re eating your first meal of the day at 4 pm. As soon as I ate it, I was instantly reminded of the McDLT! The Daily Double is basically a double cheeseburger with tomato, lettuce and mayo. The McDLT was a single patty (although, it was thicker I believe) “lettuce and tomato burger”. And it had mayo (and mustard and ketchup)!!! It’s the same damn burger!

McDonald’s could have resurrected the infamous Jason Alexander commercial! Done wisely, this could have been a viral sensation. It would have been like creating a second McRib. Alas, no.

Instead, enjoy these McDLT commercials.

I am voting for Ron Paul because he is the only candidate who is serious about tackling our country’s massive fiscal problems. See below for proof.

The CATO Institute put together a fantastic summary of the Republican candidates likely spending positions for each department of the federal government. Ron Paul is the only one serious enough about shrinking the federal government to have produced his own federal budget. As you can see, he has laid out specific cuts to departments and programs. No other candidate is remotely close.

Is this level of seriousness worth letting Iran have a nuclear weapon? Is it worth letting China have free reign in the South China Sea? Is it worth leaving South Korea to its own defenses? I think so. The overseas changes that will occur will not threaten the survival of the United States. Maybe Israel and South Korea will get nuked. There will certainly be more wars and instability. Yet, I am willing to let the world burn to save America. Our debt can destroy this country. It’s the price I am willing to pay, to drastically cut the federal budget.

Now I’m compelled to take a serious look at Jon Huntsman. I cannot believe I am though. At the start of the race, I swore I wouldn’t. How could I vote for someone who worked in the Obama administration?

To start with, there is this meme running around conservative blogs where people repeatedly change Huntsman’s first name. I’m guessing it’s a knock against his null name recognition, but I wish I could find confirmation on that somewhere. Whatever. It still tickles me.

So what has Cadwallader Huntsman done with himself? I’ll turn to Wikipedia for a life summary.

• Dropped out of high school to play keyboard in a band
• Got GED, went to the University of Utah
• Paused his college education to go on a Mormon mission in Taiwan
• Transferred to U. Penn and earned a bachelor’s in International Politics
• Staff assistant in the Reagan White House
• Deputy Assistant Commerce Secretary for trade development & commerce in East Asia under Bush I
• Ambassador to Singapore under Bush I
• Served as an executive in the family corporation
• Deputy Trade Representative under Bush II
• Elected as Utah Governor, twice
• Ambassador to China under Obama

All this is very impressive in bullet form. Yet, if you think about it, what does it really show? I worry this is a guy who didn’t have to work all that hard. Dropping out of high school to play in a band can be spun as a romantic, adventurous endeavor, but is it really all that risky for a billionaire’s son to do? Then once he graduates from college, his very first job is in the White House? There’s no way he got that on his own merits. Then once the Republicans are out of power, Eustace Huntsman goes to work for the family mega-corp. That’s hardly the hallmark of a self-made man. He certainly had a lot of help from his father. It makes me suspect he is lazy and uncreative. I can’t say for sure though. He did get these helpful career boosts but perhaps he went on to shine in these roles.

I think it’s best to judge him by his actions as governor. Even if the Huntsman name won the election for him, he still had to act on his own while in office. So what did he do there?

• BLS Current Population Survey rated Utah #1 in job growth during Huntsman’s governorship
• BLS Current Employment Statistics Survey rated Utah #4 in job creation during Huntsman’s governorship
• 37% increase in Utah state budget over Huntsman’s tenure
• Moved Utah to a flat 5% income tax system
• Cut sales tax rate by 0.1%
• Cut sales tax on prepared food from 4.7% to 1.75%
• Proposed eliminating Corporate Tax on businesses making under $5 million
• Raised DMV fees
• Proposed 400% increase in cigarette taxes
• Utah joined the Western Climate Initiative, a cap-and-trade greenhouse gas scheme
• Supported a minimum wage increase
• Supported school vouchers

This does not enthuse me. This feels like the behavior of a inoffensive, go-along-get-along Republican. These are the people putting us on the slow boat to socialism. It’s marvelous Calixtus Huntsman cut taxes, but he didn’t cut any spending along with it. Worse, he raised the state’s budget! This type of governance is ruining the United States of America. The federal government needs radical, frontier surgery. The budget needs someone who will take an axe and a bonesaw to it, not a dainty scalpel.

I don’t think I even need to consider Huntsman’s service under Obama. Looking at his tenure as Utah governor is enough to turn me off. He’s not going to be any different than Romney. Why bother to push for him? Has he said anything more drastic on the campaign trail?

One happy fact of life is that if you wait long enough, someone else will do your work for you. Some industrious people at CATO actually went through each of the candidates websites and compiled their likely spending position for each federal government department. Make sure you check it out. Frankly it’s worthy of a post all to itself. Regarding Reinhard Huntsman, he seems to have the most question marks on his positions. This does not enthuse me.

Huntsman isn’t worth bothering with.

However, that’s not what I’m writing about. Something Mitchell mentions reminded me of my own blog post from yesterday.

What made this conference remarkable was not the presentations, though they were generally quite interesting. The stunning part of the conference was learning – as part of casual conversation during breaks, meals, and other socializing time – how many rich people are planning for the eventual collapse of European society.

Not stagnation. Not gradual decline. Collapse.

Europe’s wealthy are looking around for new homes where they can fortify themselves like Roman latifundia 1,500 years ago. I think that’s hardly necessary and I touched upon it yesterday. Yes, Europe’s economy will eventually collapse no matter how much financial trickery is employed. Yes, this will lead to social upheaval but only for a time. Riots will be tolerated, but when it becomes the clear the crowds will not be satisfied with a few days of wanton destruction, the tanks will roll. Fascism will come back into style as European armies are put into action suppressing the dissent of unarmed civilians (it’s all they’re good for), and governments will step in to command the economy. Of course “fascism” will have a new, innocuous name, and these wealthy people will continue to live quite comfortably under this new system. After all, they’re probably hob-nobbing now with those future dictators.

I’m not equivocating. Under no circumstances will selling Eurobonds make things better. Yet people, who I am told are quite smart, keep pushing this idea as the solution to this European debt crisis. In this AP article, EU Commission President Barroso again calls for this new debt instrument to be created. Granted a Eurocrat isn’t impartial when it comes to more things getting the “Euro” prefix added, but go search the news. You’ll find a ton of, supposedly smart, politicians, bankers and traders out there demanding this.

So why are they all wrong? What you have to understand first is what a Eurobond does. A Eurobond would be a bond issued in the name of the European Union. In theory, all members would be on the hook for paying it back. It would pool the credit risk of all members, so those with bad credit would be able borrow money at lower rates because the members with good credit “co-signed” the bond. In reality, Germany is the only member state with good credit and enough money to pay back these Eurobonds, so Germany would be “co-signing” for all of Europe. The answer to why this will fail is in last week’s terrible performance at Germany’s auction for 10-year bonds. Germany alone could not generate enough interest in its own bonds. If Germany cannot find enough buyers for its own bonds, why would there be buyers for these German-backed Eurobonds?

There won’t be. So why do these people keep pushing for them? What I wrote above is no secret. I think for a lot of them the need for “ever greater union” for Europe is an article of faith, so they must use every chance they have to create new pan-European institutions. Who cares if the Eurobond plan fails. The point is to make the idea of pan-European bond realistic! That way they can be issued in the future after this crisis. Forget the worry that the Euro might be destroyed. For these people, the EU and the Euro are sacrosanct. They will preserve them at any cost. It doesn’t matter if that means bond defaults, industry nationalizations, suspension of democracy, martial law, anything.

The Germans are very fiscally conservative (duh!), so ultimately I don’t believe they will agree to Eurobonds unless those profligate spenders (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal) end up agreeing to become de-facto German protectorates. That name will never be used of course, but all the decisions for these countries will be made in Berlin (or possibly directly from Frankfurt). In this way, Germany will backstop the roll over of all these countries debts and quietly loot these nations in exchange.

But Eurobonds will fail, as I said above, yet I don’t think that failure will be the end. I think there will still be time for one more last-ditch, grasping-at-straws effort. Perhaps the Europeans will try some financial chicanery with the IMF. The ECB will sell those crap Eurobonds directly to the IMF. The IMF will pay with the SDRs it conjures up. The IMF will then change its rules to make SDRs freely convertible into Euros. The ECB will then let those new Euros pay off the debts of the new German protectorates. Sure this will inflate the Euro, but the Germans will agree because they will enjoy the hard assets they’re plundering from their new empire.

But this will fail too, or whatever real plan the European elite tries. What comes next, an end to the EU or a much more dictatorial one, depends on the European public. This is pure speculation of course. What I am convinced of is the utter failure of Eurobonds to end today’s crisis.

Occupy flash mob fails to impress Walmart workers

The Occupy crowd threatened promised said they would do some protesting on Black Friday. I doubted it, but I’m glad to see I was wrong. I hope those smelly fools “occupy” everything. Disrupt checkout lines, crash through all the crowds waiting to get into stores. There’s no better way to make America hate you than to make the chaos of Black Friday even worse.

[European] labor laws induce sloth, indolence rather than hard working.

Jin Liqun, Chairman of the supervisory board of China Investment Corporation

In simplest terms, Europe wants China to bail them out. Would China do it? A disorderly, unmanaged Euro breakup would obliterate the European banking system, and bankrupt some big American banks too. The only reason I can think of as to why the Chinese would play along is to prevent more damage to the US economy. Too few realize China is having its own economic problems. That vaunted stimulus from a few years ago is coming home to roost. Inflation is an on-going problem and their residential real estate market is crashing. If a banking crisis spreads from Europe to America, then China has to also deal with falling exports.

I don’t think China wants an additional helping of crisis on its plate, so there’s a not insignificant chance they will ride to Europe’s rescue (and yet at the same time I still feel uncomfortable saying the chance is greater than 50%). But if they do come to the rescue, it’s a guarantee they’ll extract more than a pound of flesh for their kindness.

Thinking long-term, I wonder if this will lead to increased China/Russia tensions. The Russians may be suspicious of Chinese intentions in Europe. They might start to feel a bit boxed in. I guess that depends on what demands the Chinese make. Jin’s quote (along with a few others I’ve read over the past few weeks) makes me think China will rewrite Europe’s “Social Contract”. Kiss those six weeks of vacation goodbye.

Sloth. Indolence. I love the way they sound; so full of indignation and contempt. No other words could apply more to Europe.

And I bother to note this because its pretty significant to get the local government to actively speak out against another part of the government. It shows there’s a lot of frustration in those parts. I’m a little disappointed the idea wasn’t tossed out there already, but there is a catchy solution. Resurrect the State of Jefferson! This will give these rural counties freedom from an oppressive Sacramento government, and their own voice in Washington DC.

I hope more of these folks remember the State of Jefferson can be more than just a state of mind.

Yes, men, man up. That’s the ticket. When she cuckolds you, man up. When she rejects your gentlemanly kindness for an aloof badboy, man up. When she unceremoniously files for divorce because she got bored of your beta personality after she went off the pill, man up. When she takes the house, car, dog and half to fund her live-in boyfriend’s porn habit, man up. When she writes love letters to terrorists and serial killers on death row because her honorable hubby doesn’t amuse her anymore, man up. When she boffs the first douchebag DJ who comes along but makes a courteous accountant wait three months for sex, man up. When she devours pulp romance novels and vacuous feminized trash that desensitizes her to the value of real life men she can reasonably hope to attract, man up. When she gets aroused by a backhanded compliment but remains unmoved by a sincere compliment, man up. When she cries to HR about what she thinks was an inappropriate flirtation, man up. When she “forgets” to take the Pill and puts you on the hook for the 18 year enslavement, man up. When she gets multiple degrees that price her out of the mating market, man up. When she gets legal protections and favors that aren’t given to men, man up. When her every misdeed and misbehavior and poor choice is excused, man the fuck up.

Wow. What man wouldn’t want to sign up for this program?

Heartiste sounds bitter, but I get where that’s coming from. How frustrating is it to see all these examples where men acting decently get stomped upon? Then to have Bill Bennett saunter in with the sage wisdom that the answer to this cultural problem is for guys to “man up”. You can read it in Bennett’s words here. He says today’s young man is “pathetic”, too interested in playing video games, unwilling to take responsibility for anything.

This has to be a generational disconnect. Bennett’s generation took to heart the ideals behind the simple phrase: man up. For some reason though, they decided manning up means taking shit, turning it into a shit sandwich and then smiling while you eat it. Silence in the face of misery is what it means to be a man.

This insistence that today’s young men must “man up” is just an example of their stoic stubbornness. Even in the face of women who don’t appreciate kindness and a divorce and family court system stacked against them, men are supposed to shut up, find a wife, have some kids, and drag themselves to work day after day. Why? Just because you’re supposed to, if you listen to Bennett and his peers. His essay says nothing about what’s in it for men. I didn’t see one line in that essay explaining why I should sublimate my own desires to live out this lifestyle. I am just astonished at how Bennett’s generation are such lemmings; so incurious about life. Bennett has decided how men should all behave, simply because that’s the way it’s always been. No need to examine if a changed culture would have necessitated a change in men’s behavior. Why question if a change in women’s behavior led to a reaction in men? They should just shut up and do what they’re supposed to. Man up!

I can’t think of anything more cowardly than Bill Bennett’s beliefs. A man shouldn’t go through his life doing things because he’s supposed to. Be in charge of your own destiny! If women are going to take advantage of you, there’s no reason you should put up with it. Let those women fight over the dirtbag guitarist they met at a bar at 3 am. I don’t need to risk my future and my finances on a woman who sees me as expendable.

The Bill Bennett’s of the world should retire to Boca and shut up. Their culture is over. Today’s men are getting by in a woman’s world. We’re the ones who have to navigate a dating world where two women would rather fight over one jerk, rather than date a guy who cares to ask how their day went. In our world it’s assumed when divorce comes, women have the right to the house, the assets, alimony and child support always. Our courts say a mother’s bond with a child is sacred. A father’s bond is easily replaced with a monthly check. It’s a fools bet to “man up” in this world. It doesn’t have to be this way of course. It just is. If women want to keep this new-found power, than they will have to live with men who won’t bother to play their games.

Well I just read a fantastic speech from him. If you’re the type to think government makes dumb decisions, then you’re going to fall in love with Tom McClintock when you read this. It’s all just delicious, sarcastic, clever, erudite red meat.

He actually explains the real reason California has wrecked itself. It comes down to bad public policy.

1. Insatiable Spending

California may not have invented deficit spending but we certainly refined it into a science…Federal spending increased 26 percent in the last three years literally consuming and squandering the wealth of the nation at the worst possible time. Yet consider this: from July of 2005 to July of 2008, California increased its spending by 31 percent, under a Republican governor elected on the pledge to “stop the crazy deficit spending”.

2. Hatred for Industry

Our regulatory burdens are also years ahead of the rest of the nation. We’ve had our own version of Cap and Trade on the books for five years now…We now have the most stringent renewable energy requirements in the nation. Which helps explain why California is the home to such stunning green energy success stories as Solyndra. We have among the highest electricity prices in the continental United States.

3. Dysfunctional Government (and not the media’s pablum about the need for moderates to start compromising)

We have reached this point not because of a failure of our republican institutions, but because of a failure to respect those institutions…The humility that kept Sacramento from sticking its nose into the business of local governments gave way to the hubris that the state knew better what was important to local communities than those communities themselves.

This speech should be turned into the California Republican Party’s platform. It identifies the key drags on this state’s economy and provides obvious fixes. I would love to see a candidate for governor giving this speech.

Read every word of it. It is that damn good.