Hide Your Children, It's the Kochs!

It's a Ko-ko-ko-ko-koch!

One wonders if the left ever suffers from a moment of self-reflection. Likely not, as the resulting cognitive migraines would make life unbearable. Much easier to surround yourself with people who agree with you, and try to silence those who don't.

Take the latest meme from the left, the "Koch brothers." Just keep repeating it, even if you don't know why. The left is angry because the Kochs have a lot of money, and they use it to fund things with which liberals don't agree. Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to label the Kochs "un-American." What at appalling precedent, that a sitting Senate leader would call out two citizens who have broken no laws and have done nothing worse than fund things in which they believe.

So, why no rebuke for George Soros? He spends billions on lovely things like drug legalization. Or how about Tom Steyer, who has spent $100 million fighting the Keystone pipeline? I could argue anyone into the ground about why the Keystone pipeline is a good thing, but that's not the point, is it? It's Steyer's money, and he can do what he wants with it. Alas, this right only seems to belong to billionaires on the left.

I happen to know David Koch. Not well, but well enough to know he is soft-spoken and incredibly generous with his money, funding many charities in education and health. But the fact that he's a nice person who gives billions to charity is hardly the point. He could be nasty and cheeseparing, and he'd still have the right to fund things he believes in. Right? Nod your head now.

The left has grown bolder when it comes to silencing speech it doesn't like, the latest example being the CEO of Mozilla, hounded out of office for once giving to a pro-traditional marriage group (at the same time Mr. Obama held the same view, no less). Students and faculty at Rutgers are trying to shut down a speech by Condoleeza Rice. Likely, they will resort to shouting if they don't get their way. When was the last time you heard about a liberal speaker shouted down by campus conservatives? Right, it's never happened.

I am reminded of the old joke, what's the definition of a Nazi? Answer: a conservative winning an argument. My friends on the left: the First Amendment isn't there to simply protect speech you like. Argue with us until you're blue in the face, but suppression of speech is a bad habit you need to break.

Election 2016: the Early Handicapping

Most readers of this blog know I was a big fan of Intrade, which set up publicly traded markets in current events, including political elections. As you may know, betting markets tend to have greater predictive accuracy than polling because people are more honest with their money than they are with an anonymous pollster calling at dinner time. I used data from Intrade to construct my electoral model, which had great success the last three elections.

Alas, Intrade's founder died within 100 feet of the summit of Mt. Everest, and there were some financial irregularities, so the site was shut down. It was a blow. Fortunately, I have found a substitute of sorts, Betfair. They don't have as many political markets, but at least we can have a peak at where the early money is for 2016.

First the Republicans...

Odds of Nomination

Jeb Bush                 18%

Marco Rubio          15%

Rand Paul               10%

Chris Christie           9%

Scott Walker            6%

Paul Ryan                5%

Ted Cruz                  5%

Bobby Jindal           4%

Mitt Romney           3%

Mike Huckabee       3%

Rick Perry               1%

There are markets on others, but this list probably includes all the serious possibilities.


This is both a more conservative group and a better-qualified group than last time. It's also wide open, which should make for fun. Some observations:

Note: my buy, sell, and hold recommendations are versus the current odds.

Jeb Bush: With the Christie sun setting over the George Washington Bridge, the establishment is desperately trying to draft Bush. Anyone but those Tea Partiers! He speaks Spanish, and he's from a big swing state, but really? Another Bush? Still, the establishment is not without power, and more Christie supporters will likely move over. Hold.

Marco Rubio also speaks Spanish and is from Florida, although short on experience. The base will think him squishy on immigration, but solid otherwise. Has impressed his Senate colleagues, to which I say, who cares? But the Tea Party already likes him and it might make him acceptable to the establishment. Marginal Buy.

Rand Paul is trying to craft a new alignment of social moderates and free market conservatives. Has his father's database and recently got a standing O at Berkeley. Great debater. Buy.

Chris Christie: We all know about Bridgegate, which was blown out of proportion. If it were only that, Christie might have survived. But now there are serious conflict of interest allegations around the Port Authority, and that may be too much. Further, the base will not forgive "the hug." My prediction: he doesn't even run. Sell.

Scott Walker may be the most mild-mannered stud on the planet. You might think you were talking to an accountant, but this guy stared down some vicious unions as well as a six-inch stack of death threats to win the day on labor reform. The results have been spectacular for Wisconsin. Great experience, plus being from a left-leaning, but possibly-in-play state make, plus appeal to establishment and Tea Partiers alike make Walker compelling. Needs to survive re-election, though, and needs to find some charisma. Strong Buy.

Paul Ryan did a credible job running for Veep, but he didn't really light anyone's fire, did he? Came across vaguely nebbish. Hard to see him finding his way in what looks to be a much tougher field than '12. Sell.

Ted Cruz is a formidable debater and a huge intellect. I have written here about meeting him a few months ago. The base loves him but the establishment thinks he's a dangerous loose cannon. But here's the thing, I don't think the base is going to give a crap what the consultants and Beltway Republicans have to say this time, because they've been burned too many times by people saying, "We have to nominate someone who can win," who then, of course, doesn't... Cruz does have a hang-dog look about him, and the media has somewhat succeeded in Palin-izing him. At 5%, though, he's a Marginal Buy.

Bobby Jindal: Great guy, great experience, but are we ever going to get over "The Speech?" Sell.

Mitt Romney: Hmm. I've heard some establishment guys lately talking about how it's possible to "re-invent" yourself as a politician and come back to win the White House. Think Nixon. Well, maybe, but I don't see it in a potentially much-tougher field than last time. Still, at 3%, Mitt's a Hold.

Mike Huckabee: not sure about Huck, but he's popular with the base, and will do well in Iowa. Unclear if he will run. Hold.

Rick Perry has done wonders in Texas, and his message is great. Still, some things you never recover from, and in Perry's case, it's forgetting the names of the three federal departments he'd eliminate during a debate. Hey, we've all had those moments, but this makes it too easy for the media to cast him as another dumb Texan. Sell.

The only person I couldn't find odds on that deserves serious consideration is John Kasich. Never dismiss a potential candidate from Ohio.

Next up: the Democrats. Is Hillary inevitable? Maybe, maybe not...

"Colleges Are Doomed" Drumbeat goes On...

Now, from Harvard, which will watch the trend with amusement:

http://bit.ly/P1JuxO

The Beat Goes On

Two Boston Globe headlines:

• “Visit by Bush to Snarl Roads, Spur Protests”–headline, Boston Globe, March 25, 2004 
• “President Obama Boston Trip Aims to Raise Funds”–headline, Boston Globe, March 4, 2014

This reminds me of the old joke where the New York Times headline reads, "World to End Tomorrow - Blacks and Women Hardest Hit."

Hat tip to For What it's Worth.

Republicans Should Push for a Lower Drinking Age

Let's face it, most 18 year-olds wouldn't be caught dead registering Republican. Not that they give the reasons why much thought; that would require putting down their smartphones for a few moments. It's an image thing, a posture. Republicans are for old people and stiffs. Definitely not cool. They might as well erect a fortress that says, "Enter here and never get another date." Obama, on the other hand, knows how to tweet, and hangs with Bono and Jay Z! 

At that crucial moment when someone first registers to vote, this is what Republicans are up against. It is a branding problem almost beyond repair. And once someone registers for a party, they usually stick with it for life, so the stakes are huge. 

The irony is that Republicans are far more consistent in their support for personal liberty, something that should resonate with libertarian-leaning youth. It doesn't, though, because the average 18 year-old isn't intellectually equipped enough to understand why, say, deficit spending or the 74,000-page tax code are threats to our liberty. The teachers unions have seen to that.

Social issues, on the other hand, are easy enough to grasp, and our schools make sure students are up to speed on those. Here, the young lean left and the GOP seems like the party of "no." Oh, I know, it's not really the case, especially when you get past abortion. It's liberals who want to ban everything from trans fats to large sodas to Happy Meal toys. But no matter, image is everything.

My humble suggestion is that the GOP rally around lowering the drinking age. Go on offense, make the Dems say no on a social issue for once. Let them be the wet rags. They will definitely be caught flat-footed. The best part about this is that it's actually the right thing to do, and consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and responsibility. It's one of those pleasant times when principle and expedience come together. 

The drinking age was raised nationally in 1984 to combat drunk driving, and indeed, driving fatalities have declined since, but they have declined among all ages. This can be attributed to stiffer penalties and enforcement. Drivers take a much bigger legal risk when they drive drunk, and they have responded accordingly. Does anyone think the reason is really because teenagers are drinking less?

Younger drinkers have switched to more concealable forms of alcohol, i.e. hard alcohol over beer. This only makes sense; getting caught with a flask is less likely than getting caught with a case. But the problem is that too much hard alcohol kills, especially amongst the inexperienced. “Pre-gaming,” or drinking a considerable amount of hard alcohol in a short period before going out has become the norm. Collegiately, this has led to unintended social consequences as students break down into smaller and smaller cliques to reduce the odds of being caught. Larger, more egalitarian social events are no longer the norm, and if anything, campus binge drinking is a far greater problem now than before 1984. 

Then there's the argument that at 18 you can take a bullet for your country, get married, pay taxes - in short, do all the things consistent with adulthood - but not drink. As long as we treat it like forbidden fruit, it will be treated as such, and the thrill remains. The rest of the world seems to have figured this out, as only seven other countries (out of 149) have drinking ages as high as we do. We are keeping good company with the likes of Oman, Kazakhstan, and Sri Lanka. 

To be consistent with conservative principles of decentralized authority, Republicans should advocate that the federal government should allow each state to make up their own mind on this. Alabama is very different culturally than, say, Maryland. But I would suggest for most states 19 is the right number, because that draws a clear line between high school and college.

So, go ahead Republicans. Cut loose for once.

Something All My Wall Street Friends Should Read

Charlie Gasparino's column today is a must read for everyone in the financial industry. You can view it here.

The gist: you have no clue what's going on in the Democrat party and you are nuts if you think Hillary Clinton will be your friend. Learn, live it, know it.

Socialist Man

Bill de Blasio wanted to raise taxes on the rich to pay for universal pre-K. Now Governor Cuomo says he's going to make it happen without any tax hikes, but de Blasio wants his tax hike on the wealthy anyway. Because.

Yesterday, in the season's biggest snow storm, the upper east side was plowed last. Coincidence? This is a page right out of former DC mayor Marion Barry's playbook. He would always plow Georgetown last, if at all.

Can there be any doubt who and what this guy is? A one-man economic development program for the state of Florida. (I already know my first person bound for Miami, specifically because of de Blasio.)  Get used to seeing de Blasio use the government as a political tool, much as Obama has done at the federal level. That this will go badly may be the most predictable political outcome since Obamacare.

Natural Gas Cars Are Better than Electric

We feel good about ourselves in my town, yes we do. We have installed six electric car refueling stations. If you could see us right now, we are giving ourselves a well-deserved pat on the back. We are thinking globally and acting locally!

In case you weren’t sure, that was sarcasm. What kind of bizarre logic thinks this is a good way to spend taxpayer money? No one, I mean no one, is going to use these things. First, do you know long it takes to charge an electric car? I'll answer that: four to six hours. I’d like to know who’s going to sit around for that long while their car charges. The town, perhaps realizing this, is putting them places like train stations so people can leave them to charge while they commute to the city. But…think. Someone arriving at the station has presumably spent the night charging their car, so it’s already full. Okay then, for argument's sake, let’s say that they forgot. They plug their car in and head to the city. Then what? No one else can use that pump for the whole day?

One wonders if anyone bothered to actually count the number of electric cars in town. I personally know of one. Oh, I know the argument, if you build it, “they will come.” Except they won’t because there are good reasons no one is buying electric cars and their makers are going bankrupt. The technical term is they suck. Long recharging times, poor range, and big price tags. No wonder consumers only bought 23,000 Chevy Volts last year, despite a passel of incentives from the government. (Not just money, either, but things like access to HOV lanes. In my town, you get cheaper parking.) The massive Ford F150 pickup, on the other hand, sold 763,000 units last year.  

But nothing will match the smug self-righteousness of a someone driving a Nissan Leaf fifty-five in the fast lane, usually right in front of you. He's saving the world, so you can damn well wait.

Do greens ponder, I wonder, where the electricity to power these cars comes from? Usually, it's from from coal-fired plants, something we’re not supposed to like one bit. In our case, though, most of it comes from a nuclear plant. While I love nuclear power, the green crowd detests it, even though it is carbon-free. Are you following this?

What we should be doing is building out the infrastructure to support cars that run on CNG, or compressed natural gas. Here's one you can buy right now:

 2014 Honda Civic Natural Gas

Natural gas is abundant, sourced in the U.S., and amazingly cheap. Right now, the average price per gallon in the U.S. is $2.12. Cars using it require less maintenance. It also runs cleaner than regular gas, which should make the greens happy, but it doesn't. They immediately think of "fracking," and Yoko Ono has told them that fracking is bad, so it must be.

The U.S. should be building out its natural gas infrastructure now. It actually won't be that difficult, because there is already a whole network of natural gas pipelines. What we need is to get it to the pump, like in the picture above. Right now, you can see if there are any pumps near you here. There are currently 660 stations selling CNG. The nearest to me is 15 miles away, so unfortunately, a CNG car is not an option for me yet.

Is it for you?

Of Fat Men and Frenchmen

I am always amused that Republicans think they can be friends with Democrats and their media toadies. They think back to best buds of yesteryear, like Sam Nunn or Scoop Jackson, or when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil drank beer together. There is an air of desperation about it all, like so many Sally Fields: "You like me, you really like me!"

Except they don't. Oh, they will pretend to be pals when it's politically expedient, like when they're setting up a softie candidate for the presidential nomination, only to commence evisceration the very next morning (hello, John McCain, are you there?). Or when, say, a Teddy Kennedy needed George Bush on board for No Child Left Behind. He was all sweetness and light, but as soon as the ink was dry, he reverted to form as the poster boy for Bush haters everywhere.

And then there's this:

Arguably, Christie gave the election to Obama with the famous bro-hug. Note that this weird, sideways facing posture is surely the result of both men wanting to face towards the press corps. What Obama gained is clear enough, but Christie? He thought he had a new friend, and it never hurts when that friend is POTUS, right?

How naive, and now Christie knows just how much so. The Justice Department, which has been nothing if not Obama's lapdog, is now probing not one but two Christie-related scandals. (They apparently have plenty of time on their hands given their indifference to the IRS scandal, among others.) One, of course, is a traffic jam, clearly a matter of federal import. The other is the possible misallocation of Hurricane Sandy funds. (I happen to view the latter somewhat more seriously, but that's another matter.)

The point is, Republicans, I'm talking to you. Stop being such idiotic fools. Hellooo, McFly. Democrats are not your friends. They hate you and think you're evil. Get over your Stockholm Syndrome and grow a pair.

And so the Frenchman, Hollande. They play by a different set of rules in France, don't they? Imagine a place where absolutely no personal judgements were passed on any sort of personal behavior. A liberal paradise, non? Welcome to modern France, where matters libertine are confused with sophistication.

A little background is called for. For the moment, let's look past the fact that Hollande, a bespectacled socialist class-warrior, has five, count 'em, five names. Francois Gerard Georges Nicolas Hollande. For the moment.

For a long time, Hollande dated this woman:

Segolene Royal

They had four kids together, but marriage seemed like a hopelessly provincial thing to do, so they never bothered...

Then, Hollande started cheating on Royal with this woman, a political journalist (cue bad John Edwards memories):

 

Valerie Trierweiler

Soon, he blew off Royal and Trierweiler moved in. None of this bothered the French, because they then elected Hollande as president. Trierweiler became First Lady, because in France being the president's main squeeze is close enough (see marriage, provincial). Trierweiler receives all the perks that any First Lady would, including staff, cars, all expenses paid travel, etc.

Now, it seems Hollande is cheating on Trierweiler with this woman:

Julie Gayet

Still with me? I hope so, because it gets better. It is now unclear whether Trierweiler gets to keep playing First Lady. That appears to be up to Hollande. I'm sure that conversation will go well. Hey, Val, got a minute? I'm dumping you for someone else, and, oh, would you mind moving out of the palace by tomorrow?

Does Gayet get to become the new First Lady? Hell if I know. What I do know is that Hollande's approval rating has actually ticked up, a possible referendum on Gayet's hotness. Or maybe the French are just a nation of dissolute layabouts and we should try very hard not to be like them.

Harumph (Music Today Sucks)

I'm sure many of you, if you're over the age of 40, have had the "music" argument with your kids, the one that starts with you complaining about how awful today's popular music is. I personally believe that today's pop music is mostly wretched and will be forgotten in 10-15 years. It is bland and disposable, auto-tuned, as if written by machines. On the other hand, I believe music from, roughly, 1963 to 1979 will be studied centuries from now and will be regarded as a golden age, not unlike the late 18th century.

When was the last time someone wrote a song as ominous and wonderfully ominous as "Gimmie Shelter," as soaringly beautiful as "God Only Knows," or with the exquisite craft of “Hotel California?” If I'm missing something, please tell me, because I'd love to download something fresh.

My kids tell me that I simply like the music of my youth. This is a reasonable argument since every generation romanticizes its teenage years. But no, I think those of us who were young in the ‘60s and ‘70s just got lucky. Musical greatness is not linear, and some periods simply stand out, while others are forgotten. 

Quick, name a song from the 1910s. How about one from the ‘30s? How about anything at all from the second half of the 19th century? 

I'm waiting…

A number of factors came together in the ‘60s and ‘70s that conspired to produce greatness. Technology certainly played a part, with 4 and 8-track recording becoming available for the first time. 

A friend of mine who runs a record label says a big part of it was actually drugs, particularly LSD. It spurred creativity, the argument goes. While there may be something to this, it's not as if drugs have disappeared. Perhaps LSD use has waned...

The cultural backdrop of the ‘60s almost certainly played a role. And while the flower-power generation was grossly narcissistic, and its societal impact almost entirely negative (in my view), there's no arguing that all that social experimentation paid off in spades when it came to music. Landing on the moon after starting from scratch in 1961was no more remarkable than evolving from "The Twist" to "Sympathy for the Devil" in the same time frame.

And, of course, there's luck. Perhaps no age was as rife with musical genius, from Lennon and McCartney to Dylan to Brian Wilson to Keith Richards to Jimmy Page to Lindsay Buckingham. And more. These brilliant artists were thrown onto a canvas of experimentation, drugs, and technology, and incredible art was the result.

Then there's...today. Really, it started to go downhill in the ‘80s and seems to have accelerated ever since. The art of writing a hook has been lost, as has any ability to harmonize. I can’t remember the last time I heard an interesting chord progression (many songs today are played entirely in one key!). Lyrics have reverted back to treacly ‘50s simplicity or, in the case of rap, vulgar journeys through rhyming dictionaries. Nothing is implied through suggestion or imagery, it is simply said. "My Life Would Suck Without You," screeched Kelly Clarkson in her recent hit. Bob Dylan weeps for you.

Much of it also just sounds the same, which is odd as there's more technology than ever with which to experiment. Garage Band, which comes free with any Mac, has exponentially more technology than any studio in which the Beatles recorded. Any sound you can imagine, you can create. But ironically, the absence of boundaries has tempered any desire to find and smash through them. 

John Lennon once challenged the Beatles’ recording engineer, the great Geoff Emerick, to make his voice sound like the "Dalai Lama shouting from a mountaintop." He did, with only the primitive tools available at the time. (The results can be listened to in the song "Tomorrow Never Knows.”) Today there's probably a button you push that says "Dalai Lama Effect." 

The contemporary artist is not challenged, so he does not challenge himself. 

I've been pondering getting this off my chest for some time, but there's a reason I'm writing about it now. It turns out there's proof that I'm right! Actual data. Michael Cembalest, a JP Morgan executive, wrote the following to his son as he left for college this fall:

I arrived at college in 1980 (the inception of a decade-long musical graveyard) when many people turned off the radio and instead listened to classic rock and rhythm & blues; blues produced from 1965 to 1978. I notice you like this music as well. Now you can substantiate to today’s generation why that era’s music was objectively “better." 

The Million Song Dataset is a database of western popular music produced from 1955 to 2010. As described in Scientific Reports (affiliated with the publication Scientific American), researchers developed algorithms to see what has changed over time, focusing on three variables: timbre, pitch and loudness. Timbre is a proxy for texture and tone quality, terms which reflect the variety and richness of a given sound. Higher levels of timbre most often result from diverse instrumentation (more than one instrument playing the same note). Pitch refers to the tonal structure of a song: how the chords progress, and the diversity of transitions between chords. Since the 1960’s, timbral variety has been steadily declining, and chord transitions have become narrower and more predictable...

 

(Source: "Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music," Scientific Reports, Serra et al, May 2012)

The researchers also found that popular music has gotten a lot louder. The median recorded loudness value of songs by year is shown in the second chart. One illustrative example: in 2008, Metallica fans complained that the Guitar Hero version of its recent album sounded better than it did on CD. As reported in Rolling Stone, the CD version was re- mastered at too high a decibel level, part of the Loudness Wars affecting popular music. 

Overall, the researchers concluded that there has been a “progressive homogenization of the musical discourse”, a process which has resulted in music becoming blander and louder. This might seem like a reactionary point of view for an adult to write, but the data does seem to back me up on this. All of that being said, I do like that Method Man-Mary J. Blige duet.  

So there it is. We are being assaulted with loud, bland music. The scientists say so.

Excuse me, while I turn the dial on my radio back to Classic Rock…