Another example of what's wrong with #scientism

Scientism goes beyond proper science in claiming that the methods of the sciences are appropriate for understanding poetry, music, and  things like philosophy.

It's greedy reductoinism, a misuse of science, a misunderstanding of science, and more

That "more" is ultimately the veneration of science, the putting of sceintific method on an unwarranted pedestal.

Scientists are humans, though, no less than anybody else.

And the latest news in the "immortal" cells of Henriettra Lacks, both privacy issues, and the lack of ethics of many scientists, and official scientific organizations and societies, to speak about said violations of privacy, proves this.

This is another reason the Michael Shermers and Sam Harrises of the world are just wrong in their veneration of scientism. Science is no guarantor of ethical superiority. As for the specific issues of gene sequencing without consent? American Indians have had similar done to them repeatedly. Scientists have egos, lusting for fame and more, and will in some cases cut ethical corners to their ends.

So, respect, support and use the scientific method. But, never, ever, let science arbitrate non-science issues. The eugenics movement started in the US, before Nazi German, in part for that reason.

Meanwhile, more scientism here from the Public Library of Science, as part of a paper claiming the scientific method makes you think more morally.

Science has stood as a powerful force in shaping human civilization and behavior.

Er, some specific examples on shaping behavior for good? What a #fail.

Let's say someone at PLoS points to science showing being gay/lesbian is driven largely by heredity, therefore we should treat gays/lesbians with equality. I counter that a philosophically based liberal humanism says we should treat them with equality whether homosexuality is biology or choice.

#Hillary2016 — terrrifies GOP insiders — and liberal outsiders

Texas blogger Jobsanger is just the latest of many a liberal blogging pundit to tout the wonders of Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016.

Yes, she would probably beat any likely GOP competitor.

But, a retread of her husband mixed with some of the worst of Obama on civil liberties issues?

Democrats, if you really want that, you can have it. I'll vote Green again in a heartbeat.

And, would her nomination be a cakewalk, anyway? I'm not so sure.

It's arguable some of the same sexism she face in 2008 will be around again, combined with an ageism that hits women harder.

On the other hand, the Democratic "bench" is pretty thin. Andrew Cuomo? Bleah. And probably a more neoliberal version of his Hamlet-like Dad. Jerry Brown? Bleah, blah and too old. A phony's phony even within today's Democratic Party, too. Wait until he actually tries to ram through the Jerry Brown Peripheral Canal. Even Gang Green enviro groups will have to run away from him.

Now? Name me another Democratic gov.

I had to Google to find John Hickenlooper of Colorado. The background metrics are good, theoretically. He's overseen a reddish state go blue, right? Of course, under Dick Lamm, Colorado was blueish a few decades back, so let's not oversell that. Medical marijuana, and Denver's halfway liberal in terms of modern America, right? Hickenlooper opposed both Denver and statewide medical marijuana initiatives. And Hickenlooper himself? Charisma or other things to be president? I think not.

He's also, as true liberals know regarding his protest crackdown during teh 2008 Democratic National Convention, no more liberal on civil liberties of some sorts than Dear Leader or Hillary. So, even if he has a chance of beating Hillary, he's no better than her.

Deval Patrick? A snowball's melting in hell before America has a second black president, sorry. Especially since Patrick was born and raised on the South Side of Chicago. Wayyyy too much baggage coming after Dear Leader, there. And, his 2010 re-election, even with midterm Obama baggage nationally, wasn't that impressive.

Martin O'Malley? Possible dark-horse governor, who's known to have ambitions.

Senators? Obama was kind of a fluke. Another Democratic senator-cum-president is highly unlikely. I would personally consider voting for Barbara Boxer, who might actually have a shot, or Al Franken, who almost certainly wouldn't, not in today's Democratic Party. I'd consider Tammy Baldwin, too, but she has less of a shot than Al Franken, probably.

Anthony Kennedy — more than ever, the gay rights swing vote

As many expected, but of which one could never be sure until it happened, the Obama Administration officially filed an amicus brief earlier today in the California Proposition 8 appeal before the Supreme Court.

And, the verbal judo is clearly targeted at Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, despite a fairly consistent conservative vote pattern on anything involving business or money, is a moderate liberal on at least a certain amount of civil rights issues.

Here's the heart of the amicus:

The government’s brief concludes with a ringing denunciation of the California ban on same-sex marriage, which it said is based in “impermissible prejudice.” 

It then cited a concurrence in a 2001 Supreme Court case that said prejudice might not rise “from malice or hostile animus,” and might well be the result of “insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.” 

No matter, the brief said. “Prejudice may not, however, be the basis for differential treatment under the law.” 

The author of that concurrence is Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is expected to be a crucial voice within the court in both of the current cases. (That argument is similar to the one made in the administration’s brief in a second case before the Supreme Court concerning the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.)

Will Kennedy mind being referenced so directly? Actually, he may be flattered; he's got one of the bigger egos on the court.

That said, will the trick work?

I'd say yes, in part because the Administration narrowly tailored the amicus to the state (pun intended) at hand, rather than going national.

I predict Kennedy votes as part of a 5-4 majority to boot Prop. 8. And, even if the ruling is tailored to California, it will be a precedent of sorts.

Update, March 15: Some indication of how Kennedy may be leaning might be inferred from the Nine giving the Department of Justice speaking time on its amicus brief.

Michael McConnell has a different tack. He notes that SCOTUS could, in the Prop. 8 case, find that the Californians suing to uphold it don't have legal standing. It's actually a strong argument legally.

Meanwhile, per Lyle Denniston and others, it looks like DOMA is toast, toast, toast. Again, Kennedy seems to be leading the charge on killing it in some way, shape or form.

#Obamacare, #Medicaid, Tricky Ricky Perry, and neoliberal blue stateism

Ron Brownstein has a good column at National Journal about how Tricky Ricky Perry could help turn Texas blue.

Well, first, let's take this with a grain of salt.

Dems haven't won a statewide election here since what, 1990, when Miss Ann was elected gov?

Second, depending on this to drive Texas blue is about as smart as depending on Hispanic numbers growth to do the same.

That said, the story notes that some GOPers on the House side of the Lege are still pushing for an Arkansas deal on the Medicaid expansion portion of Obamacare.

Last week, (GOP State Rep. John) Zerwas introduced legislation that would authorize state health officials to negotiate with the Obama administration to expand while delivering coverage for the newly eligible through new means. He likes the deal the administration is discussing with Arkansas, which could allow the state to use Medicaid expansion dollars to instead buy private insurance for its eligible adults, and he believes that approach could be “sellable to the governor.”

Yes, this would be better than nothing, but I generally DO NOT LIKE the Medicaid expansion of Obamacare being negotiated away so that states can do it all through private insurers. That said, since the non-Medicaid part of Obamacare is all through private insurers, are you surprised that Obama would agree to this?

And speaking the Texas Senate GOP harder line?

Key state Senate Republicans, though, are striking a harder line. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Tommy Williams says he will support enlarging Medicaid only if Obama allows Texas to transform the way it delivers Medicaid, not only to the expansion population but also to the current recipients. “The existing program is not sustainable,” Williams says.

That’s a hardball position, but not necessarily disqualifying: The administration has reached an agreement in principle with Florida, for instance, to move more Medicaid recipients into private managed care. Many here, though, wonder if Perry would take any deal. The widespread belief is that he intends to seek the GOP presidential nomination again in 2016, and accepting more Medicaid money would smudge his image of Alamo-like resistance to Obama.

Obamacare through private insurers, including the Medicaid portion. The possibility of more of that on the non-Obamacare portion of Medicaid. Still no plan by Team Obama to submit a bill to end cost-ineffective Medicare Plus, Medicare's version of cost-ineffective private coverage. Obama pushing for free trade deals to benefit Big Pharma.

And, as part of the neolib snake oil, no federal department or bureau for insurance regulation.

That said, Brownstein notes that because many, many of the uninsured here in Tejas are Hispanic, this would be another gunshot-in-foot move by Perry in particular and the GOP in general.

And, Dems would get the pickings, even with not necessarily helping Hispanics that much. Hence, the last part of my header.

Climate change news: EROEI and iron-eating plankton

Scientific American has a great post about just how much energy return on energy investment a modern society needs. That's EROEI for short in the Peak Oil world, though SciAm drops the second use of "energy" and calls it EROI.

The nut grafs in this Q-and-A piece are on page 2:

Is there some minimum EROI we need to have?
Since everything we make depends on energy, you can't simply pay more and more and get enough to run society. At some energy return on investment—I'm guessing 5:1 or 6:1—it doesn't work anymore.

What happens when the EROI gets too low? What’s achievable at different EROIs?
If you've got an EROI of 1.1:1, you can pump the oil out of the ground and look at it. If you've got 1.2:1, you can refine it and look at it. At 1.3:1, you can move it to where you want it and look at it. We looked at the minimum EROI you need to drive a truck, and you need at least 3:1 at the wellhead. Now, if you want to put anything in the truck, like grain, you need to have an EROI of 5:1. And that includes the depreciation for the truck. But if you want to include the depreciation for the truck driver and the oil worker and the farmer, then you've got to support the families. And then you need an EROI of 7:1. And if you want education, you need 8:1 or 9:1. And if you want health care, you need 10:1 or 11:1.

Anybody who's followed the issue knows that Canada's tar sands are on the borderline of that 6:1 at best. It's more than global warming/climate change issues of this relatively dirty oil that's the problem. It's the amount of energy needed to extract them, and what sources are used for that energy, and then, how does THAT affect climate change as a sidebar.

But, it's more than "just" climate change. Author Mason Inman, in those nut grafs, also ties it to quality of life, and somewhat, if you will, to quantity of life.

On some things, increased efficiency will continue to help. But, recycling, like when that truck breaks down? That takes energy itself.

===

Meanwhile, in news more directly related to climate change greens have long touted the possibility of oceanic phytoplankton "eating" a fair share of our burgeoning carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate-related geoengineers then came up with the idea of seeding patches of ocean with microscopic iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth.

Then, nature provided a ready-made experiment.

Ash from the recently erupted Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull provided enough iron to stimulate 2010 plankton growth in the North Atlantic the size of France or Texas.

But, the effect was short-lived and for a specific reason.

Unfortunately or fortunately, perhaps, the specificity of the reason could lead to further experimentation elsewhere.

The reason why it was short-lived is that the additional plankton quickly gobbled up oceanic nitrates.

So, the reason an experiment could be tried elsewhere is that our Big Ag produces a nitrate-laden "dead zone" every year just beyond the mouth of the Mississippi. On the other hand, what if this works and a huge  bloom causes other problems? What if some of the plankton evolve into freshwater forms and start colonizing the river?

And, in the Southern Ocean, phytoplankton have reached their limits, it seems.

Matt Yglesias, Brat Pack pro-bankster libertarian

The "Brat Pack" is a phrase I coined a couple of weeks ago, when folks like Ezra Klein and Felix Salmon started kicking freelance writer Nate Thayer in the 'nads for the temerity of asking Atlantic Monthly to actually pay him money, not "exposure," for writing an article.

At the time, I realized, per Yevgeny Morozov, that most alleged or self-identified neoliberal geeks of this type are actually libertarians in drag.

And now, as if I had much doubt before, I realize Matt Yglesias is part of the crowd with this pro-bankster piece, including this WTF line:

The thing about "too big to fail" is that nobody responsible for bailing out TBTF institutions has ever actually cited size as the key consideration.

No, Matt, but plenty of people outside the Beltway "Responsible People" have said exactly that.  

The rest of the piece?

Matty Y first says that mid-major banks have a vested interest in us actually creating a "too big  to fail" class and breaking them up. That may be true, but the implication that the general public doesn't is bullshit.

He then essentially claims that this is an issue separet from other regulatory issues for banks, then gets into Beltway wonkery.

It's part of a bigger piece wondering Sen. David Vitter (R-Whorehouse) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) are making such strange bedfellows on this issue. But, even there, Matty Y whiffs, mainly on not being nearly skeptical enough of Vitter's motives, which could be many, including:

1. Posturing in preparation for a campaign donation shakedown of the banksters, for himself, a 501(c)4 or whatever;
2. Building up cred with any Louisiana Tea Partiers that are actually anti-bankster;
3. Being the GOP senator officially designated to emasculate whatever Brown has in mind.

 Meanwhile, being a Brat Pack libertarian means getting others to work for "exposure" so you can drop 1.2 million large on some exclusive Beltway digs, like Yglesias.