Stephen Hawking perfectly illustrates false appeals to authority

Stephen Hawking: Exhibit A on what
constitutes false appeal to authority.

Fallacious appeals to authority are a classic error of common-sense, informal logic, and Stephen Hawking continues to make statements that others give credence that might not be warranted. (Per the first commenter, it's the "others giving credence" that's a fallacious appeal to authority, per the third paragraph and following.)

His latest? We're about to wipe ourselves out.

Maybe we are, maybe we're not, but he brings no special scientific credence to the table on the issue, unless there's a previously undiscovered black hole hurtling toward earth, and even then, that would be the black hole wiping us out, not we ourselves.

Look, he may be right.

But, that's not because he says so, it's because the most pessimistic climate scientists turn out to be right, or the most pessimistic students of nuclear weaponry turn out to be right.

On the former, while I'm no Pollyanna, I'm no James Howard Kunstler, either. On the latter, while I'm no modern day Atoms for Peace type, I think the world, by slow fits and starts, continues to become slightly less nuclearized.

Back to Hawking.

He's been wrong in something halfway approaching his sphere of expertise before, which further undercuts his credibility outside that sphere.

He has claimed, for example, that aliens could wipe us out. Given that we've not discovered any evidence of such aliens so far, and given that, IMO, many touters of SETI have overestimated the values of most variables in the Drake equations, may have psychological reasons for so doing, especially in America, and are deservedly spoofed, I highly doubt his claims.

Of course, his answer has been manned colonization elsewhere.

Per the commenter below, if use of sarcasm is an ad hominem
then we've opened the French window Overton Window.

Well, first of all, Prof. Hawking, if aliens attacked Earth, they'd attack Mars, too, and we certainly won't have the ability for interstellar colonization for thousands if not tens of thousands of years.

Second, given that you've been wrong about manned travel to Mars, overlooking the dangers of cosmic radiation, and other costs, your credibility in this whole area is kind of shot.

I'll grant a slightly higher likelihood Hawking is right about high-tech robots, but, to the degree I do, it's not because of his say-so, it's the say-so of experts in the field.

Back to the main point.

False appeal to authority is just one of a couple of dozen fallacies of informal logic. I encourage people to bookmark that link.

Update: I'm going to tackle the aliens part in further depth.

First, by when our first big radio telescopes were built, we know pretty well that there's no intelligent life within 100 light years of Earth.

Second, alien civilizations advanced enough to travel 100 light years or more probably wouldn't even bother wasting their time on us.

Third, if they did want to wipe us out, they'd have Star Trek-type cloaking devices or something. We'd never know what hit us.

Update 2: Per the second round of comments, I've tagged this post with the tag "salvific technologism." To explain, that's the idea that technology will always be the cavalry, always riding over the hill to save human nature. Having seen the massive problems with importing one invasive species to battle another, the idea that humans would go beyond that, the idea that human control of biology will always save us (it won't always fail us, though, and this should not be read as something anti-GMO), to the idea that human technological engineering will always save us, like in geoengineering against climate change, or blasting off to another planet after wrecking this one, is appalling, as well as being about as likely to be true as biological controls I mentioned at the start of the sentence.

And, for either of the commenters, or others, who have not read through my blog otherwise, those thoughts aren't just mine. I strongly suggest reading the likes of Evgeny Morozov.

==

Update, Oct. 20, 2018:

And since it's my blog, Seeker, I get to weigh in two years later with the next word, based in large part on John Horgan's review of Hawking's last book.

Hawking does practice scientism, though perhaps not as badly as other scientists. (I'm looking at you, Tyson.)

And, Horgan is right on another issue, which he touches on indirectly — the energy cost to settle any significant number of humans on Mars would be massively more than to address climate change or pandemics here. A Yucatan-like asteroid we should be able to deflect by the time one gets here. Hawking is far from alone in making these mistakes, but ... he's made them.

Beyond what I posted in comments below, I wish you so-called "scientific skeptics" would stop practicing scientism yourself, stop indulging others who practice it, and actually give yourself at least a basic acquaintance with philosophy.

I realize I might as well wish for Ted Cruz to support national health care, as far as the likelihood of that happening.

I will still wish and hope. 

The (rise and) fall of the Dallas Morning News, Part 2

Snooze Editor Mike Wilson: Should he
be getting the Titanic lifeboats ready?

The part 1 was written last September, shortly after the Snooze got a managing editor — after a year without one — and a little more than two months after six-months new executive editor Mike Wilson offered buyouts to nearly 170 employees.

Given that Wilson came from 538, which is probably barely above water at ESPN, and managing editor Robyn Tomlin came from Digital Last Media, per my first link, that buyout number didn't totally surprise me.

Nor did the fact that the Snooze remained paywall-less, until a month ago, Publisher Jim Moroney announced it would take a third stab at one.

As noted as part of my blogging about that, a "third stab" means you got it wrong twice. Coming from the company that doubled down on the CueCat, that had a former Google veep apparently think one of the benefits of failed version No. 2 needed to rely on readers being clueless about AdBlock and its siblings, and that, after that, sounded even stupider when it killed the second fail, that too was not surprising. Nor was the typical Snooze arrogance that this was just part of the fiscal solution, that new marketing and PR services from not Belo, but The Belo, of course, were going to be loved, and used, by many and sundry.

(Update, Feb. 15, 2016: Per a good piece by Michael Wolff, given that ad agencies are struggling themselves, and that fact may be true of marketing shops as well, Belo and publisher Jim Moroney may be barking up the wrong tree on "Belo Services" for yet more reasons. Wolff ironically notes that print ads can't be blocked by ad-blockers — observing that newspaper companies have probably noticed this, like all things digital, about 10 years too late.)

And now, yet more layoffs.

The entire NeighborsGo set of suburban weekly tabs killed. (That said, speaking from experience, even with someone I know working there, some of them, or one at least, probably should have been killed long ago.)

But, you laid off, don't totally despair. Wilson says suburban news coverage will be reconfigured in some way, and you'll get to apply for the handful of recreated jobs, surely at lower wages.

Stuff like this is why I don't get why Robert Wilonsky left the Observer to join the Snooze. Yeah, as a digital guy, he's probably getting boatloads, relatively, of Belo money. But, Bob, they're fucking clueless on how to make digital pay. Shouldn't that be a warning sign?

Maybe the Snooze's failure on op-eds to keep up with the Metroplex is part of sinking subscriptions, too (as, of course, is the lack of a paywall). I mean, not just op-eds, but their lifestyle and other columnists as well, have long ago done nothing but zip for me.

Speaking of the editorial and op-ed pages, though ...

Dallas County turned decisively "blue" in the November massacre in 2006, and, except for DA Susan Hawk, which is less about politics and more about Craig Watkins, has remained very much that way. Collin County, either despite or because of the shenanigans of Ken Paxton, state district judge cronies of his and others, is edging to a more pinkish-purpose and out of the red zone. (Obama got a full one-third of the 2012 presidential vote. And the same is true in Denton County.)

But, the Snooze can see fit to, at best, endorse 1 or 2 Democrats running for statewide office, and, unless they're locked-in incumbents like Congresscritter Eddie Bernice Johnson, the same holds true at the local and regional level.

Latest example? Whomever including or besides Robert T. Garrett is responsible for its national politics coverage, had no problem live-tweeting last week's GOP debate. The paper's Politics-section Twitter account was AWOL from Sunday's Democratic debate.

And, as long as Belo's cold dead claws hold on to the Snooze, that ain't changing.

Other than all of the other issues above, as I've also noted before, Belo has no more room for error. It's sold all of its TV stations. It's sold all of its papers other than the Snooze and related Dallas properties, which are now two less (taking Neighbors as a group plus FD) than they were at the time Moroney talked about how users would flock to the Snooze's marketing and PR services. Without other papers, you can't make yourself into a mini-Gatehouse or something.

My schadenfreude, of course, does not extend to past employees there who I've known. I'm sure you enjoyed the pay, and the relative ease of hours at times as compared to community newspapers. And it's sad that Belo's now dangling the carrot of rehiring you — for newly created and shuffled jobs, at lower pay than before, and competing with others. I'm sure your bennies clock restarts at zero if you're rehired, too.

TX Progressives look at the #DemDebate and more

The Texas Progressive Alliance reminds you that Black Lives Matter on Martin Luther King Day as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff describes the qualities he wants in a County Commissioner to succeed the late El Franco Lee.

Libby Shaw contributing to The Texas Blues: Living in a place run by the Three Stooges of Bigotry, Snake Oil and Malfeasance.

SocraticGadfly, anticipating last Sunday's Democratic Debate, took a cold look at the new heat, primarily on Hillary Cinton's side, between her and Sanders, on single-payer health care vs. gun nuttery.

Before the last GOP debate, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs sensed desperation in the air.  After it, the smell of fear lingered like... well, you-know-what.

CoudBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is glad that there are regulations to keep our food, air, water, pharmaceuticals, workers, and consumer products safe.  We need more and better, not worse and less.

Neil at All People Have Value noted the passing of baseball Hall of Famer and Negro League star Monte Irvin. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

The TPA is greatly saddened by the passing of Florencia "Flora" Medellin, and extends its deepest sympathies to her family and many friends.


=======================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Grits for Breakfast pinpoints the underlying legislative problem that proponents of police body cameras will have to solve to achieve real transparency.

Better Texas Blog reviews the changes in penalties for not having health insurance.

Tamara Tabo laments how little we all know about our rights when we are pulled over by a police officer.

The Great God Pan Is Dead selects his favorite art books from 2015.

Paradise in Hell ponders Greg Abbott's constitutional tantrum.

Juanita revels in the latest Ken Paxton revelations.

The Better Texas Blog looks at the increases in penalties under Obamacare for lack of insurance.

The Star-Telegram's PoliTex blog looks at Paul Ryan's planned trip to North Texas.

#DemDebate overview and lead-in; Clinton and petard-hoisting; #singlepayer and guns

In the wake of Sunday night's last Democratic debate before the Iowa caucuses is this good piece from the New York Times.

Takeaway No. 1 is near the bottom. That's that Clinton is not regretting scheduling more debates against Bernie Sanders than the three we've had.

Does this mean that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz should now be facing fire from both campaigns?

Takeaway No. 2 is that she thinks she should have attacked him more earlier. Rather than sending out Chelsea the Attack Dog, I guess, in what's been a hugely panned (including by me) set of lies about Sanders' stance on single-payer health care.

Takeaway No. 3 comes from a second piece. Clintonista attack dog David Brock is pushing the idea that Sanders might be hiding something medically.

Apparently, the bluntness with which he's doing this has Clinton's own campaign chairman concerned:

.@davidbrockdc: Chill out. We're fighting on who would make a better President, not on who has a better Physical Fitness Test.

— John Podesta (@johnpodesta) January 17, 2016

There you go.

That said, given that Bernie is already older than Ronald Reagan was when elected to his second term, I wouldn't mind seeing some medical records myself.

Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing Hillary's, as well. Per this:

@7im @DougHenwood she released a letter from her physician attesting to her "fitness" but I'm not sure why that's tantamount to "records"

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 17, 2016

That may be why Podesta is telling Brock to "chill out."

Friend Brains has this preview take on the debate.

As for the debate? Small sample size, but Politico says Sanders kicked butt with South Carolinians in the first hour. Note: Of the 30 sampled, 14 are African American. After the debate was done, the rest of the chattering class agreed that Sanders won.

I thought Bernie mopped the floor with Hillary on anything related to health care. Clinton claimed that Obamacare gave us "a path to universal health care." Yep, and Sanders wants to take us the rest of the way there and you don't.

I thought he scored good points on Iran, with the perfect timing of Iran releasing several American Sunday. I think Clinton is wrong with her "crush ISIS" ideas. That's not how counterterrorism works, and it's a call to be a warhawk.

I think his comment about banksters' speaking fees nailed her. I think O'Malley had a good assist on the "new Glass-Steagall" issue. As for Hillary Clinton invoking Barney Frank and the Dodd-Frank bill? Barney's been a neolib in the banksters' bathtub for decades.

I do think Sanders didn't really explain how Sunday's flip-flop on his 2005 vote in favor of gun maker lawsuit immunity wasn't a flip-flop. And, he didn't really explain why he changed his position other than Sunday being the third Democratic debate. On the other hand, a Washington Post piece argues it's not out of the blue after all.

The fact that Sanders has a D-minus rating is a fig leaf. It speaks of the NRA above all. And, Howard Dean may have had an A rating, but he was more of a suck-up and less liberal overall.

Yes, Bernie may be getting better, but, with nuancing it to within the Democratic Party, per NBC's debate coverage, I'll disagree with Brains and say that Bernie is, or has been, a gun nut.

I'll also disagree with his take on Clinton on the housing crisis, while we're there. The housing bubble is more complex than a lot of people would like to make it. For people who bought second houses as investment vehicles, or who "churned" a first house every 2-3 years on a liar's loan, I don't feel that sympathetic, assuming they knew what they were doing.

I can attack the banksters' alphabet soup of housing derivatives, and did repeatedly at the time the bubble burst. I can also attack people who willingly jumped on the speculative gravy train.

For my pre-debate thoughts on guns and health care, go here.

To tie these issues together, Clinton and her surrogates, and Hillarybots among voters, keep saying "we can't do single payer, because Congress won't pass it." Well, the same argument applies to gun control, right? So, do we give up on that as well?

Apparently, such a point of view has infiltrated the punditocracy, judging by this Bloomberg View piece.  And the ideas behind it are being latched onto as defensively by some Hillarybots as Clinton herself was defensive enough last week to send out Chelsea the Attack Dog.

Someone on Facebook (his posting is "public," therefore I don't violate my Facebook ethics rules) posted a link to that with comment, then cited "Syria" and "ISIS" as non-incremental change as his first comment on the thread below his post. With well-poisoning like, that, GFY. Especially if, as a 20-something in Iran, you're naive enough, misinformed enough or whatever to think that Middle East turmoil equivocates to "non-incremental change" in an established democracy.

As for the spat about Obama being weak or whatever? Clinton can wrap herself in Dear Leader's flag all she wants, but he WAS weak on the Great Recession, starting with the hiring of Tim Geithner as his Treasury Secretary.

And, Clinton was way wrong on the online privacy issue.

The Guardian's live-blog has more insights.

And, "Brooklyn" aside, I do think Sanders could stand to work with a speech coach or something. He does come off as too often yelling or similar. That said, when he's in a one-on-one video interview, his voice is much more nuanced. And, he could work on better "presentation" in general. A good example?

He and Clinton have the same position on reparations for slavery, but Bernie gives a blunt "no" while Hillary gives nearly the same answer, more smoothly, and makes it look like "yes."

That Mediate piece is right on other things, too. Bernie's 1-note trumpet isn't good enough on all minority issues.

Look, Sanders: Income inequality has nothing to do with red states gutting voting rights. And, many a poor white individual supports such moves even more than rich whites.

Finally, let's remember it wasn't a two-person debate. I thought Martin O'Malley was more lively than in the first and second debates.

Hillary vs Bernie on #singlepayer, #gunnut; a draw, or a #clusterfuck (updated)

First, the health care side.

Shock me that Chelsea Clinton would drink deeply from mama-san's ruthlessness to utter a boatload of lies like this:

"Sen. Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance," she said during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. "I worry if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that, we'll go back to an era -- before we had the Affordable Care Act -- that would strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance."

Absolutely zero percent of that is true. And the lies she learned at the Knee of Mom, including that Sanders' plan is a worrisome revolution (it ain't, and sadly). Even the Weekly Standard, which on foreign policy is best buds of neocondom with Hillary Clinton, says she's lying.

Oh, if you think I think Hillary Clinton (or Chelsea) is lying on this, read Doug Henwood. But, per his exchange with Katha Pollit of The Nation, even non-Hillarybots who have a certain version of a feminist narrative locked in aren't changing their stances.

No word if defrauded Haiti is an inspired
or informed part of Monde du Clinton.

As for Chelsea Clinton?

But, given that Chelsea wrote an ersatz campaign bio book in place of Mommy Dearest doing one herself, and has no real experience outside of working for Chez Clinton again, none of this is shocking. People who know then have no problem saying this is politics "as usual." 

And, if that's "cynical" rather than "skeptical," I plead very guilty to being cynical about that.

As for the online lies of a faculty advisor to campus Republicans, one pretending to be a Hillary Clinton supporter, and one who was co-author of a book saying that readers would be "entertained" by tea party governors, the single-payer option is NOT "rare" among countries that have some sort of insurance coverage mandate.

Per this link, 16 countries have a full single-payer. Nine others have what it calls a "two-tier" system. That's where there's a single-payer model for catastrophic insurance, with individual purchase options for comprehensive coverage, or

Bernie's one portion of his idea of "Medicare for all" single payer did leave wiggle room, in that he wanted make the expansion of Medicare like Obamacare — state exchange-type systems, but a federal system as a backup.

To that, I say, why?

Every baby these days gets a Social Security number. Give each bambino a Medicare account at the same time, if you're going to expand Medicare. 

Period.

No need for state Medicare exchanges or anything like that.

Bernie's plans were too bureaucratic, which is a bit worrisome, since that's a charge conservatives who aren't even full wingnut fling around. And, it's a change hurled around in spades, and rightly so, at Clinton's 1993 "Hillarycare" as well as Obamacare. People hate American health insurance paperwork and bureaucracy, whether corporate or government.

The gun nut side of the coin?

Sorry, Bernie, but your defense of your support of giving gun manufacturers lawsuit immunity is weak as hell. If you think you'd like to revise the law today, why didn't you propose an amendment 10 years ago. And, really, how many small gun manufacturers do you know? Per that link, Sanders' claim that such a revision would include prosecuting gun makers in certain instances is already law, too.

Sanders now says he would support overturning that law. That said, his caveat for small gun sellers is a fig leaf just as it's always been, and his claimed 2005 — and ongoing — opposition to child gun locks is tone-deaf, indeed. Beyond that, announcing this the day of the third Democratic presidential debate you're being Just.Another.Politician.™

Here's the nut grafs:

Campaign aides said the decision was not a flip-flop, arguing that Sanders backed the 2005 law in part because of provisions that require child safety locks on guns and ban armor-piercing ammunition. 

"Those were important provisions that I did support," Sanders said in a statement.

 Umm, nice try, nice fail, at the caveating. And, actually, this makes things even worse.

It's an unsubtle flip-flop on the main portion of the bill, hidden behind remaining tone-deaf enough to publicly oppose child safety locks at the same time to have opposed the bill with many good things in it, like the trigger locks. (Fixed after an initial misread of his comments.)

Bernie, if you are going to Just.Another.Politician.™ — and you have been for decades — this is the big stage now. You have to be more subtle.

On the other hand, a Washington Post piece argues it's not out of the blue after all. It still seems like a bit out of the blue. I know that Clinton's desperation over polling free-fall has seized on this issue. But, it does come out of the blue. And, if you like it that much, the actual legislation as described here, why not cosponsor it with Sen. Blumenthal, especially if this isn't out of the blue? And, why the special worry, still, about mom-and-pop gun dealers? Can they not fulfill the law? Or do you think many gun laws still don't work that well? Why the claim that PLCAA does NOT need a full repeal, along with your plans to offer an amendment?

Per ThinkProgress, even small gun dealers can have issues with straw purchases, undercutting your would-be amendment.

As for this being a flip-flop or not? Sanders first said he was thinking about "revisiting" the issue about the time he ran for president. Sandy Hook and Aurora happened long before that. And Schiff has been pushing similar legislation since 2013.

You're a gun nut, at least within the Democratic Party, Bernie, as extensively documented. Anybody who supports pilots packing heat when most of them want nothing to do with that is a gun nut. Ditto on favoring and voting for loaded guns in National Parks, even if you're not the only Democrat to have done so.

And, with the caveat of "within the Democratic party," sorry, Brains, but I'll keep on disagreeing with you. Until Bernie gives a "clean" backing to the Schiff-Blumenthal bill, I'll stand by that.

You're also a warhawk, lusting after the F-35 and other military-industrial complex items, a drones-light guy on using them, and probably a harder-core Zionist than many know.

And, on the guns issue, you're being Just.Another.Politician.™

What's really sad is that the Democratic Party has tacked so far right, and has such a weak Presidential bench that a 1-note Johnny pale imitation of his real socialist self of 40 years ago actually scares Hillary Clinton.

For one thing, Bernie, if you were an actual socialist, on health care, you'd recognize our system is so hypercapitalist that even Medicare for all is not enough, and that ONLY a British-style National Health System will rein in costs. (Matt Yglesias, of all people, actually has some interesting thoughts on cost controls, noting that even Medicare plus all, if it actually held the line on rates, along with a single-ratepayer system, would do some cost controls. Would it be enough?)

At the same time, there's plenty of opportunity to not be a 1-noter, and to really address foreign policy issues. Hypercapitalism, Clinton Foundation style, and neoliberalism, Obama Administration style, have teamed up in foreign policy to apparently continue to foist corrupt government on Haiti. That's even as, to the degree the government isn't corrupt, many services in Haiti are actually delivered by NGOs (many of them neoliberal or corporatist ones), not the government itself.

There's the Honduras coup. There's our drones in Yemen making us a proxy for the Saudis. There's, erm, Palestine, if you'd be less of a Middle East warhawk, less of a Zionist, and actually dare to touch the third rail of foreign policy. There's plenty of foreign policy issues where you could break outside the current Democratic mold, if only you'd actually say something.

There's the fact that capitalist neoliberalism drives a lot of American foreign policy ... ties back in with your economic stances.

There's "free" trade vs. fair trade.

Given all of the above, with the understanding that for me, it applies only to the Democratic primary process and NOT the general election, I do, though, agree with the Nation endorsing Sanders over Clinton.

Diehard fans of both candidates can't detach from the idea that both of them are saints on their ideas. Neither is. That's why I support ideas first, candidates second.

Is the world headed to #GreatRecession Part Deux?

Are we all doomed to eating generic Doritos in the dark?

So said the Royal Bank of Scotland yesterday, telling clients to sell off all but the most secure of assets, as it worried oil would hit $20 a barrel or less.

First, that worry belies the traditional "we're all rational" claim of most macroeconomists. Outside of actual research findings of behavioral economists, all one has to do is watch investment markets to know that, per John Nance Garner, Homo sapiens is collectively less rational than a bucket of warm piss.

Second, RBS's actual worry?

I won't say its chances are "slim and none," but oil at $20/bbl, especially for any lengthy period, is unlikely.

I'm no T. Boone Pickens or other oil bull to the point of fellating a pumpjack. I do know that, although it has taken longer than it should have — precisely because of irrationality among US shale oil drillers, many operating on tight fiscal margins — that the US shale market is unwinding.

As is any claim that the US was about to become a second Saudi Arabia. Remember that laugher a year or two ago from the Energy Information Agency?

That said, no, the US isn't about to become post-Hugo Chavez Venezuela, either.

Once the hyperfear of oil bears dissipates, and once Chinese stock markets stop getting so panicky every time its "circuit breaker" mechanism trips, things will stabilize. A place like Oil-Price.net is realistic, IMO, when its 1-year outlook is $35/bbl.

They're still not going to be pretty. Wall Street, and probably London as well, have both been due for stock corrections. China, with a Potemkin economy of corruption, shoddy construction, and abominable pollution, has been due for an even bigger correction for even longer.

But, this doesn't mean a second "Great Recession," let along Great Depression, is headed here. This is to focus too tightly on oil as a marker for the whole economy. After all, the economy was running sky-high, other than George Soros wrecking Asian currencies, when oil was $10/bbl in the late 1990s. (And, inflation's been low enough that $10 oil in 1998 would still only be $14.56 today, in the US.)

But, as noted, these corrections will happen.

And, the shale oil market will finish unwinding, as stubborn as some operators are.

Update, Jan. 25: Bloomberg says the likelihood of a recession in the U.S. is still a bit below 20 percent.

Once that happens, and the banksters accept writing off some US oilfield depths, there will be more stability, though. As noted above, the US oil market is unwinding. Finally. Maybe not immediately, but, by the middle of the year, I expect the House of Saud to agree to a trim on oil production. NOT a "cut," a "trim." Enough to get oil into the mid-$40s in time for US summer driving season.

That then said, this does reflect the spoiled greed of hypercapitalism, with the bankster world acting like a pouting 2-year-old holding its collective breath. Markets have corrections. Sometimes you lose money. Deal with it.

And, let's hope no neolib politicians offer to bail you out at the least sign of problems.

I still wonder if my $34-37 for the low end of oil prices on my poll at right is too high. But, I don't think it's that much too high.

As for people worried about their investments?

First, see above. Financial markets ALWAYS make adjustments. If you're too greedy, or if you rolled "Dow 36,000" pages into a giant doobie, or if like Ralph Nader of oil stocks ownership fame of 2000, you wanted the Fed to hike interest rates to make your investments earn more, I've got zero sympathy for you. No, wait. I have less than that.

Second, if you're going to bitch about any of the above AFTER noting how fragile the recovery was from the Great Recession, it ain't my fault you didn't make safer investments. Nor, if you're going to be that much of a capitalist, is it my fault you're not richer.