be careful with pipeline politics. they're tricky. and, sometimes don't make sense on first glance.
keystone, for example. it was good that it got blocked. but, did the state department really want to help canadian oil get to market in china?
when it was considering exports of it's own?
a number of things just happened.
1) canada approved some pipelines. one of them increasing capacity to cushing.
2) opec cut supply (thereby increasing prices).
again: it's always nice to see a pipeline halted. just, be careful about understanding why. it might not be what you think.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
i actually consider islam to be firmly within the bounds of western culture, and think that you're just wrong if you're arguing otherwise.
"the west" is greece, basically.
so, "the west" includes all of the areas that have been defined by greek culture: europe, russia, the middle east, north africa and iran.
"the east" is buddhism, basically.
so, "the east" includes all of the areas that have been defined by buddhism: india, central asia, china, southeast asia.
a good dividing line between east and west is the indus river. that's where alexander stopped.
"the west" is greece, basically.
so, "the west" includes all of the areas that have been defined by greek culture: europe, russia, the middle east, north africa and iran.
"the east" is buddhism, basically.
so, "the east" includes all of the areas that have been defined by buddhism: india, central asia, china, southeast asia.
a good dividing line between east and west is the indus river. that's where alexander stopped.
at
10:02
there's no shame in being wrong, not if you have a good argument. it's not about whether your deductions are correct, it's about whether your argument is sound and you can find your flawed assumptions when the results of the experiment exposes them.
there is something shameful about taking credit for being right when you did not have a rigorous argument to back up your claim.
it is better to be rigorous and wrong than it is to be correct by chance.
knowledge is not a battle of egos. it is a collaborative pursuit. and, debates over who is right and wrong just get in the way of finding a closer approximation of truth.
the reduction of epistemology to a battle of egos is one of the most profound ways that capitalism is destroying our culture.
there is something shameful about taking credit for being right when you did not have a rigorous argument to back up your claim.
it is better to be rigorous and wrong than it is to be correct by chance.
knowledge is not a battle of egos. it is a collaborative pursuit. and, debates over who is right and wrong just get in the way of finding a closer approximation of truth.
the reduction of epistemology to a battle of egos is one of the most profound ways that capitalism is destroying our culture.
at
08:48
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)