The TV Weathermen Tick Me Off with This One

By -
They are always hectoring listeners to "Stay inside unless you absolutely need to be out."  But, as Sullivan notes, you know who doesn't "absolutely need to be out?" Them! You could tell the conditions outside just fine from the doorway of a building, and be a lot safer. They are out there for ratings.

Comments

  1. Jim7:32 PM

    To be fair, they absolutely need ratings . . .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Josiah Neeley10:38 AM

    If a TV Weatherman didn't go do outside reporting during a major storm when asked, he would probably lose his job. So he does absolutely need to be out there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah11:00 AM

    I fully understand their motivations, and don't even blame them for going out. It's just a bit rich for them to then lecture us on not going out unless we "need" to: Maybe we "need" photos for twitter the same way they "need" ratings.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thomas L. Knapp11:06 AM

    Last night, I heard a TV weatherman giving very sound advice to the millions of people who are currently without electricity.

    Guess it never occurred to him that TVs run on, um, electricity.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more