Self-Refuting Sign?

By -
As I drive to work I pass a billboard that reads "The Loss of This Billboard Cost NYC Jobs and Money."

But it's not lost: there it is, right by the roadside. It's not even unused: It is displaying the above message. What does it all mean?

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy11:29 AM

    Normally I "get" what the people meant in your anecdotes, but this one genuinely puzzles me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. rob11:34 AM

    Perhaps it was lost at some point in the past and had the effects mentioned on the billboard.

    But luckily now they have found it again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah11:39 AM

    One idea: Could it be the city stopped the owner from renting it out, but for first amendment reasons couldn't stop him from putting up his own message complaining about the situation?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gabe Ruth11:57 AM

    I've been puzzled that sign for a long time, but I think this is what they are talking about.

    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