Say, have I mentioned before that, regardless of who is giving it, I effing hate the State of the Union address?
Worst night of television of the year.
1/27/2010
1/25/2010
Just drop by Maggiano’s.
I recently happened across a now-outdated flier for Maggiano’s Little Italy, as you may have a guessed, an Italian restaurant chain. The flier was actually a bit galling to me. On one side it reads “WRAP UP A TOUGH WITH WITH THIS TASTY OFFER.” On the other side there’s a coupon that reads, “ENJOY AN AFFORDABLE RECESSION-BUSTING MEAL FOR JUST $26.95 PER PERSON”.
Did you catch that?
Affordable.
Recession-busting.
$26.95 per person!
I don’t too much mind a restaurant being extremely overpriced. It’s not like I have to go there. But what kind of snooty nerve do you have to have to consider that price “recession-busting?”
As you may have no heard, the IPCC made a bit of a booboo.
When I read the article the first time, I thought this was astounding.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
However, that may not quite be the truth.
However, an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.
I mean, who would want an influential body like the IPCC to be truthful or responsible anyway?
1/22/2010
I’m pretty sure that the only real talent regulators have is to obfuscate their own work so much that no one else has any chance of figuring out if the regulators are ever actually doing their job.
Yesterday I listened to a proposal for a new rule that is supposed to reduce risk for people in the market. The intention is great. But when I asked for clarification on their broad wording I got a typical non-answer that I would I will paraphrase here:
We’re creating a new rule that you can use to manage risk. However, we can’t tell you exactly what it means. But we guarantee that we will catch anybody who incorrectly interprets the rule for which we provided no interpretation.
Translation:
We’re helping you reduce risk by giving you more.
