A second graduate jumps into the photo, opens his robe to reveal himsellf in underwear with the obvious intent of spoiling the photo.
It doesn't happen. The mother presses a button and his image disappears. The picture is perfect. To the amazement of onlookers.
I had a conversation with my grand-daughter. I asked what is Crack cocaine?
It's a derivative of cocaine, she said.
What is its physical effect, I asked.
It makes people jittery, she said.
I knew what I knew.
I watch a lot of late night television which often involves guests from the entertainment industry.
It's not at all unusual to watch someone obviously high on something or other. It involves a complete inability to control twitching and jerking of just about every part of the body.
On one show , the guests were Roseanne and one of her husbands. Both were a seething mass of motion. It was terrible to watch.
It's not uncommon for a conversation with a guest to revolve around rehab treatment and how long it took to get clean. At that point , the guest is in an obvious condition of physical deterioration.
Another abnormal conditions presents when a guest is clearly oblivious to his surroundings. The ten minute guest spot is a trial for the host and a great relief when it's over.
So, even if we do not move in circles where "recreational" drugs are common practice, if any amount of television is a habit, we cannot be unaware of their terrible impact.
We really don't need to be told if a person is an addict. The signs are obvious.
If a person exhibits no signs of addiction, yet we believe they are, it comes down to choosing what to believe.
It's like the person who commented yesterday that because I boycotted the in-camera meeting
that lasted until after one a.m., it meant I was not opposed to the decision made for a politician to sue residents with public funds because she had been criticized
The point of this post is , people can be presented with exactly the same facts, and still arrive at a different conclusion. There doesn't even need to be bias.
Another councillor missed that meeting because of a conflict of interest on a different matter. There can be no inference that this meant agreement to the non-defamation lawsuit that morphed into a SLAPP. And, forgotten in the midst of everything is a 3rd councillor who seems to have decided pretty quickly that the action was wrong and withdrew his support publicly.
ReplyDeleteThe attempts to re-write Auroran history continue......
Why was the lawsuit only brought to the town's attention in June when it was filed last December?
ReplyDeleteAnd why was it filed in Kitchener? Was her highness down there having an Octoberfest sausage on a bun and had nothing better to do?
Saturday Morning at the Cartoon Show
ReplyDeleteCouncillor Ballard is claiming brownie points because he did not go to Vancouver. But, since he did not go to Vancouver, those who did should be ' required ' to give a report to Council.
10:16 AM
ReplyDeleteI think I can help you with part of your question. Morris is using O'Melia again & he lives in the Waterloo area. But has/had connections with Aird Berlis. [ sorry if the last name is not spelled correctly ]
@ 10:16 AM Sometimes the answer is the obvious one. Perhaps Ms . Morris' lawyer did not serve the town until June ? For whatever reasons including forgetting to do it.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCBC
" Former Liberal Senator convicted of fraud begins Jail Term "
We now have a precedent for a Senator being held accountable and going to jail.
National Stop Harper Day has been declared for June 28th. In the interest of fairness, I have checked. Can't find anything similar for any other party leader.
ReplyDeleteAll the senators look dirty. Even the good ones....there must be some,maybe even a majority.
ReplyDeleteGive me a break - everybody knows exactly why Morris filed where she did, when she did - I think she forgot how coniving we all know she is, and how much smarter the people involved in shutting her down are ..... I think this is nail #20? 25? how many nails does one coffin take?
ReplyDelete3:11 PM
ReplyDeleteHi, Kelli. Good to see you. It isn't just a question of the # of nails. To my mind, it's how much personal & town money has been blown on defending against Morris & her thugs.
"It's like the person who commented yesterday that because I boycotted the in-camera meeting that lasted until after one a.m., it meant I was not opposed to the decision made for a politician to sue residents with public funds because she had been criticized."
ReplyDeleteJust like the phrase, "I you choose not to decide, you have still made a choice"... deciding to not attend a meeting of this significance is like attending to endorse it officially. If you truly had issue with the meeting and it's subject matter, you owed it to your constituants to attend and voice your objection. Instead, you rolled over and played dead.