Why don’t you advertise?
There are places I could have visited, and didn’t. This evening, a documentary on seabird research took me, virtually, to the Digges Islands. Not that any of you are likely to go there, either; the site is really not on any road map. At a time in my life when I didn’t have any municipal taxes to pay, or a driveway to clear, I was invited to serve as a research assistant to a scientist. And I said no. Too late.
I’m starting to fear the floods of spring. My boots are no longer tight along the seams (they don’t build a boot like they used to), and so I’ve been to Canny Tire for a tube of ShoeGoo. It’s worked before, after a fashion. Maybe this time I’ll get the stinky stuff onto the stinky boot before it’s too late.
In the ongoing “through the looking glass” saga authored by the Harper Government, another factoid. The courts have granted immunity to one of the chief names mentioned in the Robocall mystery. That’ the attempt to divert electors from their appointed poll and duty. The calls didn’t take place, officially. No crime occurred, officially. Which begs the question about granting immunity.
That differs only in the description of another factoid. An estimated 22 million has been spent to advertise a government program (that doesn’t exist). We know the virtues of the program, to train apprentices, just not the how-to access details. Because the program doesn’t exist. About a decade ago, something called AdScam shocked the Canadian taxpayer, when $2 million was disbursed for advertising that didn’t advertise. This is a variation on a theme. The ten times greater factor must be due to inflation, nothing more.
And don’t get me started on the libraries that have been sent to landfill.
