看 on

I think I've matched the broadcast study material to the online ones, meaning I can snag some semblance of replay to recheck dialogue! Huh. So that's where the hat comes from. And the music is just a hair behind the plucked string. (The instrument onscreen seemed narrower than this, but it's the same form. This maybe?) 问人人 what? And at that volume, you'd think they'd wake 人人 up, even in a walled compound that size and in the rain. 不认 what?

I'm sorry, is this an example of how a Junction Dweller writes when facing accountability for - should I use the same term deliberately? What is one supposed to not retain? The conflicts of interest, nepotism, and corruption? The advice columns? Or the "no coherent position on foreign policy?" Is one meant to focus on how well this administration's doing? Or how its supporters justify timelines?

To elect is to choose. To withhold information relevant to that choice is a dereliction of one's post. To defend that withholding in the face of its consequences is cause to combat complacency. I might dare to expect that the writer's list of grievances is some form of awareness of the need to call into question any judgment that would silence information on the laptop, or the emails, or the athletes, or the algorithms, or - what's adrenochrome? (Ah.)

But a front row seat to this show, and a hand in its casting? Let that be a bright side for you, JD.

Adding this because the 蝗灾's spreading. (This time, some semblance of order is geographic rather than chronological.)

Re-upping this with some historical context.

Ending with this because it's the only way I'll tolerate bell peppers.