top of page

Observation 5/25

Got two flavors of preferred background noise lined up and entirely looking forward to good gardening weather.

I continue to see here separate acts with one mind - that of a 豺狼 政权, still insisting on its adherence to 'the international rules-based order' while doing nothing of the sort, and that treats fury such as this as impotent. I laugh at the passage in this article which claims that the 豺狼 "follows the path of peaceful development and mutually beneficial strategy of opening up.“ (I wonder at suggestions to leave the past in the past when the past was last month-week-night-lunch break.) 中国 的 豺狼 政权 will regard other states (still there, 微软) with the same respect they hold for their own people unless made to stop. (Noting - check for info on parent and subsidiary companies to respond to adaptations.)

Speaking of impotence, adding this to suggest - with all possible snark, mass mailers - that a not-on-my-list-but-fits politician with a faulty link might provide better direction than Shady Pines et al ever will at this point.

And going by that video from earlier, it might be a good idea to expand the club to accommodate additional members. If the book really was banned, I can understand the outcry and maybe even the writer's defense of her work, even if it's based on something more convenient for her to believe rather than something confirmed; but if it was merely moved (how does this text compare with poetry more frequently accessible to elementary students?) then I'd find it fitting for the Babysitters' Club to join the Opinion Network in its current state, especially considering the former's taken over the tasks the latter performed under the previous administration as it is.

So the question is, was the book banned, Mr. Senile Nepotist Babysitters' Club, or are you just going with 'restricted' to slide under the radar of using the term 'banned' but treating the news the same way as if 'banned' had been used?

Adding this to suggest, all snark aside, that the paid speaker circuit might be best for this politician at this point.

Adding this to ask a question - if I remember correctly, the spouse that women take upon becoming nuns is the Catholic Church; so if the woman's 'breaking of her vows' was without her consent, does that mean spousal abuse laws apply?

Ending with this because serendipity!

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Classic
  • Twitter Classic
  • Google Classic
bottom of page