If you’re just joining us, this website began in protest of the character assassination and outright falsehoods generated under the auspices of the Hampshire College Population and Development Program, and in particular the political intern/smear artist training activities conducted by that program in collaboration with the Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program down the hall. It was announced to the Hampshire Community through a brief occupation launched under the cherry tree outside the ground level offices of Franklin Patterson Hall. To best understand the reasons for this protest, you could use your time no more effectively than by reading a few of my earlier posts, especially the Statement of Purpose.
Although the campus was pretty quiet on May 18th, with everyone busily preparing for the commencement ceremony the next day, I had a few interactions with staff and students, and I have reason to believe that my concerns were heard, if not necessarily affirmed. I also have a few mementos, including a Notice of Trespass issued by the Public Safety department. This document precludes me from returning to the campus, and as much as I treasure it for its inherent symbolism, I do find myself wishing that I still had the option of visiting Hampshire College, not so much to launch another protest, but rather to learn a few things that I have been curious about. With that limitation in mind, I find myself . . …
. . . desperately seeking . . . ..
. . . an ambitious Hampshire College journalism student . . …
. . . ..to help me gain some further insight into the activities occurring on campus, activities that first brought my attention to the Hampshire College community.
I am not asking for the next Woodward or Bernstein here, just someone who believes in fair play, and who has access to the campus. Heck, you don’t even have to think up the questions to ask, as I will provide those here, although you can certainly phrase them differently, and the answers you get will likely suggest follow-up questions that will carry the story further. With the natural curiosity that serves journalists so well, you will likely find that you can dig still deeper, for in the details, I am constantly reminded, we will often find the greatest complicity and intrigue.
Let’s start with an easy one. On this web page there is an post entitled “Meet Jesse Sanes and Rebecca Poswolsky, Open-Borders Activists, Devout Followers of Betsy Hartmann, Fledgling Smear Artists,” which begins by describing Jesse and Rebecca as “two individuals with close ties to the Hampshire College Population and Development Program (POPDEV).” I could have elaborated on that there, but if I had done so, well, that would have deprived you, ambitious journalism student, of an opportunity to demonstrate your investigative skills. So here is your first chance to show your capability.
Can you report back with details about at least several ways in which each of these people is involved at some level with the Hampshire POP/DEV program? To get you started, I can tell you that they both graduated not from Hampshire but from UMASS-Amherst, although Jesse attended Hampshire before transferring to UMASS. Your information may include specifics about Umass faculty who have verifiable connections and regular interactions with the POP/DEV staff. So dig a little deeper, ambitious journalism student, and fill out the picture of the multiple ways in which they were connected to POP/DEV.
You can reach me at email@example.com. Confidentiality is assured, although I may reply to you about journalists who wish to learn more about this protest and its target. You will then have the choice about whether to speak with such journalists, either on or off the record.
Now, it occurs to me that I might hear from others who wish to respond to my protest. I confess I have been disinclined to invite such responses in the past, although I did explicitly invite responses from Jesse and Rebecca (no response as of this date). I confess I expected that such responses might be less than civil, and I didn’t need to invite that kind of abuse at that point. If this seems paranoid or overly sensitive of me, then you need to read the above mentioned piece about Jesse and Rebecca, for the activities they have engaged in are neither civil nor honest. As time goes by, however, I start to find a one-way conversation to be less than satisfying. I am curious about how people are responding. So in offering my e-mail address here for the benefit of ambitious journalism students, I am also opening the door to others who may wish to chime in, whether that be an expression of support or a condemnation. Or maybe you could just let me know how my efforts are being received down there in Amherst. Again, I promise not to share your name as long as you are not involved in the kinds of smear attacks described elsewhere on this web page. I may share your words with my readers, however, and it will be up to you to claim responsibility for them as you see fit.
There are other questions that I now ponder, however, and I would be grateful to anyone who finds them compelling enough to follow up and provide me with answers. One of the biggest has to do with the few hours I spent on campus during the Occupy Hampshire College protest.
A short while after I had set up my banner and settled in to my chair under the cherry tree, a woman came walking by on the sidewalk. She was not fluent in English, and I know only a little bit of Spanish, but it was pretty clear to both of us that it was, unquestionably, a really beautiful day.
Now that stroll she took past my encampment would not have caught my attention if not for what happened next. Just a moment or two later, the same woman came walking by in the other direction, and this time she was giggling like crazy. There was, if I am any judge of human nature, something else going on there; and that something else was clearly making this middle-aged Hispanic woman kind of giddy. At that moment, I had no clear hypothesis about what she could be laughing about, but I found her mood infectious, and I found myself chuckling along with her.
Now, I confess that I was not at the top of my game. Perhaps some of my readers have experience with launching political protests, but personally, at the age of fifty-plus years, I had never before done anything that would have gotten me labeled as a campus radical. Prior to this moment I had been undergoing waves of anxiety, self-doubting and restless sleep for several days. Furthermore, there were technical aspects of my protest that, while they needn’t be explained here, had led to significant delays and headaches, to the effect that while I had hoped to unfurl my banner no later than 1:00 pm on Thursday, I didn’t actually do so until somewhere around lunchtime the next day. I was exhausted and somewhat frazzled. I mention this only because it was not until much later that it occurred to me that the brief stroll that this woman took shortly after I sat down, and the giggly return walk, were perhaps triggered by my presence. While I am unable to approach her in person to confirm this, I feel pretty certain that this woman’s passing by my encampment was not a mere coincidence, but rather an experiment to test the central premise of the smear artists who worked in the adjacent building. That premise, as described elsewhere, was that any person who suggested that immigration contributes significantly to unsustainable U.S. population growth could only be motivated by racism.
So this is another question that I would love to have answered. Perhaps she would be willing to share her recollection of that day. Perhaps she would be willing to explain what had motivated her to walk past the Occupy Hampshire College banner, not just once but twice, and what she had been laughing about on the return trip. Take on this question on if you dare, ambitious journalism student. Some details: It was the day before commencement. The woman spoke Spanish, was perhaps 35 years old, and worked in housekeeping. Specifically, she had been washing windows in the dormitory perpendicular to FP Hall just moments before the start of my protest.
As it happens, I had already interacted with this woman. I’ve mentioned already that the launching of an occupation is a complex logistical challenge. I ran into a few unexpected snags, mostly on the technical end, and had been delayed. Before heading out to the site of the protest, I knew that, to be perfectly frank, I should have a completely empty bladder. I had no advance knowledge of how long the occupation would last, and I certainly didn’t expect to find easy access to a bathroom once I had made my presence and my purpose so publicly known. So before walking out from the vicinity of the dormitories to the open area where I would be spending an unspecified length of time, I sought out a bathroom.
Some may think this is too much information, but I cannot emphasize enough how important it was to me that I squeeze out as much fluid as possible. I visualized myself standing intently in front of a urinal, and not leaving until I had given my internal plumbing a few purposeful last squeezes. Again, sorry if this seems too intimate, but it’s important that you appreciate the image in my mind when I entered into the dormitory closest to the protest site and asked the woman washing windows there if there was a bathroom I could use.
In spite of the language difference, she understood my question and helpfully pointed to a doorway to her right and said, “Long,” then brought her arm around to her left, to the door behind me, and said, “Short.”
Well, this threw me into a state of confusion. I couldn’t understand why they had one bathroom for “short,” and one for “long.” As I said, I was kind of exhausted and frazzled, and all I could think of was that although no one who had ever seen me naked would describe me as “long,” I was sure that any anatomical limitations could be overcome with superior accuracy. And I sure wasn’t going to volunteer to anyone that I was just fine with using the “short” bathroom. So without delay, I went through the door to her right, toward “long.” Once I passed into the hallway, however, I saw nothing but a row of doors with numbers on them, the bedrooms for students, and no sign of a restroom of any dimension. I finally understood that when she had said “long” and “short,” she was advising me that there were bathrooms in either direction, but that one was “far,” and one was “close.”
I can just imagine how this episode will be distorted by the POBAFS, but it seems worth taking that chance for the sake of describing the contact I had already had with this woman before she walked past the site of my protest. Having figured out what she was telling me about the locations of the restrooms, I reversed course, passed again through the entryway to the building, and she pointed again to the doorway on the left and said, again, “short.” I found the incident not significant at the time but kind of amusing, and she seemed to find it amusing as well.
The point here is that, a few minutes later when this woman came walking by my protest site, it was almost as if we had already met and established an easy rapport; the core event of that earlier interaction was, at least on my end, a kind of friendly inside joke. I don’t know if she had been smiling, back there in the entryway to the dorm, for the same reason that I had been smiling, but it was a friendly encounter on either side.
Do you see what I mean, ambitious Hampshire College journalism students, when I say that the details make a story that much more engaging for the reading public? Of course, it’s possible that this woman is no longer working at Hampshire, but I hope that she is, not only because I hope to learn more about what prompted her to take this brief walk, and then turn right around and come back through with a case of the giggles, but also because I sensed that she appreciated being a part of the Hampshire community.
I would hope that it goes without saying that, in suggesting that someone ask this woman what had motivated her to take two quick strolls past the protest encampment, that she should not be made to feel uncomfortable. She certainly has no reason to feel uncomfortable about it, and I certainly bear her no ill will even if it should be revealed that she was doing this as part of a plan to somehow discredit my protest.
She would have no reason to deny anything, of course, as long as no one would persuade her to be untruthful. So, to those who may know some of the details behind this story, please don’t put her in the awful position of having to cover up for the actions of others. If my hunch is correct, after all, then it seems highly likely that there were other witnesses to the encounter, and those witnesses themselves were probably aware that the stroll down the sidewalk had been requested by someone other than the woman who was washing the windows. (Please note: if you do approach her about this question, you will need to be fluent in Spanish or have someone at your side to help with translating.)
It would not surprise me if the folks at POP/DEV might respond to this inquiry by suggesting that I was endorsing the harassment of this woman, and I certainly don’t agree. If my hunch is incorrect, and she was not encouraged to walk past me by someone else, then why would anyone feel the need to harass her? As I mentioned, I think she will certainly remember me, and hence she will likely remember quite well that she had strolled down that sidewalk at someone’s request, if indeed that is the case. So if the folks at POP/DEV really want to suggest that I am endorsing even a modest level of persecution of this woman, I hope they will be honest enough to admit to themselves that the only way that this could end up being a stressful for her is if someone pressures her to lie about it. She might be able to lie, at the behest of others, but she doesn’t strike me as someone who is capable of lying without suffering angst afterwards.
Again, I fully acknowledge that I could be completely off base, and that it really was just a coincidence that, just a short while after I launched a protest that inherently argued that U.S. immigration is occurring at an unsustainable pace, a woman who was possibly an immigrant herself came strolling by. This could have been coincidental, but then what the hell was she giggling about when she walked by me the second time? Unless, of course, she had to get one more look at the first guy to ever choose the “short” bathroom.
If, on the other hand, my guess is accurate, and she was indeed walking past my encampment at the request of someone associated with POP/DEV, were they not essentially hoping that I would respond in a way that would clearly make this woman quite uncomfortable? If they really thought that advocating for an honest debate about the implications of future U.S. population growth is the same as aggressively enforcing the law as a vigilante, then what would have been the best case scenario, from their perspective, in sending this Hispanic woman to within a few yards of one such vigilante? When you use human beings for bait, folks, you better be prepared to justify what happens the trap spring shut.
In its simplest terms, this begins with a simple yes-or-no question. Did this woman who walked past my protest site, not just once but twice, do so of her own volition or at the request of some other person or persons? If the answer is truthfully “No,” then I apologize. I’m not blind to the risk that the POBAFS will strive to paint this as a symptom of some kind of racist undercurrent, but all it really indicates is a high level of curiosity about the workings of the POBAF mindset.
To be perfectly clear, even if my theory is correct, there is no crime being committed here. More than anything, as a lifelong learner, I am always hoping to better understand human behavior, and as a man I am still struggling to learn to put together nonverbal clues other people give out, to more accurately infer their thoughts and emotional state.
I really don’t think it’s such a terrible thing if this was instigated by a student or students. Those young people, after all, would simply be acting faithfully in the context of a worldview that had persistently been fed to them by their role models. Recall the premise of the POBAFS movement as described above, and you can understand that these students, seeing a person who publicly espouses the view that U.S. immigration is occurring at an unsustainable rate, would likely see little difference between that person and the Minutemen who patrol our southern border with the intention of preventing illegal crossings. That would make sense, wouldn’t it? So although I am very curious about this, I can’t get too agitated if it should be revealed that it was a ploy by students to get me to reveal what they had been led to believe was my true nature. On the other hand, if there were professional people, instructors or other Hampshire College staff involved, well that’s just lame. Really lame.
Which raises another interesting question for the cleaning lady, should it turn out that the question delineated above is “yes.” If someone had indeed asked her to take this journey down the sidewalk, who might that person or persons be? And can those individuals identify still others who were in on this scheme?
Again, I implore you not to try to get this woman to lie. Doing so would be unfair and stressful to her. Furthermore, I doubt very much that a lie from her would successfully put the question to rest, for I am guessing that there are witnesses, probably many witnesses. And it seems likely that such witnesses will have shared the story with still others.
If the answer is “Yes,” then it seems also likely that the person who encouraged her to walk past me was observing the interaction from a hidden location, perhaps even filming it. It also seems likely that more than one person would know the correct answer. And it’s seems reasonably safe to assume that those people talked about it to other people, both on and off campus. So an effort to get her to deny the truth would be implicitly enlisting those others in a broader pattern of deception, one that could fall like a house of cards when any one of those participants decides that they don’t care to play along.
If this woman claims that no one encouraged her to take this stroll, and this is not an honest answer on her part, then it’s highly likely that the truth will eventually emerge, and putting her in that situation of giving an answer that an unspecified number of other people know to be untrue would not be either kind or respectful. Furthermore, even if you do persuade this woman to mislead about what happened, won’t you then have to get other people to also deceive in order to protect her? And how about the other people that those other people might have told? If my hunch is correct and this woman was indeed encouraged to walk past me in the hopes of provoking some kind of reaction, my guess is that there are now many, many students and staff who know this to be the case. Are they now all going to have to become complicit in the veil of deception that would settle over the campus if she is pressured into lying? And if you pursue this unwise and futile path toward covering up a naïve and admittedly harmless prank, won’t you really just be proving my whole point about the level of dishonesty embraced by your small army of activists?
Speaking of that army, how are things going over at POP/DEV now that the new academic year has begun. My curiosity runs amuck in spite of this legal prohibition from entering the campus grounds or contacting Hampshire staff or faculty. So another thing I’m really . . ..
. . … desperately seeking . . …
. . ..is . . ..
. . .. a Hampshire smear-farm whistle-blower. . ..
. . ..to illuminate for the world the inside story of the POP/DEV program and its response to my protest. All I really know about it thus far is that there is a steady dribble of new hits on the website. That, and the fact that the appearance of material connected to Hampshire College on the Imagine2050 website has come to a virtual halt, are all I have to gauge the impact of my efforts.
The smear campaign POBAFS website Imagine2050 had been a prominent showcase for the work of current Hampshire students and graduates as they developed, under the guidance of the staff at POP/DEV, their skills in slander and deceit. The folks at Imagine2050 were more than willing to jettison any pretence of honesty or decency in pursuit of their POBAFS agenda, and happily accepted the material sent from the campus in Amherst. At the time of my protest, a keyword search for “Hampshire College” on the Imagine2050 website would pull up dozens of results from the previous year. Still more results would come up for the search terms “Jesse Sanes” or “Rebecca Poswolsky.” Jesse, in particular, had been a very regular contributor there over the previous six months or so. But no further postings have come from either Jesse or Rebecca since then, and only one article comes up with a reference to Hampshire College. Interestingly, that one piece came not from a current student, but one whose name comes up in Hampedia as a student, class of 07. I can’t confirm that this person successfully graduated from Hampshire.
This drop in Hampshire-related materials at Imagine2050 raises a few intriguing questions:
Were the political interns informed of the protest and the critiques published here at progressivepopulationist.org?
Had the Hampshire College Administration taken action in response to the protest, essentially ordering POP/DEV to cut its ties to Imagine2050? (Good luck getting an honest answer on this one.)
Had they proposed articles for Imagine2050 but had them rejected by the previously welcoming editors there?
Or had the staff at POP/DEV told their fledgling smear artists, without an honest explanation, that they would have to find other venues for their attacks on populationists like myself?
Or can this drop in postings be explained by the least likely possibility, that the staff and students and Hampshire had turned away from the smear tactics and are now seeking to support their views in a more respectful and honest fashion?
Perhaps some ambitious Hampshire College journalism students can help me with some details here.
Most intriguing of all is the appearance of that solitary article from someone who has moved on from their Hampshire College days and might no longer regularly communicate with the POP/DEV staff.
Had she not heard about the protest?
Had she been advised of the criticism I have posted on this web page and decided to persevere in spite of it?
Obviously, I am happy to see that this activity is no longer resulting in smear attacks on this particular web page, but what I had really hoped was that my protest would result in the disappearance of all Hamphsire-related material, including past postings, from that website altogether. If that were to occur, then I would be much more inclined to move forward and address other aspects of the politics of U.S. population growth. And moving forward in that way would probably be preferable for some of the students and former students involved. In particular, removing all the Hampshire-related content from Imagine2050’s website would be an important step in something else that I am . . .
. . . . desperately seeking, . . .
. . . specifically, . . …
. . . … closure for Jesse Sanes.
I did a Google search on Jesse Sanes the other day, and found a photograph of him in a happy moment.
I can certainly relate to this, as I like to fish myself, although I have had less time for that in the ten years that I have been researching turtles. Seeing Jesse enthusiastically participating in a healthy outdoor activity reminds me that Jesse is far less of a king (or queen) than a pawn in the political game of attacking people who hold different views about the wisdom and fairness of U.S. immigration policy. And it reminds me that Jesse is very young, and has a lot of living ahead of him. But this picture was not the only result to come up in my Google search, and I have played a role in generating the linked content of one of those results. Same for Rebecca Poswolsky.
I don’t know if Jesse and Rebecca are currently employed in what they consider to be satisfactory positions, but if they are looking for work with this hanging over them, well, that’s got to suck. I can think of few things that would easily compensate for the way that potential employers are likely to factor in this kind of exposure. Although it’s hard for me to imagine a response that would justify removing this material from the web entirely, there is the possibility of changing the articles enough that they are not so readily retrieved by potential employers hoping to research people on their short lists to fill job openings. I could, for example, change the tags on the affected articles.
No doubt, there are some who will argue that I am harassing Jesse and Rebecca, but I prefer to think of this as a measured pursuit of a satisfactory resolution of a legitimate grievance. Keep in mind what brought them to my attention in the first place. I was not the one who encouraged them to write untrue, mean-spirited and highly personal attacks and post them to the web. I can’t say if they had been advised of the risk of doing so, but the people who encouraged them to become fledgling smear artists should have known that those risks were there. My guess would be, however, that Jesse never appreciated at the time what it would feel like to be left twisting in the wind like this.
Keep in mind that Jesse and Rebecca are just two pawns that I have singled out in this political game, and that I have refrained, thus far, from naming or drawing attention to a handful of other participants, including both current students and recent graduates, more closely connected to the POP/DEV program’s political intern program. With the exception of the contributor mentioned above, all of these participants have declined to publish on Imagine2050 since my protest, but they have also declined to take down the material they had published there before that event. There’s still time for them to do that, as I would prefer to keep the count of damaged pawns to a bare minimum. Having said that, I just hope they appreciate that the ball is now in their court.
A lot depends, of course, on the staff at POP/DEV, who could play the role of grownups here and make this all a whole lot easier on Jesse and Rebecca. These young people did not come up with the idea of launching these smear attacks all by themselves. There is just too much uniformity in their work, and too much of what they say is so clearly an echo of the work of Dr. Hartmann, to suggest that this is anything other than a concerted effort to take well-meaning and hopeful young people and train them to use the weapons of deceit and internet-based character assassination.
So here’s another thread for you to tease out into the light, ambitious Hampshire College journalism students. In as much detail as you can provide, how does the material produced by the POP/DEV intern program end up in a fact-free ideologically-driven POBAFS web page.
Do students get in-depth instruction about the difference between slimy innuendo and legally liable slander?
Do they have discussions about what to do if the people they attack respond publicly?
Do they submit drafts of their material to Hampshire faculty and staff for feedback and approval?
Do they discuss the use of internet subject tags for connecting the activism of some people with the racism of those they have never met?
Do they talk about how they should not even bother to submit this abusive garbage to legitimate publications, as they would have no chance of getting it accepted by real editors?
Were they warned of the risk that what they do could come back to harm their own reputations and prove problematic as they attempt build good careers in coming years?
And did they ever discuss the difference between preserving academic freedom and turning young students into Kamikaze pilots in pursuit of a given instructor’s political agenda?
Help me out here, ambitious Hampshire College journalism students, because I am just dying to know the answers to these questions. And I suspect that others would like to know more as well.
I am reminded of the warnings we sometimes hear about people who photograph themselves in embarrassing situations and then post the results, or allow others to post the results, on the web. We’ve all seen these warnings, but there are other ways to allow yourself to be burdened by your activities that go far beyond the intoxicated foolishness of flashing your breasts in front of fraternity boys with camera phones. At least in most cases, those photos don’t have your name on them, perhaps not even your faces in the frame, when they go out there into the uncontrolled cyber-universe. In these Imagine2050 postings, young people have not only put their names on material that could come back to haunt them, they’ve allowed a PhD to snap the photos and send them flying off into the cloud.
Maybe we need to produce some PSA’s to specifically warn young people about this variation of unattractive internet notoriety. For Jesse, however, such a warning could be too little, too late, and it’s unlikely that editing the tags will succeed in erasing this cyber-blot from Jesse’s story. Sorry, Jesse, I don’t deny that this is probably a more harsh result than you personally deserve, but I’m afraid you’ve been led astray by some rather determined individuals who were fairly certain in their belief that something like Occupy Hampshire College would ever happen. Even if I entirely removed this material from the web, which I am not likely to do, it’s likely that Jesse’s other material still on the web would be irretrievably linked to my other future activism. So Jesse, I suggest that your best future lies not in hiding in the shadows of my work here but in rising out of the ashes to and publicly shedding this history from your record by working through it, as painful as that might seem. Stand up, admit the error of your ways and move on to finding wholesome approaches to making the world a better place. Let’s face it, America loves nothing more than a good redemption story.
If it’s any help, Jesse, I would be happy to meet with you and reconcile our differences. Maybe Oprah will bring us out on stage and let us have our reconciliation publicly. I can assure you that I respect your right to support a limitless expansion in the size of the U.S. population, but I take strong offense at your past methods in doing so. You can tell me you’re sorry and won’t be doing this anymore, and your new found notoriety will open doors that might otherwise be closed to you. Heck, maybe the lady who was cleaning the windows can join us as celebrate our blissful reconciliation.
Let’s agree to disagree, and I would be happy as well to debate you publicly in order that we cannot just delineate our differences but also find common ground. Hopefully one aspect of that common ground will be a mutual willingness to respect the views of others no matter how much we might see things differently.
And Jesse, just so you know, I am psychologically incapable of holding a grudge.
For now, I have just one more question to which I would love to have an answer, but first I would like to commend the public safety officers who came out to speak with me during my occupation. They were both professional and courteous, and I certainly can’t blame them for issuing the Notice of Trespass and escorting me from the campus grounds after a few hours. And to be perfectly clear, I certainly don’t blame the Hampshire Community at large for the concerns I raised in my protest and in the postings here in this web page.
I do, however, feel a little skeptical about one thing that Deputy Chief Raymond LaBarre said to me during the course of our interaction. I mentioned that I was outside Franklin Paterson Hall, and although it seemed very quiet there during my occupation, at the moment when Officer Lopez handed me the Notice of Trespass and I signed it to acknowledge receipt, there was a sudden burst of applause from an open window on the second floor. It was easily loud enough to have been made by dozens of people. The burst of applause lasted only a few seconds before shutting down suddenly, and Officer LaBarre said to me, “That’s not for you.”
I found Raymond to be very respectful as he explained the implications of the notice of trespass, and he expressed appreciation for my willingness to leave the campus peacefully, foregoing the civil disobedience that would have made things much more unpleasant. In spite of this, however, I find myself skeptical of his claim that the applause that emanated at such a pivotal moment from an open upstairs window, and then quieted down to nothing so suddenly, was not a response to my signing of the Notice of Trespass. So this represents yet another opportunity for ambitious Hampshire College journalism student to prove their competence.
Was the crowd upstairs in Franklin Paterson Hall really applauding something other than the fact that I had signed the Notice of Trespass?
Keep in mind that, with classes over and a commencement scheduled for the next day, it’s likely that most of the people contributing to that noisy applause were graduating Hampshire students who might no longer live in the Amherst region. There were probably others, though, and if you can find out who was there, you should be able to answer that question. And maybe the same individuals could fill in some more details about the window-cleaning lady’s leisurely round-trip stroll past the site of my occupation.
That’s all for now, folks. Please feel free to get in touch if you have anything to share with me, whether that be in sympathy or outrage, and I will update this posting if and when I get responses that might fill in the blanks.