Today's issues 11/8
- This one made me laugh. A lack of trust in the process when part of the process (if I'm interpreting that CBO score correctly) checks that the numbers used can be trusted in that process, that sounds like a line from Columbus. (Double-checked as to whether it was addressed to Wichita or Little Rock - neither.)
- Wedging this article here because the information it holds on its timeline and provision of medical services, if true, counters more than one politician playing dress-up.
- From what I read, the writer observing this particular conflict already knows what helped motivate recent election results, and will continue to drive the pushback it's earned. (Apart from the refusal to admit how "things aren't going great right now," to argue an ideological opposite believes both "the virus isn't real" and is racist for assigning an origin of that virus - here I thought both the party in question was as concerned about its optics as the field that works with it so closely.)
- Wedging this article here because it fits the field in the segment immediately preceding. (And this because yikes, it must be awful for even a news outlet to be targeted with viral material. And this because I thought a correction might be of use: a hostess repeatedly claims a particular theory is not on a curriculum, despite a guest proving to her it is.)
- Ending with this because there's a bit of linguistics in here that fascinated me (and marmot's a funny word).