Where's your head?
In between siren calls to silent meditation and advice on the best paper journals come articles that catch my attention. This was the spark (which I think is more incendiary than the article that prompted it), but reading this is enough to convince me that the organization that published it is more focused on damaging the incumbent than it is on its tagline.
The argument I'm taking away from the second article is that the incumbent took longer to press for information on COVID-19 than the health organization who, I argue, is the one more appropriately placed to do so. I'll agree that it's bad form for a president to claim so openly that something isn't his responsibility, but in this case, between the head of one country's government and the head of a global organization focused on health, I'd expect the latter to be more insistent about complete information on an issue that affects world health. If there's a mistake in redirecting funds from such an organization towards others who are capable of the same function, that's yet to be seen. However, I think a rating of three out of four is an overstatement, and I wonder how many votes there are on the petition to remove the second head.
All that work for the letters after the name is a waste when the resulting output is mere entertainment on stars* and pretty pictures, and criminally toxic when the resulting output seeks to create puppets. Surrender to those who tout a strong economy and buying power, then complain of insufficient loans, would involve sniffing something more potent than whatever's available in the house.
On a lighter note, for pleasure that doesn't demand WiFi or battery life, old books really are perfect. (And gloves!)
* And speaking of false narratives, I'm not on Instagram.