Like the fact-checks on Pelosi and Schumer.

Sure. Remember how Twitter checked out the Obama White House? Refresh me.

AP editorial has chapter and verse about Trump’s firing IG’s, but reports without pursuing White House defense that points up AP’s interest less in firings than in Trump:

“When the President loses confidence in an inspector general, he will exercise his constitutional right and duty to remove that officer — as did President Reagan when he removed inspectors general upon taking office and as did President Obama when he was in office,” [White House lawyer] Cipollone wrote.

Reagan and Obama did it? Why wouldn’t the AP editorial/opinion piece, thorough in spelling out the current situation, not be thorough in the White House defense of itself? Slippery fellows, and I mean the AP writers and editors.

I hope to follow this program, mainly to see if it brings up objections to draconian measures prescribed by the very committed.

That is, to see if there are attempts to weigh and balance the costs of resisting climate change, comparing them with costs of it.

Pretty gooey stuff here. What would St. Paul say? Not to mention the Savior Himself.

“With the gaze of Christ”

Diverse and United includes a never-before-published chapter entitled “With the gaze of Christ”. In it, Pope Francis reflects on the Gospel account of Jesus’ encounter with the rich young man who asked Jesus how to obtain eternal life. The Gospel of Mark recounts a significant detail of their meeting: “Jesus, looking upon him, loved him”.

This, writes Pope Francis, reveals something about Jesus’ style: the Lord is not focused primarily on what the man is saying, but upon the man himself. This reveals how necessary it is, for truly human communication, “to enter into contact with the world and with others, and to build relationships”.

Golly. Not for the first time, this Catholic wonders what the heck is he talking about?

Something about lockdown you don’t hear much about:

The lockdown in the West will have a devastating impact on the inhabitants of the world’s poorest countries.

Has this been part of the equation for decision-makers?

Good news. What else don’t we know yet?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have issued updated coronavirus guidelines that now downplay the chances of contracting the virus from surfaces, potentially offering relief to millions of Americans who have been concerned they might catch the disease from purchased groceries or delivered packages.

On its website, the CDC says that coronavirus is “thought to spread mainly from person-to-person.” Yet “the virus does not spread easily in other ways.”

“It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes,” the CDC also states on its site. “This is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads, but we are still learning more about this virus.”

As Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds noted, “This suggests that a lot of what we’re doing to control the spread is misdirected.”

But we’ve been told by SCIENCE!

. . . with clearly a way with words:

“I WOULD VOTE FOR JOE BIDEN IF HE BOILED BABIES AND ATE THEM.” How far will some on the left go to express their support of the Democratic nominee for president? That quote is from The Nation’s Katha Pollitt, who wants to rescue the country from President Trump and “unchecked rule by kleptocrats, fascists, religious fanatics, gun nuts, and know-nothings.” Finally, a moderate voice speaks out…

Pointed comment supplied by the reliably low-key and reliable Byron York.